They're Back

I suppose I'm showing my age, because I remember them. Yes, for those of us who were raised Catholic, of a certain age, indulgences were a staple of the crazy patchwork of silly stuff the nuns taught us, which we then giggled about in later life.

Yet, for some, they are obvious serious enough to redeem from the dustbin of hazy memories. Especially for a Catholic Church intent upon eradicating the reforms of Vatican II, it is just one more way to move the Church back in time.

According to the NYTimes, Indulgences Return, and Heaven Moves a Step Closer for Catholics:

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

The fact that many Catholics under 50 have never sought one, and never heard of indulgences except in high school European history (Martin Luther denounced the selling of them in 1517 while igniting the Protestant Reformation), simply makes their reintroduction more urgent among church leaders bent on restoring fading traditions of penance in what they see as a self-satisfied world.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Like the Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the indulgence was one of the traditions decoupled from mainstream Catholic practice in the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, the gathering of bishops that set a new tone of simplicity and informality for the church. Its revival has been viewed as part of a conservative resurgence that has brought some quiet changes and some highly controversial ones, like Pope Benedict XVI’s recent decision to lift the excommunications of four schismatic bishops who reject the council’s reforms.

So, for the uninitiated, what's an indulgence, other than an "excuse me"?

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

I have just one question. So, what's next? Pagan babies anyone?

(Via Pharyngula)

Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, Washington Post

Quote of the Day

In the last few months, as the scavengers have picked at the carcass of the Republican party, I’ve heard a lot of people talk about what “conservatism” means. . . .

Well, I can’t definitively say what “conservatism” means. I possess no advanced degrees, am not a philosopher, and have almost no knowledge of political science.

However.

I can tell you what Republicanism means, and that, I think, is a more germane issue. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, we don’t have a “Conservative” party on our ballots. No. We have a “Republican” one. So figuring out what they stand for seems to be a much more useful endeavor than attempting to define “conservatism.”

Well, I’ve done a lot of observing and thinking, and it seems to me that the Republican party stands for two things.

1. Tax cuts are the cure for everything, including the common cold.
2. Fuck you.

And that’s pretty much it. All of the shit that the Republicans do flows from those two points.

* * * *

So it comes down to this: Republicanism is an ideology by and for bullies. But not the kind of bullies who have the guts to get in actual fights, even if the deck is stacked in their favor. No. They hire people to do their fighting for them. Even in their grand and glorious overseas crusades, the ones where they denounce everyone who opposes them as cowards and appeasers, these cocksuckers stay on the sidelines. How many prominent Republicans ran out and enlisted after 9/11? How about before the Iraq war? Which major Republican pundits were cops? Not a goddamn one. Why? All talk, no action.

First Draft, Republicanism Explained

(Via Suburban Guerrilla)

Cartoon of the Day

Jack Ohman, The Oregonian

The Confession

I spent most of my life being monogamous. In recent years, however, I admit that I ventured into polygamist relationships -- and now, there doesn't seem to be any going back.

Of course, I'm not talking about my sexual proclivities. I'm talking about my reading habits.

Posing the question at Read Street, Are you a monogamous reader?, Dave Rosenthal of the Baltimore Sun thereafter penned an amusing piece on the shocking (to him) habit of many readers of reading several books at once. Do you read multiple books at a time?.

I have always been an avid reader and consumed at least a half a dozen books a month. As I mentioned before, as an English major, in my younger days, I fancied myself to be a purist. That is, I tried to read "literature" and was guilty of sneering at popular fiction. As time went on, I expanded my horizons and permitted the occasion light reading. I was able to keep up the habit even through law school and the grueling big firm days (I'm sure it helped keep me sane). Same during my daughter's childhood, even when juggling a busy law practice. Then, for some reason, I just stopped reading books. See And They Didn't Read This, Either.

Luckily, I began reading again, and even joined a book group. However, my reading habits have changed a bit. For one thing, I read more non-fiction than I used to. And, I've started to read more than one book at a time. I'm not even quite sure how it began. In part, I suppose it's due to my book group, which causes an overlap of a book for the group with another that I am reading on my own. But, things have gotten out of hand.

