Wednesday, January 30, 2008
A blogger send off
I'm sure you've all heard that Edwards is dropping out. I appreciate the supportive e-mails and facebook messages I've gotten from friends lending me their shoulder to cry on. And I will cry. At least for a short time. On the whole, I'm still feeling wildly optimistic about 08. I've said all along I'll get behind whoever the nominee is because I feel confident that they will take this country in a positive direction. I feel that all the democratic candidates provide people a "they are a whole lot better than the alternative" vote and authentic hope for change. I will not be voting for the democratic nominee because I can't stand the republicans (although I can't), I'll be voting Democratic in 08 because I think they're the most in line with the constitution, values and needs of and for this country.

I've been conflicted throughout this race. Is my best choice in 08 really the archetype white male? Maybe I've not really as progressive as I think...why am I not finding my political support resting with the candidate that has breasts or darker skin. Why am I picking the good looking, white, neatly coiffed white man? Am I really more moderate than I think of myself? Do I have one foot dipped in the good ole boys network? No. I support Edwards because (despite his feelings toward the death penalty) he was the first mainstream candidate to articulate an agenda that resembles my hopes for the United States.

I always encourage my Women's Studies students to "write an imaginary thank you note" to the author we covered in class on any given day. I'll say "if you had to write Betty Friedan a thank you note, what would you say?" Inevitably, they list off the ideas in one's work that resonated most with them.

So, here, is my thank you note to John Edwards....

Thank you for:

* Proposing an economic stimulus plan (that included unemployed workers) long before there was a consensus on just how bad the economy is.
* Calling for a public investment in alternative energy and promoting a cap and trade system.
* Joining people on the margins to fight against poverty. This means you took seriously the need for a higher minimum wage, to reform the lending system and pursue economic justice. You were the only candidate to consistently talk about poverty and government's responsibility in eliminating it.
* Being honest about how these difficult changes were going to happen. You admitted that someone had to pay for them. You showed knowledge and hope--a powerful combination.
* Scaring the business lobby throughout the race.
* Asking Americans to sacrifice for something other than the war on terror. We can't just make sacrifices for "war," instead (you reminded us) we need to sacrifice to get our emissions under control and our poverty rates in check.
* Being the first to advocate a bold universal health plan. You set the tone and the agenda in the race regarding health care.
* Remembering that college should be affordable and making a commitment to education at all levels.
* Talking about women.
* Marrying Elizabeth Edwards and bringing her into the national discussion.
* Being honest about where you stand on gay marriage. Even though I don't agree, I found it promising that you were willing to continue thinking about the issue. That you were willing to admit that you "didn't know." I don't see that as a flip flop, I see that as a thinker who is willing to keep progressing.

I don't agree with every position Edwards' has ever taken. But I agree with much of what he stands for today. I think he ran a great campaign and I'm sad to see him leave the race. He talked about important issues on the campaign trail and in the debates.

So where do I go from here? The big question is what happens to the Edwards' supporters. I'm not sure. I don't know who I'll support in Georgia's primary next week. If Edwards' name is still on the ballot, I'll vote for him. There is a lot going on between the Obama and Clinton camps that I don't like. I've been disappointed by the negativity and the games. I'm disappointed when Obama doesn't take questions from the audience during his stops and I'm disappointed when Clinton makes all her answers into negative attacks. I'm disappointed when Obama mis- characterizes attacks on his voting record as personal attacks and I'm disappointed when Clinton spends all her time touting her past and not looking ahead to the future. I'm disappointed by the lack of attention to poverty. I'm disappointed in the disputes over mindless issues. I'm disappointed in Bill. And I'm disappointed in the Obama supporters who play cut throat politics at the expense of the party. But I hope that it will turn around. I believe that both Clinton and Obama value the party more than their ego. They value the voter more than the Washington insiders. They just need to prove it. I'll be waiting to see who gets there first. Who evolves? Who will be the person that remembers what and who needs fighting for.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 29, 2008
I-Tues v. 5
As we left the show on Sunday night, Drew commented that he just had one of his best nights in Athens. It was quite a claim. But we had quite a time. We had attended NPR's Athens 441 at the Melting Point. A radio show that showcases good music. The show is taped the last Sunday of every month and airs a few weeks later on 14 or so NPR stations. The first installment featured Mike Doughty! This is cool for so many reasons. First, I love NPR. I'm not sure if that's weird or not. But trust me when I say that I get down with talk radio. Second, the Melting Point is an amazing place to watch a show. Good food, great atmosphere, comfortable seating, and intimate surroundings. It is incredible. If you live in the ATH and haven't been there before, shame on you. Third, Mike Doughty is awesome. I went through a very big Mike Doughty phase last year about this time. I've written about him before on this blog. I love his stuff. He is super political and clearly smart because as far as I can tell we see eye to eye on politics. As an aside, he also sings a song about Tremendous Brunettes which earned him my undying respect because this world needs more songs about brown hair.

