The Flatland Almanack

The Flatland Chronicles for 31 October 2006. More of Gordon Ramsay's F Word.

It's not exactly a recap, but I took a few notes on Ramsay's show as it was going on;  I couldn't resist.  Tonight in just the one episode, we were shown, among other things:  Ramsay's Scottish mother...the little Ramsays rousting the elder Ramsays out of bed...and the Christmas turkeys...and Joan Collins.  Okay, maybe not Joan Collins.  I'm not really a Joan Collins fan.  I don't like the way she talks.  She has that weird lilting accent affected by so many British actresses in the Sixties.  But I liked it when she guessed his age wrong and then very seriously advised him to stay away from botox because the side effects are not known.  I agree with her that Ramsay should not turn his face into a Ramsay-like rubber mask; it would be a travesty.

There was another bit about finding a delicious three-course meal in supermarket garbage bins presented by England "top restaurant critic."  I didn't watch that part, though.

JUMP TO "THE FLATLAND CHRONICLES" [MORE OF "GORDON RAMSAY'S F WORD"]

Just Eat the Damn Peach for 28 October 2006. Recap of "The Office" (NBC). "Gay Witch Hunt"

Even though the last episode of "The Office" was a rerun, I went ahead and recapped it because it was one of the first three and I started recapping with the fourth one. 

I went so far as to buy a "season pass" at I-Tunes so I would be able to watch the missed Season 3 episodes on my laptop.  But of course my time is severely limited at present; frankly, I am doing well just to recap the one episode a week.  So I wasn't unhappy when they replayed GAY WITCH HUNT (first episode of the season).  It gave me an opportunity to get caught up.

JUMP TO "JUST EAT THE DAMN PEACH": RECAP OF "GAY WITCH HUNT" (AIRED ON NBC ON 09.21.2006).

The Flatland Chronicles for 28 October 2006. The Gainesville Murders, the death of Danny Rollings, and Why I still oppose the Death Penalty.

Let me be clear:  it's not what the availability of the death penalty does to the killer (provided, at least, that you're sure that the person being executed IS the killer), it's what it does to the community, the victims, and the victims' families.

I happened to be living in Gainesville at the time the murders occurred and the gentlest people I know still feel fury, pity, and horror when they think of what this man did to those young people.  This Rollings was not someone of low intelligence or no understanding of right or wrong; and he obviously has something wrong with him, but no matter what else you say, he is someone who opened the door and let evil push right through it.  He did what he did deliberately and he evidently made sure that they suffered the maximum fear and pain before they died.   

But after the shock wore off I remember that the whole community hastened to create a sacred space for these tragically butchered young adults to occupy.  In proportion to the deliberately inflicted misery and horror of their deaths, the community assigned to them a particular place in its memory that removed them from any association or contact with the man who murdered them.

I wanted to write that death was too good for Rollings, but that is exactly the sort of statement that I am trying to avoid.  I am a progressive Christian; I think that any soul---even Rollings' soul--- can be redeemed.  I don't necessarily think every soul is, but I don't believe in Hell, so---in short----I leave all this to God. 

But if Rollings was ever brought to experience remorse, assuming remorse was possible for him, then I'd want him to live with it to the very end of his life.  Cutting off that life---he was 57, considerably older than my late husband was when he died----means cutting off the time he had to realize it, take it in, live with it.  People should have to live with the realization of the harm they've done; it's expiation for them and therefore for the community.  I wish the justice system were more focused on restitution and penance, and on forcing wrongdoers to try to undo the wrong they've done.  I wonder why people think it is better to cut off a life than to control and redirect it, to force it into a channel where the maimed soul has to heal, and therefore has to suffer.  But that's just me.

And I deplore the way that the very existence of the death penalty encourages the victims and the community to focus on vengeance---in other words, on the murderer.  He should be expunged and forgotten by the people whose lives he affected.  The memory of those he killed should be kept as far as possible from his.  Their deaths shouldn't be confounded with his.

And we shouldn't allow rage to make us pray for payment in kind.  I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone, but this is my true feeling about the death penalty:  its worst and most damaging effects are on the very community who suffered most at the killer's hands.  The very point of the criminal justice system should be to underline that the people to whom its penalties apply have behaved differently from the rest; have opened the door to desires and wishes the rest of us don't allow ourselves to entertain.

To continue to use state-sanctioned killing as a punishment for even the most horrific murders (and these were horrific) simply brings the community closer in thought and deed to the murderer.  It sanctions feelings that we ought to draw back from and that we (and the victims' families, even they) ought to be encouraged to control and re-direct. 

