We have two little "bucket" calves - so called because most dairy farmers put them on a bucket for their milk soon after they are born so the mamas can get back in the milking rotation. We bought a couple a few weeks ago to raise for ... uh, spoiler alert ... just think about where your latest hamburger came from as I move on.
One common problem for these little guys is called "scours" which is the cow form of diarrhea as they try to get used to different milk etc. Both of ours have had their share of this little problem. If you can imagine life without toilet paper ... sorry.
Anyway they needed to be cleaned up. So Annie, my daughter, got to hold the front end of each little guy while I went to work on the back end with some warm soapy water, a soft brush and a curry comb. 20 minutes or so later; clean as a whistle. Them, not us. Both of us started to smell slightly like, well, cow's behinds.
"Well life on the farm is kind of laid back, ain't much an ole country boy like me can't hack."
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Jose can you play?
In most books, Jose Feliciano will go down as a stereotype of the singer of a couple of well known songs - Feliz Navidad and his version of the Doors' Light My Fire. Some may remember him as a reasonably good guitarist but if you ever hear his version of Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumblebee... For you non-classical people, it's a speed song. But I don't think the Russian wrote it for guitar. On XM today I heard it by Jose and while I don't particularly like the song played anyway, anyhow - you have to hear it to see how fast Mr. F. could play it. Hendrix was good and Eddie Van Halen was pretty quick and of course there are many others but I'd put this one up there in the pure speed category. If there is by some chance a video of it somewhere it would be amazing to watch.
TV series idea
I have a new idea for a TV series – a mockumentary featuring Russian immigrant criminals.
With the advent of NBC’s/Amy Poehler’s Parks and Recreation program in the style of the Office and with two programs this weeks featuring Russian immigrant criminals (Without a Trace and Life) I think we need to combine the two ideas/techniques.
I read a caution to screenwriters a year or two ago about avoiding having your characters crawl through heating and air conditioning ducts. Somehow you were losing your creativity if you had to resort to that. (I like 24 but Jack Bauer has to get in a ceiling or crawl thru ductwork at least once a year!)
Now it seems that the writer/producers think that Russians make good villains so they keep popping up all over the place. And it was only a matter of time before somebody simply moved the Office to another town. Again. After all it started in England.
Since I work for a govt. entity, I thought some of the lines in last night's premiere of Parks and Recreation were funny. Lots of potential here but the show needs something. Maybe because I don't know any of the people who play besides Amy Pohler. But I hope they don't think copying the style of the Office will make it work.
With the advent of NBC’s/Amy Poehler’s Parks and Recreation program in the style of the Office and with two programs this weeks featuring Russian immigrant criminals (Without a Trace and Life) I think we need to combine the two ideas/techniques.
I read a caution to screenwriters a year or two ago about avoiding having your characters crawl through heating and air conditioning ducts. Somehow you were losing your creativity if you had to resort to that. (I like 24 but Jack Bauer has to get in a ceiling or crawl thru ductwork at least once a year!)
Now it seems that the writer/producers think that Russians make good villains so they keep popping up all over the place. And it was only a matter of time before somebody simply moved the Office to another town. Again. After all it started in England.
Since I work for a govt. entity, I thought some of the lines in last night's premiere of Parks and Recreation were funny. Lots of potential here but the show needs something. Maybe because I don't know any of the people who play besides Amy Pohler. But I hope they don't think copying the style of the Office will make it work.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Nothing better to do.
I am amazed that most (can't possibly read it all) of the coverage of Obama's trip to London et al was about such things as touching the Queen, the grand exit from Air Force One, meeting with Sarkozy and his lovely wife etc. Hopefully something of substance was accomplished on this trip and the media either already reported on it or will get to it as soon as they are done fawning over the style rather than the substance.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Money makes the world go 'round
I don't have enough time or smarts to propose any fixes or solutions to the world-wide money crisis but a few things just jump out at me.