But Doughty wasn't the only great thing about the evening. The local band that played was great as well. You can find them on Myspace. Give them a listen. The female lead singer is a cross between Regina Spektor and Lisa Loeb. Chris Barron also played. If you're like me, you're thinking "who is this Chris Barron guy and why does everyone seem to know who he is except me?" And then someone will say "oh, the guy from the Spin Doctors..." And you'll be like "oh. right."

The first time I remember being conscious of the Spin Doctors was in the 6th grade. Their song, Little Miss Can't Be Wrong, was popular and I would change the words to say "little miss, little miss, little mis PMS" because I'm clever like that. Sexist lyrics were pretty much the extent of my fandom. true story. Anyway, when I found out Chris Barron was putting on a show in Athens, I was like "huh?" But he was opening for Mike Doughty so I was all like "whatever....he's probably decent." People, he is better than decent. He was amazing. Charmingly awkward. He cannot dance or really move in any way that is publicly acceptable. But he can sing. And he apparently is a great song writer because his songs were great.

It was a great night. Fantastic music in a great venue.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 27, 2008
A Little Sunday Reading v. 8
I love books about reading. Love finding out what authors deem "good" reading material. Love finding out how books and the reading experience moves people. The past month or so, before bed, I've been reading essays out of The Book That Changed My Life: 71 Remarkable Writers Celebrate the Books That Matter Most to Them. So, so charming. I haven't read many of the books mentioned by the writers but enjoyed their accounts just the same. It is so fascinating to learn how different books impact different people. In particular, I appreciate reading reflections of books that I hated and understanding beauty in the work.

Some notable passages:
"A good book changes you, even if it is only to add a little to the furniture of your mine. It will make you laugh and perhaps even cry; it should certainly make you think. A great book will make you dream in regions you have never dared to before, and ultimately it will spur you to create or achieve something new yourself."

"Reading a book became an act of intimacy. Take in a breath and don't let it out until you get to the last page."

"But your journey is never over until you return from it to share with society what you have learned. Then and only then can you begin your next journey in life as the process repeats itself, as you constantly become."

"I read my way through a solitary childhood. Books were the bedrock of my emotional and intellectual life, books that proscribed no limit to the imagination, books that were full of resourceful girls, princesses and goatherds and Victorian maidens, not to mention the sand fairies, the talking animals, the scheming step families, and the handsome men who had been transformed into beasts, both real and metaphorical."

In other reading news, CNN had a story about great bookstores. Who doesn't love a good bookstore?

Labels: ,

Friday, January 25, 2008
Friday Flicks v. 5
I just consulted with IMDB and realized that I've probably seen about 75% of everything Philip Seymour Hoffman has ever been in. If I discount the early 90's (when I lived in a land free of quality movies*) the percentage is closer to 90. I have a (fairly) unhealthy obsession with him. He is smart, smart, smart. Makes good movies. And is the perfect blend of crass and witty. I've seen two of his movies in the past two weeks. I'm a fan. And while he was nominated for the the Oscar in Charlie Wilson's War, I think his performance in The Savages is more commendable.

The Savages is fantastic. How could it not be? My boy, PSH, gives a fantastic performance and Laura Linney is delightful. The two play self-absorbed siblings brought together to watch over their ailing father. They journey through responsibility, nursing homes and loss. Oh! And they are two crazy-ass writer academic types with more personality quirks than you can count. Not that I could relate or anything....

The movie wasn't perfect. At times the writing is a bit snobby and proud of itself. But the relationship between Hoffman and Linney is a joy to watch. Linney agrees and claimed yesterday on Oprah that she owes 1/3 of her Oscar to Hoffman. The two of them light up the screen and found the perfect balance of sibling rivalry and love. The dialogue is real and devoid of cliche emotional appeals. Drew felt it was maybe devoid of emotion but I dug it. I 100% agree with the screenplay nomination the film received.

