I dreamed about babies last night.
Of course, last night I dreamed about a lot of things because I fell asleep somewhere around 9-ish over my textbook and didn't get up until oh... 8-ish this morning.
(Good GRIEF.)
But still--babies were in there at some point during the night.
And I dreamed about this pair of twin infants (one boy, one girl) I was taking care of for a friend. The baby girl had some serious health issues and had to be handled with rubber gloves. And even though she was an infant, she kept talking to me about how I didn't have to worry about her too much; you know--those kind of reassuring things people say when they don't want to be really fussed over. But I fussed, and I accidentally poked her little hands as I tried to fasten her cloth diaper with a safety pin and it was pretty darn distressing because then she looked at me with these big hurt eyes and just didn't say anything and I could tell she was hurt and kind of offended and...
Why on EARTH did I have a distress dream about babies? Which then evolved into these same infants being all grown up and dancing it up as young adults?
I have only one answer: my subconscious is a strange, strange landscape, that even I cannot comprehend.
Oooo.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Such a disappointment.
You know the beard thing I've been doing lately? I mean--not growing one, of course, but really liking the men who do? Or at least the men who have really nice close-trimmed beards?
Yeah.
I'm not sure if it's a result or a cause of this, but I've totally been crushing on a guy who happens to be in two of my classes. He's pretty tall, a little stocky, and has this dark hair that's just got tints of red, which for some reason looks really, erm, delicious. And he was bearded.
I say 'was,' because when I showed up for class this evening, I noticed that his beard, alas, was gone.
What a loss! I can no longer find him truly attractive.
So, I guess shallowness of affection comes in all sorts of flavors. For me, it's the beard-y flavor.
Yeah.
I'm not sure if it's a result or a cause of this, but I've totally been crushing on a guy who happens to be in two of my classes. He's pretty tall, a little stocky, and has this dark hair that's just got tints of red, which for some reason looks really, erm, delicious. And he was bearded.
I say 'was,' because when I showed up for class this evening, I noticed that his beard, alas, was gone.
What a loss! I can no longer find him truly attractive.
So, I guess shallowness of affection comes in all sorts of flavors. For me, it's the beard-y flavor.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
You know you're all grown up
I think tax season is the only time people wish they earned less than they actually did.
We're such a crazy society.
Also, April 15th stinks.
Bleaargh.
We're such a crazy society.
Also, April 15th stinks.
Bleaargh.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
How did I get so darn lucky?
You. You people. You people are the coolest people ever.
And one of you in particular (although you ALL are cool, really) is particularly cool right now.
To that person, I heartily say, "Well, blow me timbers! Thar be The Good Ship Bookend in the flesh! Er, wood. In the wood. On me shelf! Arr. It be good to see her there."
Also, "Thankee."
Also, "Good grief! That's holy amazing that you found that thing and WOW!" But, I don't know how to put that into pirate speak. Maybe it would be something close to "Yaargh!" I'm not really sure.
Also (to all you readers) I'm so sorry I haven't been posting much. I've just been hecka busy with school (even now I'm thinking, "I'm sure there's something I should be doing. There's always something. What the heck is it?!?) and assorted mundanities, which both leaves me less time for blogging, and a mind that is less occupied with thinking up blog topics and more occupied with trying to figure out which books I should toss out (theoretically, of course) for my collection development assignment and what I can say for a booktalk and when I can squeeze in the readings for cataloging that I've been neglecting lately.
But, I must tell you, I saw this charming thing on the T this evening. I was riding up to Harvard Square to meet a classmate to finish up a group project. On the seats just in front of me sat a young man (twentysomething) and a woman who looked to be in her late forties or early fifties who was, I'm guessing, his mom. I noticed the young man, of course, because he was excessively good looking. But I also noticed that they seemed to be having this really charming conversation where they'd laugh, and he'd kind of lean in and intentionally bump shoulders (his right, her left) with her a couple of times. I love that whole bumping shoulders business. It's a way of showing affection without getting too out of control--of a desire for contact, brief and rather humorous. I like it a lot.
