People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

A Literary Critic Makes a Statement

What to make of this:

Librarians baffled by urine

Librarians in the US have had to admit they are baffled by the case of the urine-stained library books.

Hundreds of books at two libraries, just 13 miles apart in Cleveland, have had to be thrown out.

Linda Yanko, manager of Geauga West Library, told the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer: "I can't even believe we're discussing something like this. It's appalling and disgusting."

She said librarians had been finding new cases or (sic) urine-related vandalism about once a month with the recent case coming just this week.

The problems at Aurora Memorial Library began more than two years ago and damaged books have been found sporadically ever since.

Officials admit they have no idea who is responsible - or even if the incidents are related. (link)

I've gotten to where I journey to the library occasionally and will check out a novel to while away the time when I'm on extended travel around the country. There is nothing more disappointing than to devote precious hours to reading a few hundred pages of a book that comes highly rated only to finally reach the conclusion that it sucks, and will continue to suck the more I read.

Although I have returned a number of books unfinished, I've never wanted to pee on them.

But let me think about it. Literary criticism can take many forms.

I Feel So Inadequate

Sometimes I feel like I'm missing out on life. When Rush Limbaugh extols the virtues of the hit television show, 24, or a friend looks at me with incredulity when I tell him I've never watched a segment of The West Wing, I have this momentary urge to start watching network television again. Then I'll tune in to a few minutes of Survivor or American Idol and realize that my brain was better served by watching the grass grow.

Now comes this article in the Roanoke Times about bloggers and another tv show, Desperate Housewives.
Chattering bloggers have turned cyberspace into a virtual Wisteria Lane. Like the heroines of their beloved "Desperate Housewives," fans of the TV series are gossiping, guessing, accusing and jumping to conclusions. They're desperately awaiting the season finale Sunday on ABC (9 p.m., WSET-Channel 13) and weighing in with predictions for potential cliffhangers on the best prime-time soap to hit the small screen in years. (link)
Whoa. Calm down, stud.

This breathless commentary makes me want to tune in to the show, but then I remember it's on network television where brainless teenagers are the target audience of choice. Said housewives must be big-breasted, small-minded, and short-skirted. Sitcom dialogue is always inane, monotonous, and trite. Oh, and vulgar. So I'll pass.

Consider it blogged.

Senator Warner Raises His Ugly Head

Why is it the only time Senator John Warner's name ever surfaces in public he shows up to run interference for leftist Democrats?

The last time - literally - I heard his name mentioned with regard to senate matters was at a time when he toddled out in front of the cameras, announced his support for the Second Amendment, and dutifully voted against it.

Warner disappeared into the shadows only to resurface this week as the senate filibuster debate comes to a head. It seems my senator is going to vote with the Democrats on this one too.
John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and maybe Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will vote against the nuclear option, but none of the other Republicans are likely to. (link)
For this kind of representation, I might as well vote for a Democrat.

It's not like I ever liked the guy anyway. His name went on my list of politicians not to trust way back when Oliver North ran for the other senate seat here in Virginia against Chuck Robb. Stand-up politicians, when they have a problem with someone in their party running for an important office like this, control themselves and keep their mouths shut. They have no dog in the hunt and party unity is, to most politicians, of some importance. But Warner, seeing a chance to be on the Today show with Bryant Gumbel, denounced North publically (his reasons are unimportant and probably made no sense anyway; North lost).

So. It is highly unlikely that I'll ever vote for John Warner again, should he decide to run for reelection. But this will seal the deal. If Warner is going to vote with the Democrats, so will I.