To you folks in the ATH, you can watch it at Cine on Monday night for only $6. A total steal!

* That land was northern Michigan

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 24, 2008
The year I become a morning person
I've mentioned before how I feel about mornings (not fond) and how well Drew and I function in the early hours (not well). Every year Drew and I resolve to "be better in the morning." We will get up. We will be nice. We will read the news like civilized beings. We will! We will! We will! But then we don't. And we know we won't. Until this year. Yes, folks, 2008 is the year of the mornings. But we can't take all the credit, we have help. We have the Krups Grinder-Coffee Maker. And it is magical. Behold....

One of the nicer things in our kitchen, the coffee maker is making mornings a teeny bit easier. We've been morning functional for about a week now. We utilize the aroma feature and every morning we hear the faint sound of the grinder and smell a little bit of very fresh cocoa bean heaven float up the stairs. Yesterday at dinner Drew actually said he (get ready) liked the morning routine so far. Who can blame him? We begin the day like civilized adults. 2008 is one crazy year.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I'm Pro-Choice and I Blog (and vote)
Blog for Choice Day

I'm answering NARAL's question--why do you vote pro-choice?

I vote pro-choice because:

1. I love women and I want them to reach their full potential. For many, that means not becoming mothers.

2. I support motherhood and women's ability to choose when to become one.

3. I understand mistakes happen, condoms break, birth control pills get skipped and people get raped.

4. I know that the government does not provide enough resources to women to take care of themselves--let alone a child.

5. "Life" can exist in a pro-choice world but "choice" can't exist in one that is pro-life.

6. Women should come before fetuses.

7. I refuse to buy into the mass media (and right wing) accounts of irresponsibility and carelessness. Abortion rates are not a "problem." Women do not "use abortion as birth control." Women who choose abortion are not "ruined."

8. I can put myself in the shoes of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy.

9. Being a pro-choice politician is a sign of other pro-woman philosophies.

Why do you vote pro-choice? And if you don't vote...shame on you.

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 17, 2008
Friday Flicks v. 4

Finally saw Juno last week. I had high expectations and was afraid I'd be a little let down. I had been told by many friends, media analyses and Oprah to see the film. I sat through the first 3 minutes thinking I was about to be let down. About to be disappointed by a film that did not live up to its hyped reputation. And after 3 minutes I settled into a blissful movie experience. Juno is incredible. The press has over-blown how "feel good" it is but under-estimated how good the cast is. The script is witty (almost *too* witty because, really, who gets to be that funny all the time). The acting is superb. The cultural message sharp. I laughed out loud and I cried a ridiculous amount. Seriously. I cried A LOT.

There has been quite a bit of praise for Juno and some negative reviews about its handling of the question of reproductive choice. Since my admiration for the movie directly stems from my [lack of] cultural critique, I thought I would chime in on the debate. **major spoilers to follow**

Some people are opposed to the movie because a teenager who has no aspirations to be a young mother decided to have the baby rather than abort. I don't really understand this critique. Pro-choice people cannot be anti-birth. We can't. We can't only support women who CHOOSE to undergo an abortion. In terms of cinema pragmatics, we kinda needed a pregnancy to have a movie. However, Juno--unlike Knocked Up--actually discusses abortion as an option. And discusses it in a way that does not demonize women who go that route. In fact, the person that is demonized in the film is the crazy (and probably pretty accurate) abortion protester posted outside the clinic. The characters in the film that are punished by the script are the judgmental ones who are critical of Juno in one way or another. A telling example of this is when Juno's step-mother verbally lashes the ultrasound technician who treats Juno unfairly. Juno, however, is rewarded for being a smart, articulate, responsible (yes, responsible--sex does not make one irresponsible). She comes out on top. She is a good woman despite her sexual choices.

As the movie was coming to a close, I started to feel my blood boil. I thought I could predict an unhappy ending to the film. The "perfect" adoptive couple was moving toward divorce and it seemed inevitable that the newly single woman would not be able to adopt Juno's child. But instead, according to plan, the baby was given to the woman. The single woman. THE SINGLE WOMAN! Woot, woot! In an amazing turn of events, the script did not end with a perfect nuclear family running off into a traditional family valued sunset. Families are messy. Mothers, especially single mothers, are strong. I am so sick of Hollywood feeding us a spoonful of family crap that tastes like traditional family structures (Knocked Up, I'm looking at YOU).

