Do we really care about fighting this "terrorism" thing?
As this latest terror attack in Bali demonstrates, the terrorists are smart enough to attack countries where it hurts most, in their money belts. An attack like this one is clearly supposed to have an effect on the tourism industry, which would do a lot of damage to the economy.

It may sound simplistic, but we could put the terrorists out of business if we made it our priority to end our dependence on their oil. Without our money, which we give them so freely, they'd have to go back to living in tents across their vast wastelands that they're so intent to expel us from. They hate our Western culture, but they certainly don't mind taking our money and living in cities that resemble our decadent, evil society.

In this day and age we should be able to put our scientists to work on developing vehicles that are powered by alternative fuels or, even better, on an efficient and powerful non-combustion engine (which would also do wonders for the environment in addition to putting the terrorists out of business).

Yes, I know that this will probably not happen until things get so bad that there's no other choice. That's usually the only way that any real progress ever gets made. There are too many friends of too many powerful people who make a lot of money from the oil industry in this country. We live not in a democracy, but in a corporatocracy. What the big business leaders want/need, the big business leaders get. Every member of Congress has gotten there with the money and support from big business, especially the oil industry and pharmaceutical companies.

I don't see alternative fuels or non-combustion engines as a big threat to the auto industry, though. Somebody would have to make these new vehicles, so it might as well be the corporations that already exist. Our oil barons could still supply our need for fuel to use in heating homes and its other pursposes, like making plastics. Perhaps we produce enough oil within our own borders, and in other countries like Venezuela, to keep our oil company executives fat and satisfied.

El Gran Final de "La Madrastra"
So the final episodes of "La Madrastra" aired Monday night and we finally learned who "el verdadero asesino de Patricia" was. It turned out to be that creepy perv Demetrio Rivero, Esteban's attorney.

But apparently the writers didn't think that having him be an attorney was bad enough for their villain. They also made him be a child molester (of his former stepdaughter, Ana Rosa, who is his current wife's niece), a cross-dresser (this detail was thrown in near the end of the series), a worshipper of La Santissima Muerte (the Most Holy Death), and the murderer of at least five people (Patricia, Servando, Luciano, the bellboy in Aruba, and Ana Rosa).

Good old Deme gets his comeuppance in the end, but some people at the "La Madrastra" forum actually felt sorry for him. I think that they were just upset that Alba, the über-bitch, didn't suffer in the end. She just couldn't understand why everyone else thought it was wrong that she was in love with her own nephew, so she jumped from the roof of the San Román family's home in one of last week's episodes, then she got to die a quick death. Yes, we all wanted to see Alba suffer more than she did—she got away with way too much twisted stuff—but sometimes that's just how things go in novela land.

All that's left now of "La Madrastra" is the follow-up special that will air this Sunday night (September 11), "La Madrastra: Cinco Años Después", which will show us what the characters' lives are like five years later. I can tell you that none of the characters will look any older. Hey, they haven't aged at all from the mid-1980s till today, so why should they start now? They must've found that fountain of youth that Ponce de Leon was looking for. And then on Monday night, the 12th, the cast will appear on the Latin equivalent of Oprah's talk show, "Cristina".

Ain't it grand?
I may have mentioned this before, but if you're talking about the siblings of your grandparents, you should use the terms grandaunt and granduncle, not great-aunt and great-uncle. The same goes for the children of your nieces and nephews: they are your grandnieces and grandnephews, not your great-nieces and great-nephews.

When I was a kid I used to get confused as to why the sister of my great-grandmother was called my great-great-aunt. Why did the first have one "great" and the second have two "greats"? I thought that it would be much easier if each generation used the same number of "greats", and it turns out that I was correct. Unfortunately, it has become so common for people to use the wrong terms that some dictionaries actually seem to prefer the "greats" over the "grands". I understand that language is supposed to be fluid and should evolve, but it only makes sense to me for this to happen when the word change is something that seems logical and makes speech easier.

