Orange

Orange is a mobile phone company in the UK.  (Actually, it's a French company, but so what.)  For the last few years, they've been doing a brilliant set of cinema trailers with the tag line "Don't let a mobile phone ruin your movie.  Turn if off."  The latest one -- sending up the new French film Potiche -- was too funny not to share.

Other send-ups include Danny Glover, Emilio Estevez, Jack Black, Carrie Fisher, Roy Scheider, Sean Astin, Spike Lee, Snoop Dog, John Cleese, Patrick Swayze, Val Kilmer, Mena Suvari, Juliette Lewis, Steven Seagal, Macaulay Culkin, Michael Madsen, Rob Lowe, and Darth Vader.  They're all about 40 seconds, and well worth watching.

And if that wasn't enough, someone overdubbed the Roy Scheider one to make it even funnier.

Corrections

Two corrections to recent stories:

1) The number of people who were not allocated any tickets in the Olympic lottery was 1.2 million, not 250,000 as reported.

2) Unions are saying 'Black Thursday' will be the 'biggest wave of industrial action' since 1926, not the 1970s as reported.

Carry on.

Black Thursday

Not black as in profitable, black as in bad.

On Thursday, June 30, the three largest public sector unions have promised a "black Thursday" -- the biggest joint strike action since the 1970s. Even if only a third of their membership go on strike, that's a quarter of a million people.

In the 1970s, workers accepted pay freezes for 3 years while inflation soared at 10% per year, so you can understand why they walked out when told they would not get a pay increase for a fourth year. Today, they are walking out because the government has said retirement age should be raised to 66.

In the 1970s, the unions may have been fighting the "iron lady," Margaret Thatcher, but they had broad public support. Today, they are seen as a bunch of jobsworths.

I'm not sure where that British term came from, but it refers to the response of the typical bureaucrat when asked to do anything difficult: "That's more than my job's worth."

Fortunately tube workers aren't involved, and with 250,000 people staying home, my commute should be a doddle.

Royal prerogative

I mentioned that when Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II, the Scots were upset because she was the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland.  One person even sued -- I'm not sure on what basis -- but the court threw it out, saying the ordinal number was a matter of Royal Prerogative.

I thought that was interesting, and looked into what else fell under 'Royal prerogative.'  Unfortunately, it's basically the powers of the executive branch of government.  The Queen has the right to veto a bill (or in English parlance, to not give her assent) but the last time that happened was in 1704!  She can unilaterally dissolve Parliament, but the last time that was done was 1835. She can grant pardons, commute sentences, or even drop legal proceedings against a person.  She recognises foreign states, issues declarations of war and peace, and forms international treaties.  She can annex land and cede territory, and can prevent someone from leaving the UK.

Twice a year, she grants honours (such as the Order of the British Empire), although that list is primarily drawn up by Parliament.  However, she has complete discretion over membership of the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Royal Victorian Order and the Order of Merit. She is the Commander in Chief, and can appoint officers.  As head of the church, she also appoints bishops and archbishops for the Church of England.

As the Queen is a "constiitutional monarch," she is required to seek the advice of the Prime Minister or Cabinet, but not necessarily follow it.  However, Queen Elizabeth II meets with the Prime Minister every week, and has for most of her sixty-year rule. She has had a good working relationship with every PM except Margaret Thatcher.  Her other PMs have been Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron.

Succession

This will probably put me on every terrorist watch list, but I just wanted to know the protocol when Queen Elizabeth II dies.

First, British law states that the throne is never left vacant, and the new monarch succeeds the old immediately.  (Hence, "the king is dead, long live the king!")

The line of succession is generally determined by primogeniture, which states that children are given precedence over siblings, males are given preference over females, and then by age.  Thus, if Prince Charles should die first, his son Prince William would be the heir apparent, not his brother, Andrew.

(When William and Kate married, Parliament talked of changing this, so if William's first child were a girl she would not be supplanted later on.  However, as the Queen is the head of 44 Commonwealth countries, they would all have to change the law to accept this, and they feared this would re-ignite the debate in Australia over abolishing the monarchy altogether, so they have shelved it again.)

