The American people are about to be raped

The Democratic senators are refusing to listen to tea parties, town halls, callers to talk radio, letters, emails, phone calls to their offices, the march on Washington on 9/12, the rally at the Capitol a few weeks ago - they are determined to rape the American people by foisting this health care bill on us tomorrow morning. And Merry Christmas to you too, Senators!

What does it take to get them to listen? What does it take to get them to understand their job? And what will it take to stop this? I think this should go to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will consent to hear it, because it absolutely is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to buy something (such as insurance). If ever there was a need for the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of checks and balances, this is it.

Are "birthers" just crazy conspiracy theorists?

Some explanation is in order before I get into the heart of my post today. I live in Phoenix, and I listen to talk radio, primarily KTAR 92.3 FM, which is a highly conservative station. (Most talk radio is highly conservative - the liberals can't seem to be successful with talk radio shows of their own.) The morning talk show host on KTAR is usually Darrell Ankarlo, but he has been off the air for several months following a bad car accident, although he is expected to return soon. A number of hosts have been filling in for him over the past several months. One of them is Austin Hill, who has a web site at http://www.austinhill.net/. Now, most of the time, I agree with Austin Hill's point of view. But he and I diverge completely on the issue of the so-called "birthers."

"Birther" is the derogatory name given to those of us who believe that President Obama is being less than forthcoming with releasing his birth certificate, and have questions as to whether or not he was born in Hawaii or somewhere else. Most of us who think there might be any credence at all to this opinion are looked upon as kooks, "just a bunch of conspiracy theorists." But for a conservative talk-show host like Austin Hill to have the same mindset really bugs me!

He was discussing this topic on KTAR this morning, and his attitude and tone of voice left no doubt that he feels nothing but scorn for anyone who dares broach the idea that Obama's birth certificate needs to be released. According to Austin Hill, this is "a waste of time," "irrelevant," and "we need to concentrate on more concrete matters." He says that if we expect the President to release his birth certificate, we are "asking him to "disprove the hypothetical," whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

One caller was trying to argue in favor of the birth certificate being released, and Mr. Hill, in a voice brimming with sarcasm, asked him, "Where do you think Obama was born?" When the man replied, "I have no idea," Hill took off with that and proceeded to ridicule the man with more of this "disprove the hypothetical" nonsense. How is producing a birth certificate "disproving the hypothetical?" Rather, is it not just simply proving where you were born in the first place? And no, Mr. Hill, he has NOT produced his birth certificate already. He has produced a "certificate of live birth," which is not the same thing at all and does not carry the legal weight that an actual birth certificate carries.

Another caller made the mistake of referring to someone who had called Darrell Ankarlo, the very host for whom Mr. Hill was filling in, as "a chick named Orly or something like that," and right away, because the caller phrased it that way, Hill refused to give him any credence. Would it not be the remotest bit possible, Mr. Hill, for you to ask the producer of Ankarlo's show to pull the tapes of past shows and find the conversation this caller was referring to, and listen to it yourself, to determine if "this Orly chick" had any credence, instead of instantly dismissing it with derision?

Mr. Hill's take is that birthers pay too much attention to what they read on the Internet, adding sarcastically that "we all know that everything on the Internet is absolutely true and can be believed." So I guess we all are just getting our information from wacky Web sites and we aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's legitimate and what isn't.


Yet another caller referred to having seen Obama's grandmother interviewed on CNN (is CNN a wacky Web site, or a legitimate news organization?) and she had said she was present at her grandson's birth in Kenya. Hill ridiculed this too (I guess he figured the caller, who by the way identified himself as being African-American, can't tell the difference between CNN and a wacky Web site, or that he just dreamed he saw this on CNN.) The story about Obama's grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya has been around for quite awhile; can't anyone simply check it out and see if his grandmother ever actually did go on record as claiming this? Or is she just a crazy old lady who can't remember where she was when her grandson was born?

It's not just the birth certificate, Mr. Hill. "Birthers" also want to know why ALL of Obama's records - school records, high school and college transcripts, everything - are sealed and not available for public perusal. He claims that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have investigated all this if there were anything to it. How could McCain or Hillary have investigated ANYTHING if it's all sealed and under lock and key, not being released to anyone for any reason???????

He wants to know if we think the election should be overturned, and wants us to consider what the result would be to the country if we went down that road. My response is - yeah, if the election was fraudulent, then it HAS to be overturned. You can't just shrug off someone who is not legitimately president! You can't just sweep it under the rug! Would it be highly traumatizing for this country? Yes. But are we a country of laws or not? If it's "irrelevant" that Obama is or isn't legally qualified to be president, then the section of the Constitution that dictates you must be a natural-born citizen is also "irrelevant" and should be removed from the Constitution! (That darn Constitution - what a pesky thing!)

By the way, Congress could not impeach him, because if he isn't legally President, then they have no legal right to impeach him. Think about THAT one.

I would email Austin Hill with all of this, but he is SO closed-minded to the idea that there could be any SHRED of legitimacy to what the so-called "birthers" believe that even if he were to read my email, he would disregard it with the same sarcasm and derision with which he was dismissing the callers on his radio show this morning. It's like he locked himself inside a soundproof vault where he can't (or won't) hear anything anyone says to him because we're all "conspiracy theorists" who don't know our heads from a hole in the ground.

Mr. Hill, you are being an idiot about this. Get a clue.

Miss California loses her crown

Well, the gay rights movement gained a very hollow victory when The Donald decided to deprive Miss California of her crown after all. However, Miss California is the real winner. Her bravery in standing by her comments about gay marriage, her refusal to back down in the face of overwhelming pressure, her courage in taking a stand for Christian values, have made her far more admirable than I can put into words. And she has a crown waiting for her that nobody, no gay judge, no multi-billionaire, nobody, can ever take away. Read 2 Timothy 4:8:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not only to me but also to all who eagerly wait for His appearing."

Nobody will EVER take THAT crown away from her. And THAT is the crown that counts!

By the way, when Conan O'Brien joked about this the other night on the "Tonight Show," and he started off by saying Miss California had lost her crown after all, and the audience *cheered* and *clapped* - I think every single one of those people who applauded ought to be *ashamed* of themselves. You would CHEER for a beautiful, decent, moral young woman losing her crown because she dares to stand up for moral values against those who are utterly lacking in moral values? You think this is something to APPLAUD? Every last one of you ought to hang your heads in shame.

Four by Four

I saw this list of questions on the Internet and decided it would be fun to answer them myself, so here goes:

Four Movies You'd Watch Over and Over Again

The Music Man
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Field of Dreams
Superman

Four Places You Have Lived

I have only ever lived two places - Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Four TV Shows You Love to Watch

Maverick (always and forever)
The Waltons
Centennial
Wanted: Dead or Alive

Four Places You Have Been on Vacation

Hawaii
Scotland
Dallas, TX
De Smet, South Dakota

Four of Your Favorite Foods

Cheeseburger
Turkey
Pepperoni Pizza
Chocolate shake

Four Websites You Visit Daily

Bloodhorse.com
ebay.com
IMDB.com
Wikipedia.org

Four Places You'd Rather Be Right Now

Heaven
De Smet, South Dakota
a Diamondbacks game
and finally, right where I am - at home!

Four Things You Want to Do Before You Die

Marry a wonderful Christian man
Take a riverboat trip down the Mississippi River from Natches to New Orleans
See the Kentucky Derby in person
Visit all 50 states

Four Books You Wish You Could Read Again for the First Time

Any of the "Little House" books
Any of the "Black Stallion" books
"A Man Called Peter" by Catherine Marshall
Any of the "Mitford" novels


There you have it!

Nostalgia for old school days

School ended this week (at least they've gone back to ending it in May; for awhile there, it was ending in June, which just seemed WEIRD.) Every year when school ends, it makes me nostalgic for my own school days, back in the "dark ages" of the 60s and 70s! I have no children of my own, but I still live next door to the school I attended when I was in elementary school (my parents picked this house to buy precisely because it was right next door to the grade school I would attend).

I miss things like "Weekly Reader." I used to really enjoy reading that, and I remember one summer, I think the summer between third and fourth grade, or maybe between second and third grade, I had a summertime subscription to "Weekly Reader," because they were offering it to parents who wanted their kids to be able to read it over the summer.

And I really miss ordering Scholastic Books! They used to have a flyer in the "Weekly Reader" (if I remember right) every six weeks or so, and you'd fill out what books you wanted, get a check from your parents, and bring it to the teacher so she could send it in. Then, a few weeks later, your books would come, and she'd give them to the kids that had ordered them. I loved to read, and while the other kids might order one or two or three books, I usually wound up ordering seven or eight at a time! I still have a few of them, too, that I ordered in those long-ago days.

I miss films. Do kids today even SEE films anymore, or is everything on DVD now? You'd go into your classroom, and sometimes on the teacher's desk was a round metal cannister. "We get to see a film today!" everyone would exult. (It meant you didn't have to listen to the teacher drone on and on; the film HAD to be more interesting than a boring lesson from the teacher!) If the cannister was big, it meant the film would last all period; if it was small, it was only going to last about 10 minutes. (Aw, rats!) Some teachers knew how to thread the film onto the projector, and some had to have one of the boys do it (why do boys always know how to do stuff like that?) Someone would pull the screen at the front of the classroom down, and it made a "shoop" sound as it was pulled down. After the film, the kids would beg the teacher to let us play at least some of the film backwards, and everyone would laugh because it looked so funny to see everything going in reverse. Today's kids are probably so used to picture-search on DVDs and videotapes, it would never occur to them that once upon a time, watching something backwards seemed laugh-out-loud funny.

