Bryce Moore's Blog, page 254

Being an Old Fuddy Duddy: Skiing with My Kids (with Pics!)

You know, it's one thing to have Denisa be better at me when it comes to skiing. She's been skiing much more than I have. But you know those kids you always would see out on the slopes? The ones with no poles, who were about two apples tall and zip zooming around like a flock of birds? Those are my kids now. Three or four years of skiing lessons will do that for them. Go figure.



One of the perks of living here in Maine is that we have a great local ski hill. It doesn't cost much to ski there--in fact, they regularly have free skiing nights at this hill as well as others in the area. Plus, you can get ski lessons through the school programs for really cheap. Ten lessons plus lift tickets for something like $90 total. I don't know how much it costs in Utah, but I'm pretty sure it's not $90. (Anyone want to correct me?) In any case, TRC has been skiing since we got here (age 4), and DC has been skiing since she could stand, more or less (age 2). They love it. TRC goes over every jump he can find or improvise, and DC likes to go straight down the mountain, flapping her arms slowly (since she has no poles to worry about). She's pretending to be a butterfly, she told me.



Since Denisa is pregnant, I'm the only adult in the family who's up for skiing this year. And I hadn't been in two years, since I broke my elbow last go 'round. (An injury that still hurts, actually. I'm hoping rowing will strengthen the arm and fix some of that.) In any case, last Friday was free-ski night at Titcomb, and the kids really wanted to ski more, and I didn't want to be the one to stand in the way of that, so I went with them.



This was the first time I have really felt like an old fuddy duddy. We tackled the pony lift first. I wanted to be sure I could actually still make it down a hill in one piece before I moved on to the T-bar. And I made it up and down with little problem, but it was fairly stressful. I didn't want to be That Guy. The one who fell down on the pony lift during free ski night. The one who made the whole lift stop while someone could rescue him as he lay there like a wounded turtle. And I wasn't, so bully for that.



But we got to the top, and TRC and DC just zoomed around wherever they pleased, and I tottered, drunkenly weaving my way to the bottom with all the grace of Steve Urkel on Dancing with the Stars. (I'm dating myself with that pop culture reference, too.) TRC was very encouraging. "You're doing great, Dad. That's very impressive. Look how much you've learned already!"



Thanks, kiddo.



So we moved on to the T-bar. Where the stakes are even higher. It's not just learners on the T-bar, after all. You're expected to have at least some of your act together. Adults are watching you. Don't fall down. Don't fall down. Don't fall down.



I didn't.



I made it through the whole evening on my feet. Didn't fall down once. I did realize it's harder to ski with glasses. My peripheral vision is shot with them on, and the concern about falling down and losing them was that much greater. Being blind on the slopes would have been a Very Bad Thing.



After 6 or 7 runs, my legs were very tired, and we called it a day. Usually TRC gets at least 10 or 12 runs done in less than two hours. But the kids were just happy that I'd been there to let them ski. I was happy for them, although I don't think I had nearly as much fun as they did. It was a blast to see them have fun, but I was too worried about staying upright to really say I enjoyed the evening.



This is what it feels like to get old. Don't get me wrong--I'm not tottering yet, but for a bit there, I had a very clear vision of what things will be like down the road. Getting old is having a series of those visions. They begin to occur more and more, until you get to the point where you're used to them, and they no longer alarm you. So for now, I guess it's good to be alarmed. In any case, I don't know if I'll get out again this year, but for now, at least I had a good time with my kids.

Book Review: The Long Walk, by Stephen King

The Long Walk by Stephen King

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



I'm a self-confessed Stephen King fan. You know that. I know that. (We also all know that he used to write under the pen name Richard Bachman. Authors--even successful ones--often live from book to book. As long as their next book sells more than their last book, life is good. Bookstores order more copies of the next one, and more copies ordered generally means more copies sold. The problem comes when the books start selling fewer copies. It can lead to a downward spiral, with the end result being an author is pretty much dead in the water. No bookstore wants his books, because they don't think they'll sell. So authors often write under two or more names. If one name (or "brand") tanks, they've got the other one to fall back on. From what I've heard, that's the reason why Megan Lindholm changed her name to Robin Hobb, for example. Two names, one author. But I digress.)



