mutiny! (this is not an instruction)

You know, being terribly sensible and cooperative types, Phi and I really don't have a lot of official house rules. So you'd think that the boy would be able to remember and follow those few rules without having to be reminded.

But no! Apparently not.

In clear violation of House Rule No.1:

All resident boys must maintain a minimum hair length sufficient to identify them as a pirate.

he has allowed a rogue hairdresser to lop his locks to a scanty length barely two inches below his ears. He can't even gather it into one of those tiny 'cabin boy' ponytails at that length. Not only is it a scurrilous mutiny, but he was reckless enough to tell me he likes it that length!

*sigh* He may have to walk the plank.

tagged: my ideal guy

Bonnie tagged me with a fun little meme. Being me, I had to make two lists, but if I tag you, don't feel like you have to do the same, as it wasn't part of the original challenge.

8 points that my "perfect partner" would have.

The serious list:
1. has a sense of humour (even (or especially!) when life gets stressful)
2. is a thinking person (logical, curious, open-minded, reads, ponders stuff, enjoys learning)
3. has integrity (has a sense of right and tries to live according to it)
4. financially sensible (a little impulse buying is okay, but they pay their bills)
5. emotionally mature (no mind games, not overly sensitive, healthy self-esteem, etc)
6. enjoys physical intimacy (sex yeah, but beyond that - likes to touch, hug, etc)
7. balanced (eg neither too serious nor too easy-going, makes plans but can be spontaneous)
8. trustworthy (keep confidences & promises, does not cheat)

The fun list:
1. long hair, preferably dark
2. into music (mad bonus points for playing/writing )
3. flirts well enough to make me grin (or should I slip 'good kisser' in here???)
4. likes live stuff (rock concerts, plays, comedy, sport)
5. willing to watch chick flicks (even if unwilling to admit this to his friends)
6. good abs (any other toned muscles also duly appreciated)
7. speaks some language that sounds sexy even though I can't understand it
8. saves the world, one good deed at a time

Wow, now that I've got all that sorted out, all I need to do is FIND him.
<---- Doesn't look like waiting is doing the trick. ^_^

Okay, 8 people to tag: amanda, jerzee (no you can't just write 'Jim' 8 times!), Lewis (sorry, I know you're anti-meme but I'm curious), Nina, Roofshadow, Nemesis (do you do memes?), Mary P & Q.

it's my turn!

I've been a member of a game site called It's Your Turn for about two years now. I like it because you don't have to play whole games in one sitting. When I log in it shows me the games I'm playing where it's my turn to move. Then it's up to my opponent - if they're online we might end up playing several moves in a row, but basically as long as I log in often enough not to time out, we can play the game over as long a time period as we need. This is really handy if I'm just playing to take a break from something else, or am in the middle of playing games but get interrupted by a phone call or visitor. I'm not going to lose the game by not rushing back to make the next move.

Anyway, I play on 4 ladders at the site. At first my goal was to get all of my rankings to double figures. I managed that last year and ever since I've been trying to get to number 1 on at least one of my ladders - and I did it!!

My Ladders

Rank	Plyrs	Ladder type	Game type
12	411	Open 28-hour ladder	Backgammon Race
14	578	Open 28-hour ladder	Dark Battleboats Plus
5	218	Member 28-hour ladder	Dark Battleboats Plus
1	214	Member 48-hour ladder	Dark Battleboats Plus

I've gotten into the top 5 many, many times, but I could never seem to scramble up that last little rung. So yah me!!!! Staying at number 1 is hard, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

ack! sidebar dilemma

Don't suppose anybody has any idea why my sidebar is appearing after the posts...?

The main body of the text wraps automatically, so there shouldn't be anything jutting over. I only use the small size in pics generally, too.

*confused*

Update: fixed!! observe my sidebar loveliness--->>

chris rock

Recently I've been listening to a lot of Chris Rock. Now somebody reading this who knows me is going to ring me up and point out that the guy does nothing but swear and get all graphic about sex. And I do listen to him on the computer because it's so easy to delete the really dirty stuff (swearing doesn't worry me, but anything that makes me cringe is out).

But here's the thing...the guy actually does a LOT more than that, and that's the reason I'm handing him kudos. This was a real leap for me. Here I was thinking this guy was just another lame comedian being loud and saying 'pussy' a lot, and what I find instead is someone I now consider a positive role model; a really decent, hardworking guy who isn't afraid to stand in front of an audience (that cheers when he mentions porn and prostitution) and declare that he's happily married, faithful to his wife, strives to be a good father, pays taxes, etc. And he stands up (no pun intended) for what he believes, observes the world and tells it like it is.

Rock has an amazing ability to couch a serious message in comedy so funny that you don't even see the message coming. That man's been "blassin' and laughin' so long" I'm sure even his momma thinks his mind is gone (^_~ to anyone who got that reference) but when you really take it all in, he covers just about every important topic there is. Here's some content from three of his shows:

Never Scared:
- being a good father so that his daughter grows up happy and emotionally sound
- how rap music lyrics used to be a defensible form, but now are just empty of anything but sex
- fairness in law enforcement
- fair trade and foreign ownership of business
- control of media to quiet political dissent and skew information about the war
- the stupidity of using political labels to define your opinion instead of really looking at the issues yourself and working out where you stand on each one
- domestic crime vs foreign concerns
- problems with foreign aid
- how economics controls what is deemed acceptable
- how some black people have gotten rich in recent years, but that this does not touch the real establishment of wealthy white people who really control the economic system, & how riches are often just wasted and not invested in anything worthwhile, whereas wealth sets up systems for a sound future. Basically encouraging black Americans, to whom being rich is a new phenomenon, to be more long-sighted and not simply fall into the typical traps that nouveau riche have always fallen for throughout history.
- how white wealth was based on crime, such as bootlegging, or gambling, but that now that same establishment decries making money through crime without any acknowledgement of where their money came from. Also how money from pain is still acceptable if you are white - eg the big tobacco companies, guns and other arms are legal. These things are as harmful as many things that are illegal.
- racism, including institutionalised racism
- how affirmative action reverses previous government policies that resulted in conditions that still affect black people today
- the importance of marriage and fidelity in marriage

