return of the blogger

[calimac]

1. Mark Evanier says that people who seem weird because they're talking to themselves look normal if they're wearing a Bluetooth earpiece.

No they don't. First off, the earpiece makes you look like a Borg. And having even more people walking around holding loud animated conversations with apparently nobody does not make the neighborhood seem less weird.

2. Yet another article, this one tied to the Weiner's wiener case (did I spell those both right?), saying that women aren't interested in pictorial erotica, no way, nohow. I wonder. Concludes by saying that for women, a sexy man would be one who cooks dinner and "has organized his books alphabetically and by genre."

Um, that man would be me, but I neither like nor believe the implications of that. There's only been one woman at my door, and I'm entirely content with her, thank you.

3. Review of a bio-documentary on Bobby Fischer. "Given that this is a documentary about something that happened in the '70s, they apparently couldn't get around the need to include the requisite music cues—"Theme from 'Shaft'", "Bang a Gong", "Rock and Roll, Parts One and Two"—which set the obligatory nostalgic-kitschy tone, even if Bobby Fischer is the last person you ever expected to see walking around to the accompaniment of Booker T. & the M.G.s."*

Hah. Y'know, people think I'm joking when I say that one reason I wouldn't want to be famous (or notorious) is that I wouldn't want a film made about me that set the period by using pop songs which I HATE, but I'm serious!

*What is it with the "Theme from 'Shaft'", anyway? It keeps gesturing as if it's about to start, but it never actually does. There's no song there, just an opening vamp.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I prepare 80 or 90 percent of our in-home meals, but they aren't always sophisticated; it depends on how much time and energy I have. I do a couple of pretty decent chilis.

I don't know Bliss Bibliographic; can you provide a link for it?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

There's a brief broad outline - which is what I most like about it - at the Wikipedia article. To get the full classification, you need the books, but the full LCC isn't on the public web either (it can be subscribed to).

Anyway, I copied the abridged version, with some additions from the full original classification where my collection needed more detail, and use that. I don't use the revised edition, which is a faceted classification, and I don't like those.