When going back a few generations, the easiest way to remember the correct terms and to determine the correct number of "greats" is simply to use the same number of greats for the aunts and uncles that you'd use for your direct ancestors. For example, if you're talking about the sibling of a grandparent, then you're talking about a grandaunt or granduncle. If you're talking about the sibling of a great-grandparent, then you're talking about a great-grandaunt or great-granduncle. If you're talking about the sibling of a great-great-grandparent, then you're talking about a great-great-grandaunt or great-great-granduncle. Et cetera, and so on.

It's not like you call your mother's parents your great-parents or your great-mother and great-father, right? So why would you leave the "grand" out for aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews? The answer is, you shouldn't. The only time you should use "great" with an aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew is when that family member really is great: very large, very generous, very loving, very accomplished, very interesting, etc.

It's all quite simple, really, but if you insist on using the great-aunt/great-uncle/great-nephew/great-niece terminology, then you should be consistent and then use great-great-uncle, great-great-great-aunt, etc. for subsequent generations. But some people use the term great-aunt and then, referring to the next generation back, say great-grandaunt. If you choose to leave the "grand" off for your grandparents' siblings, then leave it off for your great-grandparents' siblings, and so on. You should say great-great-aunt, since you've decided not to follow the logical progression of "greats" and "grands". Don't leave the "grand" off for one generation and then use it for another. That is neither great nor grand.

This 'n That
I watched the new "Surreal Life" and I can't wait for Janice Dickinson to rip Omatrocia Manacle-Stillbirth (aka Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth) a new poo-hole!  That psycho bitch is out of control!  Not that Janice is any saner, though. The self-proclaimed "world's first super model" has a major meltdown on day one.

This seems to be the most messed up cast that they've assembled so far. The only ones who are open to liking their housemates, and who don't talk smack about everyone else, are Sandra "Pepa" Denton and Carey Hart (who just got engaged to Pink, so I guess he doesn't hook up with anyone in the house). Fasten your seatbelts, because it ought to be a bumpy ride.

I'm also enjoying the current AFL (Australian Football League) season. They show a game on MHz each Monday night at 8:00pm and they have a highlights program on Sundays at 5:00pm to give reports on other games from the previous week.  The only problem that I'm having with the sport this year (I've been watching for about 5 years now) is that I don't like the new guernseys (that's what they call their jerseys) that the Brisbane Lions just started wearing. Otherwise I'm loving it.
[Note: It turns out that they just wore different shirts for that one game. I don't know why. But now things are back to normal. Crisis averted.]

WWTWODHD? (What would the writers of "Dynasty" have done?)

Back to our regularly scheduled program, "La Madrastra":

I've been thinking that since the actress who plays Ana Rosa (Martha Julia) is 32 years old she would've been 12 years old veinte anos (20 years) ago. I think that the writers have already established that Ana Rosa was an adolescent when her mother Sofia died and her stepdaddy Demetrio (who is now married to her Aunt Daniela) started molesting her.

I remember that on "Dynasty" they wrapped up the mystery of the 20-something year-old murder of Roger Grimes by saying that Fallon (when she was a little girl) saw the man abusing her mother Alexis, so she killed him, but didn't remember it afterwards because she was so young.

If the writers of "La Madrastra" really wanted to mess with us they could have the true asesina (murderess) turn out to be little Ana Rosa. I'm sure that this won't happen, but it certainly would have been unexpected, and not much more unbelievable than a lot of the stuff that has happened or the unrealistic ways that many of the characters have behaved.

The gran final episode of "La Madrastra" will be shown in Mexico next week, so it's a done deal, but I wish that they had filmed multiple endings with different murderers (and this could have been one of them) that they could have included on the eventual DVD release. I think that it'll be a few more weeks until the finale airs here, so I'll have to try not to read too many of the spoilers that are posted in the forum that I visit regularly.

What's this!?? A Republican Christian espousing true Christian values!?
Read this! It was written by John C. Danforth, an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri. I'm not used to reading the words of a "Christian" Republican that actually contain Christian values. It's a refreshing surprise!  Of course, though, these words would have to come from a former Republican senator.