However, Parliament has declared it can decide the successor, and has overruled primogeniture on several occasions.

Second, the new sovereign decides his "regnal name." Generally in the UK, monarchs use their own name, although Queen Victoria took her second name ("Alexandrina Victoria") as did her son (Prince Albert Edward became King Edward VII) and great-grandson (Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George became King George VI.)

When Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary decided to keep the name Elizabeth, this caused two problems.  First, all references to the original Queen Elizabeth (1533-1603) had to be changed to Queen Elizabeth I.  And second, in Scotland -- which was not part of the United Kingdom in 1603 -- she was the first Queen Elizabeth!  Many post boxes -- which normally bear her royal cypher "EIIR," for Elizabeth II Regina -- were vandalized to remove the "II" so they now bear the Crown of Scotland alone.

Finally, a proclamation of accession is publicly announced in all of the Commonwealth countries.  Of course, the UK has all sorts of pomp and circumstance around this, but the important thing is that it is made known to the public, which was an important consideration in the pre-CNN era! (You can see the Pathe newsreel of George VI here.)

And that's it. The coronation is usually delayed for a period of mourning, as well as to give time for all of the preparations.  King Edward VIII reigned for 326 days and was never crowned.  Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne February 6, 1952, but the coronation did not occur until June 2, 1953 -- 16 months later.  In any case, it is a ceremony only, and has no legal merit.

When Queen Elizabeth II dies, I'm sure we won't see the sort of histrionics surrounding previous successions:
- William the Conqueror nominated his second son as successor.  When William II died, his brothers fought for the crown, with the third son prevailing, becoming Henry I.
- Henry I named his daughter Matilda as successor, but when he died his nephew Stephen took the throne, starting another war.  As part of the settlement, he named Matilda's son, Henry II, as his successor, thus restoring the original bloodline.
- Henry II (best known as Peter O'Toole in Becket and The Lion in Winter) had five sons, all fighting for succession.  At the age of 17, and with his older brother Geoffrey, Richard the Lionhearted tried to seize the throne from his father, but failed.  He later inherited it, but while he was fighting in the Crusades, his younger brother John tried to seize the throne, and failed.  (You can read Robin Hood for more.)  Richard designated his nephew as heir, but when he died John finally seized the thrown.
- It then passed from father to son for three generations, to Edward III.  Edward III had three sons: Edward, Lionel, and John.  Prince Edward died before his father, and so, according to primogeniture, the crown passed to his son, Richard II.  When Richard II died without issue, the crown should have gone to Lionel's son, Roger.  However, John's son, Henry, seized the throne instead, become Henry IV and igniting the Wars of the Roses between the houses of York and Lancaster.
- Henry VI of Lancaster was deposed by Edward IV of York.  Henry and his son were murdered, and Edward's son was proclaimed King Edward V.  However, his uncle locked him and his brother in the Tower of London (the princes in the tower), and usurped the Throne to become Richard III.  He was later deposed by Henry Tudor of Lancaster, who became Henry VII.
- His son, Henry VIII, defined his own line of ascension, beginning with his third son -- and only male -- Edward VI, followed by his elder sisters, Mary and Elizabeth.  Edward, however, named Lady Jane Grey as his successor, but she only reigned for nine days before Mary deposed her. 
- Elizabeth (now Elizabeth I) refused to name an heir.  On her death, James VI of Scotland -- her first cousin twice removed -- took the throne, thus uniting England and Scotland for the first time.  (He was known as James VI in Scotland, but James I in England, and is often abbrieviated as "John I and VI".)
- His son, Charles I, was beheaded by Parliament, and the monarchy was abolished.  However, rather than introducing a true republic with an elected head of state, Parliament declared Oliver Cromwell as "Lord Protector" for life, and gave him the right to name his successor.  In effect, he was the king without the title.
- He named his son, Richard Cromwell, but when he turned out to be ineffective, Parliament reinstated the monarchy and offered the throne to Charles I's son, Charles II.  Charles II died without issue and the throne passed to his brother, James II (James VII in Scotland), who was a Catholic.  Protestants forced him to abdicate and flee the country in 1688, and Parliament then ignored primogeniture, skipping his Catholic son and offering it to his Protestant daughter and --oddly -- her husband William as a "joint sovereignship." William became William III of England and Ireland, and William II of Scotland.
- Finally, in 1701, Parliament got tired of all of this and passed the Act of Settlement to define the lines of succession, and declared that Princess Anne would be followed by Sophia of Hanover, granddaughter of James I and VI, who was something like 26th in line but the only Protestant.  Parliament also declared it an act of Treason to "endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown."
- Scotland, who was not consulted, passed its own Security Act stating it would select its own heir.  England responded with the Alien Act, threatening to cut off trade with Scotland unless they joined Parliaments.  This lead to the union, in 1707, of the United Kingdom.
- Sophia died before Anne, but her son became George I.  Even though there are more than 5,000 legitimate descendants of Sophia, there have been no major challenges to the throne since. 

