( notes index ) - ( last month: Nov 2000 ) - ( next month: Jan 2001 )

I almost forgot. A happy winter solstice to all.

In a happy bit of accidental celebratory fireworks, there's going to be a brief meteor shower tonight (why do I always mention these time-important bits at the last minute?) -- about 2:30 am Eastern time, according to the New York Times, and I don't know how widely visible, but those of you who might be awake then should check it out (from the window of your redeye flight?).

21 December 2000: a profusion of princesses.

Last night I watched my new Princess Mononoke DVD. I'd bought it on reputation, without having seen the movie. Luckily you all were right. My gods, that's beautiful.

clickety clickety clickety.

It led me to notice how many movies I own with "princess" in the title. There's Princess Bride, A Little Princess (1994 version), Princess Mononoke, and (on VHS) Princess Caraboo.

Then my brother's recent mention of buying Robin Hood (Disney animated version) recalled a lot of memories of media we used to play with as children. One of my favorite records had the fairytales "The Princess and the Pea" on one side, and "The Twelve Dancing Princesses" on the other. I listened more often to the latter. I loved imagining all their pretty dresses, and I liked the glittery chinkling sounds when the prince surreptitiously broke off gold and silver tree branches.

I suppose most girls go through a sort of princess phase. I had a little extra enthusiasm, perhaps, for my own private-joke reason: I was the daughter of a King, you see. And I still am.

At this time one year from today, I shall still be recovering from my first viewing (a midnight screening a la Star Wars, if the theaters are sensible) of the Fellowship of the Ring movie.

Those of you who don't know what the phrase "Fellowship of the Ring" means need to go read the Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien immediately. Or you can wait until you've seen the movies if you prefer. But once you've seen that first movie, you may not be able to wait another year for the Two Towers at Christmas 2002, much less a further year for the final part at Christmas 2003, if you haven't read the books. I'm having enough trouble waiting even though I know the books cold.

Though I was eager enough for Episode I that I bought midnight show tickets the first moment I could, I was not obsessive enough to camp out more than about three hours ahead of time. For Lord of the Rings, if at all practical, I may camp out, especially if I can be sure that my local mecca, the Westwood Village theater, will be playing it. If the Village does not show it, I shall be very put out.

You think me a mite loony. Go look at TheOneRing.net (aka TORN), my favorite fan site, or the "preview" trailer-like object on the official site, and join me in giddy impatience.

Thus spake NPR: a joint team from Caltech and MIT is going to work on creating a chad-less, error-proof voting machine, to be ready hopefully by the next presidential election. From the moon, to Mars, to the swamps of Florida politics.

today journal shall serve purpose of exorcising frustrations.

my luck not good last few days. (note lowercase and incomplete grammar, indicating verbal fetal position.) saturday, bought new computer, joy! unpacked, hooked up, no sound from speakers. sorrow! took back to service dept, had no new computer, couldn't play civilization II on sunday as had been my dream, couldn't contact local isp to start the process of setting up a dsl line. sad and lonely sunday. (well, partly redeemed by interesting library book reading, but still.)

today, at work, a spontaneous chain reaction of things tipping over knocked my glass of water over and into my lap, onto the files i'd just entered into the database and was about to get up and refile. of course these files could not be some old magazine articles not looked at for ten years like many of the other files; these particular files had to be about a good friend of the person whose files they are, including a folder of correspondence and photos of his godchild, the friend's daughter, and cute things she'd drawn and written, as well as a large pack of candids of this friend/family group on friend's birthday.

strictly speaking, as an archivist i shouldn't have had a glass of water anywhere near, but there it was. and there was why. spent next hour carefully mopping with paper towels, paper by paper by photo by photo. luckily only the outer things in the stack got much exposure, but there were spits and spots on several others.

damage actually not bad at all, despite initial shock of despair. but still, time and effort expended. i'm tired. i want to start my holiday vacation now please.

Fellow journalist dlevy interested me with his report on the color quiz. My own results aren't completely off:

EXISTING SITUATION: Uneasy and insecure in the existing situation. Needs greater security and a more affectionate environment, or a situation imposing less physical strain.

YOUR STRESS SOURCES: Wishes to be independent, unhampered, and free from any limitation or restriction, other than those which she imposes of herself or by her own choice and decision.

YOUR RESTRAINED CHARACTERISTICS: Relationships rarely measure up to her high emotional expectations and her need to be made the center of things, leading to disappointment. Always has mental reservations, and tends to remain emotionally isolated and unattached. Trying to calm down and unwind after a period of over-agitation which has left her listless and devoid of energy. In need of peace and quiet; becomes irritable if this is denied her. Clings to her belief that her hopes and ideas are realistic, but needs encouragement and reassurance. Applies very exacting standards to her choice of a partner and wants guarantees against loss or disappointment.

YOUR DESIRED OBJECTIVE: Wants to make a favorable impression and be regarded as a special personality. Is therefore constantly on the watch to see whether she is succeeding in this and how others are reacting to her. This makes her feel she is in control. Uses tactics cleverly in order to obtain influence and special recognition. Susceptible to the esthetic or original.