Roll with the New
- the importance of strong black leaders and role models
- electing good politicians and keeping politicians accountable
- how celebrity skews trials
- alimony
- how those who fit negative black stereotypes incur the anger of the section of the black population who are decent and hard-working; the stupidity of the attitude of black people who scorn education as if ignorance is a kind of rebellious act.
- the importance of fidelity


Bigger and Blacker
- lying
- violence in schools
- gun control
- the accountability of parents for the actions of their children
- how parents need to invest time and effort into their kids - teach them, care for them, discipline them and provide for them properly
- respect for good, hard-working parents
- tolerance of difference; the illogic of racism/sexism and other kinds of discrimination
- preparing for possibilities/insurance
- how profit (and therefore not curing disease) is the main motivation of medical research and pharmaceutical companies
- racism
- positive body image
- how to have good relationships and communicate well
- sex

If you can't stand the cursing, etc, just ignore this recommendation, but I have to say I am deeply impressed with the intelligence and perception this comic shows into how life really is, the sharpness with which he critiques ignorant and unfair ideas and systems, and the positive messages he's sending out. And he does it all with gut-busting humour.

ten top trivia facts about chosha

Okay this, spotted on Monty's blog, was extremely fun!

Ten Top Trivia Tips about chosha!

1. When provoked, chosha will swivel the tip of her abdomen and shoot a jet of boiling chemicals at her attacker!
2. Abraham Lincoln, who invented chosha, was the only US president ever granted a patent!
3. Peanuts and chosha are beans!
4. chosha can clean her ears with her tongue, which is over thirty-nine inches long.
5. The original nineteenth-century Coca-Cola formula contained chosha.
6. Some birds use chosha to orientate themselves during migration!
7. Japan provides over thirty percent of the world's chosha supply!
8. chosha was originally called Cheerioats.
9. The first domain name ever registered was chosha.com.
10. Human beings are the only animals that copulate while facing chosha.

I am interested in - do tell me aboutherhimitthem

~ chirpy happy ~

There is a very loud bird chirping outside my open bedroom window. It's 6.15am on Sunday morning and apparently the nest is not comfy enough for a lie-in. Still, I have not slept yet, so I can't blame his early rising for me being awake at this hour.

I watched the movie A Lot Like Love again last night, as it came out on DVD recently. I remembered that I liked it, but not much else. Consequently, everything seemed new and wonderful - there are some beautiful moments, some laugh-out-loud moments, and some moments that just tear your heart out - it's a text book chick flick romantic comedy and I LOVED it!!! The casting is perfect, the script is tight and clever, the editing was wise - every deleted scene (though interesting to watch) was wisely deleted - and there was nothing superfluous. Plus I like Emily's cool punk/rocker girl look in the first part of the movie.

It reminded me again that love is the one thing that doesn't fit into a tidy plan or sensible schedule. Some people wait for love before doing anything big in their lives. They never travel or buy a house because they're waiting for someone to do those things with. Others reject opportunities for love because they're not where they want to be in their career, or not ready to settle down. That's okay - everyone has to choose their own priorities - but the consequences may be that you miss a wonderful opportunity that won't come again. And that should one of the costs you weigh up when you push love aside.

I once missed a window of opportunity for love by being afraid to act. Maybe I've done it other times, but this is the only one that makes me wistful. I can forgive myself for it because I was young and inexperienced enough to justify the nerves and the uncertainty. But I still wonder about that guy. I don't know if we would have lasted the distance, but actually that isn't the point - it's not always about finding 'the one'. I just know that a relationship with him would have had some wonderful moments - he was a crazy AC/DC-loving rocker boy on the surface and a funny, sweet romantic underneath. Nice combination.

After the movie I wrote a note on our message board to Phi, who went to sleep a lot earlier than me: "Phi, watch that movie tomorrow before you go to work. It's lovely. It'll make you want to fall in love. You may feel the need to write a song afterwards. So watch it, okay?!" That's sure to make him roll his eyes a little, but hopefully he'll watch it anyway. ^_^

I really better get some sleep - it's so cliched to fall asleep at church. Pity I can't just stay up, though. That movie's put me in kind of a loud chirpy mood myself. I wonder if that bird is in love...or wants to be??

no time, no time

I have a new boarder moving in on Feb 5. No, he's not replacing the lovely Phi, who will stay forever if I (and that voodoo charm I bought) have anything to do with it. (No, Phi, I'm kidding, really!) This guy's moving into our lives and third bedroom and hopefully starting me on the path to getting out of debt. I'm happy with two people in the house, but paying a 3rd of the expenses instead of half also has its attractions.

The upshot is that my lengthy organising/de-cluttering exercise has now acquired a deadline, because I can't use the spare room as my extra sorting space any longer. This was sped up considerably when Baps & Scorcese decided to come for a flying visit on Friday as the spare room bed was still covered in clothes when she called to ask if they could 'stop at yours', as she puts it in her cute British fashion. This all equals chosha writing a lot of rushed half drafts that never become posts, but do become big four day gaps in my blog. Still, has to be done. And it was great to catch up with them.

And it is great to have a third person move in. One week and counting...

experiencing narnia

Today I'm combining with the critics to give a review of Narnia, though I saw it a few weeks ago. There may be spoilers, so perhaps skip this post if you haven't seen the movie yet (and are not already aware of how the story goes).

Narnia movie pleases critics
Dec 8 (I saw Narnia when it opened in Australia on Dec 26)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe opens on Friday in North America and widely in Europe in what the Walt Disney Co and Walden Media hope will be the first of a series based on Lewis' seven books.
Television's Ebert & Roeper praised the cutting-edge special effects and called it "a fantasy that has charm ... beauty and enchantment."
...but the lush detail of the world of Narnia and the look of its characters sprang mainly from the imagination of director Andrew Adamson, who read the books as a child...Walden Films and the Walt Disney Co spent a year perfecting the groundbreaking special effects to produce realistic creatures to interact seamlessly with the children.
There was a lot of room for invention in Lewis' loosely written 1950 novel.
Adamson said he was surprised that the detailed battle scene he loved as a child occupied only a page in the book.
"I didn't want to make the book as it was, I wanted to make the book as I remembered it," Adamson said.

