Bryce Moore's Blog, page 279

New New Webpage: Wordpress at Last

As I've been watching my web traffic at my blog and website over the past few weeks, I noticed that my website was getting more and more visitors--more than my blog at times, which is quite the opposite from the norm. And I still wasn't really happy with the old website. It was better than my first draft, but it lacked oomph.



However, I also didn't really relish the idea of going back to the drawing board with Dreamweaver yet again. Coding in html can be a long and arduous process--especially when you're trying to convert a bunch of pages from what design to the other.



At work, the university has been transitioning over to a Wordpress-based web design. I've heard a lot about Wordpress over the years, of course. Enough that I poked my head over and checked it out a time or two. But each time, I ended up deciding it wasn't worth it to me to learn a new way of doing things. The learning curve seemed too steep.



But at the same time, Wordpress lets you redesign an entire site quickly and easily--or so I'd been told. If I finally moved over to Wordpress, I might be able to avoid another long conversion process in the future. And like it or not, my library site is going to go Wordpress at some point. So in the end, I decided to bite the bullet and learn Wordpress.



Verdict?



It might seem daunting at first, but it really is easier and more elegant (in my opinion) than html. That isn't to say that if I were an html-ninja I couldn't do more with html. No doubt I could. But a ninja I am not. (Hopefully we can still be friends, even though I've now publicly admitted that.) I need something easy--something I can tweak on the fly whenever I need to.



Wordpress fills this need perfectly.



In the end, it only took me about two days to learn the software, find a theme I liked (Atahualpa--a theme my coworker suggested, and which I settled on because it was so versatile and easy to tweak), change the theme to my tastes, and then transition the site. (Which you can view now right here.) It's not flashy, but it's clean--and yes, if and when I choose to update the site again, I can change the entire site design all at once. Hooray for that.



So if you're in the market for a new webpage (or want to make one of your own), allow me to add my admittedly-belated voice in support of Wordpress. If you're interested in making the jump, the best place for info is definitely Wordpress themselves. However, I'll say this much--actually navigating their site and using it to find information isn't the easiest task in the world. I found their interface to search themes and plug-ins quite weak and disappointing. Enough so that I wondered if I was using it correctly. Maybe I wasn't. Just be prepared if you make the jump to spend some time actually reading detailed information about how to do certain things. It's an easy transition, but that doesn't mean you can or should do it without a manual.

Oscars 2012 Summary

Another hard fought Oscar Tournament last night at my yearly Oscar Gala. (Can you call something a gala if only 11 people are there? Yes. Yes you can.) For those of you who don't know, I'm a tad competitive. If there was a way to turn breathing into some sort of a contest, I would do it. I love the Oscars, and I watch it fairly religiously. So it's natural that I require all guests at my Oscars party to fill out a ballot--boldly declaring their choices in ink. For me, it's a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament. Do I normally care what the scores of every college basketball game played on a given day are? No. But if I officially picked the winners, then I care a great deal. (This is also why it's a very good thing I don't gamble with money. I have a feeling if I ever started, it would take about three days before I woke up passed out in an alley in Vegas somewhere, wearing nothing but a lampshade.) The winner of the Oscar picks gets the official trophy: the Oscar the Grouch hat.



Me: the proud winner of last year's contest

I do typically threaten the winner with the possibility of them having to have their picture in the hat posted on my blog, but in the end, I'm really only a fan of publicly humiliating myself--not others. In any case, I was the reigning champion, but the early evening success of Hugo promptly put a stumbling block in my odds of a repeat victory. (After the first eight awards, I think I'd picked one correctly. As awful a beginning as I can recall having.)



But then the bigger awards started kicking in, and my picks improved. And improved. Not that I suddenly ended up having a record year, but I was in second place, in position to win the evening. Nothing builds tension at the end of an Oscars broadcast like knowing that it all comes down to the final awards. If Meryl Streep hadn't butted in at the end there, I would have pulled off a comeback for the ages. But it's hard to resent Meryl Streep too much, and a second place showing still ain't too bad. (For the record, I got 9 out of 24 picks. The winner got 10.)