The fact is, whether writing as Stephen King, Richard Bachman, or Chubby Checker, I'm a fan of the way Stephen King writes. He's able to hook me with a single page. It's a skill I'm tremendously envious of. He's also able to take a simple idea and stretch an entire novel out of it. Case in point: The Long Walk. The premise is simple: in the near future, there's a national obsession over a yearly competition. 100 teenage boys start walking in Northern Maine. They have to keep walking at least 4 mph. Always. If they slow down or stop, they get a warning after 30 seconds. Two more warnings, and then they're shot.



Dead.



The last one walking wins fabulous riches and national admiration.



This isn't a Hunger Games type thing. The boys volunteer--it's extremely hard to get selected. But once they're selected, there's no going back.



There you have it. The story in a nutshell. But King just keeps ramping up the tension, bit by bit. It's not a long book, and even then it doesn't quite have enough there to warrant it being as long as it is. Still, it's a strong four out of five stars. You get to know the boys. Care about them. Sides are drawn. It's a fantastic example of taking a simple idea and following it to its natural conclusion.



Also very interesting to read now, in a post-Hunger Games world. Good to see HG wasn't a "new" genre. People have been writing things like that for quite some time. This came out in 1979, after all. I highly recommend it, with the disclaimer that yes, it's a Stephen King book. So you're going to have some gruesome scenes in there. He doesn't shy away from it. He just tells it like it is.



Great stuff.




View all my reviews

Gosford Park: Downton Abbey Murder Mystery

I first watched Gosford Park about ten years ago, I'd guess. I enjoyed it, but wasn't blown away. It didn't help that I watched it from ten feet away on a 15 inch television (as I recall)--I couldn't tell what was going on half the time, and it's a Robert Altman movie, which means there's a lot of dialogue going on, with lots of people talking over each other.



If I didn't love love love it the first time, why was I returning to it? Well, the writer of the script is one Julian Fellowes, the creator of Downton Abbey. (He won an Oscar for his writing on the film.) And Gosford Park stars Maggie Smith. It was nominated for 6 other Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, two Supporting Actresses (Smith and Helen Mirren), Art Direction, and Costume Design. After I went so gaga for Downton, I decided to give Gosford another try.



This time, I watched it on a 42 inch screen, with the subtitles on.



I loved it.



A group of aristocrats gather at a swanky house in the country for a lovely weekend. They bring their servants. Someone dies. But I have to emphasize that it really isn't a murder mystery. It's not about finding out whodunnit. Case in point? (And I don't think I'm spoiling too much here.) When the inspector finally shows up, it's clear he's an absolute idiot. He does nothing right at all. It's as if Altman is deliberately showing the audience, "See? I don't care about finding out who did it. Not really." And that makes a key difference for me. The movie is about exploring character relationships and the contrasts in social status between the two classes. It's got all the Downton elements I love--period details that set it apart. But it has a much more modern feel. Yes, it takes place in 1932 or so, but I just mean . . . Downton feels like an old school drama at times. This is a current drama. Hard for me to pinpoint, but the feel is definitely different.



It's extremely well executed, and wonderfully layered. I really liked the ending, even though it's not the ending we're trained to expect. Just a great movie. Four stars.



For those of you who keep tabs on these sorts of things, it is rated R, but Altman himself on the DVD commentary said that he just threw in some F words to get the rating because he "didn't want kids watching it." There's nothing in here that would really shock anyone. Some hanky panky here and there, with nothing really shown.

Diet Update: Week One

One week down. Starting weight was 214. Current weight is 211.6. On the surface, that seems pretty dandy. Then again, I was down to 212 after the first day of dieting, so I've been hovering around 212 since almost the beginning, which is never a good feeling.



I know, theoretically, that this is how it goes with diets. There will be plateaus. But it's a real killer when you try to stick to your diet hard the whole week, and keep seeing no real returns on that effort.



That said, I also wasn't perfect when it came to my goals. 2000 calories a day? I hit this all but 2 of the days. During the Oscar party, I went over by three or four hundred calories. And yesterday there was a free lunch that bumped me over by a hundred calories or so. So I haven't been perfect there.


Exercise 30 minutes a day?



Umm . . . I went skiing for three hours on Friday. So I got the exercise time in there. But the rest of the week, I did little more than park as far away as possible from my work, and doing a bit of work on the wood pile. 5 or 10 minutes a day. I need to improve that number a lot.



Currently I'm thinking about moving my rowing machine to the basement, bringing some speakers down, and hooking up my iPad when I'm down there. The machine is noisy enough that I don't like using it upstairs. It disturbs the rest of the family. The basement should make it so that it only disturbs Denisa, once the kids are upstairs in bed. I could then row for a half hour and watch movies downstairs while Denisa bakes bread. This seems pretty doable, but we'll see.



