Sunday, January 30, 2005

Are we allowed to celebrate with the Iraqis or should we remain guarded? Is it okay to feel optimistic, even cautiously? What was NBC News doing when the Berlin Wall fell? Today, Tim Russert was sulking with interviewing John Kerry over his failed presidential bid. Must have been a slow news day. Well, they didn't completely ignore Iraq. Kerry said we shouldn't "overhype" the election.

I agree with Cori that Kerry is an interview worth doing, but today of all days? What gives?
Posted JAN 30 2005, 11:11 AM CDT (link here)
Voters show off their ink-stained fingers:

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update: Go to the link until I can figure out why the photo won't post. It may be because I haven't had a cup of coffee yet. You know, I set Snort for 9:00, but he went off at 6:30 anyway!
Posted JAN 30 2005, 8:19 AM CDT (link here)

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Quote of the day:
On Sunday, the sun will rise on the land of Mesopotamia. I can't wait, the dream is becoming true and I will stand in front of the box to put my heart in it.
Posted JAN 29 2005, 8:29 AM CDT (link here)
Deconstruction of photojournalism:

The bottom line: there are two troubling aspects of this. One, why are all of those reporters there at the exact right time and place? Two, what exactly is this? Whatever it is, clearly it is not a regular car bomb. It may be a made-for-TV fire-bomb, or it may be a vehicle that caught on fire as a result of shots fired by police, and in the latter case it may or may not have been carrying additional flammables; or it may be a few other things. In any case this is not what it is represented as in the captions, namely a car-bomb attack on the nearby school used as a polling center. All of the possible explanations for what you see require bogosity, the only question is what particular kind.

Wait, I meant "photojournalism." Hat tip: Instapundit.

Update: Hmmm. More thoughts here. Could be the same photo cropped, etc. Still, awfully good timing...

Posted JAN 29 2005, 7:57 AM CDT (link here)

Friday, January 28, 2005

Rice Diminishment Watch:

“Give me the method so I can send it to Condolence, who keeps demonstrating complete illiteracy. It seems that she dreams with me. I can invite her on a date with me to see what happens to her with me. She said that she was sad and depressed because of Chavez. Oh Daddy! She should forget me. What bad luck this lady has. I don’t make that sacrifice for my nation. Let another do it [with her], Cristobal Jiménez, Nicolás Maduro, Juan Barreto, who is single.” – President Hugo Chavez, Sunday, January 23, 2005

Delightful

Posted JAN 28 2005, 6:45 PM CDT (link here)

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Winds of Change has pieced together some thoughts from othe bloggers on modern actiivism. I haven't quite finished reading the piece, but wanted to post it quickly before the children wake up. This caught my attention:

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him... Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
Posted JAN 27 2005, 9:23 AM CDT (link here)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Lots of bloggers making a fuss over Michael Moore getting zero nominations at the academy this year. I wonder how many are forgetting this:

Lions Gate boldly eliminated "Fahrenheit" from the documentary feature category -- where its overwhelming commercial success and somewhat unconventional reportage actually were believed to have put it at a disadvantage -- in order to compete solely for best picture. But the move might prove a mistake with President Bush having won reelection and "Fahrenheit" now losing heat.

I believe he put F 9/11 out early on DVD in order to influence the election, but forfeited a shot at best documentary. It may be entirely possible that he did influence the election, though not in the manner he would have wished. Oscar-winner Roger Moore thinks "[Hollywood] adopted Moore for a short while to make a point which is now fading even for them. Most people in Hollywood now see, although maybe they won't admit it, that democracy in Iraq is extremely important."
Posted JAN 25 2005, 3:52 PM CDT (link here)

Monday, January 24, 2005

This one's for Tech Support and his Dad who never stop arguing about the weather.

The findings from a team of American climate experts suggest that were it not for greenhouse gases produced by humans, the world would be well on the way to a frozen Armageddon.
(Via Instapundit) I'm going back to aerosol hairspray--oh, wait--those are cfc's...
Posted JAN 24 2005, 9:29 AM CDT (link here)

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Rice diminishment watch:
In that article, she defined U.S. national interests as rebuilding military power, expanding free trade agreements, confronting "rogue regimes," renewing relationships with allies and building ties with "great powers" such as Russia and China.

Rice's thinking has since evolved along with that of her president.