What ever happened to blackboards? At the school next door to me, they've all been replaced by the newfangled dry-erase boards, those white plastic things that you write on with Magic Marker or whatever and not with chalk. Why are blackboards outdated? Does any school anywhere still have blackboards anymore?

And does any school district anywhere still start the day after Labor Day and end a couple days after Memorial Day? It used to be when you saw the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon, you knew that was your last day of summer vacation. You always got a couple days at the end of May, then ALL of June, ALL of July, ALL of August, and if you were REAL lucky and September 1st was a Tuesday, you got the entire first week of September as well before the fall semester began. Now most schools start in August, and some here in Phoenix even start in (gasp) July! The kids get a week off in October (we just got Columbus Day, which nobody except the post office pays attention to anymore), two weeks at Christmas (we got that too, but we called it "Christmas vacation" and not "winter break" as they do now), and a week in spring (I don't think we even got Good Friday back then). Why do they need so much time off during the school year?

I miss field trips. It used to be so much FUN, to get out of school for most if not all of a day, get onto the school bus, and go somewhere! I have wonderful memories of going to the Mineral Museum at the State Fairgrounds in 1972; you wouldn't think a museum dedicated to a bunch of rocks would be fun to see, but it was.

I miss assemblies (yay! we get out of class for an hour to go to an assembly!) And I miss the yearly ritual of buying books at the campus bookstore in high school. It was always interesting to bring the books home and sit down and look at them to see what we'd be studying that year.

I do NOT miss P.E. (the idea that we need P.E. in schools because it helps kids not be obese is ridiculous; if you're a chubby child, P.E. will not help you lose weight; trust me, I know, because I was a chubby child, and I was NOT athletically gifted, and I stunk out loud at everything we did in P.E. - basketball, softball, running laps, dodgeball, soccer, gymnastics - P.E. was endless torture and misery for me, and I hated it so much that to this day, I'm grateful I don't have to do it anymore!) I don't miss math class (I stunk at math, still do, and I hated that "lost" feeling of sitting in math class, not understanding a word the teacher was saying, because math was like a foreign language to me, and seeing all the other kids "getting it" while I still had no clue how to do the problems and come up with the right answer.)

I often think about all my old teachers and wonder where they are now, and how many of them are even still alive. Most have probably passed away. One of my old history teachers, long since retired, attends my church, and I saw him just a week or so ago and got to speak with him; of course, he doesn't remember me, but I remember him. Although seeing him looking 30 years older is something of a jolt because you remember people the way they were the last time you saw them, frozen in time in your memory.

Jay Leno's last "Tonight Show"

It's unreal to think 17 years went by so fast! Was tonight really Jay Leno's last "Tonight Show?" Wow! I know it was, of course; it just seems so strange that it's been 17 years since he took over.

I am the biggest Johnny Carson fan in the world; I literally grew up watching Johnny, who began hosting "The Tonight Show" when I was a year old. I remember when Johnny did the show from New York, and I remember he used to come to Los Angeles for two weeks every May to do the show, and I remember in 1972 when he moved the show permanently from New York to Los Angeles because it was easier to get guests in L.A. than in New York (or so he said, although today David Letterman seems to have no problem getting guests, and he's based in New York.) I remember when he cut back from five nights a week to four, and then to three, and I remember when the "Tonight Show" was 90 minutes long, and the last 15 minutes were usually reserved for interviewing some author whose book had just come out. I miss Carnack, Aunt Blabby, the "Stump the Band" segment, and Art Fern with Carol Wayne and the "Teatime Movie". (I remember how much I laughed the first time I visited Southern California and found out that there really is a Slauson cutoff! "Stop, get out, cut off your slauson!" And remember "the fork in the road!")

When I was in grade school, I used to beg my parents to just let me stay up long enough to see Johnny's monologue (the "Tonight Show" airs at 10:30 in Phoenix). And they did! (Thank you, Mom and Daddy!) Fridays and summer vacations were extra special simply because I got to see ALL of the show and not just the monologue!

So I vividly remember Johnny's last show, and then the following Monday, after the local news at 10:00, when 10:30 came, I just kept thinking there was no way we wouldn't hear the familiar "bah bah bah BAH bah" theme and see Johnny come out from behind those multi-colored curtains, same as always. And instead we got this "hipper" sounding theme, and there was Jay Leno with a garish new set, and I watched about 10 minutes and had to turn it off. I had NOTHING against Jay Leno himself; I just couldn't stand seeing the new version of "The Tonight Show" and I missed Johnny desperately!

And it's only been in the past couple years I've been able to watch Leno's version at all. I do enjoy the "Headlines" segment he does on Mondays, and every once in awhile he'll have a guest on I want to watch (Robin Williams, Steve Martin, a few like that). I can't stand "Jaywalking" because I, for one, don't think it's funny that we have that many stupid young adults in the world who apparently slept their way through at least 12 years of school. It makes me cringe.

And now, suddenly, just like that, whoosh! 17 years is gone, and Jay's stint is done. It honestly feels to me like he's only been hosting about five years, like Johnny just retired a few years ago. (My brain just does NOT process the passage of time well at all!) It's not even remotely possible to me that Johnny Carson could be GONE.

Maybe this seems less real because unlike Johnny, Leno will be back this fall with what they're saying will be a very similar show, "The Tonight Show" with a different name and an earlier time slot, but otherwise very much the same show.

Will I like Conan O'Brien as the new host? Heck, if I still miss Johnny Carson, I don't think I could ever fully embrace anyone else as the host. But it will be interesting to see how Conan does. (They're doing the show at Universal and not the Burbank Studios where it's been done since Carson moved to L.A. in 1972? That's unreal too!)

Open message to Leonard Pitts

Mr. Pitts, I read your column fairly regularly. It's always good for a laugh or two. Sometimes it's good for raising one's blood pressure as well. Case in point, today's column.

Let's see - you make comments in today's column such as "The loose cannons on the right thrive from feeling put upon - last month, they took to the streets en masse, and the governor of Texas raised the specter of secession because it was tax day, for goodness sake!" And you also referred to "extremists littering the streets with tea bags" and compared this to "temper tantrums." As well as the obligatory liberal columnist slam at Rush Limbaugh by referring to "his head exploding on a daily basis."

Ok, have you ever heard the old saying about "better to keep silent and be thought an idiot, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"? This applies to you, sir. In the first place, the people who participated in the tea parties last month, and those who wanted to participate but couldn't attend, are not "loose cannons" or "extremists," nor were we/they "throwing temper tantrums" like a bunch of recalcitrant children. What you are seeing is much, much more than "temper tantrums." This is an ever-increasing number of everyday citizens who are sick and tired of too much government and too much taxation, and are fed up to the point of wanting to do something about it. I would compare it to the rumblings of a long-dormant volcano where you know it's getting ready to explode and spew lava all over the place. And Tax Day was chosen for the tea parties, and the governor of Texas threatening secession, because what better day to protest having our money taken away by the government than on....Tax Day itself?

Boy, you libs love to make fun of Rush, don't you! If Rush's head is exploding on a daily basis, it's from seeing what has been going on with our country and our government lately, and his is not the only head that is exploding on a daily basis, I assure you. And since his ratings are so high, there sure must be a lot of people listening to his head explode every day! Good! That helps get his message out! The more people there are who listen to Rush, the more people there might be who would realize he actually MAKES SENSE. (Yes, John McCain's mom, this applies to you too, and to you, Kevin Spacey, both of you sitting there on Jay Leno's show last week trashing Rush - Spacey didn't actually SAY anything, but he gestured with a grin to Mrs. McCain after she lambasted Rush, as if to say, "See, the old lady knows what she's talking about!" Sorry, she doesn't. I respect her, but I disagree with her. And Mr. Spacey, your politics suck canal water.)

The sleeping dog has been awoken, and the "loose cannons and extremists" are determined to *do something* about taking our country back before Socialism swallows up everything we hold dear.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Pitts.

The filly is for real

But I'm not sure Rachel Alexandra was as spectacular in winning the Preakness as the NBC announcers were gushing. It's intriguing to think that had she not been in the race, Mine That Bird would now be trying for a Triple Crown in three weeks. But that's horse racing. Makes you realize how special the Triple Crown winners of the 70's were.

I am so happy new owner Jess Jackson is running Rachel Alexandra against colts, when her previous owner was so determined not to. With all due apologies, the quote that "fillies should run against fillies and colts against colts," and that the Triple Crown races are to determine stallion prospects, is a crock of baloney. I much more agree with Mr. Jackson's assessment that "champions race against champions." Funny Cide wasn't a stallion prospect, nor is Mine That Bird (although I'm trying to remember, and I seem to remember, that once upon a time, geldings were not permitted to run in the Derby. I'll try to find that out for sure.) If you go with only running fillies against other fillies, we'd never have had Rags to Riches' heart-stirring victory over Curlin in the Belmont; we'd never have seen Genuine Risk or Winning Colors win the Derby. Rachel Alexandra has so dominated the females in her division, there was nothing left for her to prove there. She needed a new challenge, and today she had it, and she showed she was up to it. Now racing has a new superstar, which is what it needs every year.