Still, 2.4 pounds is 2.4 pounds, and it's more than where I planned on being at this point.



As far as how I'm feeling, I feel pretty good. I've been going to bed earlier, and I've felt like I had more energy. But then again, I was quite sick right before this diet. A single week does not a trend make.



Stay tuned to see how this keeps going.

Oscar Reactions

Another Oscar night has come and gone. This one was quite the snowy one up here in Maine, but the fam still had a great time, and the party was plenty swanky. TRC stayed up the whole night, which I suppose means the show must have been at least somewhat interesting, although he assured me he was much more interested in the commercials. Apparently those zombie unicorn commercials were aimed squarely at the 8 year old audience, which must mean Samsung is playing the *really* long game, abandoning hope of winning over today's buyers in hopes of stealing the next generation right out from everyone.



The show itself was . . . a mixed bag. Some things I enjoyed quite a bit. Goldfinger, the In Memoriam piece was better than usual--and I really liked how it wasn't a show that was dominated by one movie. That's always nice. Seth MacFarlane as a host was less than impressive. I found his jokes hit or miss, his musical numbers/comedy routines mostly miss, but he wasn't as awful as I worried he would be. (There's your lesson, folks: manage expectations.)



The James Bond tribute was one of the lamest tributes I can recall. Yes, kudos for the Goldfinger number, but the montage? Awful. And how do you really celebrate James Bond without a single James Bond?



I was also interested to see how much emphasis they placed on music this time around. While I enjoyed it, I can't help but think that the TV audience as a whole . . . didn't. Why pick MacFarlane as the host for the Musical Oscars? That seems like a study in contrasts. And are the Tonys really doing so well, Nielsens-wise, that the Oscars have decided to try to steal their thunder? Again--I enjoyed it, but not all in my Oscar party did.



But really, when you get down to it, the Oscars is about celebrating movies, and I'm all for that. It was an entertaining way to spend an evening. And as for my picks, I did the best I've done in a long long time. 18 out of 24. Which likely goes to show that the show was less than surprising from an awards standpoint. But again, the awards got scattered around, so yay for that. The thank you speeches were also blessedly brief, for the most part. (Honestly. What person out there is a big enough jerk who would get offended if they weren't mentioned by name in an Oscar thank you? And yet everyone seems so terrified that they'll forget someone.) I won the honorary Oscar hat, although I don't have time to post the pic at the moment. Look to Facebook soon . . .



Unfortunately, I still haven't seen the majority of the movies. I see a lot of films, but I don't get to the theater nearly as often as I'd like. So I guess I'll be getting my money's worth from Netflix in the month or so to come. I look forward to it. This seems like a very good crop of movies this year.



Those are my thoughts. What are yours? To read even better analysis, do check out my agent's liveblog of the event. (UPDATE: I put the wrong link in. Sorry!) I always enjoy his responses, usually even more than I enjoy the show. Great job, once again, Joshua!

Movie Review: Chronicle

I'd heard about Chronicle when it was in theaters, and I was quite excited to finally see it. The premise sounded really cool: a found-footage movie about some kids who stumble across some sort of alien power that gives them superpowers. Great, right? Plus. Netflix had it pegged as an almost 4 star (out of 5) film for me, and Netflix is usually right these days, now that I've plugged 2,062 ratings into its site.



Got the movie, watched it with Denisa.



Didn't like it.



There were parts I liked. The premise was nifty. The climax was certainly diverting and interesting, more or less. It's the parts in between--everything else, really--that didn't work for me.



First up is the found-footage format. This is the movie style where it pretends that no one directed the movie. That the filmmakers just stumbled across some footage and are presenting it to the audience with little real editing. Blair Witch Project was a famous example. Paranormal is a more recent one. I'm not a fan of the style, really. I feel like it gets too chatty and wordy. In their efforts to make the film appear like an amateur filmed it, the film . . . feels like an amateur filmed it. Go figure. I like my movies tight and taut. I don't like a whole bunch of fat to chew on before you get to the good stuff.



There's a lot of fat here.



The movie spins its wheels as it goes nowhere for the first third of the film. I get that they're trying to introduce the characters, but because it's found footage, they have to go through so many hoops to do it, that it just gets tedious. By that time, I'm just bored, so when the good stuff actually gets going, it takes a lot to get over my filmic inertia. (There's a new phrase for you. I just made it up.)