Me: Visually, Narnia was wonderful. Snowscapes straight off a Christmas card, sweeping battlefields, all kinds of mythical creatures as well as very convincing speaking animals. Some aspects of the movie were deliberately mild ~ it could have been a lot more intense and graphic, especially the battle scenes and the death of Aslan, but they held back. One part of me felt a little let down - I wanted this movie to sweep me away emotionally like it did when I was a child. However I was glad in the end that they didn't go down that road. I don't have the imagination now that I had at 9; but the 9-year-olds in the audience do. Children don't need to see a death happen - that knife slashing through the air is all their imagination needs to construct the whole thing in their mind. It was enough if you want to preserve the sense and feeling of a children's story.

And it certainly did that. All the way through it was pure fairytale, yet it didn't have that false feeling of pantomine that some fairy tale movies have. I do wish they'd spent a little more time showing the children getting to know Aslan. His death was upsetting, but we hadn't had much time to grow to love him when it happened.

Adamson, who directed the animated hits Shrek and Shrek 2, spent 18 months searching for four "real kids" to star in his first-ever film directing real human beings.

Me: The children were well cast, especially Georgie Henley (Lucy). She goes through the full range of emotions in this movie and even has a good sense of comedic timing. The scene where Lucy first visits Mr Tumnus and he admits that he is trying to kidnap her is amazing. She is trying to comfort him and suddenly she understands her danger. Her voice is so full of hurt and confusion when she says, "I thought you were my friend." Wonderful stuff.

Generally, too, they were very 'real'. It was a good contrast to the very unreal inhabitants of Narnia. This was especially hard to pull off in the case of the witch. She is supposedly the daughter of Lillith (who some religions believe was Adam's first wife) and a giant. Obviously her form is like a human, and so they needed to make her not quite so - a little unearthly and unnatural. This was evident in both her makeup and her costuming. The necklines of her dresses for example, sat out too far forward from her body in an odd, purposeless way.

It's taken half a century for the Chronicles of Narnia, one of the best-loved children's series to hit the big screen but positive early reviews indicate the old fashioned yarn made the journey safely. Los Angeles Times reviewer Carina Chocano described the film as "real by the logic of childhood" and noted that the book's much-discussed Christian themes do not overwhelm the simple tale of four children's adventures in Narnia.
"As a Christian primer, it's terrible. As a story, it's timeless," Chocano wrote in a review on Wednesday.

Me: When I was about 9 or 10 I read the Narnia series all the way through. It captured my imagination and emotions. When I meet someone who hasn't read the series, I usually recommend that they do, but I always feel it's a shame they missed out on reading it as a child. It's a child's book, written for a child, about a world that is everything a child dreams about: beautiful, full of interesting characters, and having a story that lets them be the adventurous hero(ine).

Most of the time in life, kids are on the sidelines. You're rarely the centre of attention (birthdays, recitals, grand finals and serious illness excepted) and you never have all the information or get to make the big decisions. Most of the time you're "not old enough" or sitting at "the kids' table" or being shuffled out of the room the moment anything really interesting or meaningful is happening or being discussed. The Chronicles of Narnia may be an "old-fashioned yarn" (and the assumption of human supremacy over every other kind of species alone makes it so ~ that's much more unusual to see in stories nowadays) but it puts the children front and centre. They are not only special just by nature of being who they are, but importantly they are also compelled by their own sense of right to reach deep inside themselves and do and become more than they ever thought possible. Initially their reaction is predictable: "but we're children! we can't do that ~ we're not brave enough or skilled enough or experienced enough. But all that changes.

Lewis once said that the idea for the Chronicles of Narnia began not with an intention to write Christian fables, but with the images of a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge and a magnificent lion.
"At first there wasn't anything Christian about them. That element pushed itself in of its own accord," he wrote.

Me: I know that the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe eventually developed into CS Lewis' allegory of the atonement of Christ, but I never saw or understood those themes when I was 9 (except perhaps the idea that we can be forgiven when we make mistakes.) What I did understand though, and what I think is (whether Christian or not) the most important message of the book is that you are never too young, or too inexperienced, to do what you think is right; the question always boils down to simply whether or not you are brave enough. Lucy knows that Mr Tumnus has been taken prisoner because he supported her instead of betraying her. In spite of Susan's very sensible arguments that they are not safe in Narnia, and ill-equipped as they are to fight the witch or even know who to trust, Lucy stands firm that the right thing to do is try and help Tumnus, no matter what the consequences. And they all know it's so; they just need the courage to act on their convictions.

Bear in mind this story is set in World War II, and these British children had very real, very cruel and powerful, enemies outside the wardrobe, too. Sent to the country to stay safe while adults fought without them and decided their future, they found a world inside the wardrobe where they are the deciding factor. And eventually they realise that this fight is real and important, and that some things are worth fighting against, no matter what the cost. This is taken to a whole other level when Aslan sacrifices himself to save Edmund, a wretched sneak who's betrayed them all in the worst way. But Edmund isn't their enemy in the same way that the Witch is. Aslan doesn't just save Edmund life's ~ he also gives him a clean slate and restores him to his family.

I may not have recognised the Christian themes in Narnia when I read it as a 9-year-old, but I appreciate them now. It's not a perfect allegory, and chances are it was never intended to be, but there are some deep and beautiful concepts portrayed ~ in particular the way the Atonement (symbolised by Aslan's sacrifice) balances the demands of both Justice and Mercy.

[For anyone interested in discussion on the Christian elements in Narnia, Q has posted some interesting related questions over at Ragged Glory.]

day light savings ~ yeah baby

I'm loving daylight savings. It's 9pm and the sun only just went down. In the wintertime it's dark when I get home from work, so to wake up to the sun at around 6am and have 4 hours of daylight after work is amazing. *happy*

assisted suicide & the de-valuing of life

I wrote a comment for Brian's post on assisted suicide, but it was so long I decided to create a post instead.

The longest experience we have with assisted suicide is in the Netherlands. This article argues that assisted suicide should not be legalised. Statistics and examples from the Netherlands are given to demonstrate what follows legalisation.

...because of assisted suicide and euthanasia, "pressure for improved palliative care appears to have evaporated," according to Dr. Herbert Hendin in Congressional testimony in 1996. Assisted suicide and euthanasia have become not just the exception, but the rule for people with terminal illness.