During WWI, George V changed the family name to Windsor, to distance himself from the Germans, but the same house has been ruling England for 300 years.  However, Queen Elizabeth II is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred the Great, the first effective King of England, who was crowned in 871 A.D.  Check it out.

Five American Contributions to Civilization

In the hope of balancing my American-bashing of late, I looked for some positive contributions the USA has made to global society, excluding Apple products.  (And if you say "world wide web" I will beat you even more senseless.)

Charles William Eliot wrote "Five American Contributions to Civilization" in 1914, just as Europe was preparing for World War I, and it is a tribute to America prior to that period.  But reading it today, it is also a damning account of America since.  I encourage you to read the full essay, but as Americans have a well-deserved reputation for short attention spans, I will summarize.  (I should just make a video of me ranting and raving, preferably with made-up statistics.  That seems to go over well in the States.)

Briefly, the "characteristic and durable contributions the American people have been making to the progress of civilization" are peace-keeping, religious tolerance, suffrage (right to vote), immigration, and the diffusion of wellbeing.

As Eliot wrote, "They are reasonable grounds for a steady, glowing patriotism. They have had much to do, both as causes and as effects, with the material prosperity of the United States; but they are all five essentially moral contributions, being triumphs of reason, enterprise, courage, faith, and justice, over passion, selfishness, inertness, timidity, and distrust. Beneath each one of these developments there lies a strong ethical sentiment, a strenuous moral and social purpose. It is for such work that multitudinous democracies are fit."

I absolutely agree with that.  But now let's consider those virtues post-1914:

1. "The United States have had only four years and a quarter of international war in the one hundred and seven years since the adoption of the Constitution [but] have been a party to forty-seven arbitrations [over] questions of boundary, fisheries, damage caused by war or civil disturbances, and injuries to commerce... The United States have maintained...a standing army and a fleet which, in proportion to the population, are insignificant."

The effects of this are two-fold: "[T]he direct evils of war and of preparations for war have been diminished; and secondly, the influence of the war spirit on the perennial conflict between...individual freedom and collective authority has been reduced to the lowest terms. Individual freedom is crushed in war, for the nature of war is inevitably despotic."

Since 1914, we've been involved in international wars in 36 of the past 97 years. If you include all of the small skirmishes, political assassinations, and "military support" America has given other (often repressive) governments, that rises to 61 of the past 97 years!  How did we go from 4 out of 107 years to 61 out of 97 years?!

Yet Eliot wrote, "Looking forward into the future, we find it impossible to imagine circumstances under which any of these common causes of war can take effect on the North American continent. Therefore, the ordinary motives for maintaining armaments in time of peace, and concentrating the powers of government in such a way as to interfere with individual liberty, have not been in play in the United States as among the nations of Europe, and are not likely to be." So we maintain the world's strongest standing army...why?

More presciently, Eliot wrote, "Iit will be the best machine that wins, and not necessarily the most enduring men. War will become a contest between treasuries or war-chests; for now that 10,000 men can fire away a million dollars' worth of ammunition in an hour, no poor nation can long resist a rich one."