I do think the race for Mine That Bird was lost at the top of the stretch, when he was behind horses and didn't have clear running room for about three or four strides, before Smith pulled him out around them and turned him loose. Had he been able to start his charge then, and not have been behind that wall of horses, he'd have caught Rachel Alexandra before the wire, I'm certain of it. Even as this was happening, I was in front of the TV set going, "He's going to lose the race right here; he doesn't have running room to get going." But that, too, is horse racing. If you have running room, you have a better chance to win. Get blocked, even if only for a moment, and you lose. It takes nothing away from the filly's effort and her glory in winning, that's for sure.

Jess Jackson is a great owner, too, because he allowed us to see Curlin run as a four-year-old, when the temptation for most owners is to rush a star three-year-old off to the breeding shed before the racing public has had a chance to fully enjoy their talents on the track.

I also don't buy into the notion that a filly is in greater danger of breaking down should she compete against the colts. Fillies break down running against other fillies, too - remember Go For Wand? Colts break down running against colts (Timely Writer, Barbaro, Charismatic, although at least they were able to save Charismatic.)

The Belmont, if both Rachel Alexandra and Mine That Bird return, should be very interesting!

Comments on the Diamondbacks

Some interesting, and troubling, developments with my beloved Diamondbacks over the past couple days. While the firing of manager Bob Melvin was sadly not unexpected, the heavy-handed way it was handled is reminiscent of the disgusting way the current management regime got rid of a classy man like former owner Jerry Colangelo. (I'm beginning to seriously dislike these people.)

Columnist Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic had some interesting things to say in his column in this morning's paper. He suggested that GM Josh Byrnes was hinting around during his press conference yesterday that Bob Melvin "created a bad vibe, a negative energy in the room." Huh? Bob Melvin has to be one of the nicest guys not just in baseball, but in all of sports. I cannot envision him creating a "bad vibe" or "negative energy." If anything, perhaps "Bo-Mel" is TOO nice, not capable of kicking some butts the way a manager sometimes needs to do. If anything, he doesn't have a high enough intensity level to put the fear of God into some of his underperforming players. If that's "creating a bad vibe and negative energy," I just don't see it.

And the pretty much unrefuted allegation that Josh Byrnes is controlling the line-up, basically doing the managing instead of the manager. Ok, Mr. Byrnes, if you're the one who is dictating what the line-up should be, then YOU stink as a manager, because the line-up you're forcing the manager to put out there everyday is LOSING every day. Maybe you should fire YOURSELF and let your on-field manager do his thing without any interference from YOU? Or appoint yourself the on-field manager so you can put whatever lineup you please out there every day and see how YOU do.

And they told Bob Melvin a couple days ago that they planned to make a managerial change? See, this is where Bob is too nice. Had they told ME that they were planning to make a managerial change, and my job was now lame-duck status, I'd have said, "I'm sorry, you can't fire me, I quit," and I'd have resigned immediately. And I'd have been perfectly frank with the media and said, "Yes, I quit because they were planning to fire me anyway, and they told me so. Why should I stay for even a couple more games under those circumstances? If they have egg on their faces now, I didn't put it there."

I think everyone feels (outside of the D-backs front office) that the best choice to replace Melvin would have been bench coach Kirk Gibson. He could bring a fire and an intensity to the players that very few others could. Instead, he's still the bench coach.

And A.J. Hinch's comments in the post-game press conference (following another loss) were pathetic if not downright laughable. "I was proud of the guys for battling back and kind of answering the bell..." KIND OF answering the bell?????? You either answer the bell or you don't! There is no "kind of!" (Yoda from "Star Wars" would say, "There is no 'try,' there is only 'do.'") KIND OF? You're the new manager, sir; they are supposed to ANSWER the bell for you, not just "kind of "answer the bell!

"We came up a run short, which was unfortunate." Um, no. It wasn't "unfortunate." It was UNACCEPTABLE. You are hired to WIN. If your reaction to yet another loss, and the first under your guidance, is that it was "unfortunate," I wonder if you have the fire in the belly necessary to be a manager.

It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next few months. I'm not overly optimistic. Sigh.

Borel to ride Rachel Alexandra in Preakness - wow!

Calvin Borel has chosen the filly Rachel Alexandra over Mine That Bird for his Preakness mount, provided she runs. Amazing! I guess this means he doesn't think Mine That Bird has a good chance at the Triple Crown (I don't either, but anything is possible). I've never heard of such a thing as a Derby-winning jockey choosing another horse for the Preakness and passing up a chance at the Triple Crown. If Mine That Bird wins the Triple Crown by winning the final two legs under a different jockey, will that jockey feel like *he* has won the Triple Crown, or will it not feel the same as if he had ridden the horse in all three legs? The jockey's name would be in the record books, regardless, but it would have to feel kind of strange, not having been aboard for the Derby, wouldn't it? And how will Borel feel if Mine That Bird wins the Triple Crown and he had opted to ride the filly instead?

A very unique situation, one that I've never seen before!

BTW, I do think Rachel Alexandra is good enough to beat the boys in the Preakness. Whether she *will* or not, at least I think she does have the talent, provided she gets a clean trip.

This is proving to be a very interesting Triple Crown season!!

Facebook brings old friends together again

I had forgotten I ever opened an account on Facebook - I did it about a year ago, and I never even remembered to check it after I opened it - and out of the clear blue sky about a week ago, I heard from a girl I was friends with back in grade school who had seen my totally forgotten-about account on Facebook and was contacting me! After I wrote back to her and confirmed I was indeed the person she was thinking of, she let another girl we had both been friends with back then know that I was on Facebook, so that girl added me as a friend as well!

I suppose I shouldn't use the word "girl," but I'm referring to the age we all were back in grade school, not the age we are now! (As far as I'm concerned, I'm still a girl, and I don't take offense to that word the way some women do! Inside, I'm a 10-year-old who never grew up!)

And that's why I love horse racing!

I've been following the Sport of Kings for 38 years now, and it never ceases to write new chapters, new sagas, new stories to follow. The victory by Mine That Bird at today's Kentucky Derby was stunning, to say the least. A horse that was purchased for less than $10,000, and ran at Sunland Downs in New Mexico (Sunland Downs in New Mexico!) comes from out of nowhere to win the world's most prestigious race!

And how can you help but love Calvin Borel? He just has to be one of the most endearing people on the face of the earth! I had tears in my eyes when he said how much he wished his parents could be here to see his success. (It does no good to say, "Well, wherever they are, I know they can see you," because he can't SEE them SEEING him, the way he could if they were alive. That's something that people who have never suffered a loss would never comprehend.)

Looking at this horse's pedigree, it really shouldn't have been THAT surprising that he was capable of winning the Derby. His sire, Birdstone, was the one who stymied Smarty Jones' bid for the Triple Crown a few years ago. His grandsire, Grindstone, won the Derby (as I recall, he foiled Bob Baffert's first attempt to win the Derby). His great-grandsire, Unbridled, won the Derby. His great-grandsire on his dam's side, Smart Strike, is only one of the top sires around, and sired the incomparable Curlin. So his pedigree is pretty amazing.

It will be interesting to see if they take this horse to the Preakness. Why not? Even if they have to pay a small fortune to supplement him, I say go for it! This could potentially be one of the biggest Cinderella stories horse racing has ever seen. If it fizzles out, the ride was fun while it lasted. Go for the brass ring, guys! And take the rest of us on the ride with you - it will be fun seeing what happens!

Who is Keith Lewis, and why should we listen to him?

Ok, I have been totally fed up with the controversy over Miss California's comments in the Miss USA pageant regarding her feelings that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the subsequent totally uncalled-for controversy that followed, generated by pageant "judge" Perez Hilton. (Why is a gay man judging a woman's beauty pageant, anyway?)

Now comes comments from someone named Keith Lewis, identified as a "Los Angeles talent agent and gay activist," who expresses his negative opinion about her speaking at a church that "promotes homosexuality as both unnatural and abnormal" (um, isn't any true Christian church supposed to do that? The Bible plainly teaches this. If a church believes in the Bible, this is what they are SUPPOSED to teach, and certainly anybody, public or private, has a right to stand up in a church and express their agreement with what that church teaches - or has that right been revoked?) He goes on with the absolutely outrageous statement that "we (apparently meaning the gay community) stand by our concern for her individual image and look forward to a time in the near future when she can put down her personal agenda."

Um - like YOU don't have a personal agenda in attacking and belittling anyone who openly believes in and professes the Christian faith? Like YOUR personal agenda isn't trying to get homosexual behavior approved as being "normal and natural," which is the opposite of what the Bible teaches? SHE has a "personal agenda" and YOU don't???

And, Mr. Lewis, do YOU care about your "individual image" in front of a holy and just God who loves you but cannot help you if you don't first admit that homosexual behavior is a sin in His eyes? I think you better start worrying more about yourself and less about Miss California, sir! If she is wrong, God will deal with her. If she is right, that means YOU are wrong, and she then has not only a right, but a responsibility, to proclaim the truth, whether you and the rest of the gay community like it or not.

And yes, I have a gay family member, and she knows how I feel about her lifestyle, and while she doesn't like to hear my opinion, she absolutely respects me because she knows I'm not going to be an "enabler" and tell her that she can live any old immoral way she wants to, that I will take a stand against whatever she does in her life that is harmful to her in any way. I do that because I care about her, not because I hate her. (I would do the same if she were smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, if she were an alcoholic, if she were married and cheating on her husband, etc. etc.)

Well, Jesus did warn his followers that "if they hated Me, they will hate you too, and they will persecute you for My sake."