(Bold added.) "Her president." Sounds like she reall likes him.
Posted JAN 23 2005, 8:27 AM CDT (link here)
Here's a nice photo piece of American soldiers in Iraq by the Washington Post.
Posted JAN 23 2005, 8:14 AM CDT (link here)

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Look out! Navel-gazing ahead: Ann Althouse's posts on equality in marriage have stuck in my brain for about a week She can't stop writing about a Maureen Dowd column, she says, and I admit I can't stop thinking about her posts. The first in the series is an attention-getter:

We will not serve.

And therefore, we will not marry. Maureen Dowd notes the trend.

Hmmm...who will not serve? That would be smart, successful women, she says. Dowd's column cites a few studies:

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors...

...A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

I have no idea what my Mum 's IQ is, but I'd bet money it's higher than Dowd's. Mum, or Mom as I like to call her, is an encyclopedia and a retired stay-at-home mom. Today, Cathy Young in Reason takes a closer look at one of Dowd's studies:

...the male college students in the study were shown a photo of a woman and asked to estimate her desirability as a marriage partner on a 1-to-9 scale. When the woman was described as their hypothetical assistant, she got an average rating of 6.4; a co-worker got 4.9 and a supervisor 4.2. (Women gave men an average rating of about 3.1.)

I'm not real sure how many conclusions we can draw from those numbers. Dowd asks,
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.
First, why should I be interested in everything my husband is? He talks a lot about quantum physics and I listen intently because to understand him, I have to concentrate. We do share a lot of interests, and we talk about them together, but we also have individual pursuits. Anyway, Althouse had this response: "Instead of just reflexively denying the problem, why not think deeply about equality?" And I'm thinking, yeah! But...wait. What problem? I still don't understand what she means! "We will not serve." Not even Sunday breakfast? You won't pick up your husband's drycleaning while you're picking up your own? What do you mean Ann Althouse? I must know!

Her next post is entitled: "What kind of man prefers a servant to an equal?"

women who are willing to deny themselves and serve men will please men who prefer servants. And if the women are able to believe there is joy in service, isn't it all just a very lovely arrangement? I do
consider that inequality, and I think that when a man and a woman find inequality comforting, they suffer a diminishment of themselves as human beings, even if they are too complacent to notice. I believe there is a great loss, even before one takes into account the damage to those other than the happy couple. As long as women are willing to play the comforter role, why should our somnolent male character bother to deal with a relationship with a woman who wants to be treated as an equal?

If he loves you and he's your friend he will bother. I still don't get the gist of her point, except that some people are unhappy in their marriages. But I don't know who she's talking about--bosses who marry secretaries, and the secretaries then go home and work toward their domestic goals? I don't think that's necessarily inequality. Some couples want to live a rich, domestic life if they can, and it helps if there is someone home seeing to that. They want fine furniture and aesthetically pleasing decor, a well-manicured lawn, colorful garden. Family correspondence, vacations. If it were me, I'd add a piano and piano lessons! All of this seems to me to be much easier with one person not working, but does that mean that person is not as smart as the other? Or is in anyway unequal? I suppose financially, if they divorce, she is the unequal one because then she'll have to get a job to have all of those things.

Marriage is not for scorekeepers. Spouses should serve each other. I do not let the dishes sit in the sink because it's his turn!* Especially since he is most likely working to enhance my web page or playing with the children. Althouse's point is really quite lost on me. Comments invited.

*Well, sometimes we just get them in the morning.
Posted JAN 18 2005, 4:26 PM CDT (link here)

Monday, January 17, 2005

Twenty-five degrees as of this post at Old Faithful. Would that people were so faithful.

Posted JAN 17 2005, 4:05 PM CDT (link here)

Sunday, January 16, 2005

If this is true, it breaks my heart:

For their final exam, Mr. Woolcock had students write an essay on one of several topics that he circulated.
The topic chosen by Mr. Al-Qloushi stated that some scholars "contend that the Constitution of the United States was not 'ordained and established' by 'the people' as we have often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the U.S. Constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interests."
In his essay, Mr. Al-Qloushi said, "I completely disagree. ... The American Constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard-of in the rest of the world. ... The United States Constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed, and America, like every nation in the world, progressed ...
"Because of America, the world is free. ... America freed Kuwait and is now currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25 million residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein."
Mr. Al-Qloushi said Mr. Woolcock "told me to come to his office the next morning." In the meeting, "he verbally attacked me and my essay."
"He told me, 'Your views are irrational. He called me naive for believing in the greatness of this country and told me, 'America is not God's gift to the world. ... You need regular psychotherapy.' "

He sought the school psychologist because he was worried the 'F' would mess up his student visa and he'd get deported. Professor Woolcock had no comment. Found this via Wizbang. Speaking of psychologists, I think I need one to get over these heartbreaking stories of political intolerance.
Posted JAN 16 2005, 3:08 PM CDT (link here)
Sounds terribly arrogant:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

(Bold added.) Here's the quote that follows and (I guess) backs that up:

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Now, I know the president's speech pattern is often awkward, but did he really say something like, No, Jim, you can't hold me or anyone in this administration accountable for the first four years? If reporters are going to assert something like that, then editors ought to make them use the subject's words! Oh, wait--the president is in the govenment, and Jim, the reporter is part of the press, so I guess I'll trust what Jim writes.