So what did I think of the Oscars as a whole this year? I was quite happy with the show, actually. Crystal did what Crystal always does, so no surprise there. His bit with the movies at the beginning was diverting, at least. His Oscars Song was hard to understand at times.



I was more pleased with the way the awards generally got sprinkled around, with no one film getting too doused. True, The Artist picked up three of the biggies, but you also had awards going to Midnight in Paris, Iron Lady, The Help, Hugo--it wasn't a sweep by any one film, and I much prefer that to an air of inevitability.



None of the acceptance speeches seemed excessively boorish, which is always nice. Also, in the memoriam section, the audience actually managed to not clap for their favorites (or was the audience just not mic'ed?), something I was really happy about. Applauding for people who've died . . . how does that feel right? So even in death, some of the people don't get as much respect as others, and the ones who get the most attention makes it seem like we're happiest they're gone.



My biggest complaint would be the random shots of musicians playing instruments in the opera boxes. That was annoying and baffling. Cirque de Soleil? Kind of a strange choice, and it felt too much like an ad for their show to me. The interviews with the movie stars about what they think about movies? Okay--but does anyone really care what Adam Sandler thinks about cinema? Some of the interviews seemed too much like the Bieber-grab for a certain demographic. Like someone who isn't interested in the Oscars is going to be channel surfing, see Adam Sandler talking, and then spend the next two hours wondering when the fart jokes are going to start. And the commercials. Man, did they pack them in at the end of the show or what. We were clipping along so fast that at 11 I was thinking the show might actually end early, and then they gave us about 20 minutes of ads at the end.



(Soapbox: what idiot actually thinks at that point that commercials are a good idea? It's getting late, you want to go to bed, and I just start resenting all the companies who are trying to sell me stuff.)



Overall, the show was a good one. I was entertained, even if I didn't win. There's always next year. Maybe I should figure out a way to Skype in my agent (who if you don't know, follows the Oscars even more closely than I do--I love reading his liveblog of the event each year, and while I may post more movie reviews, he certainly sees far more movies in the theater than I could dream of. His reviews are always insightful, and he actually saw every single Best Picture nominee this year). Of course, my Oscar Gala might be a bit loud for him. I'm not sure if he's watched the Oscars with three kids fighting with lightsabers in the background. But our dessert spread was tasty (gourmet caramel apples, strawberries with sour cream and brown sugar), we had other treats (chips, salsa, crackers, cheese spread), and we had some nice Martinelli's to wash it all down (just keepin' it Mormon here).



Maybe the chance to win the Oscar hat for a year would be enough to persuade him. :-)



In any case, that sums up my thoughts. What did you all think of the evening? Do share!

Baptisms for the Dead: A Normal Mormon's Perspective

[image error] Okay. Enough is enough. I've read too many articles over the past few days that just grossly misinterpret and misunderstand the Mormon practice of baptisms for the dead. I have no idea if any of you out there are wanting my take on this, but you're going to get it anyway. Let me provide the theological context for it first.



It breaks down like this. We believe--like most Christian religions--that you need to be baptized in order to return to live with God. However, we also believe that not just anybody can baptize anybody. We believe that for a baptism to "count," you need to be baptized by someone who has the authority--given to them by God--to baptize. This is why if you've already been baptized in another Christian religion and convert to Mormonism, you still need to be baptized again. We don't believe other religions have that authority.



Got that? So in order to return to live with God, you need to be baptized Mormon.



This is pretty much in line with the theological view of Christianity for hundreds and hundreds of years. Only relatively recently has there been this gush of acceptance of other baptisms. But I don't want to get into that. This isn't about that. (Nothing in this article should be taken as an attack on other religions. It's simply an explanation for why Mormons do what we do. If you disagree with us, fine. But at least understand us.)