And I wish all of you were here right now so I could talk and laugh with you and bump shoulders. Just a little bit.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Why love is like reading seriously condensed versions of classic novels:
Oh, Book-a-Minute, how do I love thee?
For instance, do I love thee enough to stay up until after 4am reading thy hilarious entries?
Why, yes.
Yes I do.
For instance, do I love thee enough to stay up until after 4am reading thy hilarious entries?
Why, yes.
Yes I do.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Endless Universes
So, I've been reading the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang over the past few days (and yes, I am trying to impress you all by letting on that I'm reading cosmology theory (in NOVA-type very diluted form)) and (although I have this unfortunate tendency to fall asleep while reading it, which partially contributed to my missing 1/3 of church this morning) I have to admit, I find it rather wonderful.
Basically, the book takes a look at both the commonly taught model of the universe (the inflationary model) critiques it, and also introduces a new model (the cyclic model of the universe) that fits with the same astronomical observations and yet has (they claim) fewer problems than the inflationary model.
While I am certainly no cosmologist (I have trouble really visualizing some of the more intense theoretical stuff, like Higgs fields (which apparently make it possible for elementary particles to differentiate into the types we know today)), still the idea of the cyclic universe appeals to me much more than the inflationary model, simply from (oddly enough) an aesthetic and theological perspective.
The inflationary model claims, essentially, that time and space began at the Big Bang, that the universe rapidly expanded, then slowed, and now is undergoing a period of increasing expansion because of dark energy (all of which was explained in the book in a way that made me pretty much understand what dark energy is supposed to be, thank goodness). This increasing expansion will continue forever, until the universe is basically dead: all burnable fuel used up, all matter so widely distributed that space has become a virtual vacuum. And this state lasts forever.
While the cyclic model incorporates the same idea of the current universe as the inflationary model (that of rapid expansion after the Big Bang, gradual slowing and cooling, and a relatively recent period of increasing expansion due to dark energy), it differs from the other model in essential points. Instead of the universe being created at the Big Bang, the model claims that the event was only one in a series of cyclical events or periods that are endlessly repeating. Basically, the model makes the assumption (and I haven't yet discovered how the theorists provide a good reason for supposing this assumption is valid, but I'm only halfway through the book) that dark energy eventually decays when the universe is fairly homogenous (vacuum-like) in nature, and that then the universe gradually contracts until it reaches another Big Bang event, matter and energy are once again concentrated and distributed throughout the universe, and another period of creation begins.
So.
Here is why I prefer the cyclic model: firstly, it's just plain more hopeful. Thinking about the universe cooling and dying and expanding forever and ever and ever with no end is just plain depressing. It means that the majority of the creation of galaxies and other major astronomical structures is pretty much over and entropy wins in the end. That's a pretty bleak view. Whereas the cyclic model provides for an endless repetition of periods of creation. That's an inherently hopeful view, one I find fits more with my idea of how the universe should be. It's efficient (as opposed to the seemingly wasteful inflationary model) with no loss of matter/energy as the universe undergoes these cycles. That's the aesthetic appeal.
I also find that the cyclic model fits very comfortably indeed with my theological views. In the LDS scriptures, the phrase "one eternal round" comes up frequently and is always related to God, and always related to his course. I find it wonderful that there's an idea of the universe that plays into this idea of endless creation. Endless. Which means that God's work is wonderfully, beautifully, joyously, never finished. Which fits so much better into the cyclic model than the inflationary one. While I suppose the inflationary model could work with this idea of God (He'd just move on to another universe when this one was burned up, I guess), still, again, it feels inefficient and just wasteful. Using the same universe over and over again for works of creation seems to be wonderfully simple and beautiful.
So what does all this mean?
Nothing much.
I doubt I'll be able to tell after reading this book which, if either model, is more reliable, fits more with the astronomical evidence, or is more mathematically viable.
But I know which one I like, which one I'm rooting for. And whichever model is true (if either) the universe is more grand and strange and gorgeous and complex and simple than I can comprehend. And that's kind of wonderful in itself.