"Over the past two decades," Hendin continued, "the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia...Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not competent to choose for themselves." In other words, for a substantial number of people in the Netherlands, doctors have decided patients should die without consultation with the patients."

Something like 27% of doctors there admit to having practiced involuntary euthanasia at some time. One extreme story from the Netherlands was of a doctor who agreed to end the life of a 26-year-old ballet dancer who was devasted at the ending of her dancing life when she got arthritis in her toes. 26!!!! How on earth did things ever slide so far?

My fear with the legalisation of assisted suidice (and this is also discussed in the article) is that older people would feel pressured to choose death rather than be a 'burden' on their families. Some families might encourage that kind of thinking. Pressure to choose death, or the likelihood of death instigated by health professionals (as described above) will also be increased by an inadequate and underfunded health care system with too few beds and too long waiting lists.

Dying in pain is a terrible thing, but I don't believe it justifies the devaluing of life that assisted suicide and euthanasia represent. I understand the argument about wanting to 'die with dignity' but I don't agree that terminally ill patients have lost their dignity. My grandmother had dementia at the end of her life. She said and did some ridiculous and pitiable things, often fell down without being able to remember how to rise again. At the very end the rest of her body gave out before her heart did, and she was unable to communicate or eat. But as a human being, her life still had dignity, because the muttering woman who thought she was still 25 years old, and the shell we said goodbye to, were not the sum of her, even at that point. She was a whole person, and her illnesses were just a normal, even if difficult, stage of her human life. She died with dignity because we never forgot the rest of her.

The Netherlands is a good example of the slippery slope we find ourselves on when we legally rank quality of life over life itself - it becomes too easy to decide that some people lives are not worth living. Just to clarify, I DON'T think that the option to turn off life support is the same ~ in that case the patient is only alive because of artificial help to breath, etc. Allowing a natural death is not the same as bringing death forward deliberately.

and by the way...

Two things to add on the King Kong movie:

1. Expectations vs results ~ who gives a toss?

I am so sick of reading reviews and movie site comments that deem the movie to be 'a disappointment' because it didn't meet box office expectations. Uh, hello? The movie was not exactly a flop ~ analysts had predicted a first weekend gross of around $60 million, and the movie made $50.15 million instead. That means it out-grossed the first weekend total of Fellowship of the Rings! Titanic made only $28.6 million on its opening weekend and then went on to make $600 million on domestic sales alone.

Conclusion: stop nay-saying and give the movie time to establish itself by word-of-mouth as a 3-hour movie worth seeing. Long movies often have a slow start.

2. Racial stereotypes in King Kong

Another really common topic out there on this movie is the idea that King Kong (all versions) is a story that feeds into the stereotypical image of the black man as primitive and hyper-sexual (especially in their 'obsession with white women') and equates them with apes. Not only does Kong himself come under fire as a symbol, but the portrayal of the natives on Skull Island as 'scary black people' also offends.

I am simply shaking my head over this one. I saw the movie. Kong is a gorilla. Gorillas happen to be black. It never once occurred to me that the reason a gorilla was chosen was because he is supposed to represent 'the black man' stealing away 'the white woman'. If anything I assumed he was a gorilla because gorillas are known to be curious about people and to have become familiar with, and even cared for and protected, humans. The only other animal that might have worked is a bear, but bears can't carry things and climb in the same way gorillas can. The gorilla in the more workable animal for a movie of this type.

Similarly, I think the fact that the natives on Skull Island were black was just a nod to history ~ or did I miss a story that came to light of the finding of a remote, isolated, white tribe? They were primitive because they lived on a primitive island full of scary prehistoric animals, not because they were black. If the story had been set in Europe a few hundred years ago, I would have expected fair-skinned people ~ and some of those old pagan rituals were just as bloody and just as hyper-sexual as anything a tribe in a tropical jungle can come up with.

In contrast to the natives, the ship's second mate was a brave, intelligent and kind black man. His sub-plot (guiding a young, somewhat reckless cabin boy, helping him to educate himself, and protecting him from harm) made him a very cool side character. Yet Kwame McKenzie describes him as "the good and dutiful slave stereotype". He is nothing of the sort!

So I'd like to ask the question: if I look at the screen and see a gorilla, and Kwame McKenzie looks at the screen and sees a black man, who exactly is the person more bogged down in racism and racial stereotypes? Now in fairness, as a black man himself he may actually have experienced being called a monkey by some cruel bigot, so I can't say that it's all in his mind. What I do think is that superimposing that mindset onto an undeserving Peter Jackson is a bit rough.

Conclusion: To quote Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." You can read racism into King Kong if that's your goal, but I'd rather just see it as a fabulous tale of a great big gorilla and the 'pet human' he loves.

it wasn't beauty killed the beast

I was planning to write a review of the new King Kong movie, but while wandering around the net looking for movie pics, I stumbled upon Roger Ebert's excellent review. Here's an exerpt, and I've added some personal comment at the bottom:

##spoilers##
(I know it's a remake, but he does mention some crucial differences between the new and old movies)

Ebert's review:
There are astonishments to behold in Peter Jackson's new King Kong but one sequence, relatively subdued, holds the key to the movie's success. Kong has captured Ann Darrow and carried her to his perch high on the mountain. He puts her down, not roughly, and then begins to roar, bare his teeth and pound his chest. Ann, an unemployed vaudeville acrobat, somehow instinctively knows that the gorilla is not threatening her but trying to impress her by behaving as an alpha male -- the King of the Jungle. She doesn't know how Queen Kong would respond, but she does what she can: She goes into her stage routine, doing backflips, dancing like Chaplin, juggling three stones.

Her instincts and empathy serve her well. Kong's eyes widen in curiosity, wonder and finally what may pass for delight. From then on, he thinks of himself as the girl's possessor and protector. She is like a tiny beautiful toy that he has been given for his very own, and before long, they are regarding the sunset together, both of them silenced by its majesty.

The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species.

The movie more or less faithfully follows the outlines of the original film, but this fundamental adjustment in the relationship between the beauty and the beast gives it heart, a quality the earlier film was lacking. Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it.