I'm now in the middle (or somewhere in the book) of 4 books, with a back-log of another 7 books (not counting the other dozen or so unread books on the shelf waiting to be picked up "when I'm in the mood."). As pictured above, I'm reading:

The Mill on the Floss, by George Eliot. The latest book for my book group. I missed our last meeting, but we somehow switched from being the Jewish Book Group to the Literary Guild (next up is Crime & Punishment, as seen in the to-be-read pile).

The Almost Moon, by Alice Sebold. One of the LLWL gave me this one to read. I liked Sebold's The Lovely Bones, but this tale of a mother/daughter bond that ends in murder has been a difficult read.

The Street Lawyer, by John Grisham. Someone gave me a few Grisham books (& I just picked up his latest). This one's a quick, fun read that I took on my trip to South Florida. Almost done with this one.

White Tiger, by Aravind Adiga (not pictured). My book group's last pick, which I didn't finish yet (and then left at a friend's place).

I'm trying to resist starting any of from the Next Up pile, although a few are calling out to me.

The Evil Lurks Within

Sunday. The time to turn to thoughts of religion.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is vying with the Evangelicals to see who wins the Christian Less Christ Award. The Catholic Church is beginning to remind me of the GOP, a bunch of old (mostly white) guys who are totally removed from reality, baying at the moon.

The Pope (formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger, who served in his previous Vatican job as Pope John Paul’s Dick Cheney) is a hard-lined conservative who is intent on repealing most of, if not all, of the ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict's decision to remove the excommunication of traditionalist bishops (including a Holocaust denier) has caused a storm of criticism from Jewish groups and other political leaders.

It's not just the reprehensible views of Bishop Williamson, however, that's the problem (although that is a major problem). It's the overall ultra-conservative turn of the Church itself that's so troubling. As noted by Clerical Whispers, Pope's Controversial Move Gives Hope to Shunned Traditionalists:

These ultra-traditional Catholics want the Vatican to declare that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, want a return to old liturgies in which Mass is said in Latin, and say Vatican II, which met in the early 1960s, violates true Catholicism and is the reason why many have left the faith."

* * * *

Experts say some of the most controversial aspects of the group are more prominent in Europe, particularly in France. Those include anti-Semitic comments by society leaders and calls for governments to favor Catholicism.

"Lefebvrists want a much closer alliance between the church and the state than is permissible or possible in the post-Enlightenment world," said the Rev. James Massa, who heads ecumenical and interreligious outreach for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

And nowhere is that more true than in little ole Scranton. My brother alerted me to the latest travesty from the Catholic Church in Scranton, courtesy of the Bishop there, who apparently runs the Church like his own little Fiefdom. As the Scranton paper reports, Bishop Martino accuses Sen. Bob Casey of “cooperating with … evil”:

Diocese of Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino accuses Sen. Bob Casey of “cooperating with … evil” by refusing to back legislation to block U.S. tax dollars from flowing to foreign family planning groups that refuse to renounce abortion.

In a Jan. 30 letter to the senator, the bishop also calls on Mr. Casey to live up to his Catholic faith and “oppose abortion and other clear evils, including contraception.”

* * * *

The letter was prompted by Mr. Casey’s vote against an amendment to the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, which the Senate adopted last week. The amendment, authored by Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, would have required family planning groups abroad to agree, before they receive U.S. aid, that they would not perform or promote abortions.

I've known the Casey family from my days in Scranton. I went to school with one of the Caseys (they are a big family, so who didn't?) and I knew the former Governor Casey. The family is very religious and they personally toe the Church line, including Senator Casey. He espouses his views, even though it has meant that, like his father, he has had a difficult time in the Democratic Party because of his stanch pro-life views. Casey certainly does not deserve this treatment by the Church. Yet, in Martino's letter, he chides Casey for his position:

Quoting church doctrine, the bishop contends Catholics are required to oppose “any law that attacks human life” and some Catholics “are given a particular title to this task … including those who hold economic and political power.”