The ending is incredibly progressive. Not only because the single woman is accepted as a mother but because it shows the suffering that Juno felt with her decision. Not so much suffering that she regrets her decision. But enough suffering that the viewer knows that adoption is not an "easy option." It was a big kick in the teeth to all those anti-choice activists out there that advocate a woman just "put the baby up for adoption" rather than abort. Adoption is painful. Abortion is painful. Being a parent is painful. This movie shows all of that pain without advocating one option over the other. The movie simply deals with the option that Juno chose. The best part of the movie for me was the very end. The final scene showed Juno being young. It showed her getting ready to lead the rest of her life. It showed her happy. Contrary to popular belief, teenagers who get pregnant are not lost causes. They can move on and be productive members of society. *gasp* Did Juno have a rough go of it? Yes. Did she miss prom? Yes. Did she regret not using a condom? Yes. Was she a ruined being? No. The lasting impression from the movie was that she was going to make it. She was going to be okay. That was a powerful message.

Relatedly, I must say how much I adored Juno's parents. Good god, I wanted to squeeze them. They were the perfect blend of sad, scared and supportive. The most moving scene in the movie was when Juno's father comforted her post-birth by saying "sometime you'll be back on your own terms." This was the father who told Juno that he thought "she knew when to say when." I ached for the father. He was so disappointed throughout the film. Yet he was so loving. I remember asking my mom what she would have done had I gotten pregnant as a teenager. She replied that she would have "loved me." I thought it was a pretty simple answer at the time. Juno made me realize how complicated "loving" your child really is. The movie was a huge middle finger to parents who abandon their children just when they need them most.

Finally, I have to touch on the one thing that did bother me in the movie. And the one thing I don't see a lot of feminist critics addressing. Juno's relationship with Mark. Skeevy. Gave me the heeby jeebies. And I don't understand it. Clearly Mark was re-living his youth through Juno. Clearly she was reaching out to him as a stable family man. They were both searching. I got that. I didn't need the creepy, border line romance between them. It all turned out fine in the end but I don't get that component. Part of me thinks the relationship needed to happen like that to point out how unready for fatherhood Mark was--despite his age and marital status. But the other part of me thinks the relationship just needlessly pushed the envelope. I'm still thinking about that. Regardless, the relationship did not kill the movie for me. It just added another level.

Juno was awesome. Even if you don't watch it with feminist glasses, you'll love it. In fact, maybe you'll love it even more because you won't be fearing a cultural shoe to drop. Oh! And the soundtrack is top-notch.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Dangerously Reading v. 1
As I mentioned last month, one of my favorite books in 2007 was Mister Pip. In particular, I liked the charming relationship the young narrator had with Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Because I had never even glanced at a Dickens' work I was feeling a tad left out. Shortly after reading the book, I came across the Year of Reading Dangerously challenge. The first book? Great Expectations! Convenient. I signed up. Picked up the most "classically" looking edition from the library and set off.

Despite the authentic aesthetic appeal of the book, the reading experience fell short of the romantic version I had imagined.

Imagined [romantic] reading experience:
Me. Classical looking book. Cups of tea. Reading journal. Lots of scribbling down intense passages that I loved. Late night reading affair with Dickens'. Experience capped off with thoughtful reflection about how much I learned about literature from Dickens. *slight reading glow*

Actual reading experience:
Me. Classical looking book. Cups of tea. No reading journal. No scribbling. No passages. No late night reading affair. Instead, I participated in the reading equivalent of watching paint dry. I shrugged off encouragement from my husband to "try something else." I was determined to find the beauty. I was determined to finish. Who doesn't like Dickens? Really. Who? Me. I found the story laborious, the language distracting and the characters unlovable. Especially Pip. Unbearable. Truly. Whine, whine, whine. I felt as though I was babysitting a naughty 6th grader. Am I allowed to complain about Dickens? Am I allowed to note that his characters exhibited the type of self-indulgence that only a very self-indulgent writer would know? Am I allowed to cry out for a steady plot with less ebbs and flows? And, for the love of god, am I allowed to ask for ONE good female character? Dickens clearly was wronged by all the women in his life. Hell hath no fury like a greedy, woman hating author.