It also doesn't help that I don't like the main character. At all. He's whiny, broody, and dark. I have no real desire to see him succeed. I feel bad for him, yes. But there's a difference between pitying someone and rooting for them. I never rooted for the protagonist. And then he goes downhill from there.



In the end, I'd give it 1.5 stars out of 4. Really disappointing, and easily missable.



Any of you care to add your two cents?

Plasma Car: Awesome Toy for Kids 3 to 12 (or Higher)

It's been a while since I did a toy review, but I realized yesterday that there was this toy both of my kids adore, as well as pretty much any kid who ever comes to visit. And I'm not above plugging things that might bring other kids the same amount of pleasure. The toy in question?



The Plasma Car.



I have no idea how this little thing works. It looks like your typical little car. One kids sit on and pretend to drive around. But if you steer it from side to side, demons appear and push the car forward. Okay. Maybe not demons. Gremlins, perhaps. Or ghosts from the great beyond. Or maybe just physics. It's certainly not batteries or pedals.



Whatever it is, it's awesome. And can we say weight capacity of 220 pounds? I can ride this thing, folks. TRC and DC regularly ride on it together.







Look at that video. You can practically see the demons gremlins pushing that woman. I think it safe to say that if someone took a Plasma Car back to the Middle Ages, they'd last all of two seconds before they were burned at the closest stake.



My kids typically ride it in a circuit around the perimeter of the kitchen. (These days, they like to pretend they're playing MarioKart while doing this. No banana peels have been thrown. Yet. But I can't vouch for the safety of any pet turtles friends might bring to the house.)



Some disclaimers for those of you interested. First up, they really work best on hard, flat surfaces. Tile. Wood. Carpet? Not so much. Second, they might scratch your floors. We don't mind--we just have the kids drive on places that either don't scratch, or it doesn't matter. But if spotless hardwood floors are what you want, this might be your enemy.



That said, TRC and DC have been playing with their Plasma Car for something like 2 years now, I believe. It's a toy that still sees regular use by both of them, and you just don't find toys like that every day. So if you haven't already heard of the Plasma Car, allow me to officially give it the Bryce Seal of Approval, and recommend you check one out for your kids soon.

Back on the Diet Train. Again. Please Help.

So right off the bat, let's get down to the fact of the matter at hand: I weigh more than I'd like to. Not as much as I did before my last round of dieting started a few years ago. So that's something--I've managed to keep off at least some of the weight (around 14 pounds) for a solid two years or so. But I'm once again climbing the BMI ladder, and I want to stop.



It's not just about weight.



If you know me, you know I get sick more often than not. If there's a bug going around, I'll catch it. And as I was lying in bed this last go round with achy muscles and a plugged up nose, I thought, "Maybe I wouldn't get sick as much if I were in better shape."



Mind-shattering conclusion, I know.



I am a fairly sedentary fellow. I sit at the computer at work, I sit at the computer to write, and I sit in front of the television (or computer) to watch media. I do get out now and then to go ice fishing or hike, but it's much more the case that it's "then" as opposed to "now," if you know what I mean.



I don't exercise, other than doing my best to walk when I can walk instead of drive, trying to not take the elevator, and typically parking farther away from the store entrance when I could park closer, instead. (When you don't exercise, it's the little excuses that give you the fodder you need to feel like you don't need to exercise.)



So I'd like to get healthier all around.



But like many of you (I assume), I have a hard time actually sticking to that resolution. Brownies taste too good. Pepperoni pizza demands to be consumed in mass quantities. And then there's the siren song of ice cream. Since my last round of serious dieting, I've started dieting quite a few times. It only lasts for a week or two, and then I'm back with my nose in the proverbial honey jar. And don't get me started about exercise.



This is where you all come in.


As I've been thinking about ways to get my kiester in gear, I keep coming back to the one thing that worked very well last time: I was public about my goals. Lots of friends knew I was trying to lose weight, and they would check in on my progress. I knew I was accountable somewhere, and so it was easier to not eat all the Doritos.



And here's this handy blog I have, where I say hello to the world every weekday. My new plan is to check in with all of you on Mondays (most likely) to tell you where I am, both with the diet and with exercising. My goal is to lose at least .2 pounds a day for the next 6 months or so. The target weight is 177, with the assumption that once I reach that weight, I'll bounce up a bit and end up around 185. Like I said, I started at 214, so there's a ways to go.