Funny, isn't it, how if Christians speak out against any form of immoral behavior, we are told we are indulging in "hate speech" and encouraging hatred against those who "disagree" with us. Yet the gay community can indulge in the most virulent and vitriolic diatribes against someone like Carrie Prejean and even call her a "bitch" and worse, and somehow, this ISN'T "hate speech?" Please explain the difference to me, because I don't see it.

Finally, my message to Carrie Prejean is - you go, girl!! You are my heroine!!!!

Retro Television Network - RTN

I recently discovered a TV network that my cable system must have just started carrying, as I don't remember seeing it before. It's called the Retro Television Network, or RTN for short. In summary, it is everything TV Land used to be and no longer is, and it's so much fun to see all the old shows that I haven't seen in years, plus retromercials (does TV Land even *show* old TV commercials anymore?)

Shows from the 60's and 70's such as "Marcus Welby M.D." or "Ironside;" one of my all-time favorites in "The Rockford Files" (anyone who knows me knows I've had a crush on James Garner since I was about 9 years old; and in high school, Friday nights meant Jim, Rocky, Dennis, the Firebird, and an hour of wonderful television!) - "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" (I haven't seen that one since forever, and it's such a classic show!) - and today I was thrilled to see a rerun of another of my very favorites, "Banacek." My mom and I used to watch that show together back in the early 70's. It only lasted a couple seasons, more's the pity, but it was SO good. George Peppard was wonderful, suave and "cool" as the wise-cracking insurance investigator with all the Polish proverbs. I had to let out a gleeful whoop when I saw the opening credits and thought, "Hey, look, they're showing 'Banacek!'"

A lot, if not most, of the shows on this network seem to be Glen Larson productions for Universal Studios; everything that was on television 30 years ago seemingly was a Glen Larson production for Universal Studios! RTN must have bought the entire vault of Universal shows!

One thing I've noticed is how dated these shows are. Not in the obvious way, such as clothes, hairstyles, cars, or secretaries sitting at desks with typewriters and rotary-dial phones. Rather, it's the writing. The "flavor" of the writing, if you will, seems almost sophomoric, if that's the word I'm looking for. Sadly, the trend in television in recent years, and it's considered "progress," is for shows to be harder-edged, grittier, more cynical, more violent, more sexual, more "in your face." The tamer, more easy-going writing for shows from 30 or more years ago seems almost bland or silly in comparison. And yet, I myself PREFER the older shows precisely BECAUSE they were not so hard-edged or cynical in flavor. "Banacek" beats anything that is on television today, and "The Rockford Files" will always be a classic to me. (Incidentally, when I was in high school, my "dream car" was a gold Pontiac Firebird "just like Jim drives." I never got one, more's the pity, and they don't make'em like that anymore. That car was just way too cool!) (And where did Jim find the money to get it repaired, or to have insurance on it, when it seems like he crashed it in almost every episode? That's a mystery as big as the Sphinx!)

I'm also seeing Westerns on here that I've never had a chance to see ("Laredo") or haven't seen in years ("Alias Smith and Jones" and "Wagon Train.") Anyone who knows me also knows that my favorite genre of all is a good old Western, and most of my favorite TV shows are Westerns ("Maverick," "The Big Valley," "The High Chaparral," "Wanted: Dead or Alive," "The Virginian.") So that's a treat too! (I read somewhere that a movie version of "Alias Smith and Jones" is planned. Oh please, leave it alone. They'll make THAT "harder-edged and grittier," too, you can just bet, and it will thereby lose all the charm the old show had!)

I love the retromercials, too! "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know!" I'd forgotten all about that one! Took me right back to Saturday mornings as a kid, watching cartoons all morning!

Right now, it's safe to say about the only networks I watch are Encore Westerns, the History Channel, Fox News, and now RTN!

Message to Susan Roesgen of CNN - paging Susan, paging Susan

I watched your little interview with the gentleman holding his baby at one of the Tea Parties the other day. Ma'am, with all due lack of respect, you made a fool of yourself on national television.

Ahem - where do I even begin? First of all, your ridiculous and condescending comment to this man about "Do you realize you're eligible for a $400 tax credit?" Golly gee, what a lot of money! Woo hoo, let's go on a spending spree!! Did you see he was holding a baby? Do you know how expensive babies are? How far is $400 going to go when you have a baby to support? Especially when it's doled out in dribs and drabs ($13 per paycheck - wow, that'll really stimulate me to run right out to the nearest store and spend, spend, spend! That's about enough for me to buy a few lunches at McDonald's and that's about it.)

More to the point, IT'S HIS MONEY TO START WITH. What the government is doing by oh so magnanimously giving us $13 extra in each paycheck, up to a total of a whopping $400 in one year, and then patting us on the head and telling us to go away, we should be happy now, makes me think of what it would be like to be walking down the street and suddenly a robber jumps out from the bushes and waves a gun at me. "Gimme all your money!" he snarls. I protest that I have only $100 cash on my person at the moment. "Then give that to me!" he insists. I do, fearing what he might do if I don't comply with his demand. He then proceeds to lick his thumb and peel off a $5 bill and hand it back to me. "Here, you can have this back. I'll take the rest," and he runs off with my money. Gee, how generous of the robber, to let me have a whole $5 of MY MONEY back after he STOLE it from me at gunpoint!

As for the $60 billion the Land of Lincoln is going to get that you so sarcastically pointed out to this gentleman, Susan - well, Susan, where do you think that money is COMING from? Some of it is being printed as we speak, which will inevitably lead to hyperinflation (do you want to be able to afford groceries, Susan, and have some of your paycheck left over after you go to the grocery store?), and most of it is coming from the bank account of that little baby in that man's arms, and all the little babies around the nation who aren't even old enough to start PRESCHOOL yet, and are already in massive debt up to their little EARS because of the so-called "stimulus!" Do you have any children, Susan? Do you even CARE that you have mortgaged their future away? If you don't have children, do you care about kids like my grandnephew Patrick, who just turned 9 in February, and HIS CHILDREN are in debt up to their ears, and he's at least a decade away from even being a DAD yet!

Susan, I close my diatribe against you and your ilk by quoting a famous saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I guess these comments make me a "hatemonger." Well, I do hate - foolishness and stupidity.

Phoenix lands baseball's 2011 All-Star Game

Yessss! The Arizona Diamondbacks and Chase Field will play host to Major League Baseball's All-Star Game and surrounding activities in the year 2011. This has been a long time coming - baseball stadiums built *since* ours was built have already had their opportunities to host the All-Star Game, so it's about time Phoenix was awarded the game! I am proud to think my city will be showcased during this grand event, and I even hope to attend, if not the game itself, perhaps the Home Run Derby (this is still two years off, so who knows?)

I still chuckle thinking about one certain Anaheim taxi driver from 20 years ago - my mom and I went to see a California Angels game in the mid-80's, and took a taxi to the stadium. We were talking about how hopeful we were that one day, Phoenix would have a major league team of its own. The taxi driver scoffed at this, telling us that "Phoenix is a very, very small town. You don't have enough population to support a team." We asked him if he had ever actually BEEN to Phoenix, and he said no! When we informed him that Phoenix and the surrounding metropolitan area was actually bigger in population than a lot of cities that already had major league baseball, such as Kansas City or Seattle or Pittsburgh, etc., he didn't believe us! We had lived in Phoenix for over 20 years at that point, he had never BEEN to Phoenix, and yet he didn't believe us! So when Phoenix was awarded the Diamondbacks as an expansion team, and then when the D-backs won the World Series, and now that we are getting an All-Star game - I still think of that guy and wonder what his opinion is of all this!

And in Texas, W is chuckling

I'm reading and listening to all the commentary on President Obama's record in his first couple months in office with a great deal of interest. Fighting (and not successfully doing so) the urge to say, "We told you so!" What with the stock market tanking, gaffes galore, the President being said to be "surprised" at the amount of work that crosses his desk, and even some of Obama's supporters (though not nearly enough yet) beginning to wake up and say, "Um...this isn't what we had in mind," it reminds me of an "SNL" skit from last year, a spoof on the famous "the phone rings at 3 a.m." commercial. It had Fred Armisen as Obama, calling Hillary Clinton at 3 in the morning, begging for her advice, and saying, "This job is HARD!" (Political satire might be cruel, but it's usually right on target, and nobody does it better than SNL.)

My next question is very serious, and if anybody knows the answer, please comment and I will post your comment. Is there, can there be such a thing, as a recall election for a President? There are recall elections at all other levels of government - that's how California got Schwarzenegger as governor, and Arizona would have probably recalled Gov. Mecham had he not first been impeached, thus saving us the trouble - but is it addressed in the Constitution that if the American people get fed up enough with a sitting President, they can recall him? I don't think after six weeks that we're at that point YET, but with the increasing dissatisfaction that is bubbling about this President, and even Whoopi Goldberg complaining about being taxed to death (is this the same Whoopi who snidely asked Sen. McCain if she'd have to be a slave under his presidency?), I'm wondering when the lid on the kettle will pop off because of the boiling water underneath.

Seriously, could there legally under the Constitution be a recall election if the American people decide they just can't stomach any more of a particular President? It has obviously never happened before, but could it legally happen in the future?

P.S. I've heard people wondering why Obama picked Hillary for Secretary of State, and why she would accept. I think for both of them, it all stems from the old saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

NOW they figure it out

Read a quote in the paper the other day by a certain Pat Adams, identified as a hedge-fund manager at Choice Investment Management. In regard to our new president and Wall Street, the comment was, "The market thought it was getting a Bill Clinton-type Democrat that would move toward the political center. But we got a guy way off to the left."

