smockmomma: November 2005 Archives

yes, it's the season of advent, but i've already started shopping for christmas. big mistake. as you may know, rubik's cube
is celebrating its 25th anniversary, so i just had to get one ... for duncan. it didn't last five minutes in the house before i had to rip it out of the box. of course, i didn't want anyone to actually touch it. "once we start messin with it, it'll be ruined," i warned. but the family didn't care. no, they insisted on jackin' it all up. which means that i have to figure it out if i want to have any hope of a perfect cube again, save buying a new one.

25 years ago, during the original craze, i could actually get two sides complete with a fair amount of a third side down, but that was 25 years ago and i can't for the life of me figure it out again. it's driving me nuts. but when i sat down to share my frustration with blogdom, something equally freaky struck me. it's been twenty-five years since the cube was launched into total fad-dom, winning "toy of the year" in 1980. 1980 was 25 years ago, my friends.

this means that we're 25 years older than when we first lost our minds trying to get all of the colors on that blasted cube correctly aligned. twenty five years seems like such a blasted long time. i mean, my toys are having anniversaries. that's insane. and don't try to pretend you didn't have one, too. it's estimated that over 100 million cubes were sold by the end of 1982 and almost every home in America had one, so i'll lay dollars to doughnuts you had one driving you insane, too. of course, if your house was anything like mine, your cube ended up in little bits.

still, i haven't given in to the temptation to rip the cube apart ... yet. mostly for fear i won't remember how i got the cube back together 25 years ago. i'm also a little paranoid that they've made it impossible to put back together. who "they" are i've no idea -- some anti-cheat toy police i suppose. i just can't bare the thought of having the family come home one day to find me jabbering incoherently on the kitchen floor and surrounded by multi-colored cube bits.

three words for walk the line. fab·you·lust.

okay, phoenix is unquestionably eye candy, so how in the world did he BECOME "hello. i'm johnny cash" onscreen? i don't know, but he did. witherspoon is beautiful too, maybe a tad too beautiful as june carter cash, but her spitfire was believable. together they made a jim-dandy duo that was actually interesting and exciting to watch. they so embodied their characters, made them so believable, i actually cared, and even cried a tear or two, for them. it's a love story all the way, but there is not an ounce of saccharine in this sweet tea it's all pure cane.

by the by, phoenix and witherspoon did all of their own singing. hello? incredible. this movie lives up to all the hype iffin you ask me. and the fact that TEXAS was represented made it all the more enjoyable for the texaphilic smockmomma.

jerry lee lewis: we're all goin to hell for the songs we sing. every one in this car's goin to hell.
june: and what about me, jerry lee, am i goin to hell?
jerry lee lewis: naw, june, you're beautiful.

and in a word, that was the film: beautiful. so what if the two main characters were a little too purty when they were true.

UPDATE: i bought the soundtrack to walk the line and it's really good. i could do without the tracks by "lewis" and "elvis" -- and it's missing one of my favorite songs sung by witherspoon and phoenix in the film -- but phoenix's version of "ring of fire" is almost a near occassion of sin for me, so i already told mamaT that she might get my copy of the soundtrack. if you're stronger than me you can listen to clips of the songs here. remember, these are sung by the actors and they're goooooooooood.

i LOVE this man, i really do! in a recent interview with "inside the vatican" cardinal arinze gives a fabulous snap response:

ITV: Recently, an issue that has been given a lot of attention are the moral obligations of Catholics during election times. Is it a duty of them to vote for pro-life politicians, and should those Catholic pro-choice politicians be given communion?

CARDINAL FANCIS ARINZE: You are asking me if a politician says, "I vote for abortion, and I will continue to ask for abortion." Then you ask should he be given holy communion. So, you are really saying, this politician says, "I vote for the killing of unborn children." Because we call things by their names. And he calls that pro-choice.

Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, "for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday." Then you ask me, should he be given communion. My reply, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?" Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions.

If a person has a way of life which is against the major Commandments, and makes a boast of it, then the person is in a state which is publicly sinful. It is he who has disqualified himself, not the priest or the bishop. He should not go to communion, until his life should be in line with the Gospel.

