I’ve been scarce lately for a few reasons.
We took a great leap forward in the re-landscaping of the front of the house. About three dozen new plants have been in for the past three weeks. Thus watering, weeding and the like consume broad swaths of nearly every day.
We took a nice little vacation. A snapshot or two may be forthcoming.
Weather is finally pleasant. Three consecutive morning walkies with temps in the fabulous 40s: Wahoo! Woot! Yippee-ki-yi-yay! That means the pup and I both have a great deal more life in us than we have had throughout the relentlessly torpid summer, so we both want to stay out longer, roam farther and sniff more things. The temperate conditions and the paucity of daylight also pretty much clear out the park so no one need by offended by my combination of Hawaiian shirt, walking shorts and cap. Let’s get peripatetic!
The planned October trip to the city once known as The Big Easy is, of course, off, having been replaced with a trip to
a perfectly lovely town that has no such snappy nickname.
That being said, some things simply must be addressed.
Erik the K goofs – not just once, but an unprecedented three times in one post! First he states that mayonnaise may belong on some sandwiches. Perish the thought! Then he engages in historical revisionism by impugning the validity of placing raw onions on a burger. Tsk. Does he not recall that the burger is an American adaptation of Steak Tartare, of which the onion is an indispensable part? The raw onion on a burger is clearly an appropriate historical reference – so long as the onion is sliced to appropriate thinness. Thirdly, it appears that
il miglior fabbro has never had a good onion roll. Of course he’s right about how hard it is to find truly good bacon of late. That being said, even ordinary bacon is better than just about any other food out there. (How come bananas get to call themselves the most perfect food? While the banana is indeed a very good food, bacon is clearly much more perfect!) He’s also right about tomatoes, which we’re fortunate to finally have in abundance in the backyard.
Last night featured two major network TV shows that may not have been net negatives to civilization. That’s pretty astonishing!
First was
Bones. Yeah, that one: the 3826th crime investigation show on in primetime, so what? Well, the chemistry between the two main characters is a good deal better than the norm. Better still is the concept of a character who doesn’t just live and die for infotainment. The dazzling sets and gadgets, though, are what really make this something to watch. There’s even contemporary architecture that’s ennobling and inspiring! Are those delicious sets CGI backdrops, real locations or what? (That 3D monitor has now joined the walk-in fridge and the vibraphone as extravagant toys I’d like to eventually obtain.) The whole exercise ends up largely as eye-candy directed at selling more HD sets. Coincidentally, it seems that many ladies’ sentiments toward the leading man are summed up in the preceding sentence. However the show probably won’t last if it continues trying to be too many things for too many people at one time. That’s not all bad as it takes the cliché of the law enforcement hero that simply must break the rules and carries it to hitherto uncharted desert isles of absurdity. Due to commotion, I missed a line where it seemed a character was going to quote – of all people – St. Albertus Magnus. That in itself is worth another viewing.
Then the season premier of
House, M.D. – best show on TV this side of
The Sopranos. (What is it about Jersey shows?) Sure there are formulaic and predictable facets to each episode and the characters aren’t that well-rounded even yet (could any physician anywhere ever have social skills as advanced as those routinely displayed on this show?), but it is a show that’s willing to glance at the shadows and edges of the things that matter. In our Oprahfied world, that’s rare as can be. Most importantly, this episode touched on an issue of major contemporary interest: does a biological predisposition to engaging in an activity excuse one from fault when he engages in that activity? To their credit, the writers don’t fall into the trap that biological determinism trumps morality at least in the context of bludgeoning people to death. Surprising, since I’d guess that the writers would rush headlong into that trap when it comes to
the issue where it’s most often applied.