As Kong ascends the skyscraper, Ann screams not because of the gorilla but because of the attacks on the gorilla by a society that assumes he must be destroyed. The movie makes the same kind of shift involving a giant gorilla that Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) did when he replaced 1950s attacks on alien visitors with a very 1970s attempt to communicate with them (by 2005, Spielberg was back to attacking them, in War of the Worlds.

King Kong is a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky individuals with personalities.

Consider the difference between Robert Armstrong and Jack Black as Carl Denham, the movie director who lands an unsuspecting crew on Skull Island. A Hollywood stereotype based on C.B. de Mille has been replaced by one who reminds us more of Orson Welles. And in the starring role of Ann Darrow, Naomi Watts expresses a range of emotion that Fay Wray, bless her heart, was never allowed in 1933. Never have damsels been in more distress, but Fay Wray mostly had to scream, while Watts looks into the gorilla's eyes and sees something beautiful there.

Jackson, fresh from his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, wisely doesn't show the gorilla or the other creatures until more than an hour into the movie. In this he follows Spielberg, who fought off producers who wanted the shark in Jaws to appear virtually in the opening titles. There is an hour of anticipation, of low ominous music, of subtle rumblings, of uneasy squints into the fog and mutinous grumblings from the crew, before the tramp steamer arrives at Skull Island -- or, more accurately, is thrown against its jagged rocks in the first of many scary action sequences.

My part:
As Ebert goes on to explain, the movie has three distinct parts. The first introduces us to the human characters. It gives us time to know them and reveals their works, their passions, and their weaknesses. I thought this movie was beautifully cast, with one exception. Jack Black is adequate as Carl Denham, but there are lines he just doesn't have the emotional range to deliver, and it shows (thankfully not too often).

The second part of the movie is set on Skull Island, and once the rollercoaster ride begins it doesn't let up. The special effects here are astounding, and it is this part that makes Kong a movie that must be seen on the big screen.

Let me just repeat that: A MOVIE THAT MUST BE SEEN ON THE BIG SCREEN!!!

If you wait to see this on DVD, you will never grasp just how astounding a 25-ft gorilla fighting a T-rex or 3 can be. These are massive creatures (plus the scenery, plus everything else) and it's only on the big screen, with all that lovely Dolby surround sound, that they can be delivered to you in all their glory. I'm definitely seeing this again before its cinema run ends.

The final third of the movie tore my heart out - just as Jackson intended it to. Kong: the 8th Wonder of the World is revealed, drugged and chained, to an eager public. He escapes of course, and is eventually taken down in the style of Kongs past, on top of the Empire State Building. Just before that though he finds Ann, and there is a magical scene with the two of them playing on the ice of a frozen pond ~ a scene made more poignant by the fact that you know it can't last. From the moment Kong refuses to be controlled, he's doomed.

That famous last line at the end of the movie, 'It was beauty killed the beast', is so false. True they could never have captured him had he not been so enamoured with Ann, but vulnerability doesn't kill you if there's no-one waiting to take advantage of it. It was greed, and a vicious disregard for Kong as anything more than a means to an end, that really 'killed the beast'. This is no chick flick, but if you don't cry at least once, you're a heartless bastard/wench and no mistake.

Loved it! 4-and-a-half stars

panda cam!

Pimme had some news about tai shan, the baby panda currently being adorable in the National Zoo in Washington.

If you go to the zoo's web site and scroll down a little there's a cool panda cam letting you see what tai shan is up to. Cute, yo!

in case you were wondering...

First week of December I entered the Wheels of Fortune contest the local radio station was running to win a Hyundai Getz and got through to the final round, giving me a 1 in 36 chance of winning. I know you're all sensible enough to realise that I would have posted an insanely happy account of that fateful day...had I won the car. But for those would like loose ends tied off neatly, let me confirm that I did not, in fact, win.
*quiet sob*

My number was 9, and the car sput-sput-sputted its last little sniff of the one litre of petrol they'd put in it...at number 3. I was just glad it didn't stop on number 8. That would have been too excruciating for words.



Here are the breakfast team, Chris & Sarah, in the Getz.






Waiting all around the oval to see where it stopped was actually pretty boring. But each time it went by your section of the oval, a little 'ooh' of excitement would kind of well up as you imagined what it would be like if it really did stop just there in front of you. This built with each successive lap as it became more and more possible that the car would finally run out of petrol. On the later laps you'd completely lose hope when it passed by, because you just couldn't believe that it could finish another full lap. It really is as good on petrol as they claimed. It travelled 9.8km on that one litre! And oh my goodness it was SO QUIET. If I'd had my eyes closed I would have struggled to say when it was driving by. I know old cars are noisier, but this was whisper quiet like those experimental electric cars. Pretty cool.

We each wanted it for ourselves of course, but all of us were united in wanting anyone but number 1 to win it (if we didn't). The woman on the number 1 space had actually filled out her entry form while she was at the car dealer picking up her own brand new Hyundai Getz. That's right ~ she already owned one! If she'd won I think there might have been a mutiny. Luckily that didn't happen.

I'd love to end by saying that it was just fun to be part of the contest, but just like those actors at the Oscars who smile almost convincingly into the camera and say "I'm just happy to have been nominated", I'd be lying, lying, lying. Driving home in Trixie, my noisy sky blue 1984 Corona, sucked. But, shhh, don't tell her I said that. She tries her best.

quiz result: how do I think and learn?

What does your brain say about how you think and learn?

You are balanced-brained.

That means you are able to draw on the strengths of both the right and left hemispheres of your brain, depending upon a given situation. When you need to explain a complicated process to someone, or plan a detailed vacation, the left hemisphere of your brain, which is responsible for your ability to solve problems logically, might kick in. But if you were critiquing an art opening or coming up with an original way to file papers, the right side of your brain, which is responsible for noticing subtle details in things, might take over. While many people have clearly dominant left- or right-brained tendencies, you are able to draw on skills from both hemispheres of your brain. This rare combination makes you a very creative and flexible thinker. The down side to being balanced-brained is that you may sometimes feel paralyzed by indecision when the two hemispheres of your brain are competing to solve a problem in their own unique ways.

quiz result: my celebrity match

John Cusack

Okay, maybe we're going out on a limb here, but we bet that if John Cusack gave you his heart, you — unlike Ione Skye in that classic Say Anything scene — wouldn't give him a pen. (What was she thinking?!) Sweet, funny, good-looking...what's not to love about this all-around great catch? Nothing. The wry Chicago native proved he was every girl's dream date in the '80s, and he's only gotten better since. Since you always go for guys who can tickle your funny bone and put you at ease, he's definitely your celebrity soulmate. (Just don't tell Neve Campbell!) With his quick wit and dry sense of humor, he'd make sure you were never without a smile. Plus, think how much fun it would be to get to hang out with older sib Joan!