Basically, the book takes a look at both the commonly taught model of the universe (the inflationary model) critiques it, and also introduces a new model (the cyclic model of the universe) that fits with the same astronomical observations and yet has (they claim) fewer problems than the inflationary model.
While I am certainly no cosmologist (I have trouble really visualizing some of the more intense theoretical stuff, like Higgs fields (which apparently make it possible for elementary particles to differentiate into the types we know today)), still the idea of the cyclic universe appeals to me much more than the inflationary model, simply from (oddly enough) an aesthetic and theological perspective.
The inflationary model claims, essentially, that time and space began at the Big Bang, that the universe rapidly expanded, then slowed, and now is undergoing a period of increasing expansion because of dark energy (all of which was explained in the book in a way that made me pretty much understand what dark energy is supposed to be, thank goodness). This increasing expansion will continue forever, until the universe is basically dead: all burnable fuel used up, all matter so widely distributed that space has become a virtual vacuum. And this state lasts forever.
While the cyclic model incorporates the same idea of the current universe as the inflationary model (that of rapid expansion after the Big Bang, gradual slowing and cooling, and a relatively recent period of increasing expansion due to dark energy), it differs from the other model in essential points. Instead of the universe being created at the Big Bang, the model claims that the event was only one in a series of cyclical events or periods that are endlessly repeating. Basically, the model makes the assumption (and I haven't yet discovered how the theorists provide a good reason for supposing this assumption is valid, but I'm only halfway through the book) that dark energy eventually decays when the universe is fairly homogenous (vacuum-like) in nature, and that then the universe gradually contracts until it reaches another Big Bang event, matter and energy are once again concentrated and distributed throughout the universe, and another period of creation begins.
So.
Here is why I prefer the cyclic model: firstly, it's just plain more hopeful. Thinking about the universe cooling and dying and expanding forever and ever and ever with no end is just plain depressing. It means that the majority of the creation of galaxies and other major astronomical structures is pretty much over and entropy wins in the end. That's a pretty bleak view. Whereas the cyclic model provides for an endless repetition of periods of creation. That's an inherently hopeful view, one I find fits more with my idea of how the universe should be. It's efficient (as opposed to the seemingly wasteful inflationary model) with no loss of matter/energy as the universe undergoes these cycles. That's the aesthetic appeal.
I also find that the cyclic model fits very comfortably indeed with my theological views. In the LDS scriptures, the phrase "one eternal round" comes up frequently and is always related to God, and always related to his course. I find it wonderful that there's an idea of the universe that plays into this idea of endless creation. Endless. Which means that God's work is wonderfully, beautifully, joyously, never finished. Which fits so much better into the cyclic model than the inflationary one. While I suppose the inflationary model could work with this idea of God (He'd just move on to another universe when this one was burned up, I guess), still, again, it feels inefficient and just wasteful. Using the same universe over and over again for works of creation seems to be wonderfully simple and beautiful.
So what does all this mean?
Nothing much.
I doubt I'll be able to tell after reading this book which, if either model, is more reliable, fits more with the astronomical evidence, or is more mathematically viable.
But I know which one I like, which one I'm rooting for. And whichever model is true (if either) the universe is more grand and strange and gorgeous and complex and simple than I can comprehend. And that's kind of wonderful in itself.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Tagalicious
Wow. I've just been tagged.
I feel... I feel pretty sweet about that, actually. Mostly because it gives me a chance to share some random stuff about myself with you.
Just for the record, here's what Pat says about the tag in her tagging post: "*Share 7 facts about yourself on your blog, some random, some weird.* Tag 7 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blogs.* Let them know they are tagged by leaving a comment on their blog."
So, I guess my first random thing would be,
1. After quoting from Pat's blog, I felt a strong need to use APA citation. I think grad school is starting to get to me.
(Just for the record, I think it would be something like:
Pat. (2008, March 6). Granny's house. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://grannytsbungalow.blogspot.com/.)