This part, at the bottom of the page, I get:

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [What? We haven't?-ed Sh!] Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."

Update: Here's the transcript, five pages long. I think I've found the exchange in though:

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

Listen, in times of war, things don't go exactly as planned. Some were saying there was no way that Saddam Hussein would be toppled as quickly as we toppled him. Some were saying there would be mass refugee flows and starvation, which didn't happen. My only point is, is that, on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad.

And the point is, there has to be a flexible strategy that will enable our commanders on the ground and our diplomats to be able to adjust strategy to meet the needs on the ground, all aiming at an eventual goal, which is a free and democratic Iraq, not in our image, in their image, according to their customs. See, we haven't been -- we've been there -- sovereignty was transferred in June of 2004. So this has been a sovereign nation in its new form for less than a year. I'm optimistic about it, and so are a lot of other people who were there in Iraq --optimistic about that, being optimistic about the emergence of a free government.

I'm also mindful that it takes a while for democracy to take hold. Witness our own history. We weren't -- we certainly were not the perfect democracy and are yet the perfect democracy. Ours is a constitution that said every man -- a system that said every man was equal, but in fact, every man wasn't equal for a long period of time in our history. The Articles of Confederation were a bumpy period of time. And my only point is, is that I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. And therefore, I am more patient than some, but also mindful that we've got to get the Iraqis up and running as quickly as possible, so they can defeat these terrorists.


Posted JAN 16 2005, 8:11 AM CDT (link here)

Saturday, January 15, 2005

I'm definitely late with this item, but Law & Order fans who watched Wednesday night's episode saw the first firing of an assistant district attorney by the DA. Serena is gone, after making some negative comments to McCoy and the Fred Thompson's District Attorney Branch (paraphrasing): "Why do you want me to explain my position? Nobody ever listens to me!" It's tough to tell the personalities on the show since L&O is built around the plot instead of the characters. I didn't like her character too much, and I thought she was too young for the role, but I did like the conflict between her and Branch. On their Thanksgiving episode, she bragged about spending the holiday in a soup kitchen. He chided her for being a "limsousine liberal." In another episode he challenged her political biases (Hat tip here):

BRANCH: Let me ask you something, Serena. When I said what I did about Roe v. Wade being wrong, what did you think?

SOUTHERLYN: That you let your religious beliefs cloud your legal judgment.

BRANCH: The reason I disagree with Roe has nothing to do with going to church on Sunday. That’s a bad decision because it’s based on a legal fiction, better known as the “right to privacy.” Now you go ahead and show me [in the Constitution] where the framers mention the word “privacy.” You can’t, because it’s not in there … [it’s] judicial hocus-pocus. [The justices are] acting like politicians instead of justices. The Constitution is what it says it is, and nothing more.

Serena was shocked by her dismissal and her last line on the show was, "Is it because I'm a lesbian?" to which, Branch replies something like, "Oh Heaven's, no. Not at all." She softly says, "Good, good." Funny way to end a story line, especially since we never knew she was a lesbian until that moment.. NRO's Jonah Goldberg and Gay Patriot were both thrown by it, as was I, though not bothered like they were. Jonah's emailer writes it could be " a subtle mocking of the identiy politics on the left." I like that idea.
Posted JAN 15 2005, 4:31 PM CDT (link here)

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

I haven't been writing much about politics and media criticism lately. I've lost a lot of heart. Also, I'm extremely busy with childrearing, but I thought I should pass this on:

Top Ten Proposed Changes At CBS News

10. Stories must be corroborated by at least two really strong hunches.

9. "Evening News" pre-show staff cocktail hour is cancelled until further notice.