Um - didn't a lot of us try to tell you all that, way before the election? Why didn't you listen to us? I personally feel like someone on the Titanic who was frantically waving my arms, jumping up and down, and hollering, "Look, there's an ICEBURG up ahead! Turn this ship around before you ever get there, or else you'll hit it and we'll all sink!"

But don't pay attention to the conservative bloggers, or the likes of Rush and Sean and others. Not until it's too late, that is.

Sigh.

"Stealing Lincoln's Body"

This is a fascinating, albeit admittedly macabre, special on The History Channel, and I found it extremely interesting (although I think it might be better shown on Halloween!) It's the true story of how a group of counterfeiters hatched, and nearly successfully carried out, a plot to steal President Lincoln's body and hold it for ransom in 1876.

There were a couple of things in the special that I took note of. Harold Holzer, a Lincoln biographer, refers to Mary Lincoln often writing and speaking of her expectation of being reunited with her husband in eternity, and he adds the curious comment, "Of course, that was what they believed back then." (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact wording of his comment.) I find that interesting because he makes it sound like nobody today believes in an afterlife or eternity or being reunited with loved ones in eternity. Perhaps that is not what he meant, but it sounded like it. I think that most people, unless they are atheists, have some kind of expectation of an afterlife, and of seeing our loved ones in eternity when we die (I know I do), and I don't think that is a belief that was held only in Mary Lincoln's time. If he was referring to Mary's fascination with spiritualism, that is also a belief that is still held in our time today (hence the appeal of people such as mediums James Van Praagh or John Edward, who claim to be able to communicate with the dead.) These beliefs have never gone out of vogue.

Thomas Craughwell, who authored the book upon which this special is based, and who gives extensive commentary throughout the special, stated that Abraham Lincoln II, known as "Jack," who was Robert Lincoln's son, was interred with the rest of the family at the tomb in Illinois, and he calls him "their one and only grandchild." I hope he misspoke, because that's not true. Robert Lincoln had two other children, both daughters. Perhaps Mr. Craughwell meant to say "their one and only grandson" and it came out wrong. (I have also read that "Jack" Lincoln was disinterred and reburied at Arlington, where Robert Lincoln and his wife are buried, and the special doesn't point this detail out either.)

I wonder if I am the only one who noticed something very ironic. After the unsuccessful attempt to steal the body, the coffin was partially out of its sarcophagus, so the caretaker and some other men took it down to the basement area of the tomb to hide it so tourists wouldn't see the broken sarcophagus with the coffin protruding. Then, to further hide it, they covered it with lumber. To me, the irony was this - Lincoln, known as the "Great Railsplitter," often pictured as a young man with an ax in his hand, splitting logs, was, during several years after the unsuccessful attempt to steal his body, lying in his coffin, hidden underneath a pile of lumber. (Why do I think that Mr. Lincoln, who had a noted sense of humor, would have somehow found this funny and gotten a good leg-slapping laugh out of it?)

They also didn't really mention the fact that Lincoln and Mary were not alone when they attended "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theatre that fateful night. No mention was made, in this special at least, of Major Rathbone and his fiancee Clara also being present in the President's box that night. (I visited Washington D.C. some years ago and got to tour Ford's Theatre as well as the Petersen House across the street where they carried Lincoln and where he died the following morning. Incidentally, the illustrations, some used in this special, showing enormous groups of people around the President's deathbed, are erroneous. That room at the back of the Petersen House is so small, you couldn't fit that many people around that bed all at once.)

I always enjoy the History Channel. You learn things there that you never learn anywhere else, even rather ghoulish pieces of history such as this. (Macabre though it may be, it's still very interesting, in a weird way, and I plan to look for Mr. Craughwell's book and read more about it.) The two channels I find myself watching the most, to the exclusion of almost anything and everything else, are the History Channel and, due to my great fondness for stories set against the backdrop of the American West, I watch Encore Westerns. I almost don't need any other channels except those two!

As a P.S., I wonder whatever happened to the plan to make a motion picture out of an excellent book about the Lincoln assassination and the chase after Booth and his cohorts, called "Manhunt?" (Get that book and read it if this is a topic that interests you - it is VERY good.) And while he's technically too old for the role, I think Johnny Depp absolutely HAS to play John Wilkes Booth in something - with a mustache, he looks strikingly like Booth and could play the role probably as well as any current actor I can think of.

Being Single, Part II

I hadn't intended to post again so soon about this topic, but this evening I was reading another blog I follow, and a comment left on that blog bothered me deeply. So I decided perhaps writing down my feelings would help me "feel better." (A blog is a good place to vent!)

As I wondered in my previous post on this topic, I wonder why on earth some people feel a need to throw cold water on a single person's desire to one day marry. Why do people, at least some people, feel duty-bound, absolutely compelled, to ARGUE with you about this kind of dream, and try to dampen down your expectations, your hopes, your heart's desires?

The comment on this other blog (and I will paraphrase) was that this particular commenter sees so many single people at church, all of them pining and hoping for a mate, and that due to their age, which the commenter gives as "40 to 55 and never been married," the commenter "knows in my heart of hearts" that "they will probably never see the day they will wear a wedding gown," and the commenter's heart "aches for them." They need to "stop thinking about marriage and find God's purpose for their lives as a single person." (Again, I'm paraphrasing.)

First of all, the comment is obviously directed at single women. I wonder, I sincerely wonder - if there are single men out there who are lonely and yearn for a spouse, do THEY get such comments directed at THEM? I know that every time I have brought up to various friends that I would very much like to get married one day, there will be at least one, if not several, who will basically try to "talk me out of it." They put words in my mouth like "you shouldn't expect someone to make you happy; you should be happy anyway." (Did I say I expected this man, whoever he is, if he even exists, will "make me happy?" I actually argued with one person about the meaning of the suffix "er," as in "No, I don't expect him to make me happy - no person can do that for another person - but I do expect to be happiER because I will have him to share things with and do things with and to give my love to. What is wrong with that?") Or "You shouldn't think so much about getting married. Just learn to be happy the way you are."

Again I wonder - if you're a man and single, do you get the same kind of comments if you express a heartfelt desire to find a wife? And also, why did the person whose comments have caused me to write this post mention the age range of "40 to 55" with the strong assumption that once you reach that age bracket, "you will probably never wear a wedding gown?" If you're 39, there's still a chance, but once you hit 40, that's it, no more hope? And what about if you're 56? Suddenly you have a chance again? And if you're a man who is in that age bracket, will you "probably never wear a tuxedo?"

At least the age has gone up - in the 19th century and prior, if you reached the age of 25 and were still a single woman, you were officially an "old maid" and a "spinster" and "couldn't catch a husband."

Any other "dream" you have, people usually are very supportive. If you fervently want a baby (which I do not), people express their hope that you and your husband will successfully become parents. If you dream of going to college, starting your own business, taking a vacation trip to someplace like Australia, people will be supportive. But for the biggest dream of all - finding a special person to share your life and your love with - people just seem to feel a need to ARGUE with you about it or even REPRIMAND you for it as if you're wrong to even EXPRESS the desire, much less HAVE the desire. Why can't they just simply say, "If that is what you want, if that is your heart's desire and your dream, then I sincerely hope it comes true for you one day, and I will rejoice with you if it does"?

The only other thing I've found this to hold true with is grief, (people try to argue you out of grief, they try to lay a guilt trip on you if you grieve for a lost loved one for what they consider is "too long,") and that is a subject for another post at another time!

Creepy moment of the week

NPR this morning during Scott Simon's "Saturday Edition" show was playing really bad renditions of songs from the 70's. Some guy doing a horrible rendition of "Love Will Keep Us Together" - a little kid butchering "You Are The Wind Beneath My Wings" - etc.

But the creepiest version went to:




Liberace performing Neil Diamond's "You Don't Bring Me Flowers."




I mean, when it got to the lyric "When it's good for you and you're feelin' all right, well you just roll over and turn out the light," I was like "eeeuuuuwwww!!"





I don't have anything against Liberace - my mom and I saw him in concert several times, and he was fantastic. They didn't call him "Mr. Showmanship" for nothing.

But there are just certain songs that some performers should never do, and this is one of those combinations!

I think I'll go to You Tube now and watch the clip of the priceless time at the Grammy Awards when Neil and Barbra sang this song to each other. Now THAT was a classic moment.

Being single

I hesitated to write about this topic for fear of sounding like I'm "feeling sorry for myself," but it's on my mind tonight because I was reading another single woman's blog that I follow (it's called "Just One Single's Blog," and while she doesn't post on her blog very often, I find that whenever she does, her thoughts reflect mine exactly) and because Valentine's Day is coming up, which is usually pretty difficult if you're a single person wishing you had Someone Special to give you flowers and candy and take you out to dinner and a movie on that day!

I will confess that all my life, dating back to high school or even the later years of grade school, the desire of my heart has been to one day find a loving Christian husband. They say your image of marriage is shaped by what you see with your parents, and in my mom and dad, I was blessed to have two people who were crazy about each other, got along amazingly well (there were times Daddy accidentally hurt Mom's feelings, because he could be rather brusque and insensitive at times, a trait his daughter has unfortunately inherited, and Mom could be hypersensitive with paper-thin feelings who could get hurt over things nobody else would be bothered by, but 99% of the time, they got along like a hand in glove), and when Daddy died at not quite 49 years old from a sudden and unexpected heart attack, Mom never stopped missing him, and never remarried, saying, "There's nothing better once you've had the best."

