Posts
Be all that as it may, meanwhile:
'In other news…'
09th July 2010
Friday: At very long last, Perth's and the Southwest's big dry spell has broken, but it came with some wind damage for some, unfortunately.
Our guests began to arrive after half six, and a great evening was had by all, with The Babies Ink&Peggletter joining Reeve and Chocci Chocson here with us for a combined birthday celebration for The Babies, in the form of a Christmas in July.
And so a failed turkey went west, as well a pig, or at least a portion cured into a ham. Reeve did the honours by carving the two beasts, which is good, for had I been roped in and made to do it, we'd all have been chewing on ragged chunks of flesh.
We fine tuned some of the details of our next trip to Balingup, two weeks away, with Reeve, when Janny will, hopefully, stay on with Margie Kismikkin for a couple of weeks, and if she's super lucky (I doubt it), even for a third week.
After our friends and family had all left, after eleven, we watched the Graham Norton Show, with Cadbury on my lap, lapping up the caressings. The Babies hadn't seen her for approaching four weeks, and were impressed with her increased growth and condition.
I settled in for the whole night at the computer, writing my short story Love in the Balance (Honk for Jesus), which story prevented me sleeping last 'night' for hours, for I kept sitting up in bed and writing notes in the dark. This is not unusual, my racing mind, after a writing session.
As a break during the writing, I watched the computer's recording of Lateline: The (Leigh) Sales Graph: Ms Sales had a winter-suitable very dark grey-asparagus longsleeved jacket on, with a circular high-collared neckline, and interestingly, a close moderately solid necklace of dark and silvery pearls (with matching earrings), arranged asymmetrically, in the small area of her skin exposed, interesting given that Ms Sales often wears nothing around her neck when the area of her décolletage is much greater, and when she does, usually it is something delicate; this choice worked very well. Her make-up was ideally subtle-effect, and her hair style was most appealing, again asymmetrical but most attractive, convex flaring much more on the left side of her face.
 |
| |
Her first long interview guest – and a change from the usual Friday night federal politics blood sport, was with Jonathan Alter, the author of 'The Promise', on-screen from New York. Mr Alter was very conservatively turned out in a dark jacket and a palatinate purple tie over a periwinkle striped light shirt.
There was almost no excitement in the discussion, given that Mr Alter appeared to naturally be a serious rarely smiling kind of fellow, but there was plenty of information, about the Obama presidency's first year. Ms Sales gave him plenty of time to answer her questions, and the most excitement that did come was when Mr Alter asked for Ms Sales to repeat a question.
It was telling in a harmless way that Ms Sales finished the interview with a unique statement for her: "…thank you very much for your time. We'll leave it there." I think she was mildly glad she could stop, lest she begin to nod off.
As I've so often said, and I hope to say many times again, thank heavens for the champion of most Friday nights on Lateline, none other than Stephen Long, who, if he gets a lousy four minutes, skips home singing. The (Stephen) Long and Short of It: Dressing rather plainly for his miserly one hundred and ninety seconds of glory tonight,
 |
| |
Mr Long sported a dark Prussian blue suit, a whiter than white shirt beautifully ironed by his devoted Mum (who also had generously tousled his gorgeous curls, a head of hair that sends hairdressers scurrying to their bank to increase their overdraft to buy new blades if not sharpening equipment), and a sapphire tie with narrow white stripes, with a radical touch: the knot was rather nondescript and his collar a tad skew (Mr Long is sending us a faint message that underneath his staid exterior lurks a rebel).
 |
| |
Mr Long obviously has earned his streamlined Sarsaparilla bottle glasses, because to hear him answer Ms Sales' questions on matters economic is to behold a boffin who has soaked up oodles of knowledge and who knows how to interpret it the rest of us, flavoured with his own solid commonsense and insight.
A sorry story was on his lips when he explained how the likes of Sonray Capital gamble with CFDs, contracts for difference, with their clients' money. The whole sorry state of using the stock markets as a giant casino irritates me immensely, for the practice ultimately sucks genuine wealth out of the hands of the least able to afford it, the ordinary low wealth individuals of the whole world.