8. Reduce "60 Minutes" to more manageable 15-20 minutes.

7. Change division name from "CBS News" to "CBS News-ish"

6. If anchor says anything inaccurate, earpiece delivers an electric shock.

5. Conclude each story with comical "Boing" sound effect.

4. Instead of boring Middle East reports, more powerball drawings.

3. To play it safe, every "exclusive" story will be about how tasty pecan pie is.

2. Not sure how, but make CBS News more like "C.S.I."

1. Use beer, cash and hookers to lure Tom Brokaw out of retirement.

Heartbreaks are not just for love affairs, but for politics too. A whole generation of people got their heart broken on Watergate and never got over it. Rathergate perhaps symbolizes the source of my tenderness, though not wholey so. However, I can take a lesson from those still nursing thirty-five year-old wounds and try to get over it. Lists like this one help.
Posted JAN 12 2005, 10:37 AM CDT (link here)
Disclaimer: I have never received money from any government agency or special interest group for any writings on my blog. I certainly hope* to some day, but as of yet, no offers.

*Kidding.
Posted JAN 12 2005, 10:04 AM CDT

Monday, January 10, 2005

Huh. Interesting discussion on profiling over at Wizbang:

as to the "presumption of innocence" argument -- it doesn't fly. That right is strictly in relation to court proceedings. If everyone was presumed innocent until proven guilty, then the police could never arrest anyone on "suspicion" -- after all, they haven't been PROVEN guilty yet, so why are they in jail?

Hadn't thought of it that way. Wonder if I should hip them to my skinny-white-guy-with-bad-haircut argument [which you can't link to because you don't know how to permalink for Netscape! I'm trying!] Nah. Too early.
Posted JAN 1 2005, 9:11 AM CDT (link here)

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Plenty of good, wholesome nothing going on. We're off for a belated Christmas grandparent visit to South Texas. We're seven-minutes past departure time, so here is what I wrote a friend a few days ago (I love letter writing, even in email):

Twenty-seven degrees outside and I can't come up with a good enough reason to get the kids out of their pajamas. Dinner is made for tonight, so I don't need to grocery shop; Brendan has new 18-month size pajamas with long sleeves and footies, a harder find than I thought it would be, so we don't need to shop for him; and I'm stiff from yoga yesterday, so I won't darken the doorway of my gym.

So, what to do? Cocoa! My computer is in the den at the front of the house, what would otherwise be a formal dining room, if we were that kind. It has three tall windows stretching from floor to about twelve feet up lined up next to each other in a bay window style angles. The freezing air just whooshes in.

Emma is happily playing a Sesame Street computer game and Brendan is napping. I'm blissfully without something to do and not up for blogging.

We took down the tree Sunday night. Actually Gene did and mostly filled the boxes to go up in the attic. We're waiting to put them up in the attic this weekend knowing that we'd keep finding hidden Christmas-themed tchachkes and books and the like throughout the week and we have, so it was a good plan. Plus, I hit some of the stores for after-Christmas tchochke sales and got a sequinned Nutcracker (it called to me!) and a wire gold star, plus a red fabric lined basket with embroidered wreaths.

Looking at the clutter of baby toys strewn about the nursery, ahem--den, shazam! I can simply remove the red fabric and have an year-round basket for year round clutter! We are amassing stuff. And the stuff we grow out of goes into the attic for a future garage sales. The gym you and Howard gave us for Emma, which Brendan just loved, is among those items to go up to the attic. They grow more quickly than we'd like, don't they?

A box of 6-9 month baby sleepers goes off to cousin Mason in Missoula this afternoon. At eight months, my little boy--in eighteen month footie sleepers--is a beast! But the cutest one ever.
Posted JAN 8 2005, 7:09 AM CDT (link here)

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

We switched out phone service to Vonage and it's working out great after a long time to set up. It was supposed to take about six weeks, but apparently they never recieved our faxed information so it took a bit longer. In any case, I wonder what Skype (hat tip: Ellisblog) is about? It appears to be free. I must check with Tech Support.
Posted JAN 5 2005, 11:45 AM CDT (link here)

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Dora the Explorer is a cartoon produced for pre-schoolers. I realize I am inured to television drama for all age groups, but I am shocked that Miss E. runs out of the room when Swiper comes on screen. He's just not scary!
Posted JAN 4 2005, 4:53 PM CDT (link here)

So far a week of usuals at Bystander Manor. Miss E.'s pre-school is still not back in session, so we hit the mall. We go to Target, perhaps even Garden Ridge. Oh, and the gym. Yes back to the gym with vigor (I write optimistically). The holiday bloat--my first ever, I believe--is finally dissipating, and now that Snort and I are through nursing, I'll hit the diet full steam ahead. For a moment there, over Christmas week, I had to size up my jeans--that's from my interval pants size. Not good. But as I'd promised myself, this year, I'll try to do better.