I'm going to do most of this like I did before--strictly through calorie counting. 2,000 calories a day is my goal. If I stick to that, I'll likely reach my goal much sooner than six months, but I'm all about managing expectations.



In addition to calorie counting, I'm going to do my best to start exercising for 30 minutes a day. This is going to be the trickier part, since I'm not sure where I'm going to fit that in my schedule. It might be walking, it might be riding a bike, it might be using the rowing machine. We shall see.



So when I check in each Monday, I'm going to provide you with a summary of how the diet and exercise plan is going. How I'm feeling about it. What my weight is. That sort of thing. No, it has nothing to do with writing or movies or books, but it has everything to do with me feeling better, which will hopefully allow me to watch many more movies and read many more books. That's the plan, at least.



Encouragement is welcome. Dieting and exercise make me grumpy. Just warning you. I'll do my best to be chipper in spite of it. I am not looking for recommendations on how to lose weight. I know how to lose weight. I've done it before, I can do it again. I know what works for me--it's just a matter of actually doing it. I don't need advice on how to keep it off. I know how to do that. I just don't do it. I'm really just looking for accountability and support.



Thanks, all!

Downton Abbey Review: A Very Special Christmas Episode

SPOILER ALERT. I'm not kidding.



Gather the family around the old television set, folks. It's time for another heartwarming Downton Christmas Special. You remember the last one, of course. The one where Matthew and Mary were finally united in love, one magical snowy evening?



This one was just like that. Mary has the baby. Matthew's so so happy. He's Leonardo DiCaprio, "King of the World" on Titanic, happy. Toodling his way home in his slick convertible. What a great ending to a wonderful--



OH MY GOSH--FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S--THEY DIDN'T--THEY--WHY WOULD--WHAT THE--IT WASN'T--HE MIGHT BE--



"The End"



Roll credits.



I for one look forward to the next season, where a bloodthirsty serial killer hides among the downstairs staff, killing off beloved characters each week. Will Anna be able to use her newfound detective skills to catch the killer in time? Thrilling!



Okay. Now that I have that out of my system, allow me to give a more measure response to the episode, storyline by storyline:




Matthew's death--Honestly, how can I be upset about this? Don't get me wrong. I am very upset, but then I poked around online. Because there's no way a show as good as Downton would pull a stunt like this just for kicks and giggles. And I found articles like this one. Dan Stevens chose to leave the show. He was adamant about it. And so how do you have Matthew and Mary break up? You don't. You kill the character. There was no other option, short of recasting Matthew, and that . . . would be silly. Especially since they managed to tie up all his conflicts. He's got an heir. He loves Mary. Lord Grantham's his BFF again. Exit, stage left. (Interestingly, I also discovered this is why Sybil died, though in her case, the writers had more of an advanced notice, so they could prep the audience a tad more.) I'm very glad they did it at the end, so that the whole episode wasn't gloomy. But then again, maybe they could have just done it off screen. Have season three start with Matthew dead, and just move on. Don't know. Sad, but there it is. I wonder if Dan Stevens will have some repercussions from his move. I get that he wants to move on to bigger and better things. But fans are not happy, Dan . . .
Rose--Here's a storyline I'm excited about for next season, at least. She's got a bit more of a history now, and she promises to challenge the Downton balance more than ever. I'm all for it. Though the Dad/Mom hating each other plot was tiresome to say the least. Sort of came out of nowhere. I was watching the episode wondering why in the world they decided to have two dreary guest characters bring the whole thing down. Yuck.
Branson and the Maid--Stupid, really. Yes, it's been a year, but it's only been a year. I did like how they tied it up at the end, with Branson just being lost at Sybil's absence. The maid was a little shrew, though. I'm glad she's gone.
Lady Crawley and Doctor Doolittle--Um . . . yeah. What was up with this little side plot? Writers: "Lady Crawley has nothing to do for an entire episode. Oh noes!" Solution is to have the doctor be after her? Really? Snoozeville.
Thomas and Jimmy--I'm still thinking Jimmy's gay. Just very deep in the closet. Nice to see Thomas do something selfless, although it makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, love often doesn't. Still, I have a hard time believing Thomas is still sweet on Jimmy, unless it's because Thomas agrees with me, and is convinced Jimmy really is gay, no matter how much Jimmy likes to shout "I'M HETEROSEXUAL" at random intervals.
Edith Grantham, Professional Mistress--I can see the business cards now. This plot has FAIL written all over it, but then again, I'm an anti-Edith kinda guy, anyway. Still. (Actually, come to think of it, the new maid's name was Edna. Edna. Edith. Ethel. Is there some unwritten rule that all female characters on this show whose names begin with E shall be unlikable? Seriously.)
Mrs. Patmore Gets a Suitor--A fat, obnoxious one, who we're led to believe she actually likes, and then at the last minute, she stares at the camera and says, "NOT!" A bit of tomfoolery. They were really stretching to have enough material for some parts of this episode, I felt. Which leads me to
All of the Fair Stuff--I'm a big fair fan. And it was interesting to see how little they've changed in many ways. But . . . the fair was pretty frilly for the most part. It felt like padding.
The Scottish stuff felt like padding, too. The piper. Learning to reel. Fishing. Hunting. Boring. Some good period details, but really? What was any of it advancing? 