On religious tolerance, he wrote, "As a means of suppressing individual liberty, the collective authority of the Church...comes next in proved efficiency to that concentration of powers in government which enables it to carry on war effectively.  [In the US] no single ecclesiastical organization ever obtained a wide and oppressive control." And yet, America today has completely forgotten the reasons church and state were separated in the first place. If you need a reminder, just look around at the rest of the world. And please don't tell yourself Christians are incapable of religious persecution; they practically invented it!

Writing 6 years before women got the vote, Eliot wrote, "[I]t is a direct effect of a broad suffrage that the voters become periodically interested in the discussion of grave public problems... The interest in the minds of the people...comes from the frequently recurring elections. The more difficult the intellectual problem presented in any given election, the more educative the effect of the discussion."

To put that in modern context, consider that about 70% of Muslim countries are run by hereditary rulers, with no elections. What effect does that have on social mobility, ambition, and education?  The "Arab Spring," affecting 17 countries over the past six months, will undoubtedly do more to help the "war on terror" than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have accomplished in the past 8 years, combined.

Eliot also noted suffrage promoted social mobility, "and this freedom to rise is intensely stimulating to personal ambition. Thus every capable American, from youth to age, is bent on bettering himself and his condition." I would argue that by creating a social safety net, the government has also created a permanent underclass, and significantly curtailed social mobility at all levels.

Immigration is always one of my favorite topics, and Eliot does not mince his words: "In two respects the absorption of large numbers of immigrants from many nations into the American commonwealth has been of great service to mankind. In the first place, it has demonstrated that people who at home have been subject to every sort of aristocratic or despotic or military oppression become within less than a generation serviceable citizens of a republic; and, in the second place, the United States have thus educated to freedom many millions of men. Furthermore, the comparatively high degree of happiness and prosperity enjoyed by the people of the United States has been brought home to multitudes in Europe by friends and relatives who have emigrated to this country, and has commended free institutions to them in the best possible way. This is a legitimate propaganda vastly more effective than any annexation or conquest of unwilling people, or of people unprepared for liberty." 

Those words still ring true today except, of course, America has largely shut its doors to immigrants, despite having one of the lowest population densities in the world. (It is ranked 179 of 240 countries, with 83 people per square mile.  The UK, by comparison, is at #53 with 660 people per square mile, eight times as many!)

And finally, the fifth contribution to civilization made by the United States is "the diffusion of material well-being among the population. No country in the world approaches the United States in this respect. It is seen in the housing of the people and of their domestic animals, in the comparative costliness of their food, clothing, and household furniture, in their implements, vehicles, and means of transportation, and in the substitution, on a prodigious scale, of the work of machinery for the work of men's hands. As proof of the general proposition, it suffices merely to mention the telegraph and telephone, the sewing-machine, the cotton-gin, the mower, reaper, and threshing-machine, the dish-washing machine, the river steamboat, the sleeping-car, the boot and shoe machinery, and the watch machinery."  Actually, I have no idea what he is trying to say, but I suspect it has to do with income inequality, which has been steadily rising since the 1980s. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.  However, in the past 30 years, the rising tide has submerged the working class.

Eliot finished the essay with these prophetic words: "In regard to all five of these contributions, the characteristic policy of our country has been from time to time threatened with reversal—is even now so threatened. It is for true patriots to insist on the maintenance of these historic purposes and policies of the people of the United States. Our country's future perils, whether already visible or still unimagined, are to be met with courage and constancy founded firmly on these popular achievements in the past."

Instead, we have the likes of Glenn Beck and the "tea party movement" claiming "true patriotism" when, in fact, they stand opposed to all five moral principles.  And that is a deep, deep shame.

Awesome

Jess has cursed me. In addition to teaching me to play "Spot the American," she also introduced me to the word "awesome."

Not the word from my childhood meaning "great," but a highly derogatory term that only Americans use. And they use it often. To describe everything.

This one word manages to capture every stereotype about Americans as plebeians completely lacking in taste, culture, or in fact synonyms. Plebeian, by the way, means ignorant.