June 17, 2005

Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

Thanks to Shelley Price for bringing this to my attention.

Tengo un adiccion MUY grande y mas fuerte...
I am SO obsessed with my Mexican telenovela, "La Madrastra" (translation: "The Stepmother"), which airs every week night at 9:00pm on Univision! Back in the middle of March I had a visitor from Connecticut staying with me and at 9:00pm each night he wanted to watch "Rubi", a novela that was having its finale that Friday. Within that week I became hooked on the show and regretted that I hadn't started watching it sooner.

After my visitor returned to Connecticut he told me that the following week a new novela would be starting and that it would be a good one. I decided to watch this one from the beginning and decide if it was worth sticking with. Let me tell you, it is.

From the moment the opening theme started playing I knew that this show was going to be as stylish and campy as "Dynasty" during its heyday. I haven't missed a single episode, no matter what else is on at the same time. That's what the VCR is for.

I took a couple Spanish courses in high school and was very good at reading and writing the language, but I could never construct complex sentences or understand when people were speaking rapidly. Conjugating verbs and using the correct tense (past, present, future, etc.) was out of the question, too. Plus, knowing a lot of Italian and some Portuguese has turned all of those languages into a Latin jumble for me. But now, after watching a couple months of this show (with the closed-captions turned on, so I can read as well as listen) I can understand what's being said in just about every sentence.

Here's the story, in a nutshell:

Twenty years ago, poor María Fernández Acuña, a former secretary, was married to wealthy Esteban San Román and they had two children together: young Hector and little Estrella.

While vacationing in Aruba with Esteban and a group of his friends, María entered a hotel room and found her good friend, Patricia Ibáñez, lying dead on the floor. María inadvertently picked up the gun, getting her fingerprints on the weapon.

Many of the "friends" on this trip were also Esteban's business associates. One of them, Servando Maldonado, later lied under oath and testified that he had seen María murder Patricia. Servando was in love with María, his best friend's wife, and helped to get her convicted because he was so bitter about never being able to have her to himself.

It's later revealed that every one of their traveling companions had motive and opportunity to kill Patricia.

It turns out that, unbeknownst to María, her dear friend Patricia was quite a bitch, and was not really María's true friend at all.

María was supposed to spend the rest of her life in prison, but a lawyer named Luciano, who had fallen in love with her, helped to obtain her release after these twenty years had passed. María decides to return to Mexico City, reclaim her children (now grown), and get revenge on her faithless husband for abandoning her and not believing in her innocence.

After María was first incarcerated, Esteban decided to tell his young children that their mother died. He placed a painting of a mysterious woman over the hearth in the salon of their home and raised the children to believe that this was a portrait of their sainted mother. A third child joined the family soon after María's imprisonment. The sickly Ángel was raised to believe that he was the son of Esteban and the mystery woman in the painting, but he was actually the son of one of Esteban's aunts, either Alba or Carmela (another mystery), and was fathered by Esteban's attorney, Demetrio. Demetrio is married to Daniela, the aunt of Ana Rosa, who at the beginning of the show was Esteban's fiancee.

It also turns out that Demetrio had previously been married to Daniela's sister, Sofia. Sofia was Ana Rosa's mother who went loca and died under mysterious circumstances, leaving Ana Rosa in Daniela and Demetrio's care. Demetrio did quite a bit more than just care for the young adolescent, though.

Confused yet?

Esteban's children, especially Hector and Estrella, were VERY opposed to his engagement to Ana Rosa, not wanting her or any other woman as a stepmother or to take the place of the perfect imaginary mother whom Esteban's lies had conjured up for them.

Upon her release, María returned to Mexico City and learned that her children have believed that their mother has been dead for these twenty years. Esteban tried to convince her that it would be better for her to pretend to be someone else than for them to find out that their mother was alive and that she'd spent the last couple decades in prison for having committed murder.

