That’s a new drink I’ve invented. It’s called the Margo Kidder. But seriously. It’s not that bad.*
This is another photo from the vaults. My mom, 1965. I think she’s in San Francisco, but I have no idea where. I love that she’s so dressed up to shop in some touristy mall. We look so much alike. Except I don’t iron my hair.
*True story: Probably 15 years ago, a friend of mine went to some posh wedding…I don’t know whose…and among the star-studded guest list was the former mayor of a large city, someone known for his love of crack cocaine and prostitutes. They both ended up at the bar at the same time. My friend ordered a gin and tonic. The bartender mistakenly began to pour Coke into the gin, and my friend said “No no no no!” at which point the former mayor observed, “It’s not that bad.”
I will be attending Web 2.0 Expo next week. Look for the woman* who looks like she doesn’t know what the fuck she’s doing there. Thankfully I’ve been reading up, so I plan on making some sweet new friends!
*In all seriousness, though, if you see me, don’t talk to me, okay.
In my ongoing (and somewhat foiled, at this point) attempts at tracing my genealogy, I’ve gone back through my dad’s old family photos (mostly from 1930-1960), which turned up a few years ago. At the time, they were interesting, but they were a bit like looking at someone else’s pictures. I recognized my grandparents and my dad, but I not only didn’t recognize most of the subjects — I also felt no connection to them.
Now, at least, I can put faces to the names on the old Census forms. But even my dad can’t identify some of the people. And so, they’ll remain strangers.
(First-time visitors to the apartment often ask if all the old group portraits hanging on the walls are of family. They’re not. They’ve been picked up at tag sales, flea markets, and junk shops. It’s always struck me as odd that folks would get rid of their family photos, but perhaps it’s because the faces were as unfamiliar to them as my family’s photos are to me. But some people, like me, enjoy looking at photos of strangers.)
About this photo (click to enlarge it [whoops, originally uploaded a flipped version]): This here is my great-grandmother’s second husband (of three, total) and their dog. It was taken on the back porch of the house my family lived in in Windsor Terrace. Even though it has little resonance for me on a personal level (never met that guy, never met that dog, and never been to that house), I think it’s the most unintentionally brilliant photo in any of the family albums. Why is the dog sitting on the chair? Why is he posing for a photo?
And why is Tom Waits standing in the doorway?
To add a chapter to yesterday’s ruminations, from the Washington Post, FBI probes were improper, Justice says:
The FBI improperly investigated some left-leaning U.S. advocacy groups after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department said Monday, citing cases in which agents put activists on terrorist watch lists even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience.
A report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine absolved the FBI of the most serious allegation: that domestic groups were targeted purely for their activism against the Iraq war and other political activity, which would have violated their First Amendment rights. Civil liberties groups and congressional Democrats had accused the FBI of employing such tactics during George W. Bush’s administration.
But the report cited what it called “troubling” FBI practices in the Bush administration’s monitoring of domestic groups between 2001 and 2006. In one instance, the report said, FBI officials falsely said an agent photographed antiwar demonstrators as part of a terrorism investigation, which led FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to unintentionally give incorrect information about the incident to Congress.
PETA? Greenpeace? Quakers and Catholics? All added to the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File? Are you kidding me? That is some happy horseshit right there.
Criteria point number five from said guidelines:
5. For purposes of entry in the GRC, a terrorist organization must meet the following definition:
a. The group must be an ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons; and
b. The group must be engaged in conduct or a pattern of conduct which involves the use of force or violence; and
c. The purpose of the group in using violence must be to intimidate or coerce a government, civilian population, or segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Violent Quakers.
The (somewhat redacted) 191-page report is available here. (I haven’t read it yet.)
Where did she go?
I am lazy. If you're bored, go visit my tumblr, updated daily with other people's witticisms and erudition.Also by me
Archives
- May 2013
- July 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- December 2005
- October 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- October 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002