The problem with the "Mormon Baptism or Bust" doctrine is that it's inherently unfair. We're up to something like 14 million church members living right now. There's 7 billion people on the earth. If the only way to get into heaven is to be baptized Mormon, then heaven's going to be a pretty empty place, relatively speaking. How is it fair that someone who never had the chance to hear about our beliefs and choose whether or not to be baptized ends up on the outside looking in?



That's where baptisms for the dead enter into the picture.



We believe that you can be baptized for someone else--by proxy, essentially. I step into the water, get immersed, for another person--a deceased person (since if you're still living, you're here and able to make the "thanks/no thanks" decision about becoming Mormon). At that point, the person I've been baptized for has the chance to accept the baptism or reject it.



Here's the thing. You know those annoying Mormon missionaries who keep showing up at your door when you're trying to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones? We believe that's something that keeps going after we die. We've got this nutty idea that our religion is actually true, and that life continues after death, and that the goal of life (becoming more like God) continues as well. So the Mormon missionary effort continues on both sides of death. The only thing is, you need to be baptized while you have a body. No body = no baptism. But once someone has been baptized for you by proxy, you can choose to accept or reject that baptism.



Essentially, we believe baptism for the dead empowers those people who have passed on to decide for themselves whether to be baptized or not.



We don't believe those souls are forced to accept Mormonism. We don't count them as Mormons. We feel obligated to have the ceremony performed for each individual, and then we move on to the next. It's one of the main reasons the church is so big on family history work.



Now, the church has agreed out of respect for victims of the Holocaust to not perform baptisms for the dead for those individuals.



Problem: any time you have 14 million members of your church kicking around the earth, some of them are going to do some really stupid things. I've heard stories that Elvis has been baptized something like 14 times. (That is, assuming he's actually dead I suppose.) Chances are, if there's someone famous and dead, they've had the baptism done for them, possibly multiple times. Is it stupid? Yes. Unfortunately, not all 14 million members have half a brain. Some of them want to feel special, or are mega fans of somebody. I don't know why they do it--I do know that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of why they're supposed to be doing baptisms for the dead.



So yes, mistakes happen. Stupid people are found everywhere, in every religion.



But again, even according to Mormon belief, baptisms for the dead don't automatically "convert" that deceased individual. It's still up to that individual to accept it or posthumously tell the Mormons to get lost.



People are saying the practice is highly offensive. It's certainly not meant to be. I try to view this from an outsider's perspective. If I found out some other religion had "baptized" one of my dead uncles, or my deceased grandparents, how would I feel? What if it were a religion my deceased relatives absolutely loathed?



Well, chances are I'd think that religion was a bunch of phooey, and in which case, I'd think they were stupid for doing what they were doing. If a bunch of Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Whoevers want to get together and dunk themselves in water while saying my dead ancestor's name . . . that's kind of strange. But if I believe they're a bunch of deluded chuckleheads, then why get upset about it? If they're digging up the bodies of my dead ancestor, that's one thing. But this?



In the end, I'm not in a position to be able to impartially say whether what the Mormon church does should be offensive to other people. I'm too closely tied to it. I realize that. What I really just wanted to do was explain it. If someone's going to be offended, they should be offended for what we're actually doing--not for what somebody says we're doing.



As always, I'm happy to answer sincere, respectful questions. But I won't put up with any tomfoolery. Start mindlessly bashing my religion--or anyone else's--and you're gonna get your comment and question deleted faster than I can say "you're an idiot."



Questions?

Star Wars Episode 1: The Movie Review

I went to see Episode I in 3D yesterday with TRC. This was my first time seeing it on the big screen, since when it came out originally, I was on my mission in Germany. I remember the buzz about the movie, though--the outpouring of hype and excitement. I experienced all of that second hand. I also heard about how bad it was--all through the filter of being on a different continent, speaking a different language.