Toxic assets. Why should the government be buying these up to save the companies that created or bought them or invested in them? If it was a little old grandmother who was cheated out of her life savings by a swindler and invested in something bad; OK. I can accept some exceptions where someone should step in and help. But why if a big smart company - let's pick any bank - if they somehow acquired a "toxic" asset, why should the govt. or me or anybody step in and take that off their hands? Now if they want to get rid of their bad investment so badly, then why don't sell it off for some % of the original value, take the write off and move on. But for the Feds to step in and say essentially "OK, we know you were stupid and invested badly but we are here to help so we'll take it of your hands so you can clean up your balance sheet." I don't get it. If I invested in say any stock, which reminds me, how about all my losses in my 457 plan (basically a 401K) where for years I invested in big name mutual funds managed by smart people but when the stocks turned downward, they got their commissions and I took the losses. Where was the Govt. to take those "toxic" mutual funds assets out of my retirement fund?
#2 peeve for the day: I guess GM is too big to leave alone but in too bad shape to fix itself. I understand that hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to this behemoth. But when and where does the Federal Govt. get off suggesting that the CEO resign? I think he probably should have gotten out of Dodge a long time ago and that the shareholders would have been thinking about a 'tarrin' and featherin' long before the Feds started deciding who should run what company. I know Democrats like bigger government and more involvement but I never expected them to condone deciding who runs what company.
I guess this trickles down to the bonus issue recently. No way should any of those people have gotten rewarded for their bad decisions. But for the Govt' to start deciding how much people should be paid etc. Once again this seems like a slippery slope.
I realize that the money is either a loan or some sort of thing and for that the loaner should have some input but the key is making sure of a guarantee of getting the money back or a return on investment. Not being able to tell the company how to run their business. My mortgage company tells me I have to have certain kinds of insurance on my house in order to get my loan but they don't get involved in telling me where I should work or where and how I spend my money and I can hang pictures on my wall anywhere I please.
If this is where our govt. is headed, I'm not happy and slightly worried.
Toxic assets. Why should the government be buying these up to save the companies that created or bought them or invested in them? If it was a little old grandmother who was cheated out of her life savings by a swindler and invested in something bad; OK. I can accept some exceptions where someone should step in and help. But why if a big smart company - let's pick any bank - if they somehow acquired a "toxic" asset, why should the govt. or me or anybody step in and take that off their hands? Now if they want to get rid of their bad investment so badly, then why don't sell it off for some % of the original value, take the write off and move on. But for the Feds to step in and say essentially "OK, we know you were stupid and invested badly but we are here to help so we'll take it of your hands so you can clean up your balance sheet." I don't get it. If I invested in say any stock, which reminds me, how about all my losses in my 457 plan (basically a 401K) where for years I invested in big name mutual funds managed by smart people but when the stocks turned downward, they got their commissions and I took the losses. Where was the Govt. to take those "toxic" mutual funds assets out of my retirement fund?
#2 peeve for the day: I guess GM is too big to leave alone but in too bad shape to fix itself. I understand that hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to this behemoth. But when and where does the Federal Govt. get off suggesting that the CEO resign? I think he probably should have gotten out of Dodge a long time ago and that the shareholders would have been thinking about a 'tarrin' and featherin' long before the Feds started deciding who should run what company. I know Democrats like bigger government and more involvement but I never expected them to condone deciding who runs what company.
I guess this trickles down to the bonus issue recently. No way should any of those people have gotten rewarded for their bad decisions. But for the Govt' to start deciding how much people should be paid etc. Once again this seems like a slippery slope.
I realize that the money is either a loan or some sort of thing and for that the loaner should have some input but the key is making sure of a guarantee of getting the money back or a return on investment. Not being able to tell the company how to run their business. My mortgage company tells me I have to have certain kinds of insurance on my house in order to get my loan but they don't get involved in telling me where I should work or where and how I spend my money and I can hang pictures on my wall anywhere I please.