And so, it takes a great effort of will to feel sympathy for those who go knowingly into these gambles and lose. Mr Long gave an excellent and rather understandable description of how they operate, CFDs that is, and it all puts a chill up my spine. Will I live long enough to witness the maturation of stock markets to the point where they become long term investment intruments in companies creating real wealth for the good of all stakeholders? I doubt it very much.
How can a company progress smoothly in developing itself, its strengths, when thousands of leeches are buying and selling its stock just to try and make a profit within hours or days of buying in or selling, sending its value haywire?
Thank you Mr Long and Ms Sales for bringing us the best part of the Lateline week.
I got so involved with my writing that my day became my night and half the next day, Saturday that is, finally crawling into bed, sucking my thumb and having Missus Inkletter sing me a lullaby, towards 1 p.m. Thankfully I was able to turn my mind off this time. The fact that the story is essentially written now helps greatly, with just polishing and editing to go. I plan to record it as well.
+paytontedwithlove+
23 comments:
Maybe you should try for a job as a fashion expert? Of course, I guess you are that already? Such detail! Such 'seeing' and interpretation. Inkletter, YOU are a genius! Surely ALL Australia flocks to this site to see and experience Ms Sales in action, so as to be able to rush to the stores the very next day and demand a look-alike outfit. For surely ALL women would wish to be praised as eloquently as Ms Sales here in Fools Paradise. Keep it up, you are a credit to Australia!
Gladys: You have always been very kind.
However, if you study what I say carefully, it becomes apparent I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.
Or just ask Missus Inkletter.
Exactly! Have you seen some of the stuff women wear these days? Much like the 'baby doll' sleepwear of the 1960's, except that there is far less fabric to cover certain areas. Seems like most women's garments these days offer scope for 'natural' feeding of infants. Maybe a good thing?
Gladys: I'm all for women having freedom to choose what they wear, with the caveat (also to be applied to men), that it be appropriate in context.
This context should also take into account the topical and controversial matter of national standards.
But leaving that emotionally explosive area alone, I do think that there are standards that are most appropriate in Western current affairs presentation, for example, for both men and women. Men should aim in general to wear ties, and women should not expose cleavage nor go sleeveless, for it deducts from the professional atmosphere.
And thus a woman anchoring a current affairs or news program shouldn't wear only a bikini, nor should a man wear just a singlet.
But I will reconsider my position Gladys if you would be so kind as to send some photos of women in those 'baby doll' outfits.
Yes, you are quite right. I go for smartness of dress for presenters. Indeed, I am known to say to hubby, “Just look at that suit. What a perfect fit! Creaseless shirt and a smart tie all in matching harmony.” Although something similar could be said of some of the woman, others could do better. The way some of the clothes are styled for one lady in particular, makes her look as if she is a morph rolled out in plasticine.
As for baby doll dresses, just google. (I don't intend to advertise these ungainly unfeminine garments.) Most look as if they belong to an infant sister, or a pregnant teenager, or for use as teasing nightwear. Some are so short, they surely must have at least a matching brief to go with it (as per baby doll pyjamas of years ago). Those with 'flopping out when bending over' features leave nothing to the imagination.
Women may complain if men stare at provocative exposure, but one can only conclude that women who dress this way do so in order to exhibit their goods. Comely bosom exhibition is not new — it goes back for centuries. Apparently, falling bosoms met with some approval even when it was daring to reveal an ankle.
Gladys: 'Comely bosom exhibition'? Where is this being held? Will it visit Perth? We have a big convention centre here.
I know women attract far more critical attention regarding dress, and this is but one of the reasons I wouldn't want to be a woman for all the panties in China, but there is definitely a simple and commonsense set of guidelines that those in the professional arena can follow to enhance their professional credibility.
Don't you ever walk down the street? If they get much lower you will be tripping over them!
I rather like the idea of wearing one of those 'cover all but your eyes' garments. No need to worry about dress code etc. I could even wear my dark wrap-around glasses!
Gladys: I spend most of my time in a gum tree, but yes, I do walk down the street from time to time, and yes, I do have to be careful not to trip over them, to be frank.