I watched it when I got home, of course--but my relation to the movie was tainted. I didn't have the expectations everyone else did. I was already predisposed to disappointment. I didn't hate the film, but I didn't love it. At the same time, I couldn't help but think that a large part of everyone's loathing of the movie had more to do with the fact that it wasn't as good as their memory  of the originals were. (I've discussed this principle elsewhere on my blog before: you can't compete with nostalgia. You can only play on it.) I wondered what it would be like for a kid who never knew life without the prequels.



Last night, I found out.



First off, TRC had a great time. It was really fun watching him geek out over the ships, the characters, the fights. Darth Maul drove by in his ship, and TRC excitedly reminded me that we had the Lego version of it. Good eye, kid. He thought the movie was fun and exciting. His favorite parts? Jar Jar Binks. He liked how funny he was, and how he was able to be a hero, despite his clumsiness. In fact, a big part of me wonders if there won't end up being a sort of generational divide, with Jar Jar in the middle--very  much like there was a divide in Sesame Street fans over Elmo. Fans who never grew up with Elmo never liked him. Fans who did, did. Jar Jar might just end up being a popularly embraced character of the canon, after all--if TRC's reaction mean's anything.



So for a 7 year old, the movie plays really well. Like it or not, fans--them's the breaks.



What did I think of the movie, older and wiser and more immersed in pop culture as I am now?



I'm going to go on the record and say that I really liked 2/3 of the movie. What Episode I is is a great movie waltzing around in a fat suit. It's got 1/3 of extra flab that really needed to be trimmed. The pod racing? Fun times. The climactic battle? Super. The lightsaber duel? Spot on. Random expository garbage about how the force works? Blech. The machinations of Palpatine becoming the emperor? Superfluous.



The movie tried to do to much. It wanted to be an historical epic in the Star Wars verse, in addition to being a Star Wars movie, and it failed because of it. The acting was wooden, and some of the characters poorly done, but--and I risk the wrath of fans here--so's the acting and the characters in the originals. How are Ewoks any different than Gungans? Jake Lloyd is whiny and off, just like Mark Hamill was.



In the end, the nail in the coffin for the film was the huge amount of hype. If they did a Clone Wars episode with the exact same plot today, fans would be fine with it. It's a good movie. Just not the Best Movie of All Time.



For me.



For my son, I don't think he'll see much of a difference between the originals and the prequels. That's the truth, folks. I'm just the messenger.



How was the 3D? Mostly unnoticeable. It didn't enhance the film. But it did give Lucas a reason to rerelease the movie again, which allowed me to see it with my son in the theaters, and for that, Mr. Lucas, I thank you. Let the haters hate. I enjoyed the movie.

Boskone Summary

As I posted last week, I went down to Boston for the weekend to attend Boskone. For those of you who don't know, Boskone is the regional science fiction convention for the northeast. There were about 1500 people there. As opposed to conventions like Comic Con, the programming skews more toward writing and media, and it had a number of big name authors there. (Besides me, of course.)



:-)



Why do I go to conventions? For a number of reasons. First and foremost, I go to meet new people, which is kind of odd, since I don't normally enjoy meeting new people. I like knowing people, not getting to know them--if that makes sense. Why would an author want to meet new people? They're your potential readers, for one thing. There's also a great deal to be said for networking--so much of writing is a solitary pursuit. It's nice to be able to get out there and rub elbows with other writers from time to time. It helps to be able to ask other people questions when you get stumped yourself. And authors like to scratch each other's backs. That's maybe one of the things I like most about meeting other writers--most people really want other people to succeed. At least it feels that way to me. The more people read your book, the more readers there are, which is nothing but a good thing.



Who did I meet at this con? A veritable cornucopia of individuals--so many that I'm sure I'll forget some of them if I try to name them all. (Seriously--I just tried to write them down, but then I stopped myself, since I knew I'd never get them all. I would totally fail at giving my acceptance speech at the Oscars.)Let's just say I've added ten people or so to my Twitter follow list, a list which normally doesn't grow that quickly.