Nice result!! Cusack is the bomb. I think my favourite film of his was Grosse Point Blank ~ a little dark humour goes a long way. He occasionally acts in a disappointing film, but HE never disappoints. I'm always waiting for his next film to be released. If he's in it, I'm there.

the december storm

Recently we've had a few thunderstorms, but the one I mentioned in my December 4 post did some damage. At our house we were relatively lucky: a couple of trees fell in the back yard, but not towards the house. One fell into the yard, but the other hit the carport, denting it, but not causing any structural damage.

The neighbours across the road were not so lucky. A branch fell from the enormous tree in the front of their yard and put a big hole in the roof, letting the rain stream into their bedroom. When I arrived home, the State Emergency Services were already up on their roof placing a tarpaulin to stop the rain getting in. The trouble is that we've been in semi-drought conditions for a few years now and the ground water levels are getting so low that there isn't enough water to sustain the really big trees. This storm highlighted how weak those really big trees are getting under these weather conditions. At or directly surrounding our house there were six big trees down.
















One of my next door neighbours lost a 50 year old Christmas tree - kinda sad considering this happened just a few weeks before Christmas. They put lights on it every year usually.
















My other next door neighbour lost a big gum tree that fell straight across our road. The SES work on a triage system - trees that cause house damage are dealt with first. This was inconvenient, but only posed a real hazard after dark when cars might not see it in time to stop. Consequently it stayed there for 3 hours blocking traffic. They did come back before dark though, to chain saw it into moveable pieces and at least get it off the road.

too many ideas

That's the problem with taking a break from blogging...you end up with lots of ideas in draft that you wanted to blog about but had no time to follow up on. Some I'm save, some I'll delete, but some are about to be posted in rapid succession. Happy reading ~ hope there's some good stuff in there!

wednesday wt...?: dj dylan

Singer Bob Dylan to become radio DJ
(Wed Dec 14)

In a daring move legendary mumbler folk rocker Bob Dylan will start a new career as a radio DJ when he launches a new weekly thankfully not talk music show on XM Satellite Radio next March.

The station said on Tuesday the show would feature music hand-picked by Dylan, writer of some of the enduring classics of popular music since the 1960s such as Mr Tambourine Man, Like a Rolling Stone and The Times They unlike my wild woolly hair style Are A-Changin'.

"Dylan will offer regular incomprehensible commentary on music and other topics, host and interview confused special guests including other artists and will take emails from XM subscribers," XM said. A translator is being held on retainer.

Now 64, Dylan looks as craggy as Springsteen, despite having been quite the pretty boy in his youth. Dylan's anti-establishment folk songs were the anthems of a heavily drugged generation and he has released over 44 albums in a career spanning more than four decades. And it shows.

"Songs and music have always inspired me. A lot of my own songs have been played on the radio, but this is the first time I've ever been on the other side of the mic," Dylan said in a written statement. ”Some would say there is good reason for that, but XM have decided to take a chance on me anyway.”

In spite of a few disappointing tours over the last several years where Dylan appeared both disinterested and forgetful of lyrics, his memoir "Chronicles Vol.1," published in Oct 2004, was a huge best-seller in the United States.

[No hate mail please!! ^_^ I actually think Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters of the last century, but there’s no denying that a mumbler like him is going to make a rather eccentric DJ and interviewer. I wonder if XM has net radio? Oh, and yes that comment on his last few tours came from Dylan fans who were actually there and came home shaking their heads.]

letting go

As a follow-up to my post on validation & forgiveness, I want send some linky love out to 3 fellow bloggers. First is madeline's post on forgiveness: Oprah? It seems her main focus is past relationships, but the words ring true for every kind of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is letting go of the hope that things could have been different.

It's true. To forgive someone you have to look back and erase from your mind that voice that has been whining for years, the voice that laments : If only...

The second comes from Lewis, who also writes about letting go: On Forgiveness

It is wise to let such people go, along with all the anger and despair they cause us. It matters not one whit whether they deserve to be forgiven. We cannot change them. That is not our obligation.

Another post that discusses a different kind of letting go comes from Amanda: Looking at images from the tsunami. She writes about deprivation and voluntarily choosing not to have so many possessions.

...the more you have, the more deprived you feel when you end up having nothing. It's fairly obvious, actually. But it also makes you wonder; if, indeed, one chose a life of voluntary simplicity, and spent their time and energy on things other than the glittery lure of affluence, they would be far better off if disaster ever hit.

It's interesting, this idea of letting go, whether materially or emotionally. Again it makes me ponder why it is that we hang on to things so fiercely, even when they cause us grief.

My mother, for example, lives in a very cluttered house. She's a very organised, very orderly person, and I know without doubt that she would feel more comfortable and able to achieve more if her environment was more spacious and organised. She is often frustrated by the clutter and confusion, yet she struggles to get rid of anything. It was enlightening to talk to her about this and understand her motivations. She grew up in what was initially a very poor household. Though her father later became a very successful businessman, she was the first child and experienced the full extent of their harsh beginning. Like those raised in the Great Depression, she can't bear to throw away anything that has any material value. She often argues that ‘someone could use that’. She’s making more progress now that she loads up the useable things to drop off at a local charity op shop.

More interesting was her other reaction to my admonition to throw more away: “you think all my stuff is just junk!” There was a sense that what she had accumulated was somehow symbolic of what her life amounted to…and if it could all just be thrown away without a second thought, maybe she or her life were somehow insignificant. I find this idiotic ~ my mother is a smart, generous woman whose greatest achievement will always be the wisdom she gave her children ~ but it’s hardly a new idea. Plenty of people look at their BMW or their furniture to tell themselves that they’ve ‘succeeded’ in life. (Meanwhile their kids are in therapy, but anyway…) Yet another form of validation.