American culture is like a drug that everyone is taking -- it seems completely natural until you stop taking it. Step outside and you recognize just how hollow and ridiculous it is. Consider this: Modern communication tools are empowering people everywhere to connect with the rest of the world...except America, who don't see any value in engaging their neighbors, never mind the world.

So go up to anyone in England and ask what they think of Americans, and they will probably tell you (with a very harsh accent) "they're awesome!" And they don't mean "great."

Epic disappointment

Today is June 10.  On this day in 1829, the first boat race between the universites of Oxford and Cambridge took place.  In 1935, Alcoholics Anonymous was founded.  In 1940, Norway surrendered to Germany.  In 1967, the Six Day War ends in Israel.  In 1977, Apple shipped the first Apple II computer.  In 1999, Serbia withdrew from Kosovo, ending NATO air strikes.  In 2003, the Spirit Rover was launched toward Mars.  Actress Judy Garland, attorney F. Lee Bailey, biologist E.O. Wilson, and politician John Edwards were born on this day.  And in 2011, the Olympic ticket lottery ended with approximately 250,000 applicants receiving no tickets whatsoever.

Including me.

Despite applying for over 100 tickets at 20 events worth over £7500 (US $11,000), I got nothing.

And to add insult to injury, the news also reported that less than half of the British tickets were available. The rest were given to corporate sponsors.

I've been told I will have "first crack" at tickets for the remaining events, but I have to point out if I wanted to go to the remaining events, I would have applied for them!!

Fortunately -- and reflecting the shambolic nature of how London has handled this -- the tickets have been allocated by country, but EU rules dictate you can't discriminate against other EU members.  Thus, even though I didn't get any British tickets, I can still buy German tickets.  And the good news is they are selling them "first come, first served" rather than by lottery.

America the historical

For my American friends, I feel the need to disabuse you of any notion that the US is favored, special, or otherwise worthy.  Yes, for many years it was the benchmark Republic, but it was never the ideal it held itself out to be -- just look at the three-fifths clause in the Constitution.  However, those freedoms have been steadily eroded by special interests and 'gunboat diplomacy,' and today US laws are often cited by repressive governments to justify their own policies!  America has consistently failed to lead the way on important issues such as women's rights, torture, nuclear policy, and cluster bombs, and instead have violated state sovereignty around the world, enforcing a 'might makes right' policy that not only alienates everyone, but creates the extremism the US is trying to prevent!  Afghanistan, as a 10-year-war with no end in sight, sets a new low in a dismal foreign policy record, and a majority of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.

Yes, for many years the "American dream" symbolized the hopes and aspirations for many, but that economy was based on a set of natural resources that were largely untouched until the 18th century, just as industrialization was allowing for mass production.  Those natural resources have largely been exploited, and for the past 40 years or so the "American dream" has been based on the federal deficit, which has gone from $381 billion in 1970 to over $14 trillion today.

Yes, America took pre-eminence in the world after World War II, but that was because it entered the war nearly 3 years after it started, and saw no action on home soil.  (Hawaii didn't join the union until nearly 20 years later, and in any case saw almost no civilian damage.)  The US was spared the devastation that Europe, Russia, and Japan sustained, and a lot of people died due to US indifference.

America has thrived on a combination of luck and timing, not from any special birthright or divine protection.  The one thing it did have in its favor was cooperation, low taxes, and a laissez faire government content to let industry respond to the needs of people.  Compared to the rest of the world, it still has these, but in significantly smaller portions than the founding fathers intended, and the rest of the world is catching up.  The EU has turned 27 warring countries into a global marketplace about half the size of the US.  As the formerly Eastern Bloc countries join, it may soon rival the US in size and population.  With a single currency, freedom of movement, and no tariffs, the only thing keeping America in the lead are high taxes (the UK has a 40% top income tax and a 20% sales tax) and language barriers.

China is the size of the US, and between 1976 to 2007 it went from being the 27th largest economy to the 2nd.  Unfortunately, its government has used rather unfair practices to grow, a parasitic practice that obviously won't work once they surpass the US, which is widely expected to occur in the next 20 years.  But with a larger population, lower unemployment, lower debt, lower inflation, and significant foreign reserves, China can not only surpass the US, it can crush it.  (If you've never wondered where the government borrowed 14 trillion dollars from, it is from China.)