YOUR ACTUAL PROBLEM: Strongly resists outside influence and any interference with her freedom to make her own decisions and plans. Works to establish and strengthen her own position.

Maybe. I think a lot, even most, of the above is true, but the tone of it sounds kind of cold and manipulative to me, and I don't think I'm either. I think the "physical strain" and "period of over-agitation" could refer to my knee, which while greatly improved and almost fully flexible is still not completely normal, a week after the injection. I really really don't want to have surgery again.

But "strongly resists interference" is right on. Ask anyone who's ever interrupted me when I'm trying to read a good book, or play Civilization II.

The ColorQuiz site (beware, annoying popup ads) claims that this sort of test is widely used, as is handwriting analysis, in European college admissions and employment applications. Are they weird for using such methods, or are we Americans weird for ignoring them?

Overheard:

X: "So Bush is the president-elect?"
Y: "Gore is giving his concession speech as we speak."
Z: "Wow. That's scary."
Y, to Z: "You voted for him!"

related, from the day after the election:

A: "I'm scared now. Our guy [Bush]'s an idiot. I didn't think he would really win."

Good night, y'all; sleep well. See you when it's morning in America.

I've been tweaking the below several times already; I'm going to give up and write this added bit separately. I was thinking about those twelve years of Reagan/Bush, during which two-thirds of the current Supreme Court was appointed, and who the Democratic alternatives were.

I don't remember much about the 1980 elections, being only 8 at the time, but I remember a saying my high school economics/government teacher quoted about Carter: "There are people who can't see the forest for the trees. Carter was a leaf man." I gather that Carter's leadership did not inspire.

Mondale's candidacy I kind of remember. He didn't seem very interesting to me. Apparently a lot of other people agreed.

I had trouble seeing Dukakis as president. Again, my finger rested on the pulse of the nation.

Reagan could say stupid things like 'trees cause pollution,' but he certainly was good at inspiring people. He gave the impression that he had solid core beliefs that he followed, and was not afraid to express them (unless he didn't want Congress to know about them), rather than tapdancing among poll results. People like to be inspired by their leaders. It's no fun to have small respect for the person who represents your country. Where are corresponding Democratic standard-bearers? Don't we have any people who could stand up and gain the respect and trust of the country? Or were they all shot during the sixties?

Scattered thoughts are still swirling and gathering in clumps. please bear with me.

Justice Stevens wrote what seems to be the frontrunner for "hottest quote" out of all that paperwork. From my memory of hearing it on the radio several times so far, he said, 'We may never know who won this election, but we do know the loser: the people's faith in the judiciary as an impartial upholder of the law.' Let me emphasize that I'm not sure of exact words.

I'm still figuring out what I think about that. I'm not sure a lot of people had a great amount of such faith to lose. (Democrat though I be, I do think it unfair to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court for being partisan without allowing equal suspicion of the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court.) At the same time, I hesitate to agree that the situation is truly so dire.

The Supreme Court justice whom I like the best is Sandra Day O'Connor, because her tag "swing justice" tells me that she is not as ideological as the groups between whom she swings. By definition, then, I tend to accept 5-4 decisions because they normally involve her concurrence, and I trust her to be sensible. She said during the last arguments, 'why can't we use the standard that was given to the voter? [i.e., 'punch holes in your card and check your card afterward to make sure there aren't hanging chad.'] It doesn't seem that difficult.' This echoes a gut feeling of mine that goes deeper than my wish that my side win.

I don't want to win "by any means necessary." If we didn't get enough votes, counted the normal way, the same way all the counties in Florida do it for all normal elections, then we lost. (I would have been happy with a statewide manual recount, again with all counties doing things the same way.) It almost goes without saying at this point that Florida's rules are vague and screwed up. But the system in its current form came up with an answer. I don't like it. But I accept it.

I hope Floridians will fix their system now, ditto anyone else who has one like it. I hear that California law expressly states that a vote only counts if the chad is completely detached. Just one sentence like that in Florida could have saved a lot of energy over the past month.

Some Democratic commentator last night said that the voters did not decide this election. The hell they didn't. Number one, if the vote hadn't been so close, we wouldn't have gotten into this situation to start with. Number two, the voters elected twelve years of Republican presidents, during which time six of the current nine justices were appointed. You get what you vote for, in more ways than most people seem to think about.

The indirectness of this is actually strongest in Stevens's case, since he was appointed by Ford, who was not elected. But Ford was picked by Nixon, who was elected, so it all goes back to the people sooner or later.

On a related note, I don't agree with the demonization of the Florida legislature, either, considering they are by definition a body elected to represent the people. The fact that they have such a majority of Republicans when the presidental vote was so much closer simply means that a lot of Florida voters need to be more careful about whom they elect to their state legislature. Anyone who only votes in presidential elections because state elections "don't matter," here's where that comes back to bite you. Not only did every vote count in this election, but all those votes counted that you cast two years ago, and four, and eight, and twelve, and sixteen. Or those votes that you didn't cast.