All in all, I thought this episode was more of an afterthought. They'd tied up all the real story lines last week. This one was here to kill Matthew, and that's about it. For the most part, I think we're all better off just pretending this episode never happened. Matthew can still die. I just don't have to watch him bleeding from the ears anymore.




What did YOU think?

Why I'm Not Really a Fan of Hallmark Holidays

Now that Valentine's Day is over, maybe I can complain about it without seeming like too big of a grinch. This isn't a post where I bemoan not having a significant other on V-Day. That would be silly. My Valentine could trounce your Valentine, any day of the week. And my complaints aren't just limited to the day with the frilly hearts. They go beyond that. But Valentine's Day is as good a day to use as an example as any other, so here we go.



Basically, I loathe the commercialism. I really dislike this idea that's rammed down everyone's throats that there are specific days each year where YOU MUST BUY THINGS TO PROVE TO YOUR _________ THAT YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THEM.



America spent $20 billion on yesterday's festivities. You read that right. Mother's Day? $18.6 billion. Father's Day? $12.7 billion. Did you know Americans spend about $8 billion on greeting cards each year?



I get that the economy needs to do well, and people need to spend money so that it can perform, and we can all stay employed. Yay capitalism. I also don't mind having days that celebrate a person, or love, or leprechauns. Or groundhogs. What I *do* mind is how the advertising machine has managed to convince everyone that you need to spend some serious money to prove that love.



Check out this blog post about the founding of Mother's Day. It took ten years for it to go from a nice day to honor mothers to being a shopping bonanza. Or how about how Valentine's Day *used* to be celebrated, seen over on this blog post, all about how you used to buy cards for the people you hated, not the ones you loved.



Seeing those pictures from the 1840s made the marketing arm of these holidays even more clear to me. We buy things because it's easy. We buy them because we're like Steve Martin in The Jerk. We see how things are portrayed, and we don't think we've really done something until we've done it the way pop culture and advertising tells we should do it. Here's the clip I'm referencing:







Martin has all sorts of money by this point in the movie. But he doesn't think he's "somebody" until he's got the bamboo umbrella and drink that prove he is.



We don't think we've celebrated Valentine's Day unless we've got the box of chocolates, the flowers, the card, the lingerie--the whatever.



It's easy enough to sit back and say, "Fine. Just don't participate in the moneygrubbing that goes on during those days." And I don't, for the most part. But it's insidious. It creeps and spreads and does its best to take over things that . . .



Case in point. Mother's Day. Originally thought of as a day to honor mothers. Everybody's got one, after all. But these days? It's becoming more and more a day to honor any woman. Because maybe there are some women out there who'd really like to be mothers, and can't be, and we don't want to hurt their feelings. So buy them some chocolates or a card or a rose or a whatever, too.



My take on these holidays? Show these people you love and care about them year round, not just one day a year. Valentine's Day becomes this day of horror for people in or out of relationships. This day when they have to guess what their loved one really wants, and then get that for them, or else THEY FAIL AS A LOVER. It's a reminder to everyone without a significant other that they are alone.







This is probably why I *don't* get in a real big huff about Christmas being commercialized, ironically. Not from a religious standpoint, at least. To me, it's much more important that you live your religion year round, than that you live it on Christmas or Easter. A day or two of "Oh yeah. I really ought to be thinking about Christ" doesn't make up for a year of doing anything *but* that, in my book.



Ah, what's the point? Why bother moaning and complaining about it?



I married a woman from Slovakia. They don't do these silly days over there. Or at least they didn't when she was growing up. Yay communism.



I hope you all enjoyed your yesterday, even if I'm a bit of a Valentine's Scrooge. I make up for it with my Groundhog festivities.


Happy weekend, everyone.