India is only one-third the size of the US, but has three times the population, and each year it produces about twice as many engineering and computing experts as the United States.  If we are truly in the 'knowledge economy,' then by any standard India is winning.  If they weren't crippled by overpopulation, India would undoubtedly be challening US supremacy already.  Fortunately, it's just taking all of the jobs.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but while you're huddled under your insular blanket, blithely ignorant of the world around you, be aware that very soon the walls are going to come crashing down around you.

Have a nice day.

Cultural wasteland

I've argued this with a friend of mine. Mind you, she has a degree in international marketing, so the smart money is on her, but I say that America is a cultural wasteland, with little to offer in terms of fashion, literature, politics, or the arts. That isn't to say it doesn't offer it anyway, only that the rest of the world isn't buying.

In fact, what the rest of the world has adopted -- that America would like to take credit for -- is European, and in particular French and British, due in part to their colonial prowess, but primarily because the rest of the world embraced them. They didn't want to be controlled by them, but they wanted to be like them.

The historical analogy is Greece and Rome. Greece offered the world its culture, and the rest of the world became Hellenized. Many cultures were subsumed not by physical force, but by a compelling culture.

Then Rome ascended through military superiority, and while many countries fell under their dominion, no one followed them, and when their empire collapsed from within (as all empires do), the other countries immediately reverted to their pre-Roman cultures.

My friend argues that commercialism is a form of culture, and that while other countries may be adapting it differently, they are all adopting it. The idea that you can 'spend' your way out of a recession is American, which unfortunately even the Europeans have adopted. McDonald's isn't exporting hamburgers to the world, but a model of cheap, mass produced food that the world has embraced. Walmart isn't exporting clothes, but the idea that at the right price, quantity always trumps quality.  And Hollywood is the worst of all, exporting American culture and thus commercializing commercialism!

Perhaps she is right, and America is a cultural leader; I will still deny it because I don't want to accept that this is all my country has to offer.  In the long run, though, I don't  think it matters much. America has already passed its zenith, and will soon be surpassed by other empires, who will export their own culture. And I expect Americans will be the first to follow, finding their way out of their own cultural wasteland.

Disturbing revelations

It turns out, if you put a tea packet in your pocket, it feels indistinguishable from a condom.

But the interesting statistic is that the number of times you can put your hand in your pocket and be surprised to find a condom, only to remember its tea, appears to be virtually unlimited.

I swear I have the memory of a goldfish.

Turn, turn, turn

I think I've finally figured out what it is about Judaism that resonates within me: The marking of time.

I know that sounds silly, and you probably think I should just get a watch, but hear me out.  All my life I've felt adrift, chasing one thing after another, all of them challenging and enriching and successful, but ultimately none were rewarding.  The thrill was in the chase, but the meaning was not.

What London has given me--that Los Angeles never could--is the seasons, the expression of time on the world.  What Judaism has given me the the expression of time on my life.

Every week, every year, every birth, every death, every marriage, every milestone--no longer just random and insignificant events, but celebrated and made holy simply because we as a people choose to do so. 

Christianity's focus on the afterlife never made sense to me.And to be honest, a lot of Judaism doesn't make sense to me.  But what is starting to make sense is that for 2500+ years, people have been celebrating life in a way that gives it meaning; making it important simply by saying it is important.  When I looked past the message for the answers, I missed that the message was the answer.

Of course, typical of my life, I learn that lesson just at the time when knowing it causes me the greatest pain.

Don't worry. I'll still tilt at windmills and chase impossible dreams; that's part of my nature.  But I'll look for meaning elsewhere: in family, in relationships, in the most mundane days and activities, because we choose to set them apart, and that by itself makes them holy.

And I'll be reminded of this every Friday night, every Bar Mitzvah service, every Yom Kippur, every Yahrzeit candle.  Because Judaism doesn't give me the lesson of time -- that has been there the entire time.  What Judaism gives me is the tools to mark it with, the methods to incorporate it in my life, and a community to celebrate with.