Bishop Martino said Mr. Casey should reverse his vote because his “responsibilities as a Catholic … exceed even those of your office.”

See also, Bishop Admonishes Sen. Casey. Martino also made news during the primary for his stance on abortion as the single issue in the campaign for Catholics. See Say It Ain't So, Joe. Like the Pope he emulates, this is a man with major power & control issues, as they say.

I also suppose Martino forgets that the main opposition to JFK as the first Catholic to run for President was that he would put his religious beliefs ahead of those duly enacted laws of the land. Notwithstanding his personal/religious beliefs, abortion is still legal in this country and as a Senator, Casey is obligated to respect those laws.

And as for the Bishop, if Martino was so concerned about "life," where was he on the issue of the unjust war in Iraq? Is he working to end it? How about the death penalty? Nothing extinguishes life like the death penalty. And, let's not forget he is the Bishop in the Scranton Diocese, an area rife with gun lovers. Where does he stand on gun control? Does he preach to his flock to put down the guns? And finally, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about. How did he respond to the pedophiles in the ministry? I'm sure I don't need to answer these hypothetical questions, since the answers are obvious.

He's A Rock

Chris Rock: No White Man Would Change Places With Me

Chris Rock
Born this day in 1966

And then there's my favorite, the SNL skit about the election, Road to the White House.

See also, Rock on relationships at Electronic Village.

Take the Money & Run

With the shady practices employed by Bank of America, I'm frankly not sure how they've gotten into the financial trouble that they have. They should be in great shape. They sure know how to take the money & run.

Of course, the latest news of the dastardly deeds of BOA is the attempt to collect the credit card debt from the son whose mother had died, with an outstanding balance due on her credit card. Despite the fact that a family member is not legally obligated to pay this bill, the BOA representative tried to mislead the son when he called to report that his mother had died. The rep also suggested that the son had a moral, if not legal, duty to pay. Finally, he added that the financial crisis was due, in part, to defaults such as this. As TPM reports, How Theresa Hatt Caused The Financial Crisis:

The rep's apparent intention, as Kelleher described it, was to mislead him into believing that he was obligated -- at first legally, then, failing that, morally -- to cover his mother's debt (which, in any case, was not large: she had had a $1000 limit on her card). Of course, Kelleher was sophisticated enough to know that's not true. But how many other less savvy callers in similar situations, he wondered, might respond to the rep's breezy "how are you planning to take care of her balance?," with a confused "I guess I'll mail in a check"?

The clear impression was that this was part of the routine collection practices engaged in by BOA, which Zackary Roth of TPM had confirmed by a former rep. As to these sleazy practices, he noted:

Bank of America and its competitors have already taken billions in taxpayer dollars. So it seems logical to insist on a similar set of public interest conditions -- and the industry's range of deceptive and rapacious lending practices would be a natural place to start.

Good luck with that! That's just standard operating procedure for these guys.

I'm having my own battle with BOA over a student checking account that my daughter tried to open at school in Miami. BOA is big in South Florida, and they have ATMs on campus, so she wanted to open an account with them. She first tried to open an account on-line and shortly after that, the Bank sent reps to the campus, to sign students up. My daughter told the rep that she had already opened an account, but he said to sign up for a new one with him. Of course, not knowing any better, she did. And, surprise of surprises, he gave her false & misleading information.

She then received a letter from BOA saying that they were closing her accounts. After several calls to "customer service," she was told they had closed the accounts because of suspected fraud (since she opened more than one account). First of all, I didn't know that it was illegal to have more than one account with a Bank. Second, although she tried to explain that the rep misled her about opening the second account, they brushed her off & advised her that it could affect her credit in the future.

When she came home for break, we went to a local bank office & explained the situation. The Bank manager took the information and said he would have the account re-instated. At the end of the holidays before she went back to school, we went back to BOA and we told that the account was re-activated. So, she deposited two checks, totalling $250. A few days later, she received her debit card. The next day, she received another letter saying that the account had been closed.

A few days after that, she received a letter stating that the Bank had confidential information that the checks would not be honored. I checked my account & the money I had given her was deducted the day after it was deposited. I just confirmed that the other check had been paid as well. So this accusatory letter was just wrong.