So there's the hobnobbing with other authors. There's also the chance to meet other fans--always a plus. And when you live out in the restaurant boonies like I do, there's also the chance to eat ethnic food. This time out I got in some Mexican (always a necessity), but the highlight was definitely Ethiopian food with my agent and his posse of authors. (We really ought to get some kind of matching leather jackets when we sign with JABberwocky. Because that would be awesome.) Up until this weekend, I had no idea Ethiopian food had its own cuisine, let alone that I would like it.



I like it, my friends.


I like it a lot.



If you're ever in Boston, you need to go to Asmara's. Get the 21. (What is Ethiopian food like? They serve it on these big flat breads called Injera, which is kind of like the lovechild of bread and a pancake. You rip off pieces of the bread and use it to pinch up food. So you get to eat with your hands, which makes it that much more awesome.



I need to go back.



Another big plus of cons is being able to go to panels and hear experts in the field speak. This was more useful to me a few years ago, when I hadn't been to as many panels. (Go to enough of these, and you start hearing the same advice. The trick is actually following it.) I tried to get on some panels myself, but didn't commit to actually going to the con until it was too late. Next year.



Was Boskone different than the other cons I've been to? Well, my experience was a very different one. In the past, I've always gone to cons with friends. This is the first one where I went knowing practically no one. It really helped to have my agent there and get to know some of his other authors--once I had some friends at the con, things became ever so much cheerier. But as far as cons go, this one was like many. Less Mormony than Utah cons, not as big as World Con, but still a con.



I had a fantastic time.

Downton Abbey Christmas Special Review

And thus we come to another end of a Downton Abbey season. A season which saw some rather outlandish events happen, but which managed to nonetheless end on a smashingly good note. I absolutely adored the Christmas Special, because it was everything that is good about the show, and practically nothing that's bad. Ready for my rundown? 'Cause here we go:


Matthew and Mary--How can I not lead with this story? Because it was just executed so well throughout. You've got Matthew, riddled with guilt and wanting to punish himself for the rest of his life--and totally set on doing it. But then you have him watch Mary constantly berated by Sleazebucket. (On that topic for a moment, did anyone really buy that he "really loved her"? Ever? Because let's face it--all Oilslick really loved was a trophy wife he could have on his arm. All that "protecting her family" was nothing more than protecting his investment. Please.) I loved watching Matthew finally decide that he couldn't just sit back and let the woman he loved ruin her life--even if it meant that he actually had to be happy for a minute to save her. I also really enjoyed seeing his mom stop being treated as a joke by the writers and start actually doing some noble, strong things--in the form of verbally slapping her son upside the head. The proposal in the snow to cap off the episode? Very well done. (And on another side note, I gotta find me where I can order up some snow like that. There must be a hotline somewhere, because Hollywood trots it out for special occasions all the time. Maybe it's 1-800-MAGIC-SNOW.)
The Bates Family--Ever consider for a moment that all of Downton Abbey is just a prequel to Psycho, and that Mr. Bates and Anna eventually move to America and open a motel (naming it after their family name, of course), only to have their son eventually inherit it and go crazy? No? That's just me? Okay. On a serious note, hooray for ditching the soap opera climaxes during this episode. I was really worried they were going to have some last minute "evidence" surface that cleared Bates of his crime, culminating in teary-eyed bliss for him and Anna. Instead, the writers stuck to their guns and had him found guilty. Bravo. And because I'm not a complete jerk, I was very relieved to have his sentence reduced to life in prison. At the same time, his defense lawyer needs to be fired. Because from everything I saw, he had the Worst. Defense. Ever. If I were Anna, I would have gone all Jessica Fletcher all OVER that case. Maybe that's what's going to happen in Season Three. Because you know Mr. Bates is getting out of that prison. He and Anna have a hotel in America to open.
Thomas and the dog--I swear. That guy is an absolute jerk. If he shook my hand, I'd count my fingers after he let go, just to make sure he didn't waltz off with a pinky or something. Locking the dog up? The guy ought to be horsewhipped. Can someone tell me why in the world Lord G didn't wonder "How did my dog manage to lock itself into a woodshed?" Or does that dog have magical powers? Because if it does, maybe Thomas should watch his back. Just sayin'. Don't worry, Thomas. You'll get yours. Eventually. I hope.
Daisy--I have to hand it to the show: it actually managed to bring this plotline (which I had loathed to this point) around to the point that I actually really enjoyed it. The culminating scene with Daisy talking to her father-in-law? Fantastic. And all it took was a Ouija board to do it. Go figure. And her sticking up for herself based on his advice? Also wonderful. Go Daisy!
Of course, not everything was spot on--that bit with Lord G's sister being courted by Some Guy Who We've Never Seen Before, and then finding out he was shacking up with the woman's maid (or as I called her, "Who in the World is That Woman and What is She Doing in the Kitchen?") That was a totally random, unnecessary plot, and it could easily have been ditched in favor of perhaps showing us more of Bates' trial. (Maybe actually a hint of a real defense? Would that have been too much to ask?)
My favorite line? Violet saying to Sleazebucket, "Is that a promise?" She was in fine form in the episode, too. Loved the scene where she's giving advice to Daisy, and seems so surprised that she's having the conversation at all. Too funny.