Gravel burn is a problem also: I 'm forever wearing out the leather slings Missus Inkletter makes for me.
Those cover all but the eyes outfits could quickly become a comfortable hiding place for many women, methinks, shutting the big bad world out from them, while deforming their socialisation, poor things, shutting them out from the world. Bad all round, in my opinion.
Women have as much to offer the world as men; though the genders offerings are somewhat different in general, they are complementary. Shutting women out, away, makes a society much the poorer.
You are right, of course. Burkas are seen as doing just that. Even so, it seems to be the choice for some of the British converts. Over enthusiasm, I guess.
While I think it possible to ban burkas and veils IF women are being forced to wear them, I can't see how you can ban either if it is by free choice. (As you may know there are moves by some folk to have the whole lot or just the veil banned here in England. At least in public places.)
I can tell you, that when I saw some of the photos taken at the wedding last Saturday (flash photography caused me to screw up my eyes and face) I thought of choosing a hat with a hefty veil for the next wedding!
I doubt women who want to get anywhere in business or politics would wear veils. I think a lot of the present enthusiasm is because of over enthusiasm of converts or a desire to show support for Islam.
Are you jealous? Maybe Missus will make you an outfit?
Gladys: Missus Inkletter might make me a burqa if I asked her, but I will never find out, for I won't be asking her: my all over fur already causes overheating issues.
I think you are onto something with the over enthusiasm factor for some of the women wearing the burqa in public, especially in Western nations and recently re-Islamified nations. However, the concept 'voluntary' (free choice) in this regard is fraught.
If we lived in a world where no woman had ever been beaten by 'morals' police for not wearing the burqa, or in anyway had any pressure applied to wear it, then 'voluntary' in regard to this matter would be a different ball game. Thus 'voluntary' becomes an encumbered concept.
Australia has a low level debate also these days on the subject of banning the wearing of the burqa in public; I happen to think anything that covers most of the face should be banned in public.
The face is the most basic and important social interaction interFACE we have, and to cover it destroys the ability to meaningfully communicate and cooperate with any sensible degree of efficiency. Even those sunglasses which reflect everything back inhibit healthy social interaction.
And so I would strongly discourage full face covering even in private (normally limited to some of our female fraction), while supporting the banning of the same in public. We ban many other forms of dress and behaviours in public places already, without the meaningful civil liberties of the nation collapsing: women are not allowed to go topless in most public places; smoking is banned in an increasing number of public places; racist remarks, urination, expectoration, replica handguns, the list is endless, yet most of us manage rather well under these commonsense restrictions.
I think maybe you are missing my point. Brutality in some Islamic cultures is far different from a white English convert who chooses a way of modesty (daft maybe but precious to these enthusiastic females). No woman in any country should feel forced to wear anything. I should imagine that covering up causes a shortage of the sunshine vitamin (D?). In a free country it is a woman's right to wear what SHE wants to. The things you site are not in the same catagory. Hoodies are worn all over, provocative uniforms and bands cause riots in N Ireland. Yes, modesty clothing such as the burka makes integration difficult, but not impossible. Some Muslim women are teachers and remove their veil when teaching. These women should be encouraged to drop the veil but I see no reason for banning it and so cause anti-establishment feeling. Ban something and it becomes suddenly desirable!
Gladys: I think perhaps the word 'ban' is part of the problem, for it conjures greater negatives than do the phrases 'make illegal', 'not allow'. Also, precisely what form of face covering we are talking about matters.
I am referring to the head covering that leaves just a slit for the eyes, and sometimes even puts gauze over that slit. This head covering, which I think is called 'niqab', is, I understand, included in the burqa garment, and I don't consider it 'modesty' clothing. The human face is not in the class of body parts or areas that classify as inappropriate to display publicly for sexual reasons. The face is our portal for social engagement and interaction.
When the face is all but covered in public, permanently, social interaction is severely limited. This has a host of negative consequences on both sides of, in this instance, the burqa. However, if a person persistently wore a hoodie in public to such an extent that only the eyes could be seen, I would also include that in a prohibited class of clothing, or way of wearing clothing in public. Of course, there will be times such as severe weather, when we all are better off covering our faces, whether in public or not.
