There, that should take care of any concerns, right?
It’s actually a blessing that we’re not using names right now, because if we were, I would be forced to tell you which whos in Whoville nearly slept through their own birthday party…
Their birthdays are just two days apart, so we celebrated them together at Ruths Chris (I’m allowed to use HER name, right?). One of the wine rooms was available so we had our own private dining experience. Lots of fun!
It’s been a quiet, blog-less week here. I am humbled by (and astonished!) that others miss the usual installments as much as I miss writing them. If only I’d invited YOU to dinner that night instead of all those detractors!
If I’d known about this handy dandy Shakespearean Insult Generator that evening, I might have been able to nip the whole thing in the bud: http://www.petelevin.com/shakespeare.htm Check it out – it will aid greatly in that snappy comeback such as “Grow unsightly warts, thou gorbellied, tardy-gaited fustilarian!”
With all the non-blogging downtime I’ve had this week, I’ve turned to reading some of the magazines that pile up in this information-overloaded post-Webian, Kindled and i-Tableted age. There’s a certain pleasure to reading magazines that you can’t get any other way. There are evenings when I know that clicking the TV remote will take me straight to Jersey Shore or Real Housewives hell, yet I just don’t feel like tackling Les Miserables. which I keep reading and reading and reading and still only find myself on page 620, which nothing more than a measly half-way point. That’s the perfect time to pick up a magazine, and last night the glossy rag of choice was the latest issue of New York magazine. The cover features a rakish Boston Terrier with a saturnine expression that will no doubt cause a noticeable uptick for puppy mill sales. The accompanying article is entitled “The Rise of Dog Identity Politics” (http://nymag.com/news/features/63232/)
Of course, we happen to know a certain (not-to-be-named) Boston Terrier who we think puts the NY Mag’s model to shame:
Truth be told, the article was the teensiest bit turgid, but there is one quote I must share: “A 1999 study found that people who strongly dislike dogs score significantly higher on the measure of anal character and lower on the empathy scale of the California Psychological Inventory.” I have to admit that the thought of such a thing as a California Psychological Inventory exists is an eyebrow-raiser, but then, even moreso is the thought of how icky it would be to know anyone with “anal character”. Glory be – how lucky we are that no dog-haters pass our portal! Just goes to show that we are justifiably suspicious of anyone who does not pass muster with our pooches.