My day (so far)

Plan was simple: breakfast, shul, wash car, haircut, laundry, and a concert. This plan was actually predicated on moving my car to avoid traffic fines, and leave it in Ealing (where I used to live) because it was safe and free and I wouldn't need to worry about it being towed away.

Naturally, I arrived too late for breakfast, and had to sit through a 2 hour service on an empty stomach. Then I realised I forgot my ticket for the show, so I skipped the (badly needed and long overdue) car wash to go home.

When I tell you I've lived in London for 3 years but can only describe it from underground, believe me. Fortunately, I have sat nav. Unfortunately, the battery died halfway home, and my map book was in the trunk (because I was getting my car washed). I did know how to go, more or less, except for one turn off, which I missed, requiring a 15 mile detour that took over an hour. (I have no idea why traffic was so miserable on a Saturday afternoon.)

So I got the ticket, ate some lunch, and got back on the road. It was against traffic this time, and I arrived 10 minutes early for my hair appointment, so I went to start my laundry. Then I realized my plan was to leave the car there and take the tube to the show, so what was I going to do with a hamper full of folded laundry?!

The decision was made, however, when I looked at a tube map and realized it was a 15 minute drive to the venue, but an hour on the underground! By then it was time for my haircut, so I did that, and then did my laundry. So much for my super efficient multitasking!

The laundromat attendant would not speak to me, but just stared, freaking me out, so I spent most of the next two hours standing on the street corner just to avoid her. I packed the laundry while it was still mildly damp, just to get away from her. I then put it in my trunk for six hours. Should be interesting.

By this point, I really needed a toilet, and if there is one thing rarer than a free parking space in London, its a public toilet. Ice mentioned before that museums are wonderfully handy here, but Ealing is a bit short on those, I'm afraid. But the show was in Shepherd's Bush, right next to the Westfield Mall, the biggest covered mall in Europe, and with plenty of loos! So I drove over there, parking 15 minutes away because it was free.

So I got the shul, laundry, and haircut done, and I went to biggest mall in Europe to use the bathroom, and made it to the show to realise it was the wrong artist. (Anais Mitchell vs Antje Duvekot--anyone could make that mistake.) Anais Mitchell does have a few songs I like, none of which she played. (Fortunately it was only £13. I might have had a drink to help pass the time, but I was driving)

Technically I accomplished almost everything I set out to do, but it took 12 hours, nearly 4 of which were driving, and none of which I enjoyed.

And tomorrow I still have to move the car somewhere safe. (Maybe I'll even get it washed!)

Livingston, I presume

I sit alone in a hotel room about 12 miles from Edinburgh, sipping a cup of tea, munching on shortbread, listening to (of all things) Fred Astaire, thinking I should be hard at work preparing for tomorrow's meeting, but not quite working my way up to it.  It's just after 10pm and the sun is setting; it will rise again in less than six hours, thanks to its northerly latitiude (the same as Moscow).  The birds will rise with the sun; hopefully they will not wake me.  Again.

The hotel room is large but soulless; the king bed just makes the two small pillows look mean. A TV sits dark in the corner, a victim of its own success: What point is the remote if you have to walk over to the TV to get it?  The maid took the soap and left the ironing board, a trade which I do not appreciate.  She also closed the window, lest anyone squeeze through the four inch opening and make off with the ironing board.  (Or perhaps they stole the soap?)  Somewhere a compressor hums; I do not know if it makes ice or heat or water.  My eyes droop, fighting to stay awake for no good reason.

I am hopeful yet melancholy; my mind reels at both possibilties and loss.  Sometimes I feel in control, and sometimes I know better; life goes on and so do I.  The ashes are set about me, but I will rise soon.  Reborn, reformed, or just rebooted? The details do not interest me, only the patterns.  I seem to have made a life of starting over.

Billie Holiday sings a song to fit the mood.  If I were smart, I'd give in and go to sleep.  But there's another piece of shortbread, and enough water for another cup of tea...