Is that the answer? Is letting go so difficult because we use the things we cling to as ways to validate our feelings, our choices, our lives? But what is the cost of that validation? Bertrand Russell said, way back in 1917 in his Principles of Social Reconstruction:

It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly.

Or as Chuck Palahniuk, a more modern font of wisdom put it in Fight Club:

The things you own end up owning you. It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.

We are even more trapped by the grudges we nurse, the hurt we nurture and feed. Isabelle Holland said:

As long as you don't forgive, who and whatever it is will occupy rent-free space in your mind.

More clutter, only this time in our heart and mind, narrowing our options and choking up our thought processes.

If letting go is so good for us ~ so freeing, so healing, so enlightening ~ then, ironically, maybe it’s the best way to seek validation. How strong are we, how calm and in control would we feel as a person if we had the courage and confidence to let go of the feelings and possessions we’re relying on to validate us? I still believe that people need validation, but wouldn’t that kind of experience provide validation in and of itself?

roadside memorials

Q posted a little essay on roadside memorials several weeks back. It was interesting and gave me some insight into a practice I’ve never really related to. I always meant to make a post about it, so here I am finally doing so.

Driving by these memorials has often irritated me. My first reaction to them was cynical and a little callous. I’ve always thought of genuine mourning as a private affair…weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth in public always came across to me as grieving to be seen to grieve. Roadside memorials, which are very common down the Southern coast of Adelaide where I grew up, struck me as an over-dramatic way to call attention to mourning: it’s not enough for us to visit this person’s grave, or weep over their death with friends and family – we want people driving by to see the flowers and teddy bears we’ve brought to prove our grief is real.

I once saw one of these homemade memorials attached to a tree down at the local creek from which a friend of ours had hung himself. There was no logic to me in placing a marker there to remember an act that horrified his friends and family and the unfortunate kids who found his body. I want to remember him, but the most important aspects of his personality are not to be found in the fact that he hung himself – that tree is a symbol, not of what he was, but of all the potential in him that was destroyed in that decision. It’s the last place I would want to call attention to – it says so little about who he was and brands him as nothing more than a suicide. That’s not the sum of him. Similarly I don’t understand why people would want to mark the spot where someone crashed their car – is that the lasting memory they want in everyone’s mind as they drive by each day? Here died Joe Bloggs: road statistic.

With that kind of history, you can see why I started reading Q’s post without really expecting to be moved by it. But I was, and here are a few reasons why:

Often there is a message being sent to the community, especially in the case where someone has died young. The stories behind the markers are often known locally and they send a message to those still alive:
“be careful, slow down"
"don’t drink and drive”
“life is too short, don’t throw it away."
"Make the most of the time you have with those you love, because you don’t
know what tomorrow is going to bring."
These markers encourage us to contemplate life and death, and make the most of life.

Like Q, I found this comment particularly poignant: Researchers have noticed the tendency to infantilize victims in their teens and twenties by surrounding their memorials with soft toys and other talismans of childhood.To Mr. Belshaw, this is a reference to the victim's lost potential for redemption.

"When a 19-year-old comes out of a bar three sheets to the wind and wraps his car around a lamp post and the next morning you find teddy bears at the accident site," he says, "that's a statement that essentially this was a good person who could have been redeemed." It’s hopeful, this idea that people want to believe that there was good in someone - even someone who made some bad life choices.

I must admit, though, that I wonder if they are reading more into the act than is really there. I’ve seen girls give their hardcore boyfriends similar bears for Valentine’s Day – it never surprises me to see the same kind of bear on a roadside memorial. It may simply be a way of saying that they loved them.

There was also some discussion of the creation of ‘sacred space’ and the connection that people feel to a place where a “life-changing event” occurred; of the way that people now feel little sense of personal attachment to religious institutions or formal places of religious significance, like a church or even cemetery. I can see how that could be true - that people see the cemetery as a place where this is just one death amongst many who have died, and use roadside memorials to make a connection to a place intensely personal to the person who died.

Another idea that made me think was whether we brush death under the carpet and do not want to be reminded of our own mortality. The question is, do we need to be in spite of our reluctance? Is it more healthy to have these sharp reminders of the reality of death, or are they just causing unnecessary emotional pain to those who have to see them every day?

validation and forgiveness

A rather long post

A few posts back I wrote about unequal friendships and how frustrating they are. I was feeling lonely and had realised that some relationships I had regarded as friendships were in fact one-sided affairs with people who are happy to tell me their problems and ask favours, and socialise when they feel like it or don’t happen to be dating someone, but who get a vacant, distracted look when the topic of conversation turns away from them.

Anyway, Lewis wrote some interesting ideas in an email in response. Here’s some of what he wrote:

…as complex as the emotions feel when we're in need of someone to listen, the mechanism that leads us to that point is amazingly simple. It all boils down to one thing: validation.

When we reach that low point at which we feel the need to talk, it's because our self-esteem has been knocked down a few notches. The cause of our lowered self-esteem can originate from zillions of different sources, but they all have the same net effect.

He went on to discuss how we create standards that we impose on ourselves or others, some realistic, others not. When those standards are violated, we become angry. If that anger is aimed at ourselves, it manifests itself as guilt; if at others, as resentment.

This really rang true. I realised that validation was exactly what I had really been seeking, and that resentment was exactly what I felt at not getting it. I don’t need someone to solve my problems, but I do need to know that I’m not being silly; that the things that upset me are actually worth being upset over, that the things I stress over are stress-worthy. Someone can tell me that just by listening for a while. I can lead a good life without a husband and kids, but I need to at least know that I’m the kind of person who could make a good marriage and be a good parent. (Actually, Drummer Boy gave me a list of ‘ten great things about chosha’ with my Christmas present. Number 4 was “you’re the only person who listens to me.” I don’t need to be his parent, but something in me loves knowing that if I were, I probably wouldn’t have screwed it up, because he feels loved by me and respected as a person.)

In other words, I expected that, as friends of mine, those people would validate me. Amazing how even typing those words makes me feel selfish, unreasonable. I want to delete them and find another way to describe it that sounds better somehow - less needy, less demanding. But I’m not going to delete them, because validation is a reasonable need, and to be validated as a person by friends is a reasonable expectation, as long as you don’t expect it every moment of the day.