If this is where our govt. is headed, I'm not happy and slightly worried.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Quintessential American Songwriters
My daughter and I were just thinking out loud while listening to Jackson Browne when we came up with a poll - pick the quintessential American Songwriter. We thought about Singer/Songwriter but that skews things in a different direction - although many of these are singers too. Comment, vote - whatever but let us know what you think.
Pick one of these (or nominate your someone) who has created a lasting body of work that captures the essence of American life, whose work has endured and crossed genres, time periods, not necessarily the best or most popular songwriter or the most prolific. These are in alpha order. These are 20 we came up with quickly and we likely have left out some very good ones so - vote early, vote often!
the un-scientific Quintessential American Songwriter poll
Irving Berlin
Jackson Browne
Hoagy Carmichael
Johnny Cash
Bob Dylan
Stephen Foster
George and Ira Gershwin
Woody Guthrie
Billy Joel
Don McLean
John Mellencamp
Bill Monroe
Willie Nelson
Cole Porter
Rogers and Hammerstein
Pete Seeger
Paul Simon
Bruce Springsteen
James Taylor
Jimmy Webb
Pick one of these (or nominate your someone) who has created a lasting body of work that captures the essence of American life, whose work has endured and crossed genres, time periods, not necessarily the best or most popular songwriter or the most prolific. These are in alpha order. These are 20 we came up with quickly and we likely have left out some very good ones so - vote early, vote often!
the un-scientific Quintessential American Songwriter poll
Irving Berlin
Jackson Browne
Hoagy Carmichael
Johnny Cash
Bob Dylan
Stephen Foster
George and Ira Gershwin
Woody Guthrie
Billy Joel
Don McLean
John Mellencamp
Bill Monroe
Willie Nelson
Cole Porter
Rogers and Hammerstein
Pete Seeger
Paul Simon
Bruce Springsteen
James Taylor
Jimmy Webb
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Short story idea - Do Over
Walking my two frisky border collies this windy morning and thinking about decisions I've made during my life. We all regret many of them and wish we could have some "do-overs" but life doesn't work that way.
This idea hit me for a story but I have no idea how to flesh it out.
Let's say you got some do-overs but with conditions. The condition being you could go back and pick a point in your life where you wanted to have a do over but the on-going catch is you can't just change that one thing. From that point on, future decisions have to be different as well. Example - you decide to go back at the point of taking some stupid job and change that. Fine, but from that point on, other life choices have to be different. For instance - if you go back to your do-over point and it was BEFORE you got married, then that future choice would have to be different. When your life moved forward to that time in your "re-doing" your life, you'd have to make a different choice, in this case either to marry somebody else OR not get married.
So the point you pick for your do-over is critical because it changes everything AFTER that point. Family decisions, job decisions etc. I haven't decided how deep they need to go.
I have no idea where to go with this idea other than it was intriguing. Some smart soul will no doubt tell me it has been done and provide the name of the movie or book. If so, please do then I can see how they worked it out.
This idea hit me for a story but I have no idea how to flesh it out.
Let's say you got some do-overs but with conditions. The condition being you could go back and pick a point in your life where you wanted to have a do over but the on-going catch is you can't just change that one thing. From that point on, future decisions have to be different as well. Example - you decide to go back at the point of taking some stupid job and change that. Fine, but from that point on, other life choices have to be different. For instance - if you go back to your do-over point and it was BEFORE you got married, then that future choice would have to be different. When your life moved forward to that time in your "re-doing" your life, you'd have to make a different choice, in this case either to marry somebody else OR not get married.
So the point you pick for your do-over is critical because it changes everything AFTER that point. Family decisions, job decisions etc. I haven't decided how deep they need to go.
I have no idea where to go with this idea other than it was intriguing. Some smart soul will no doubt tell me it has been done and provide the name of the movie or book. If so, please do then I can see how they worked it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