We tried to call the local Bank manager & were told that she had to speak to someone in "corporate." Several calls later & she was told that she'd have to go back to a local branch office to have the account re-instated, but that the account was closed and the money was being refunded. I said I wanted nothing to do with such a bad bank, so I wouldn't allow her to have an account there.

A few weeks later, she received a check from BOA in the amount of $190, stating that it was the full amount in her account at the time it was closed. What happened to the other $60? No explanation given -- then or since. A 24% charge for a student account that she was never able to access, after holding the money for three weeks before refunding it?

Of course, now that I've confirmed that they did in fact take the money from the other check, I certainly don't plan to let this one go. I will make a fuss, write a few letters (including to her college, suggesting that they considering switching on-campus banks), but I know that it won't matter in the end. That's the problem with BIG Banks, BIG business. They don't have to be responsive. There aren't as many choices, so you're stuck & they don't care.

Google "Bank of America Sucks" & you find 394,000 hits.

BOA stands for Bunch of Assholes.

Cartoon of the Day

Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer

Quote of the Day

“The American people are figuring it out,” Mr. McCain said. “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”

Similarly, this is not a restaurant; it's a place that sells food in exchange for money. And this is not library; it's a facility that lends books. And this is not my mother; it's the woman who gave birth to me and later provided me with sandwiches. And this is not a guy who should be president; it's some grandstanding senator with a very poor grasp of economics!

Oh, wait.

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, What Could Have Been

The Myth, Redux

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ronald Reagan
Born this day in 1911

So my book arrived yesterday and, low & behold, it was the subject of discussion on the Rachel Maddow Show last night. Will Bunch, of Philly Daily News & Attytood, discussed his new book on the mythification of Ronald Reagan, Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future.

Like you-know-what, Bunch was also on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.

I wrote about Bunch's book before, The Legacy Lives, and predicted that the myth machine is no doubt gearing up for Bush. Of course, it will have to work overtime to try to rehabilitate his image. But knowing what masters of propaganda the GOP are (helped by the short memories of the public), I have no doubt they will spin him into a misunderstood man, who worked his genius behind the scenes or some such. That's why books like Bunch's are important -- to remind us of the truth.

I figured this was truly a fitting tribute to Reagan on his day.

Cartoon of the Day

Cam Cardow, Ottawa Citizen

The End is Near

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the party that is hoping that the end is near, that the Rapture will come to save them and destroy everyone else.

Yet, as we stand on the precipice of disaster, the Republican Party cannot bring itself to do anything to help stave off economic collapse. Rather, they are hoping for the worse. And not just for the economy -- now the terrorist fear-mongering is back, in full force. As David Kurtz of TPM says, Today's GOP: Hoping for the Worst:

It occurred to me while reading Politico's interview with Dick Cheney, that the GOP's plan to regain political viability in the short term rests on two disaster scenarios: the failure of the financial rescue efforts (stimulus, TARP, and other bailouts) to stave off complete economic collapse and a new mass casualty terrorist attack -- both of which they are positioning themselves to blame Obama for.

Without one of those two, they have to figure it's going to be a long time wandering in the political wilderness. Now think about the curdling effect, the blight on the soul that comes with rooting for such disasters to befall your country. The rot is now eating at the party's very core.

I guess it's easy when you've lost your soul, your humanity. Dick Cheney, the very individual to whom we entrusted our country for the last 8 years -- who left us with the dire results at hand, has the audacity to start pointing fingers the minute he leaves the door. Unlike most prior Presidents and VPs, who remain silent about their successors policies, Dick has no such compunction. Instead, Cheney warns of new attacks:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

See also, Dick Cheney Fear Mongering During Politico Interview: Warning of Massive Terrorist Attack.