Here's to next month. At least I can say I've experienced Dickens.

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 10, 2008
Some words on abortions, pronouns and oppression
I'm covering two controversial units in my Women's Studies class this upcoming week--the use of gender neutral pronouns and oppression. The two units are often dismissed by a lot of students. Most people shun the use of gender neutral pronouns as impossible. And students are uncomfortable with my main claim about oppression--that only women and men of color and working class can be oppressed. At the very least, the arguments provide hours of interesting class discussion and provoke some new thoughts for my students. I feel a little like my students as I read about this new concept in the abortion debate--"changing abortion's pronouns" to include the fathers' experience. The LA Times reports that counselors are encouraging women to say we had an abortion rather than I had an abortion. Further, men are being treated for post-abortion syndrome. The article tells the story of Jason Baier whose past relationships have resulted in four unplanned pregnancies that all ended in abortion. Baier speaks of the pain and regret he feels over having "four dead children." The article mentions Chris Aubert who now protests at abortion clinics with a sign that says "I regret my abortion" (although in the article he also mentions how he wouldn't have the fantastic life--filled with a happy marriage and four kids--had his ex-girlfriend not aborted her pregnancy). *head spinning*

So the article creeps me out. First let me say, I recognize the power of getting men involved in abortion rights. Further, I think men should be involved in abortion
support for their significant other(s). Aubert admits that on the day his girlfriend underwent the procedure, he played softball and stuck a $200 check in her door. He called a second abortion "irrelevant" in his life. That attitude is problematic. As is the further reflection by Aubert in which he admits that he hasn't thought of the subsequent pain his ex-girlfriend may feel over the procedure. So when Aubert says he regrets HIS abortion, he means HIS not OURS. This isn't making the abortion debate more inclusive. Rather, it shifts the debate in a way that excludes women. Women should be front and center in the discussion of abortion. They should be the first to receive counseling (if they want it) and they should be the first to share their stories. Their bodies, their choice, their regret (or lack of regret). Do men experience feelings about abortions? Most certainly. Do they deserve to have the same claim to pain and experience as women? No. Feminist theorist Marilyn Frye argues that white men cannot be oppressed. They can feel pain. They can suffer from unfairness but it should not be conflated with the oppression that women and other people of color face. Similarly, males should not be able to claim as much of the abortion "pain" as this article suggests.

Most problematic is that the fathers' regret is turning into just another anti-choice argument by the right. Throughout the article the men refer to their lost "babies." One even has named his "lost son." They all "dream of the children they'll never know." This is yet another instance of humanizing the fetus while the women's material reality remain invisible.

There has to be some middle ground
(hey look everyone! i'm offering up something moderate!). There has to be a way to include men in the discussion AND keep women front and center. Some may accuse me of wanting only the men who will agree with my pro-choice position to join the debate. Um, obviously. But I think there can be moderately positioned men who agree with me. There can be men who think that abortions need to be performed less and who take responsibility to ensure that happens. However, they can simultaneously believe that when their partner chooses to undergo an abortion they'll be there to support her and offer up his emotional support.

Read more from Salon

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Election 08
For the most part, I am pumped about this primary season. I am loving the activity, the speeches, the frequency of debates and primaries. But, as always, there are a few things I'm not so keen on.

Last night, MSNBC's coverage of the "gender war" was nauseating. Throw stuff at my television nauseating. Let me break this down--(a) it doesn't matter if Hillary's tears were calculated any more than it matters if Edwards' "son of a mill worker" is calculated. The press does not spend half as much time worrying about what the male candidates calculate and don't calculate. But throw a little emotion and some ovaries into the race and all holy hell breaks loose. It reeks of sexism and it certainly showcases the oppression that Clinton still faces. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She doesn't show enough emotion or she shows too much emotion. Feminists like to call that a double bind. If a person has NO OPTION, they are oppressed. (b) Hillary won a lot of female votes. YES. She also won more registered democrats than Obama and Edwards. But the press doesn't talk about that. Instead, they debate the merits of her tears among female voters. Did her burst of emotion attract some female voters? Sure! Did it attract male voters? Probably! Did her burst of emotion turn off male and female voters? Probably! When the pundits turn all female voters into a monolith, they do them a disservice. Women are no more likely to be fooled by "calculated" campaign techniques than men. Are some women more likely to vote for Clinton because she is a woman? It seems that many over 65 are. But there is no proof that any other female demographic is. It is possible that the people who voted for her like her politics. Or maybe even like her! In fact, it appears that highly educated women are ambivalent about Clinton's sex. One thing is possible--[women?] voters look at how Clinton is being treated (i.e. a man coming to her speech with an "iron my shirt" sign) and are pissed off. When people are pissed off, they vote. Further, why aren't we hearing about the "men showing up for Obama?" Why don't we have a racial breakdown of voters? (It could be, I suppose, that there are no people of color in NH. But I suspect it is deeper than that.) Sexism clothed in political clothing. We need to stop treating female candidates and female voters as novelties. Is Clinton's campaign a huge step for females? Yes. But more importantly it may be a huge step forward for the country. Just as Obama's is. Just as Romney's is.