Despite my sympathy for the families that Rollings maimed, I stand by my opposition.  In this worst-case scenario, I feel more strongly than ever that the current practices are wrong and tend to dishonor the memory of those who died at the murderer's hands.   So....

JUMP TO THE FLATLAND CHRONICLES

A Marginal Christian's Handbook (formerly The Heretic's Handbook) and to Versus/Reversus for 27 October 2006. Note to Democrats: How to Bring the Christian Voters Back into the Fold.

I read an article at Salon about a Democrat who is apparently appealing successfully to Christian voters.  And while I was reading it I thought to myself:  well, you know, why not?  Why should the party that (comparatively, anyway) is about compassion, inclusion, caring for the poor, reaching out even to the undeserving, and so forth, not be appealing to people who really value the message of the Gospels.

Of course, this assumes that most of the Christians the Republicans have sucked into their orbit really do care about the Christ of the Gospels and his actual message to the taxpayers of his day.   Most of them may be people who genuinely believe that Jesus said that the Lord helps those who helps themselves.  But it's worth a try, surely?  Worth a try to get them to understand that their values are closer to, say, mine than those of George W. Bush? 

Anyway, for what it's worth, I gave this issue my attention in two of my blogs. 

JUMP TO THE HERETIC'S HANDBOOK;  JUMP TO VERSUS/REVERSUS.

Versus/Reversus for 26 October 2006. Real Time with Bill Maher: Episode 85.

Definitely one of the best Real Time episodes of the season.  The panel consisted of Barney Frank---a pugilist Democrat, of which there are far, far too few---Jason Alexander, and The Wall Street Journal's Steven Moore.  The interviewees were David Kuo (the conspicuously disillusioned evangelical Christian) and New Mexico's Bill Richardson. 

Frank might have been just that little bit too prominent, but honestly, nobody on the planet could stop him when he is on a roll, and you had to love the way he steamrolled right over the week's Voice of the Opposition, Steven Moore.  Nothing against Mr. Moore, but I'm a Democrat, and my whole soul is crying out for more politicians from my side of the fence who can [1] follow an argument; [2] identify a factual distortion; and [3] bust out the statistics and the evidence on the other side.

So, I ate it up.  As would any Democrat.

JUMP TO VERSUS REVERSUS:  REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER: EPISODE 85.

The Flatland Chronicles for 24 October 2006. The time of year that thou may'st now in me behold.

In Florida, the season of mist and mellow fruitfulness is the season of clear indigo skies, golden light, and beautiful coral-colored sunsets, streaked with vermilion. 

But autumn is autumnal everywhere, and you can't help feeling at least slightly sad, or slightly nostalgic.  And this feeling has been greatly enhanced by the death of a dear aunt I always thought I'd see again and my autumn dreams of childhood.  It wasn't even a particularly happy childhood, in many respects.  And I didn't like the town I grew up in when I was living there.  But I also don't like knowing I can't go back there. 

All changed, all gone. 

JUMP TO THE FLATLAND CHRONICLES.

The Flatland Chronicles for 24 October 2006. Steven King, Gordon Ramsay, and my old pal Robert J.

Is it wrong that I love Gordon Ramsay so much?  It probably is wrong.  And I do try to resist.  I find myself squirming in protest when I watch any show that he's in---and I watch every show that he's in----because I so dislike being lured in by his mere personal charisma.  He says and does many things I don't quite approve of.  But I cannot resist a man, and particularly an English man, who shows such a passionate commitment to something beyond himself and even beyond his family. 

The F Word with Gordon Ramsay was a fascinating show.  For one thing, we got to see the charming Missus and the adorable Ramsay brood, not to mention a boatload of (allegedly) ill-fated turkeys that he has given to his children to raise).  It was a terrifically attractive domestic scene, though apparently no one ever told GR that if you give your kids livestock to raise, it's generally a mistake to encourage them to call your future entrees by name.   

The show is also educational.  If I had any intention of ever cooking anything, or of ever eating foie gras, I could have learned a great deal from watching him prepare foie gras.  I could also have learned to make a bread pudding.  Actually I could have learned to make two:  the one Ramsay made and the one that the food tasters he hand-picked himself actually chose.  True story, and another reason this show rocks.  (For the record, I'm certain I'd have preferred his).

But I do rather envy the lavishly beautiful Martine McCutcheon her particular Ramsay encounter.  That's all I'm saying. I'll leave it there.