I thought when I was in grade school, 7th and 8th grade, that I would probably have a "high school sweetheart." I'd heard that phrase so often and just took it for granted it would happen for me. But for whatever reason, I never did have a "high school sweetheart."

Since graduating and joining the adult world, I've found how darn difficult it is to "meet somebody." And I've also found that if you don't "meet somebody," people seem to think it's somehow, someway, your own darn fault, that you're "not trying hard enough," that you "need to get out more." Well, having read that you can meet people by taking night classes, I have over the years since I graduated from high school taken non-credit classes on all kinds of subjects at some of the community colleges, as well as a two-year for-credit course in medical transcription at a community college; I've taken classes on various subjects through the Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Scottsdale Recreational Department; and I have found that the only men who take night classes are men who are dragged to night classes by their wives!

I've been a member of the Phoenix Zoo and the Desert Botanical Gardens and participated in member activities with both; I've done volunteer work on political campaigns and with local humane organizations; I've socialized with people from work (company picnics, going to sporting events and concerts and local amusement parks, etc.,) So when people tell me, "You need to get out more; you're never going to meet anyone sitting at home," and I recite the above list to them, their eyes glaze over and they say, "Oh, I guess you get out more than I thought."

Of course, the first thing people suggest is "try a dating service." I looked into that, but veto that idea for two reasons: cost and the likelihood it probably wouldn't work. Dating services are EXPENSIVE. They are, after all, preying on people's emotions, and it can easily cost you a four-figure sum or a very high three-figure sum to join one. I saw a program on TV on one of the cable networks (TLC or something like that) about dating services, and it said quite bluntly that only 20% of people who are set up on a date by a dating service even go out on a second date! If you're in major league baseball and your batting average is 200, you get sent down to the minors or released! (Go to a web site called "Ripoffreport.com" and look up horror stories on dating services - that's another reason I won't spend the money to join them!)

Plus, I don't like the idea of going out on a date "to find out if I like this man or if he likes me." In this same program I saw on TLC about dating services, they followed some people on dates that were set up by a dating service. One couple in their 20's met at a restaurant for lunch. There was nothing "wrong" with either of them; she was an attractive young woman who seemed very nice, and he was an attractive young man who seemed very nice, and on the surface it seemed like they ought to "hit it off."

But from the minute she arrived for the date, as the camera followed their meal, you could see that they just weren't hitting it off at ALL. There was zero chemistry there, and by the end of the date, they couldn't wait to get away from each other.

This same dating service set up another couple for a date, and while the old saying "opposites attract" might be true, you had to wonder about this date. She was a vivacious, outgoing, bubbly person with a personality like Bette Midler; he was a late middle-aged, quiet and dignified college professor who bore a strong resemblance to pictures I've seen of Sigmund Freud! That date went nowhere as well, and after the date, the woman said to the interviewer with a laugh, "Oh, well, I got a free lunch out of it!"

This is why I don't want to join a dating service. I don't want some third party setting me up with someone, gushingly assuring me that "oh, we know this is a love match; you're just going to love him and we know he'll love you!" and then five minutes into the date, I'm looking at my watch going "Ok, how soon can I make a graceful exit here?" and knowing he's thinking the same thing. For the kind of money that dating services charge, it's not worth it. I have better things to do with my money and my time than go on bad dates set up by a dating service and pay an exorbitant sum to do it.

I would rather meet someone in a non-dating situation, find out that we like each other, and THEN go on a date. That's the way my erstwhile-friend Lisa met her husband Dave. She was in college, and she worked at Disneyland each summer to make money. He worked there too, and they met sitting at a break table at the Mexican restaurant at Disneyland where they worked. They started talking, found out they liked each other and had a lot of interests in common, and by the time he asked her out on a date, they knew they liked each other; they weren't going out to find out IF they liked each other. Now they've been married for going on 25 years with four children.

A lady I know at work met her husband on the bus; they were on the same bus going to their different jobs every day, and he kept talking to her, and finally he asked her out on a date, and their first date lasted 12 hours! Now they've been married for going on 10 years.

People tell me, "Try church." I have tried the church I go to, and find that most of the people in the singles group are in their 60's or 70's. I'm in my 40's. While I believe in May-December romances, I'd like to find someone closer to my own age. "Try another church." Which other church should I try? Do you know how many churches there are in the greater Phoenix area? Do I try a church in Phoenix, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Tempe, or Mesa? Do I try Presbyterian, Methodist, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Bible, or Seventh-Day Adventist? Do I try a church for one year, then decide "the person for me isn't at this church" and try another church? If I did that, I'd be sampling churches until I turned 100! I like my present church, and I go there for the sake of worshiping God and studying the Bible, not to find a husband, although I wish I could do BOTH. And who knows, maybe God will bring "the right one" to my church and sit him down right smack dab next to me at the next Sunday service (are you listening, God?) But that hasn't happened yet...

Then people say, "Well, join a club or something!" I have tried that too, with no success thus far. I found a website called Meetup.com, and joined a number of Meetup groups in my area to find people who share interests with me, be they single or not, men or women, young or old. A lot of the Meetup groups I joined have folded due to lack of participation by the members. I belong to a very large singles group on Meetup, but they have very few activities I want to participate in. Poker night at someone's house? A swimming party at someone's house? Happy hour at a local bar? Karaoke night? None of these things appeal to me. I DID go with some of the people in this group for Zoo Lights at the Phoenix Zoo, and another time went with them to a local historical museum in Tempe (I love museums and could spend all day wandering through a museum), but most of their get-togethers are activities that just don't appeal to me.

I've recently developed an interest in bowling, and I've been bowling with people from work. I'd love to take bowling lessons, but there's only one bowling alley (actually, they're called bowling "centers" now) anywhere near me that offers lessons, and they charge $35 for a 45-minute lesson. I can't afford to take many lessons at that cost, so I took one introductory lesson, and now I just go to one of the bowling centers on a weekend afternoon and try to practice. I'd like to find a Beginner's League or Beginner's Club to join, but most of the leagues and clubs at the local bowling centers are for people who are a little more advanced than someone who has taken just one lesson and rolls mostly gutter balls! I do keep my eyes out for something "more up my alley" in this area (pun intended), though!

I've been told by many well-intentioned people that "he's out there somewhere," meaning the right person for me. What these people can't tell me is where "Out There Somewhere" is located. Is that anywhere near Far Far Away from the "Shrek" movies? Where is the geographical location on the map for "Out There Somewhere?" Can I drive there, or do I need to take a plane, train, bus or boat to get there?

I've also been told that "there are plenty of fish in the sea." Again, they can't tell me what part of the sea all these "fish" are swimming around in. I've so far not been able to find any fish in my part of the ocean, and if I knew where in the sea these fish are located, I could swim over to that part of the sea to look for them. But it's a big ocean - where are they?

Most of the men I meet are too old for me or now, disconcertingly, too YOUNG for me (when I got out of high school, the men I met at the various offices where I worked were all in their 40's or 50's; now I'm finding a lot of the men at the office where I work are in their 20's or 30's - how did THAT happen? They've gone from being old enough to be my dad, to being young enough to be my son, in the blink of an eye!) They're already married, have steady girlfriends, or are not interested in making a long-term commitment, i.e. marriage, to anyone.

I know that some women are told they come across as "desperate;" I sure don't think that's my own personal problem because, in fact, most people at work assume I'm already married and are surprised to find out I'm not. I think the whole crux of my problem is - where are all the decent, godly Christian men my age who are for whatever reason single and don't want to be single?

At least, when I read blogs like that other single Christian lady who writes "Just One Single's Blog," I know I'm not alone in this boat. For a long time I thought I was.

One last comment in a very lengthy post (there's a reason this blog is called "The Rambler!") - why is it that when you want something very very much, people feel duty-bound to argue with you about it? I've had people tell me, "Oh, you shouldn't feel you need a man to make your life complete." I never said I "need a man to make my life complete." What I WOULD like is to find someone to love and be loved by so I don't have to spend the rest of my life alone. I miss being part of an "and." When Mom was alive, and she and I lived together, we were an "and." "Where are you and your mother going on vacation this summer?" "I'll come pick you and Mom up to take you to the airport in the morning." "You and Mom can come over for Thanksgiving dinner at 2:00 tomorrow." "Did you and Mom go to that sale at the mall on Saturday?" Now that I live alone, I'm not part of an "and" anymore.

Or "You shouldn't feel you need another human being to make you happy. You have to be happy in and of yourself." I agree. I don't want someone to "make me happy." No one can "make me happy" if I'm not happy already. No human being can make another human being "happy." What I want is to have someone to love and be loved by so I can be happiER. Everything in life is better, sweeter, more wonderful, if you have someone you love to SHARE it with.

Or people will say, "Trust me, marriage isn't what it's cracked up to be. Trust me, I know! You should be glad you're single, honey!"

Why, why, do people feel they have to argue with you about something you want? The only thing that makes me feel better is that I know if I were to say to these very same people, "Marriage? Why on earth would I want to get married? Why would I want to give up my freedom and tie myself down to one man? I'd have to be crazy to do that!" these people would then try to argue with me about THAT and say things like, "Oh, marriage can be so wonderful - you just wait till you meet the right man, and you'll change your mind!" People just seem to have this built-in need to try to argue with you no matter WHAT you say, to take the opposite tack of any thing you tell them.

Birmingham, England drops the apostrophe

An AP story I read today states that in Birmingham, England, apostrophes are no longer going to be used on street signs because they are, and I quote, "confusing and old-fashioned."