If Georgia had a primary, I would be voting for Edwards. I'm not a Clinton supporter. Despite having the same sex organs, I don't have the same politics. However, I do have a brain and a conscious...and they are telling the media to shut the hell up. I'm assuming that most of us can recognize that talking about Clinton's clothing, hairstyle, beauty is out of line. Most of us can probably see the amount of times the media uses her first name while using a more official title for the male candidates and shake our head. I'm just hoping that more of us realize other more covert instances of sexism.

On a lighter you think that I only love the idea of caucusing because I don't have to do it? A teeny part of me wished I lived in Iowa so I could go to a town hall meeting and stand in Edwards' corner.

For more Clinton analysis see....
Kos (particularly interesting as Kos is no Clinton lover) and Steinem

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A little non-Sunday Reading

I picked up Lionel Shriver's The Post-Birthday World in the final days of 2007. Until then, my favorite 2007 books were The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears and The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. While those two books were fantastic, Shriver's book was by far the best 2007 book I read this year. It made the best of 2007 lists for a few people but, really, I haven't heard much hype about this book. One magazine that had it at #1 was Entertainment Weekly so I was a bit skeptical that it would be a tad mass produced for my tastes. However, I found it to be a complicated and lovely work.

Readers are thrown into the life of Irina McGovern--a illustrator in a long-term (monogamous) relationship. McGovern finds herself tempted by a family friend at the beginning of the story. After chapter one, the book alternative between two stories. In one story, McGovern sticks with the functional, though dull, relationship of the past. In the second, she caves to temptation and deals with the consequences of her decision. Both narratives are compelling and beautifully told. The competing narratives allow readers to anguish alongside McGovern while she copes with choice, regret and love. The stories compliment themselves and Irina finds in one man what she lacks in the other.

The book is so wonderfully written that I was captivated right until the last word. Loved the concept. Loved the writing. Loved the ending.


Monday, January 07, 2008
Wrapping Up 2007!
HAPPY NEW YEAR...only 7 days late!

Drew and I just returned from two weeks of pure family holiday time. We had a great time. But I always do better when I'm on a schedule and in a routine so I'm glad to be back in the ATH. Glad to be starting the semester. Glad to be in our condo. VERY glad to be sleeping in our own bed. But we know how lucky we are to have had such a long time with with our family. The life of two teachers is a good one.

2007 was a great year. Great! I finished up my course work, successfully defended my comprehensive exams, got a job teaching in our women's studies department and enjoyed a variety of fun activities!

We had a blast on our road trip. It was long.
I saw Jimmy Carter. That was awesome.
I spent a lot of time cooking. Cooking is weird.

Because I finished up my course work and gave up most t.v., I had a lot more time to read--for pleasure. I read some great books. The best books I read in 2007:
1. How To Be Alone
2. The Time Traveler's Wife
3. Middlesex
4. Mister Pipp
5. The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears
6. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

The Post-Birthday World. I still need to do my review as I read it in the final days of 2007. But let me just say it was incredible. It started a bit slow but I ended up loving it. A full review is forthcoming.

I watched great movies as well....good thing we joined
1. Once
2. Away From Her
3. Notes on a Scandal
4. Little Children
5. Factory Girl

And listened to tons of music....
1. Andrew Bird - Armchair Apocrypha
Josh Ritter- The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter
3. Ryan Adams- Easy Tiger
4. Patrick Park- Everyones in Everyone
5. The Bees- Octopus

Leaving you with one of my favorite photos from 2007. Heres to laughter and fun in the new year. Happy 2008!

Labels: , ,