Complicating matters even further is Patricia and Arturo's son, Leonel Ibáñez, whom Esteban practically raised as a son and who also works at Empresas San Román (San Román Industries). Leonel is immediately smitten with María, not knowing that she was the one who supposedly murdered his mother; however, Leonel has his own admirer: Lupita, a secretary at Empresas San Román.

Hector and Estrella could sense right away that there was something between their father and María, so they both harbored an instant dislike for the woman, not realizing that she was their real mother. Ironically, the only one of the San Román siblings to treat her with civility was Ángel, the only one that wasn't her child. Hector and Estrella end up hating María even more after they start to suspect that this odious woman must have been having an affair with their father back when their angelic mother was still alive. María convinces Esteban to dump Ana Rosa and marry her (María) so that she can be near her children and try to win their love.

Throughout all of this, María still wanted to clear her name by discovering who Patricia's real killer was. At one point she gathered all of her prime suspects under on roof, at the house that Patricia and her husband Arturo owned out in the country. Leonel could never bring himself to spend any time there because he found it too painful, but he was more than happy to allow the object of his affection, María, to use it for a quiet get-away.

Instead of relaxing, though, María summoned Esteban, his aunts Carmela and Alba, Demetrio and Daniela, Servando, and the cartoonishly wicked Bruno and Fabiola out to the estate for a confrontation. She was hoping that by scaring some of the more superstitious attendees (Carmela and Servando) into thinking that Patricia's ghost was nearby that perhaps someone might confess.

Each guest, except for Esteban, ended up taking María aside to accuse one of their other friends of being the true assassin. So, ultimately, María didn't get any closer to the truth, even after the group was trapped in that house for a couple days due to a torrential storm that washed out the access road.

The only thing that María really learned at the time, after having found Patricia's diary, was the truth about how Patricia really felt about her. It turns out that Patricia, just like Fabiola and Daniela, wanted Esteban for herself. (Note: Alba has since confessed to Padre Belisario that she too is in love with Esteban, her own nephew!) It broke María's heart to discover that a friendship that she treasured was just a lie and that the woman whose death she has mourned all of these years was really her secret enemy.

As of last night's episode, María was hopeful that Servando, who is on his deathbed and wants to assuage his guilty conscience, would tell her who the actual murderer is. Last week he confessed to Padre Belisario, but the priest is bound by the sanctity of the confessional.

There's also a bunch of peripheral characters, some of whom are often used as comic relief, especially Rufino Sanchez, known as "El Pulpo" ("the Octopus"), an unfortunate artist whose evil son Carlos (who is trying to get Estrella to marry him so he can enjoy the wealth of the San Román clan) has turned his back on him because he's ashamed of his father's poverty. Pulpo actually turns out to be Servando's stepbrother and he stands to inherit the old guy's vast fortune and position as a major stockholder at Empresas San Román. If Carlos knew about this he would certainly treat his poor father better. Both María and Pulpo are lucky enough to have the support of friends Da Vinci, Da Vinci's wife Socorro, and their children Greco (Carlos's rival for Estrella's heart) and Lupita (the secretary who is in love with Leonel). Pulpo's girlfriend Fanny and the flamboyant Duquesa de Walterrama y San Calixto, a local restaurant owner, also provide support.

Socorro befriended María right away. Esteban quickly realized that he was still in love with his long lost wife. Padre Belisario is always around to offer comfort. Also, María's best friend from prison, Vivian, was released and came to stay with her, lending her fierce support. María's son Hector was immediately entranced by Vivian, but at first he couldn't bring himself to get involved with a friend of the woman that he despises (his own mother) so he tried to convince himself that Vivian must be as bad as María.

I could probably go on and on explaining the intricacies of the plot, but I was just going to outline the plot in a nutshell. It's already turning out to be more like the size of a coconut shell. Suffice it to say that the cast is first-rate and the production values of the show are top-notch; much better than I would have expected. It's a good thing that telenovelas usually only last for around six months. At least I know that I'll be seeing how this all plays out and wraps up within a few more months.