My enthusiasm for Steven King is more grudging.  I agree with him---because this seems to be an issue with him---that he is a fine and brilliant writer; I'd just qualify it by saying that all of his best writing happened a long time ago.  Since then, he's been running in place and the themes and characters have become progressively flatter and more shopworn.  Some of the books in the interim have been pretty good, but there is a certain sameness about all of it, and he never seems to be able to resist busting out the big guns and the charnel house effects when he'd do better just to leave a few gaps for the reader to fill in.  Just my opinion, Steve!  You clearly do something better than anyone else and Nick buys all your books. But there's more magic and more character in the early ones, I think. 

And for those, I shall always honor you....

But he sent out a letter to MoveOn.org members and I can't help admiring fabulously wealthy Democrats who put their names behind an effort to get out the progressive vote.

As for Robert, he is much as he was when I saw him 20 years ago---a really good guy who deserves to be happy.

JUMP TO THE FLATLAND CHRONICLES.

The Marginal Christian's Handbook (The Heretic's Handbook) for 23 October 2006.

  IMAGE HOSTING BY FLICKR.

At the Huffington Post, there's a blog by Richard Dawkins of The Blind Watchmaker fame.  I loved that book and I like him, but I do wish he'd give up arguing that tbe truth of natural selection somehow disproves the existence of God.  It doesn't.  It only proves that God didn't literally create the earth in the exact manner described in Genesis (which only exceptionally uneducated fundamentalists now believe). 

I don't agree with him (obviously) but I don't have the time at the moment to take his argument apart the way it needs to be.  But it doesn't matter because none of the people he is apparently trying to persuade (if only by providing those who might hypothetically wish to persuade them with ammunition) are persuadable by appeals to reason.  Their beliefs might be flat-out wrong, but you won't get anywhere by trying to move them from the position "There is a personal God who created the world 6000 years ago" to "There is NO God."

It wouldn't be kind to do that if you could.  If the objective is to get them to understand that science has ruled out certain theories of how creation came about, then you first have to show them how to believe science AND retain their belief in God.  Other atheists may read Dawkins' blog and say, "Yes!  It's all so CLEAR!  How can anyone doubt this?" but he's not going to persuade anyone whose views are based on faith.

What he fails to understand is that MOST Americans have some form of religious faith.  It just isn't (usually) the crazy-ass sort that was able to hi-jack Congress after the GOP decided to pander to them specifically.  Some very intelligent people are believers.  The smartest ones take only the sayings of Christ literally and ignore everything else.

But thanks for trying, Richard Dawkins.  JUMP TO THE HERETIC'S HANDBOOK. 

Just Eat the Damn Peach for 20 October 2006. I recap "The Office." "The Initiation."

  IMAGE HOSTING BY FLICKR.

I'm on a recapping roll, though it would definitely be easier if I had TIVO.  Don't hold your breath.

It was a good episode, but it had a sort of transitional feel.  It consisted mainly of vignettes that provided more insight into the characters and what makes them tick.  Jim/Pam "shippers" probably ended up banging their heads against the wall in frustration, since they finally make phone contact at the end of the episode, and actually start to show tentative signs of reforming their bond.  But then, due to a truly stupid misunderstanding, they end up awkwardly hanging up. 

There was some truly bitter tension between Michael and Jan and he definitely crossed a line with her.  She was one righteously pissed off boss.

The rest of the episode was Dwight's "initiation" of Ryan into the mysteries of sales, which I found touching but a little tedious---it just went on too long, though it was fun to see the beet farm and cousin Mose----and the aftermath of "Pretzel Day."  Stanley and Angela were cute; Michael was a jerk, but came through once again for the company once again; and Dwight made me slightly sad.  The interaction at the Stamford branch and the Saga of Karen's Squeaky Chair was entertaining, but I hope they're not going to turn Jim and Karen into another drawn-out Jim/Pam thing.   

I think I know where the story arc is taking us, so my recap includes some speculation as well as my interpretation.  I'm recapping "the inner office," looking at subtext that may or may not be there. 

JUMP TO MY RECAP AT "JUST EAT THE DAMN PEACH." 

Versus/Reversus for 19 Octobre 2006. The GOP: Everything is (Still) Clinton's Fault

How long do they think they can keep making Clinton the whipping boy for every unfortunate development?  It's so absurd.

Fortunately for the GOP, a certain number of knee-jerk Republican voters are exactly as gullible as the Republican Party assumes.  And many of them have a Pavolovian tooth-grinding response to the sound of Clinton's name.

But they can only pull this excuse out of their bag of tricks so many times before even their constituents start to realize---if only unconsciously---that somewhere along the line, the Bush Administration has had the opportunity (if not the obligation) to address any misguided or failed policies. 

As always, Joe Conason nails it.  JUMP TO VERSUS/REVERSUS for further discussion and the link.