The head of the city's transport scrutiny committee (they have a committee for that?), Martin Mullaney, says, "Apostrophes denote possessions that are no longer accurate and are not needed. They confuse people. If I want to go to a restaurant, I don't want to have an A-level (high-school diploma) in English to find it."

Um, ok. So you're saying you're dumber than a high-school student?

If apostrophes "confuse people," isn't the answer for school systems everywhere to somehow find a way to do a better job at educating children about when and how to use an apostrophe? Didn't the schools used to do it that way?

But no, let's just throw up our hands and give up and change punctuation rules because that way, you won't need a high-school diploma to read a basic street sign in Birmingham, England, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Sigh....

Apple computers

So the Apple Macintosh has been around for 25 years now.

I have to chuckle about this, because when I got my first computer in about 1993, it was a Macintosh Performa, and so many of my friends were just aghast that I had gotten an APPLE instead of a Windows-based PC! I can't tell you how many of them tried to argue me out of getting a Mac - "They have a very very small share of the market, and they're going to go belly up pretty soon, and then you'll be stuck with an obsolete computer you paid a lot of money for!" "You won't be able to find very many games for it; if you want to play a lot of games on your computer, you need to get a Windows PC!" And even AFTER I bought the Mac and brought it home, erstwhile-friend Lisa ARGUED with me that I shouldn't have gotten it, and kept giving me all the reasons why SHE thought I should not have bought a Mac - AFTER I'd bought it! Wouldn't you think she could have said, "Well, maybe it's not what I would have chosen, but I hope you enjoy your new computer and have many happy hours of computing with it"? But then, Lisa would argue with a sign post; that's just the way she is.

I chuckle because this was in 1993, and here it is 2009, and Apple, while still not a leader in the market like Windows-based PCs, hasn't gone anywhere. It HASN'T gone belly-up, it's still in the marketplace, it's still popular in its own little niche. I never bought any computer games because I'm just not all that interested in computer games, so the fact that more computer games are available for Windows as opposed to Macs is irrelevant to me. And all those naysayers who told me that Mac was going to go out of business in just a year or two - where are they?

I hope Steve Jobs recovers his health. I hate to hear about anyone being ill, and he is definitely an American icon because of his connection to the Mac.

Johnny Carson

I find it hard to believe Johnny Carson has been gone for four years as of today. I find it hard to believe Johnny is gone at all.

I grew up watching Johnny Carson. He started as host of "The Tonight Show" when I was just a year old. And while he went from dark hair to gray over the course of the years that he hosted, he always seemed ageless.

I think after he retired from "The Tonight Show," I still had the expectation that he was going to walk out through those curtains with Ed McMahon hollering "Hi-oooooh!" To this day, it feels strange to me to see Jay Leno hosting the show, and yet Jay Leno is the second-longest in terms of time spent as host of "The Tonight Show." I've never really gotten used to him, and while I occasionally watch (I do enjoy the "Headlines" segment on Monday nights), I just don't care for his version of "The Tonight Show" and I have never stopped missing Johnny Carson.

In the early 80's, I got to take a tour of the Burbank NBC studios, and saw the set of Johnny's "Tonight Show." (I think that may have been during the era of the backdrop of Lake Carson, my favorite of the backdrops - remember that crude little Loch Ness monster that used to occasionally go across the lake behind Johnny?) Johnny wasn't there when our tour group was going through the studio, but I remember his picture was giant size on the door of that studio - you definitely knew this was where King Johnny reigned!

So many of the celebrities I grew up with are gone now, but Johnny is one of the ones I miss most of all.

The Chief Justice flubbed, not the President!

I'm not a supporter of the new President, and did not vote for him. But I'm getting tired of reading stories tonight about how the President flubbed his oath of office.

No, he did not. The Chief Justice flubbed. The oath reads, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States..." The Chief Justice gave this line as "I will execute faithfully to the office of President, etc." The President started to repeat this and realized it was wrong and stopped, waiting for the CJ to correct himself. I had the feeling the CJ then proceeded to temporarily forget the words (much like someone forgetting the words to the National Anthem) and there was a long awkward moment while they looked at each other, and the CJ said the line incorrectly again, and the President in what was basically a "oh well, let's go along with this" moment, repeated the line in the incorrect way the CJ had stated it, and the oath proceeded.

But this was not Obama's fault, it was the Chief Justice's fault, and a very embarrassing moment for the CJ on his first time administering the oath to a President. And while I am not an Obama supporter, I do not like seeing him made fun of for something that was not his fault.

Get it right, people!

I am glad I took the day off work. I watched everything from the departure from Blair House up to tonight's inaugural balls. Fox had good coverage; I enjoyed Chris Wallace and Brit Hume very much, as they were not quite as starry-eyed as the coverage on other networks. (I wouldn't even touch MSNBC.) I did like Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw on NBC, though; I've always thought they are two of the more fair network correspondents/hosts on the regular three networks. I watched them for most of the afternoon and enjoyed their commentary.

A new "Black Stallion" book

The "Black Stallion" and "Island Stallion" series of books by Walter Farley are my all-time favorite books, and have been since I was 9 years old and first discovered them at the library at my grade school. I've read them all so many times I have large chunks of them memorized.

Steven Farley, Walter Farley's son, has kept the series going, off and on, in recent years, with spotty success. He co-wrote, with his father, "The Young Black Stallion," and penned other books on his own after his father's death such as "The Black Stallion's Shadow," "The Black Stallion's Steeplechaser," and the aborted "Young Black Stallion" series which was not about the Black, but about a girl and her horse Raven who are taken under Alec Ramsay's tutelage and mentorship. That series ended prematurely, apparently due to low sales volume.

Now Mr. Farley has a new "Black Stallion" book out, "The Black Stallion and the Shape-Shifter." Set in Ireland, it seems to be an Irish folklore (or partial science fiction, take your pick) story about Alec and the Black encountering something called a kelpie, which is defined as a shape-shifting creature that carries people off into the ocean.

I'm reading this book, and it's ok, but I'm torn between being glad that Steven Farley is continuing his father's books, and wishing he'd let the books pass along with his father. He is not the writer his dad was, and his plots are not as interesting as his father's plots, and Alec and the Black just don't FEEL like Alec and the Black in these books. There isn't as much emphasis on the Black's untameable spirit, or on the incredible bond that Alec shares with the Black.

He did get some things right in this book. In his earlier attempts at continuing the series, Steven Farley had Alec be 16 years old and the Black was supposedly 6 years old. Fans of the original series know that in the third book, "Son of the Black Stallion," Alec was already going to college, so he had to be older than 16 already, and the Black was 7 years old when Alec got him back after Abu Ishak died in "The Black Stallion and Satan," so how could he suddenly be only 6 years old years later? Also, Alec and the Black race against a 2-year-old champion in a handicap race in "The Black Stallion's Shadow." Huh? Since when do 2-year-old colts race in handicaps against established handicap stars like the Black?

In this book, the Black's age is given as "well into his teens," and Alec is apparently a young man as he was in the later books of the original series, so at least the ages are more correct.

I just wish his plots were more interesting and that the books had more of the "feel" of his father's books. Since the characters came out of his father's imagination and heart, that would be impossible.

I'll finish reading this book, and I'll put it on my shelf with the other "Black Stallion" books. But to me, this isn't a true "Black Stallion" book; only the ones written by Walter Farley were. Steven tries hard, but Alec and the Black died with Walter Farley. (I wonder if Steven is going to try to write an "Island Stallion" book? It would be interesting to see how he handles the characters of Steve Duncan and Flame.)

What's rather surreal is remembering being 10 years old and being in my bedroom with my nose buried in one of the original "Black Stallion" books, reading them for the very first time. I still live in the same house I lived in at age 10, and here I am, in that very same bedroom, with my nose once again buried in a "Black Stallion" book I haven't read before, at the age of 47! The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Presidential inaugurations

Ok, here we are, about to inaugurate our new president in a couple days. I will be home from work to watch the inauguration. I have seen every presidential inauguration since Nixon's second inaugural in 1973, when I was just 11 years old.

Over the years, that string has required some juggling on my part. For Carter's inauguration, I had to rearrange the schedule of semester exams in high school. (I had a shorthand class - by the way, does anybody use shorthand anymore? - exam, and I arranged with my shorthand teacher to take the exam a day earlier so I could get out of school early enough on Inauguration Day to see Carter get sworn in). For Reagan's first inaugural in 1981, I (gasp) called in sick to work. (Margaret, if you're out there anywhere and if you even remember me, when I called in sick on January 20, 1981, I wasn't really sick. Can you discipline me 28 years after the fact?)

Every other inauguration either occurred on a weekend, or I was able to take a vacation day and stay home to watch the festitivies, which is what I will be doing on Tuesday.

But with this particular inauguration, I very nearly decided to break my string and skip it. As the (very few so far) readers of my silly little blog know, I am not an Obama supporter. I think his politics are socialist, I think the people he's hung out with over the years are creepy, and I seriously question if he's even eligible to be president under the Constitution. (What's with hiding his birth certificate, and all his records from birth to present time? What if it comes out at some point in time that he really was born in Kenya? Why did the Supreme Court not have the cajones to investigate or cause an investigation to occur, into his background?)

But in the long run, I decided I have to watch this inauguration too, despite my misgivings and forebodings. It is, after all, history of one kind or another, even if it's not history I particularly agree with or wish to see happen. By taking the day off work, I can give myself the choice of whether or not to watch it or turn the TV off. If I went to work on Tuesday, I'd probably wind up listening to the swearing-in on the radio and kicking myself for not staying home.