And then, of course, there's that little matter of the economy. While some people are trying to stave off another Great Depression, the GOP is doing its part -- to make it happen sooner rather than later. Even I, cynic that I am, cannot truly believe that the Republican Party could be so destructive. That the GOP could not envision any issue that would trump partisanship, even if was necessary to save our economy from collapse. Yet, Josh Marshall of TPM describes it perfectly, in Denial As Political Strategy:

Behind all the back and forth over the Stimulus Bill is a simple fact: the debate in Washington is rapidly moving away from any recognition that the US economy -- and the global economy, for that matter -- is in free-fall. The range of outcomes stretches from severe recession to something closer to a replay of the Great Depression, though that label is perhaps better seen as a placeholder for 'catastrophic economic collapse' since the underlying place of the US economy in the world economy is very different from what it was in 1929. This reality was palpable in the political debate until as recently as a few weeks ago. But Republicans are using a strategy of conscious denial to push it off the stage.

Take stock of the last few weeks and you can almost visualize the two conversations -- path toward economic calamity and debate over Stimulus Bill -- diverging.

* * * *

Of course, at some level, why would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the DeMints and Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress.

President Obama was forced to remind us that we are at the brink of economic "catastrophe" and need to do something quickly if we have any chance of avoiding the worst case scenerio. See also, Paul Krugman, About that deflation risk.

When Obama ran on a campaign of hope, I'm not sure he realized how true it was. Things are so bad, that's about all we have left. Hope that we can avoid total collapse. Hope that it doesn't come to this, It’s Not Going to Be OK:

The daily bleeding of thousands of jobs will soon turn our economic crisis into a political crisis. The street protests, strikes and riots that have rattled France, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Iceland will descend on us. It is only a matter of time. And not much time. When things start to go sour, when Barack Obama is exposed as a mortal waving a sword at a tidal wave, the United States could plunge into a long period of precarious social instability.

At no period in American history has our democracy been in such peril or has the possibility of totalitarianism been as real. Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. And poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed.

Cartoon of the Day

Bob Gorrell

The Resume Enhancement Quandry

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reminded me of an interesting "resume enhancing" story that involves me, which has been the subject of much discussion among friends & family.

Apparently, questions have been raised regarding the credentials of the chief medical officer of a local hospital system, Doctor who checks credentials faces questions over his own resume. In his role as chief medical officer, this physician vets the credentials of the other physicians on staff at the Hospital, yet there are questions about the veracity of his own:

But the Navy's former surgeon general has long faced questions about the accuracy of his own resumé.

At least four official biographies have credited Arthur with a nonexistent master's degree - one that he agrees he never received.

Over the years, his resumé also has listed a Ph.D. and a law degree from two unaccredited schools, including one that closed after its leader pleaded guilty to fraud.

To the dismay of some veterans, Arthur has told Congress and others that he served in combat during the first Gulf War, though records show that his unit was never in battle.

And now for my story. A few months ago, my brother (he, who attended the Super Bowl with my husband) called to ask if I recognized a certain name from my law school days. I responded that the name sounded familiar, but that it's been a while since I was there. He said that he had read a nice feature article in the local paper about the guy, who was recently appointed CEO of a big business in South Florida. He then added that the piece mentioned that this guy was the valedictorian of my law school class. My brother (who went to the same school) said he checked his Alumni directory and sure enough, we were in the same graduating class. He said he was surprised to read that, since he recalled that I was the valedictorian (and that there wasn't a co-valedictorian).

Unlike this guy, who has apparently borrowed my class standing, I have generally never been one to emphasize that particular credential. In fact, I didn't even include it on my resume for many years. After he confirmed that the guy did in fact graduate with me, my brother & I laughed about it and thought of various methods that he would contact the guy to ask if he remembered me. After our conversation, I then googled the guy & discovered that he had been promoting himself as valedictorian of our class for many years.

I have to say that it's certainly amazing what a small world it is. Here's this guy, who steals my credentials & moves to Florida, only to be discovered. Not many people would even have remembered who was the valedictorian in any particular class year, so I'm sure he figured he was pretty safe. My brother, of course, would be one of that small group who would know & he just so happened to read the article.

Of course, I've been telling this story to friends & family, with various reactions. It certain raises a number of interesting ethical issues -- about the guy's conduct, as well as my own "obligation" to come forward. The opinion of most (by a significant majority) is that I should expose the guy as a fraud.