2. I once made a movie with some friends that starred a small, terrycloth-covered, bean animal named Chobee. And I was the female lead.
3. I also once ate (as part of an initiation ceremony) an Oreo dipped in salsa. The weird thing is that, as gross as it sounds, the actual experience wasn't all that bad. I guess Oreos win out over all.
4. My biggest dream currently is to become a youth services librarian who writes books on the side. So far, I'm getting pretty far in the librarian business. The book writing thing? Not so much.
5. Okay. This one may be TMI, but I kind of enjoy plucking my face. I love that little tug you get right before a hair pops out. Um. Yeah. I'm sick.
6. Speaking of sick, and speaking of facial hair, I have this growing fetish for beards on men. We're not talking Lorenzo Snow type beards, here. C'mon, people. But I must confess: I really, really love that well-trimmed, full beard look (none of your goatees for me). Kind of like Commander Riker during his be-bearded days, but a little further up the cheek. Nice.
7. Which brings me to this one: I am a closet Trekkie. (It is true. In addition to being an APA citing, Chobee-loving, salsa & oreo-eating, author-wanna-be-librarianing, hair plucking, beard fetishing girl, I am also a nerd.)
And that's all you need to know about me.
So, to pass on the goodness, I think I'll tag:
Kim
Jekka
Nerd Goddess
Lindsay
Joseph
Christian
Joellen
Ethenielle
Which pretty much sums up my blogging acquaintances. (Although I would have tagged Pinto if she hadn't cursed given up blogging for Lent.)
*******************************************************
Edit: Aha. Hum. So, I tagged 8 people instead. I am not so good with numbers.
I feel... I feel pretty sweet about that, actually. Mostly because it gives me a chance to share some random stuff about myself with you.
Just for the record, here's what Pat says about the tag in her tagging post: "*Share 7 facts about yourself on your blog, some random, some weird.* Tag 7 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blogs.* Let them know they are tagged by leaving a comment on their blog."
So, I guess my first random thing would be,
1. After quoting from Pat's blog, I felt a strong need to use APA citation. I think grad school is starting to get to me.
(Just for the record, I think it would be something like:
Pat. (2008, March 6). Granny's house. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://grannytsbungalow.blogspot.com/.)
2. I once made a movie with some friends that starred a small, terrycloth-covered, bean animal named Chobee. And I was the female lead.
3. I also once ate (as part of an initiation ceremony) an Oreo dipped in salsa. The weird thing is that, as gross as it sounds, the actual experience wasn't all that bad. I guess Oreos win out over all.
4. My biggest dream currently is to become a youth services librarian who writes books on the side. So far, I'm getting pretty far in the librarian business. The book writing thing? Not so much.
5. Okay. This one may be TMI, but I kind of enjoy plucking my face. I love that little tug you get right before a hair pops out. Um. Yeah. I'm sick.
6. Speaking of sick, and speaking of facial hair, I have this growing fetish for beards on men. We're not talking Lorenzo Snow type beards, here. C'mon, people. But I must confess: I really, really love that well-trimmed, full beard look (none of your goatees for me). Kind of like Commander Riker during his be-bearded days, but a little further up the cheek. Nice.
7. Which brings me to this one: I am a closet Trekkie. (It is true. In addition to being an APA citing, Chobee-loving, salsa & oreo-eating, author-wanna-be-librarianing, hair plucking, beard fetishing girl, I am also a nerd.)
And that's all you need to know about me.
So, to pass on the goodness, I think I'll tag:
Kim
Jekka
Nerd Goddess
Lindsay
Joseph
Christian
Joellen
Ethenielle
Which pretty much sums up my blogging acquaintances. (Although I would have tagged Pinto if she hadn't cursed given up blogging for Lent.)
*******************************************************
Edit: Aha. Hum. So, I tagged 8 people instead. I am not so good with numbers.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Soured
Do you really love those faces kids make when they eat something sour? (You sadist, you?)
If so, enjoy:
If so, enjoy:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)