And as things are going well, that can't be too hard. Miss E. has taught me how to rear a baby, and though they are very different in personality, they are very alike in temperament. Both good and (mostly) relaxed kids. Yay me!

The only constant in child rearing is how often it changes. What will their little lives bring me? Going to the gym in the morning was easy until Snort started to require a long morning nap. Doesn't seem right to selfishly throw him off schedule with my needs, but younger siblings are flexible, right? That's what I tell myself.

Miss E. has learned to draw faces. The change in her artistic ability happened overnight. She may have inherited my lack of skill in that area. Her father and I were just noticing her peers' work next to hers and the difference was like comparing Renoir's childhood creations next to Pollack's. I'll bet her next big leap will be reading. That will change a lot of things. She looks at her books when we put her to bed, you know, at night with nothing but a nightlight. It is soon time for a bedstand and lamp.

As for Snort, he is not going gently into toddlerhood. At eight months, he's wearing 18-month pajamas, which are insufferably hard to find at discount store like Walmart, Target and Marshall's by the way--I'll have to hit a more expensive children's clothing store for long sleeves and a sleeper with footies--but he is still not on all fours. He gets around by rolling and rolling. Or sometimes, he just sits, waiting for the world to come to him, and it does via his sister. Lucky guy. She's usually pretty good to him, though the rivalry has begun. If it's hers and it's in his hands, she needs it immediately. As a matter of fact if it's in his hands, hers or not, she needs it immediately.In fact, she was just been thinking about that little plastic piece of junk toy from her Happy Meal and has been wondering where it had gotten to, and, when will he be finished with it because I want to play with it?

Soon enough my dear, soon enough.

So, on the agenda: crawling for him; reading for her. This of course, will change my world dramatically. I'll be chasing after him while correcting and helping her get through words. Gym time? I'll try to squeeze it in. Happy mid-week, folks.
Posted JAN 4 2005, 4:18 PM CDT (link here)

Saturday, January 01, 2005

My permalinks work in Internet Explorer but not Netscape. If anyone can give me some advice on this, please do! IE crashed on Miss E. one too many times to use it as my default browser. So, if anyone--for instance a web programmer in New York, that occasionally checks in on me--has any idea, I'd like to hear it. Thanks!
Posted JAN 1 2005, 4:33 PM CDT (link here)
Can this be true?
TV B-Gone is a remote control with just one function: It shuts TVs off. One press of the button, and TV B-Gone spits out an infra-red stream of the most popular television remote codes for "off." When San Francisco-based Cornfield Electronics introduced the gizmo on Oct. 19, it sold out the first batch in two days. Since then, more than 18,000 have been sold.

I used Mr. Altman's magic wand last Saturday night in a crowded restaurant and switched off two TV sets over the bar that were playing some sports game I had no interest in watching. It was delicious, naughty and, I'm sure, annoying. The patrons looked around as if for a gremlin. Little did they know he was sitting right next to them, sipping a beer. When they turned a television back on, I switched it off again. Eventually, they shook their heads and gave up. Score one point for silence.

I cannot stand television noise during dinner. Never happened in my house growing up, and it doesn't happen in my home now. I am always aghast to be a dinner guest in a house with the television on. Drives me nuts! My college boyfriend's parents used to leave the televsion on during Thanksgiving dinner, I guess to track the games. His sister loaded up the kids and husband, drove from Maryland to Houston for the annual feast and they left the TV on so as not to miss anything exciting.

Gasp! Perhaps I could be a Thanksgiving superhero, casually strolling suburban streets with my TV B-Gone in my pocket, pressing the button whenever I hear a TV. That'll get families talking to each other!
Posted JAN 1 2005, 4:28 PM CDT (link here)
Vanishing Act: Mild-mannered Tech Support takes a fateful phone call on Wednesday and loses Thursday's vacation day and Friday's company holiday: there's a problem at IBM. And as it's his company's biggest client, he can't possibly leave the office or take time off.

These vacation hours do not roll over to next year and company policy does not convert them to cash. They are vanished.

For Tech Support, it was a lonely two days in an empty office building interspersed with frantic calls from his vacationing uber-boss, the vice president of something-or-other, and client conference calls every hour and a half, until the client realized the interruptions were dragging Superman down by his cape. By 5:30 Friday, all was well, repaired and back to normal. Of course our weekend trip was cancelled and we're ringing in the New Year with the ten o'clock news and our regular bedtime, but that's life when you're married to Clark Kent.

Happy New Year! I'll read about it in the morning!

Posted JAN 1 2005, 0:12 AM CDT (link here)