My favorite is my daughter's view -- that I should tell my mother what happened & let her take care of it -- and him. She imagines my mother marching over to his office & giving him hell and then spreading the news to the company. She just delights in the thought of the fireworks she would cause. My mother is nothing if not feisty (I get it honestly). During my visit with the family, my daughter just had to tell the tale to her grandmother. The family then came up with various scenarios for approaching the guy, some pretty humorous.

Obviously, this was totally unethical on his part and he deserves to be exposed for the fraud that he is. On the other hand, I don't want to be responsible for him losing his job, which may well occur if it were to be exposed. Does his "crime" really warrant the loss of his job and perhaps his career?

I already had that experience once, thank you very much -- related to the very same law school. In my last year of law school, I was an editor on law review & happened to see a law review article that had been plagiarized. It mysteriously disappeared when accusations were made by the editor of law review (before the days of computerized copies). As one of only two people who witnessed the plagiarism, I was the main witness in the disciplinary action (the other person was accused of bias), which resulted in the student's dismissal from law school. He deserved it, but I hated the fact that I was a major cause of this kid's expulsion.

In the end, it's just amazing to me that someone would be stupid enough to do something like this. Why was it necessary? He probably was in the top of our class, so did he really need to add the little extra bit of puffery to his resume?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Amnesty

Today is what's known as Blogroll Amnesty Day. Started by the only conservative that I regularly read, Jon Swift and a few others, it is a day of celebration of the smaller blogs. The idea is to mention some smaller blogs who don't get the recognition they deserve.

I know you're not supposed to say no one's smaller than me, but hey, it's true & who cares. I only say that so that my picks don't think I assume that they are smaller than me (not so).

In honor of the day, my list of 5 blogs are:

All Spin Zone -- Politics & a little bit of life, by a team of bloggers, but mostly by new father, Steven Reynolds;

Mirth, Musings, & More -- a witty world view & a cartoon of the day;

My Philadelphia Story -- mostly Philly doings;

Philadelphia Freedom Blog -- an activist's take on the important issues;

Philosophers' Playground -- life from a philosopher's point of view, with a bit of humor thrown in.

Video by that great supporter of small blogs, Blue Gal.

A Six-Pack & A Snowball

Back to the snow-filled City of Philly after our trip south. My husband is still high on the thrill of attending the Super Bowl, with an exciting win for his team, the Steelers. He & my brother (the two Daves) had fabulous seats (so they tell me) -- 18 rows back, near the 30 yard line. They saw all of the major action up close & personal.

And surprise of all surprises, I even watched the game. Even to my non-sports eyes, it was an exciting game. I was so happy for my husband that he got to be there for such a good game -- with the right outcome, of course.

I may not have gone to the game, but I got to spend some time with my family (including the daughter, who's a little homesick after her Christmas break). Of course, the weather cooled off a bit while I was there, but it was still a treat compared to the Welcome Home snow that greeted me on my return.



I spent a few days visiting my parents, so my on-line time was very limited -- they still use dial-up. In a way, it was a good thing. I got a chance to enjoy a good book without the usual breaks to see what's happening on-line.

Cartoon of the Day

John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune

Snow Be Gone

The snow, rain & ice even has our bamboo trees drooping. The holidays are over and spring feels like it will never come. It's that time of year when the winter doldrums have arrived.

So, when the call came last night, it wasn't just welcome news for my husband. My brother called to say that he had 2 tickets to the Super Bowl, and that means that he & my husband will be headed to Tampa this week-end to see the Steelers. My sister-in-law's family has connections and they managed to score tickets. My husband is, shall we say, ecstatic -- he's a big Steeler's fan, after all.

And I'm not staying behind, that's for sure! I'm certainly not going to the game, but we'll fly into South Florida and I'll be tagging along so I can spend a long week-end with my daughter, who's back in school in Miami. And I'll also get to visit my parents, who are there for the winter.

Ever since they won the playoff game, my husband has been rooting for Sixburgh:

(Cartoon via Rob Rogers)

Cartoon of the Day

Ed Stein, Rocky Mountain News