Anyway--I'm hip-deep in catching up from my time off, so I don't have a ton of time to talk about anything else. Those are my main thoughts. Thanks to this episode, I still consider Season Two a resounding success. They brought most things around in the end, and it all turned out very well. I'm intensely interested to see what they come up with for Season Three.




What did you all think?

Heading to Boston for Boskone

No time to post today. No way to, actually. Even as I write this, I'm on my way down to Boston for my inaugural Boskone. What is Boskone, you ask? It's the big sci-fi/fantasy convention up here in the Northeast. This year, it's got guests ranging from John Scalzi to Daniel Dos Santos to Jane Yolen to Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden.



I'm not presenting at this one--but I'm going to get the chance to touch base with my agent and rub shoulders with a whole bunch of writers and fans, and that's something to look forward to. Funny: I've been here in Maine now for four and a half years, and this is my first real trip down to Boston.



Know anyone who's going to be here? Want me to say hi? Drop me a line. And if you're going to be here, keep an eye out for me.



Outta time, folks. See ya on Tuesday!

TV Series Review: Spaced

I'll admit it: the first time I tried watching Spaced, it didn't go over very well with me. Looking back on it, I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe it's that the first few episodes are more about introducing the characters, and less about firing on all cylinders. Maybe it just takes a bit to get into it.



One way or another, I gave it another go, and I'm really glad that I did. This show is like a Masters thesis in pop culture references. Once you get that--get that you're supposed to be reading between the lines at all times--then it just sings. Since I love me some pop culture, this show is a no brainer for me.



But why should you watch it? Well, it's the original pairing of Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Mission Impossible, Star Trek) and Nick Frost (Shaun's friend in Shaun of the Dead), directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim). If those referenced movies do nothing for you, then by all means, move along. (Although how in the world those movies could do nothing for you is beyond me, you heartless wretch.) But really, it's all about nuanced humor.



Spaced isn't as non-stop funny as Arrested Development, but it's like Arrested for geeks. Your brain's working while you're laughing, and I really like that. I haven't finished the series yet, but you bet I will. There are some naughty words peppered here and there throughout, so be aware of that.



If you're like me and heard about Spaced, dabbled with it for a bit, then gave up, why not give it another chance? If you've never heard of it at all, then now's the perfect time to dive in. It's on instantwatch on Netflix even as we speak. And you're done reading my blog for the day, so it's not like you have anything better to do.