So on Tuesday, I will be up at 5:00 a.m. to begin watching C-Span (I'd rather watch their coverage so I don't have to listen to the inane babblings of network commentators all agog over their Messiah taking office; on C-Span there is a merciful silence, just coverage of the proceedings with no commentary), and I'll watch everything that takes place, just as I do every four years for every inauguration of every president.

By the way, I love cable! I remember in those early years of watching inaugurations, I used to get so frustrated when the three networks, which were all we had back then, cut away after the new president arrived at the viewing stand to watch the parade; they didn't show the parade itself, or anything of the inaugural balls. Today, with cable, we see everything from the President-Elect departing Blair House, his arrival at the White House to visit with the outgoing president, the ride to the Capitol, all the patriotic ceremonies and music at the Capitol, the inaugural parade, the inaugural balls, everything is covered on cable.

P.S. What is up with this countdown clock on CNN? I don't remember ever seeing a clock counting down the hours and minutes until an inauguration before, and I've been watching presidential swearings-in for decades! This is more than slightly ridiculous! Are they THAT eager to get rid of George Bush and get Obama into office? You would think the Beatles were all still alive and reuniting at noon tomorrow, and not a presidential transition. Good grief!

Ray Price

35 years ago tonight, I attended one of the best concerts I've ever been to, when my mom and I went to Symphony Hall at the Civic Plaza in downtown Phoenix and saw country legend Ray Price. It must have been some concert, for me to remember it so fondly and so well all these years later!

Ray sang that night to a sold-out audience. The show was sponsored by local country station KJ radio (long off the air now). January 12 is Ray Price's birthday, and Ray Odom, who was either the president or general manager or both of KJ radio (can't remember that detail now after so many years!) told the audience that when Ray came out on stage, we should all sing Happy Birthday to him - and we did! Ray had no idea that Mr. Odom had asked the audience to do that, and he was so tickled, and probably a little embarrassed! I remember him saying, in that Texas twang of his, "Ah'm supposed to sing for you all, not the other way around!" He sang so many of his great hits that night, including my mom's favorite, "I'd Rather Be Sorry," and he did a beautiful version of "Danny Boy" that left me with a lump in my throat and tears running down my face. As Mom said after the concert that night, he had the audience in the palm of his hand.

We saw Ray in concert several more times over the years, and I saw him at the Celebrity Theatre here in Phoenix just a couple years ago, and he still has that magnificent, wonderful voice. Now in his 80s, he can still sing with the best of them, like he did when he was in his 40s.

Happy Birthday again, Mr. Price! You have long been one of my family's cherished favorites!

http://www.officialraypricefanclub.com/

Cardinal mania

I'm not a football fan. My three favorite sports, in order, are thoroughbred racing, major league baseball, and professional golf. But the entire Valley of the Sun is totally agog over the Arizona Cardinals being one win away from going to the Super Bowl. It's starting to mirror the excitement of when the Arizona Diamondbacks were going to the World Series, or when the Phoenix Suns, back in 1993, were going to face the Chicago Bulls for the championship.

So even though I'm not a football fan, I join the rest of the community in saying, "Go, Cardinals!" (If they wind up facing the Steelers, I'm not sure what my sister and brother-in-law will do, as our family is originally from the Pittsburgh area, and my sister and brother-in-law are huge Steelers fans!)

Let's see - if the Cardinals score a touchdown, that's good, right? (LOL!) (Hey, I know more about stolen bases and sacrifice bunts and the infield fly rule and whether or not you use your closer for just one inning or stretch him out to two innings, than I do about football! Gotta bone up on my football terminology here!)

Movie to be made about Dewey the Cat; Streep to star

Vicki Myron's delightful book about Dewey, the orange cat who lived at the Spencer, Iowa library for 19 years, is going to be made into a movie starring Meryl Streep as Ms. Myron. I think this is wonderful! As I've been reading this book, I've been thinking it would make a beautiful family movie, and a Google search today proved I'm not the only one who has that idea! New Line Cinema will do the film.

http://www.canmag.com/nw/12784-meryl-streep-dewey-library-cat

While I am an enormous cat lover, I find that most books about cats just aren't very good, for whatever reason. THIS book hits the mark, a true gem! (Ms. Myron - I did the "Dewey Carry" with my beloved cat Spunky, only with him it was over the RIGHT shoulder! Loved that little anecdote and the picture of Dewey being carried around like that!)

I will eagerly anticipate this movie, and whenever it hits the theaters, I will be first in line!

Update: The link above gives information about the film, but when I look at the IMDB web site, I can't find any information under Meryl Streep's biography that such a film is in pre-production. The above link is from November, so I trust it, however. Film plans can and do fall through, but I hope this is one movie that gets made. We need more family movies.

"Dewey: The Small-Town Library Cat Who Touched The World"

This is an absolutely charming book, a must-read if you love cats! My sister Nancy gave this to me for Christmas. Written by Vicki Myron, who was director of the Spencer, Iowa Public Library, it's the story of a little orange kitten who, in 1988 in the dead of winter, was found in the library book drop, half frozen to death. Taken in by the library and named Dewey after the Dewey Decimal System (what else would you name a cat who lives in a library?), he became their mascot for the next 19 years, and probably was the most well-known and popular "citizen" of Spencer, Iowa! I am totally enjoying this sweet little book, and just want to take this chance to recommend it to anyone and everyone - it's a great way to take your mind off the bad things going on in the world for a little while!

Insurance company calls, part II

This is a never-ending topic for me, because having answered the switchboard for an insurance company for several years, I am continually amazed at people. I understand completely the frustration over what they perceive as poor customer service, because I've been in that boat many times myself when calling a business or organization. But sometimes, the sheer lack of IQ in these people is astonishing.

Please, if you call me and ask to speak to John Jones or Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I'm sorry, Mr. Jones is on another call right now. Would you like his voice mail or would you like to hold?", please, please don't be stupid and ask me, "Well, how long is he gonna be on the phone?" That ranks as the A Number One Stupid Question I get!

Let me describe this for you: I have a switchboard console in front of me. The console has a lot of buttons on it, one button for the extension of each employee of our company. Next to each button is a little light. If the little light is red, that means the person at that extension is on the phone. If the little light is not on, that means the person is not on the phone, although it is impossible to tell if that person is actually at their desk or not. I have no way of knowing, if the person is indeed on the phone, who they might be talking to, and I definitely have absolutely no way of knowing how much longer they will be on the phone. All I know is that they ARE on the phone and that's ALL I know. (If you were walking down the street and saw somebody talking on their cellphone or at a payphone, and I said to you, "Hey, how long is that person gonna be on the phone?" would you be able to tell me?)

When the party you want to speak with is on another call, you have four options: Leave a voice mail message. Leave a message with me and I will make sure to get the message to the person. Go on hold for awhile, and every couple minutes, I will take you off hold and ask if you still want to continue to hold. Or you can hang up and try back later. Them are your options, folks. And no, I am not allowed, nor do I have the capacity from my switchboard console, to break into the person's conversation and tell them you're on line waiting to talk to them. That's just rude. How would you like it if YOU were the one they were talking to and somebody ELSE called and insisted on butting into YOUR conversation with Mr. Jones and talking to him instead of you? It's called WAIT YOUR TURN.

I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to say, "Well, let's see, let me look into my magic crystal ball. Yes, my magic crystal ball tells me that Mr. Jones will be on the phone for another 23 minutes and 34 seconds. Can you wait that long or do you wish to leave a message?" or "Oh good news! My magic crystal ball tells me that Mr. Jones will be concluding his current phone conversation in another 28 seconds. Just hang on a little bit and I'll be able to put you right through."

You can pretty much tell in the first few seconds of a conversation with a caller if this is a person who, as a child, was given everything he or she wanted by Mommy and Daddy, and learned that throwing a temper tantrum was a good method to get their own way if somebody crossed them, because he or she will act at 25 or 35 or 45 the same way they acted at age 5. I've had people throw grown-up temper tantrums on the phone because I couldn't magically and instantly give them what they wanted, apparently thinking that getting mad and cussing me out will produce instantaneous results (it must have worked at age 5, so they try it as an adult). I've had people get sarcastic with me, apparently thinking I'm some dumb blonde who doesn't know her head from a hole in the ground. I've had people get bossy with me and order me around, as if they have any authority or control over me. (Who died and made you king or queen, anyway?) And through it all, I have to restrain my temper and be as pleasant and nice to them as possible, in the name of customer service. I'm doing my best to help you; please don't complicate the issue by getting mad at me when I can only do so much for you! It's not my fault so-and-so didn't call you back; it's not my fault so-and-so isn't at their desk to take your call; it's not my fault so-and-so is already on another call when your call comes in; it's not my fault so-and-so is on vacation and you need to talk to them NOW.

And that's another thing. I don't have people's cellphone numbers, and if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to give it out unless that person gave me prior permission. So if the person is not in the office, and you say, "Well, do you have his cellphone number?" I am NOT allowed to give that to you, and I don't have the cellphone number to give out ANYWAY because that is not information that is given to me as the switchboard operator in the first place. The only time I would ever have a cellphone number is a situation in which a claims examiner is expecting a conference call about a claim from an attorney, and the claims examiner has to go to lunch, and stops by the front desk and says to me, "Joe Blow is going to call me sometime today about this claim, and I am going to lunch; if he calls, here's my cellphone number so he can reach me while I'm at lunch." But those situations are few and far between.

Oh yes, I will have much more. The number of stupid and aggravating calls I've gotten over the years is a never-ending story!