• Official "La Madrastra" website
• "La Madrastra" group at MSN
• "La Madrastra" page at Alma Latina

The Amazing Race
Whenever I watch the final episode of any cycle of "The Amazing Race" my neighbors must wonder what is going on in my apartment. They surely here plenty of clapping, squealing, laughing, and crying. Last night's finale probably elicited the most noise from within my solid brick walls of any season-ender thus far. I was so happy not only that Uchenna and Joyce won the race, but that Ron and Kelly did not.

Unlike many Rob and Amber bashers, I wouldn't have been disappointed at all if they had won. Yes, they had an unfair advantage because of their fame, but although Rob sometimes says some ignorant or downright stupid things, he certainly knows human nature and how to manipulate people. Is there anyone better at "playing the game" than this guy? You may not like how he plays the game, but there's no denying that he has great instincts and handles people like a conductor with his orchestra. Also, he and Amber (like Uchenna and Joyce) always seem to be respectful of each other, even in the most tense situations.

Ron and Kelly barely seem to be able to treat each other respectfully even when things are going relatively smoothly. They were the team that I disliked the most from the very first episode of the season, mainly because of her. She claims to love him so much, while always pointing out things that she doesn't like about him and would like for him to change. To me, she doesn't really love him, but the person that she wants and expects him to be (or become). That's not love in my book. It's certainly not unconditional or accepting love. They went through a constant cycle of being rude and insulting to each other, then as soon as they made it through whatever situation they were in they'd feebly try to wipe the slate clean with a smile, a kiss, and calling each other "baby". Then as soon as they were up against the slightest challenge again they were right back at each other's throats. They're certainly not the most despicable people that I've seen on reality TV, but they are far from heartwarming (like Uchenna and Joyce) or even interesting (like Rob and Amber).

That said, seeing Uchenna and Joyce have to beg at the last pit stop to pay their cab driver, and knowing that they were coming dangerously close to losing $1 million over falling $25 short on taxi fare, had me on the edge of my seat. I wonder if they weren't allowed to just tell the cab driver to wait a few minutes while they ran inside to touch down on the mat to make their final check-in? I'm sure that any of the eliminated teams waiting inside would have been more than glad to pony up a few bucks to assure U & J's victory over R & A (whom almost all of the eliminees seemed to have an irrationally strong hatred for).

Again, it was another very rewarding wrap-up for the race.

I could care less if I'm a third wheel
Remember this:

The expression should be "couldn't care less", not "could care less". If you COULD care less, that means that you do care to some degree and it's possible for you to care less. If you COULDN'T care less, that means that you care the least amount of caring possible and so it's impossible for you to care any less. In essence, you don't care at all.

Another expression that people get wrong all the time is "fifth wheel". A person who accompanied a couple may have been the third person on the outing but should not be referred to as a "third wheel". It doesn't matter if you're talking about a third person or not. The expression should always be "fifth wheel" even when there are only three people involved. A fifth wheel is something superfluous and unnecessary. A third wheel, in fact, serves a purpose. A tricycle has more balance than a bicycle. If an extra person joined three people you wouldn't call him or her a fourth wheel, would you?

I know the second paragraph above has nothing to do with the first, but I couldn't care less. And this paragraph is like a fifth wheel to this entire blog entry.

Yeah, that decal really helps
I've noticed that a disproportionate number of vehicles that sport those "Support Our Troops" ribbon decals on their backsides are large SUVs that contribute greatly to our country's dependence on foreign oil.

If our nation's leaders (and these fine monster-vehicle driving patriots) are really committed to making us safe from terrorism they'd find ways to reduce our usage of fossil fuels, after all, we're the ones who've given the terrorists of the Middle East all of their power by making them rich. Without their revenue from all of that oil they would have no power and be no threat whatsoever.

I created this new ribbon today and would love to get a few hundred of them printed up so I could place them on some of these offending vehicles and maybe make their owners think for a moment about their hypocrisy.