Tomorrow: Boskone.[image error]

Ridiculous Cost of Health Care

As you all know, I broke my elbow about four weeks ago. I went to the ER to get it x-rayed and confirm it was broken. I was there for about an hour or so. They took about six x-rays, poked and prodded at my arm, felt my spine to see if everything seemed okay, provided me with a splint, a sling, and two Ace bandages, and then sent me on my way with a recommendation that I go see a bone doctor the next day. I went there, they looked at the x-rays, gave me two more Ace bandages and a nicer sling, and let me go with some more specific instructions and directions to go to physical therapy twice a week for four weeks. I've been doing that.



That all sounds good. I was treated well and continue to be happy with the level of medical attention I've been getting. No complaints there. And there's really no complaints on the amount of money I personally have had to pay. I have great medical insurance. For the ER visit, I payed my copay of $25. I pay a copay of $20 for all the other visits. too. Fine.



But then my insurance company tells me how much gets charged for all of these visits, and things get a little screwy. That ER visit? Over 2,000 dollars. My visit to the bone doctor? Over $700.



I guess I just have a limited view on what all these things should cost. $2000? For what? My splint isn't made out of solid gold. The Ace bandages don't magically wrap themselves.



But I don't worry about the total bill, because I have insurance. I pay my $25, and the insurance talks to the hospital from then on. It just seems to me that because actual, thinking human beings have been removed from the equation, the costs have skyrocketed. I'm not saying that people at the hospital or insurance business don't think. I'm saying that the conversations are between companies, not people. When I talk to my doctor friends, they agree with me that the costs of health care are too high. Outlandishly high. But there's nothing they can do about it.



Why are they as high as they are? I honestly don't know. I have to think some of it is because of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. But I also have to think some of it is because companies--not people--are paying the bills, and so it's removed from actual real budgets and goes off into theoretical wonderland, the same place government budgets come from.



But in the end, I'm not really informed about this--anyone out there with a better handle on how this all works? I'd love to hear some people "in the know" give me their take.



All I can say is thank goodness for my insurance. Because I certainly couldn't pay $3,000 (when all's said and done) for my broken elbow. It wasn't even that bad of a break. This is why I have a full time job. This is why authors who wish they could write full time, can't. Gotta have the insurance.



Ridiculous.[image error]

Disney on Ice--Happy Birthday, DC!

We celebrated DC's birthday this past weekend. Hard to believe the little girl is already four years old. Not so little, either. She's working hard to become the lead volleyball player at BYU. :-)



As part of the festivities, we'd been given tickets to Disney on Ice as a present back at Christmas, and DC had been looking forward to going since we got them. (Of course, she called it "Disney World on Ice"--I had to keep emphasizing to her that we were not, in fact, going to Disney World. Have to keep the expectations down somehow. There's a chance I've been to Disney on Ice before--I seem to recall something in my distant past. Icecapades? In any case, it's been a while. So we packed the family in the car and headed down to Portland.



Result?



Smashing success. TRC wasn't exactly blown away by it. (His review? "Well, nobody fell when they weren't supposed to.") But DC thought it was the best thing ever. She was convinced it was all put on especially for her on her birthday--every time someone would wave at the crowd, she turned to Denisa and said, "They're waving at me!" Very cute.



I had a good time, as well. Not saying that I want to go every year or anything (there were some teens there by themselves, and I wondered what the draw was for anyone without small children). But still, any time I get to watch my kids enjoying themselves is a good time in my book. Some of the routines were really inventive--I especially liked the costumes they had for the Alice in Wonderland sequence, where skaters were dressed up like playing cards with faces on each side of them. Hard to explain, but cool to watch.



One thing I didn't like so much? The prices of the concessions. They're waltzing around selling plastic swords for $22, cotton candy for $12--it's such a total ripoff, and yet you have parents biting left and right because their kids look up at them pleadingly and ask for something. I was proud of TRC--he found out how much they were and was shocked as well.



I'm raising a cheapskate. :-)[image error]