[click here to read the article in full.]

my eyes started leaking while i was fixing duncan's hair because it dawned on me that we have less time with him than the time we've already had. i explained to duncan that "we only have about eight more years and then you'll be off to college."
"yeah! i'm gonna get my doctor's degree."
"you'll get your doctorate."
"mom! i'm not a girl. i'll be a doctor, not a doctor-ette!"

i confess...that i have absolutely no patience with stupid people.
i confess...that, like mamaT, i think a pint of ice cream should be labeled as a single serving. and on that note, a box of girl scout cookies should be labeled as two servings tops.
i confess...that i love going to confession. strike that; i love leaving confession.
i confess...that i really like desperate housewives and i don't get people who don't get it. if hollywood jesus gets it, so should you.
i confess...a healthy dose of admiration for "good ol' boys."
i confess...that i think my children are cuter than yours. i can't help it. i'm the mom.
i confess...that i have to make an earnest effort to control my temper and my language.
i confess...that i've deleted the beginnings of many blogs because they weren't very charitable or were too controversial and i didn't want mamaT to face the backlash.
i confess...that i like really dark and heavy movies. at least two of which i know have even been denounced by the vatican.
i confess...that at this point in my life, my idea of heaven is being able to leave the house solo at will.
i confess...that i could go on and on and on.

i confess. . .that i'd like to see TSO's list next.

smocktwins, davis and donovan

smockdaddy and i went to see derailed last night. what i really want to see is walk the line, but it doesn't open until friday and like so many other things, my movie choices are limited to the twins' nursing schedule. but i digress. . .

i really wan't expecting anything at all out of this movie, so as it turned out, i was pretty impressed. it's very hard to watch though, so i wouldn't recommend it to any of our readers who are delicate moviegoers. let's just say it has an R rating for a reason. violence and implied violence abound in this psychological thriller. it is very hitchcockian (is that a word?). not because it is particularly well-done but because of its theme -- two would-be adulterers get brutally attacked and then blackmailed by thugs -- and its outcome -- which i will not give away. it's frustrating, surprising, violent, and surprising again. i'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you won't see it coming.

if slightly flat acting doesn't bother you as long as the story is compelling, this one is worth the price of admission.

after almost nine years and three daughters, smockdaddy chose a harried monday morning to finally learn how to put a ponytail holder (also known as one of those hair things) into the girls' hair. after several attempts the other morning, grace begged her dad to let me fix her hair instead.

smockdaddy: but, i'm trying to learn how to fix your hair.
grace: i don't care about learning, daddy, i want to go to school!

proverb 28.27 "he who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."

i have been criticized for giving money to obvious drunkards begging for spare change and i've even been called "plain stupid" for giving money to strangers on the street, but i've never really agreed with putting stipulations on giving to the poor. it's my understanding that we're called to give to those in need, not to micromanage where our alms are going to end up. of course, this smacks of cloying piety so let me stress that this is not my aim; it's just that after reading the end of mr. luse's brief update and the comments about cons, drunks, and giving that it brings to mind the fact that i've never given money to someone who asked without being blessed. i know it sounds crazy, but it's the truth and, at the risk of sounding like a total religious flake, i've even been nudged by the Spirit to give to those who didn't ask me personally, only to be later blessed.

granted, i've never actually worked per se with people who are on the breadline. i spent exactly four hours working in a homeless shelter one Christmas ten years ago. so you could say that i'm a "giver" as opposed to being a "doer" -- which may explain a lot to those who've actually served the poor.

that said, i still think turning away someone in need, even if that need be for alcohol or just a pack of smokes, is akin to putting the old kibosh on a potential blessing.

davis and i are as sick as dogs, but i dragged my miserable butt out yesterday to vote...here in TEXAS we were being asked to vote on proposition 2 which is "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

things got really ugly too because supporters of the oxymoronic "gay marriage" were calling people and telling them that if they didn't vote against prop 2, because of some improper wording in the ammendment, all marriages would be illegal. they also had callers telling people that if you were conservative you should vote against prop 2.

i just knew that if i didn't vote "I DO" for prop 2 all would be lost. no chance. this is TEXAS after all. prop 2 passed by 75%.