I'm not a Republican, though reading all I just said, some people might thus accuse me. I want to preserve as much wilderness as possible. I don't want school vouchers. I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. I think gay people should be able to legally marry. I think some sensible, careful form of universal health coverage would be a good idea. Am I the only Democrat that feels this way about this election? A bit lonely, that's the way I'm feeling. It's going to be a cold two years.

Yeah, two. That's when we sweep back into both houses of Congress, just like the Republicans did in '94.

Yesterday evening I saw the moon over Wilshire again, completely full this time, and farther to the right than it was when I saw it last month. Also this was about two hours earlier than last time. It made me want a camera as badly as before, and again, no camera sat in the car with me. I'll have to do something about that. Not that I could capture the scene properly in a photo snapped with a little automatic camera through the windshield of a car waiting to turn left.

The black-robed elders of our tribe are deciding under a full moon who shall be our next leader. Are there to be any further avenues of weirdness explored in this saga? I probably shouldn't ask.

Yesterday, I took a needle in the knee. Despite the best efforts of the doctor and his assistant, this couldn't help but be painful. Still, it was a good thing, because:

Last night and tonight, a friend of mine and 11 of his friends were/will be performing "An Evening of Scenes," six two-person scenes showcasing their acting talents for the benefit of (hopefully) interested industry people, as well as their friends. I went last night, and it was great fun; everyone was very good.

I should have mentioned this earlier, for the benefit of all two people reading this from the Los Angeles area, but there's still time. If you'd like to take in a little free theater tonight (Thursday the 7th) at 7:30 pm, it's in the Theater East space on the second floor of Jerry's Deli in Studio City, 12655 Ventura Blvd between Coldwater Canyon Blvd and Laurel Canyon Blvd, north side of the street. Take the 101 east to Coldwater, or west to Laurel Canyon, then go south to Ventura. 12655. Did I mention free?

I went to a couple of toy stores in Santa Monica yesterday, looking for a Star Wars doll that I'd just learned was out there in the world, somewhere: the "Portrait Collection" Queen Amidala in her purple "return to Naboo" costume. I just wanted to check on local availability before resorting to Ebay. Also it was fun to wander round Santa Monica early on a Saturday morning.

In one store I found the other two dolls from the series -- one red Senate gown costume, and one black travel gown costume -- but not the one I was looking for. I asked an employee whether they might have, hiding in the back somewhere, the Queen Amidala doll in the purple dress. I took him to the other two, to show him what I meant. On the box lids there are pictures of Natalie Portman in all the different costumes. I pointed to the one I wanted. "That one, the purple one."

I happened to be using the black-dress box. He noticed the other box sitting there, facing half away from us. "Hey, here it is," he said, opened the front cover/lid, and looked for a moment.

"Um," I said. My unspoken thought: "Don't you think I already looked at the other box, that's sitting RIGHT NEXT TO this one, before asking you? And I have at least twice said "purple." That dress is rather a bright red. Also I just showed you a picture of Natalie Portman in a purple veil with two wrapped braids in front, whereas that doll has no veil, and is the one where her super-gelled "hair" is curling out of her head like two horns."

"Um," I said, "no... purple..." and I pointed to the same picture again, on the red-dress doll's box.

"Oh," he said. "OK. Let me go look in the back."

After a short bit he came out with a doll box, which for the briefest of moments excited me, until I saw it was another black-dress doll.

"Here you go," he said.

"...Um," hesitant gesturing.

"...oh. wow. That is the same one. black. It looked purple back there."

More unspoken thoughts comparing dress styles, notably black feather crests on tops of heads.

He asked the store manager, who answered that what they had was on display, but also encouraged me to call back a bit later when the store's doll specialist would be in.

This may sound like I was annoyed. Mostly I was just startled, that it was so hard for me to communicate what I wanted. And then today I've been listening to the Florida hearings on CNN, and one witness was talking about people not handling ballots by the corners, like they were instructed. (you knew the election was going to work its way in here somewhere.) Listening. Paying attention. Seeing, understanding, and being careful of the details. Many people, in more important situations than doll shopping, do not seem skilled at this. Sometimes including me, if I am wishing to be somewhere other than where I am.

It may just be a function of what each person considers important. Unless we are living in a Douglas Adams book, the ability to tell apart the different costumes of Queen Amidala dolls is not key to the future of the world. I hope.

but if it is, then I get to be QUEEN.

I stand in the camp of people who believe that the change from 20th to 21st centuries (of the Western/Christian calendar) happened last New Year's, amid all the fireworks and techie work-parties. Just because a monk working hundreds of years after the fact assigned year 1 to Jesus's guessed birth year, assigning no year 0, simply means the first century had only 99 years (this idea from a Stephen Jay Gould essay, in a book "Dinosaur in a Haystack"). Anyway, I preferred the aesthetic quality of all four numbers flipping, and was willing to just celebrate that in itself if only that was allowed. All calendars are arbitrary.

At Thanksgiving, when I commented that 2000 is the year of limbo, not unanimously belonging to either century or millennium, cousin Janet (a 2001 adherent) commented that, then, this was the perfect year for the Limbo Election.

In any case, after this month, all will at least agree that we are firmly into the 21st century. (except perhaps the Chinese, the Jews, the Muslims, and anyone else on a system I don't know about.)