So validation is good...or is it?

Which brings me to a new question. I think that it’s okay to need validation sometimes ~ in our work, in relationships, in our families. But when do I need to guard myself against needing it too much or too often?

I can think of one answer to that question straight away. When we don’t get validation from people we love and respect, we start looking for it from people whose validation isn’t really anything to value. I mean, isn’t that pretty much what peer pressure is: people seeking validation from others in the easiest way possible – by conforming to behaviours that instantly identify you are someone who ‘belongs’ in that group? But what kind of validation is that? The people I know who never fall for it are the ones who feel confident of their worth. SR, one of the kids I looked after in December, is a good example of that. I don’t think she considers herself particularly cool or gorgeous, and she definitely knows she’s a bit of a geek (in the good sense), but she also knows she’s smart and loved and creative and responsible. She can be hurt by things kids at school say, but they never stick.

Validation & forgiveness

Another time when I think we need to leave behind our need for validation came to me this week when I was reading Brian’s post on forgiveness. Generally I forgive easily and often, but there have definitely been times when I just could not let something go. A situation like that came up last year when a friend misunderstood something I did and completely over-reacted – they were quite nasty to me, but they were under a lot of stress at that moment. I knew that, but assumed they would apologise for it after they calmed down and saw the situation for what it was. The apology never came. I tried to chalk it up to experience and move on, but the fact that they saw their actions as reasonable bothered me a lot. This went on for four months, and then one night what had happened came up in conversation. I was honest about how I saw the situation and although the other person didn’t ever apologise, they at least acknowledged my take on it. And right then it was gone – all the resentment, all my strong feelings on it, all of it – like a breeze had come through and sweep it out into the atmosphere. All I really wanted was have someone acknowledge that my feelings were valid, and then I didn’t need those feelings anymore.

Of course this isn’t useful. Some people never acknowledge wrong-doing. Not only could I wait forever for that validation, but I also don't think I should need validation of my hurt in order to let things go and forgive. Forgiveness allows you to leave things behind. It doesn’t mean your injuries weren’t real ~ some people seem to think that if they let themselves heal they are somehow diminishing the injustice of whatever hurt them, but that isn’t logical. Moving on doesn’t change what happened ~ it just stops it from hurting you. I mean, if someone stabs me, should I keep the knife and reopen the wound each week in order to prove that I really was wounded? No, of course not. And at some point, when enough time has passed, when you've gained enough perspective, etc that healing could have occurred, you have to take responsibility for the fact that if you're still suffering hurt, it's because you are hurting yourself. Forgiveness benefits most the one who does the forgiving. It heals and healing is good.

Theory vs reality

Wow, that all sounds logical and sound, doesn't it? Of all the grudges I’ve held (thankfully not so many) there’s only one I can think of that I still feel really bitter about. So you'd think that after all I just wrote ~ and I believe it all, too ~ that I'd be tossing that grudge out the window about now and dance around enjoying my newfound freedom from old and unneeded bitterness. Instead I'm sitting here contemplating it and realising just how hard it is to push the desire for validation aside. Surprisingly so. Humans like to hold onto their hurts, don't they? I wonder why that is.

wise funky blogging

I was going to post this ages ago, but then I took a break from blogging and it seemed a bit bold to put it up just then. ^_^

Funky bug decided I'd made her list of wise, funky bloggers and gave me a sidebar button to prove it. I'm a little picky what I add to my sidebar, but I decided this was worth adding, because I love her blog and find it pretty wise and funky myself.

Happy blogging funky bug!

wednesday wt..? garbage truck

Call of nature saves man from garbage crusher
(7 Dec 2005)

BERLIN - A German wino man who fell asleep in a rubbish container after a bout of heavy drinking had a lucky escape after he was tipped into the hydraulic press of a garbage truck, police said on Wednesday.

The 47-year-old who moments before had been dreaming of large-breasted Russian women was only saved from being squashed like a bug crushed when the truck‘s driver who had also had a little too much to drink stopped to urinate before continuing his round. Realising that the paperwork was going to be a bitch if he didn't, he quickly switched off the press after he heard swearing coming from the truck‘s interior. "I often hear voices," said the driver, "but inside my head, not inside the crusher."

"The man, who is usually quite claustrophobic admitted drinking a lot of booze the previous night and climbing into the container to avoid facing his wife drunk seek refuge from the rain where he passed out," the police said in a statement. "We're just glad to see that he wasn't foolish enough to drink and drive."

The man, from somewhere difficult to spell Fischbachtal in southwestern Germany, suffered only a minor head injury, weeks of embarrassment, and mild shock. He has since decided it is better to go home drunk than flat and bloody.

landy and the dame

Tragedy struck in December. It was so sad, I couldn't even bear to blog about it until now. I still may need a few therapy sessions, but at least I've stopped crying and just faced the fact that...

Orlando Bloom and girlfriend Kate Bosworth have reportedly been shopping for engagement rings in a swanky London street. The pair were spotted in several exclusive jewellery stores on New Bond St on Friday, British tabloid The Sun reported.

Bosworth and Bloom spent most of their time in Bulgari and Van Cleef, and Arpels, the report said, with the lucky Bosworth appearing to favour a ring worth $154,000.

"They were picking out engagement rings and she was trying them on," a source said to the paper."They had huge smiles on their faces and were kissing and cuddling. It looks like Kate is about to be Mrs Bloom."

NO LANDY! SAY IT ISN'T SOOOOOOOOOOO!!

I know he's just a babe in the woods, but Lordy Lordy, "babe" is the right word in more ways than one! Some pictures of the boy just leave me dumbfounded ~ how can anybody be that beautiful?

Anyway, I found solace in the after Christmas sales at a glorious 50% off ~ the 2006 Orlando Bloom calendar. *sigh*

Phi's dry comment: I think that's going in your room.
My reply: Damn straight it is!

Where else would I put such delectable fare? Out in the kitchen where some stray cooking oil might splatter on his sweet face? Not likely. I think I might hang it above my computer for inspiration. I've gotta be careful, though - serious sugar shock potential. He's so adorable in interviews, too. *le sigh...le pant*

Kate Bosworth you are one lucky, lucky, woman.