'In a free country it is a woman's right to wear what SHE wants to': No, not strictly so. Nor for a man. There are things in public that men and women are not allowed (banned, illegal) to wear. Clear plastic garments around the bum and crotch for example, topless outfits for women, etc., etc., in most public areas.
'Ban something and it becomes suddenly desirable!': Not necessarily, not always: smoking is increasingly prohibited here in Western Australia in all sorts of public venues and conveyances, and gradually the feeling toward smoking here is changing to one of disdain.
I don't have a problem with requiring (enforcing) all Australian citizens to have their faces recognizable when in public. The example you cite of female Muslim teachers removing the veil when teaching is a prime example of my point: if these women want to put the veil back on when in private, that's their business, which I would discourage but not ban, but I would, if it were up to me, make it illegal to teach in Australian schools wearing the burqa, just as it is already illegal for a female teacher to be topless, or for either sex to display racist slogans on their clothing while teaching.
'…and so cause anti-establishment feeling': the horse has already bolted. Specifically, Muslim women who wear the burqa in Western democracies are already essentially at least somewhat anti-establishment by their practices, and I'm sure they would not lead the way in protest if Australia, Britain, France, and such were pressured by certain citizens to change their laws to make the burqa compulsory for all women, for example.
I think most of these ladies do not want to integrate.
The way some (not all) girls dress and behave in the UK I find obnoxious. Falling drunk out of all-night bars, throwing up in the gutters. Most of them looking for sex. (Have you heard them talk when interviewed?) Clad in skimpy clothing even in winter. The police stand by in case of trouble but to my mind they should be thrown in a cell until morning.
Is it any wonder some families don't want to integrate? Fearful their own kids will pick up the same habits?
But we could go on with this. I just restate, you cannot class the veil with topless dresses or naked bodies. Perhaps 'Offence' is in the eye of the beholder?
We also have to accept that some women would never go out of their house if they had to leave their face uncovered. Seclusion would be absolute.
No, I don't particularly like veiled faces but that is my problem not theirs.
I will not argue further. We have to differ.
Oy, no posts? Busy recording that story the world is waiting for? Hope you are not confined to bed - sucking your thumb as is your habit?
Keep your chin up, little man. Not too much choc or jelly beans.
(Found a terrific make of jelly beans - 38 different flavours!)
Gladys: I have just this evening returned from 3 days in Balingup, a million miles south.
Our priceless friend Reeve Chocson drove Missus Inkletter and moi there on Monday, stayed with us, and he and I returned Wednesday, some hours back now, eating our way north.
Missus Inkletter has stayed down there, and plans to return after an almost two week break, if all goes well. I expect to be faint, or have fainted, from hunger by that time.
The 38 flavours of jelly beans have piqued my interest…
And so you should be. These are the finest beans made and exported all over the world.
You can read about them on the Internet.
The Jelly Bean Factory
Gourmet Beans
36 flavours. One little bean lasts for ages, its flavour flooding your taste buds in rare delight (That bit is me speaking) Fruit flavoues, spicy, coffee, peppermint, cola, yogurt, butterscotch, liquorice, and so on.
And free from nasty things.
I hope your good lady has a pleasant time. Don't do rash things while she's away. You are not a mouse but a big brave koala!
Hope your writing is coming along nicely
Gladys: I braved a visit to the Jelly Bean Factory, against my better judgment: after enlarging the first thumbnail showing a packet called 'Jelly Bean Menu', I had an intense emotional frisson; foolishly, I then enlarged the 'Monster Jar of Gourmet Jelly Beans', a mere 4.2 kg of heaven, and I fainted, waking up an indeterminate number of hours later.
I phoned Missus Inkletter this morning, and she was having a wonderful time, not least judging by the controlled riot I could hear in the background of Brooklands Homestead at Balingup.
I will be on my best behaviour while the good lady is away, not least because she leaves one of her eyes here and open at all times.
Ah, my writing… Well, not surprisingly, I am going very slowly, but I do appreciate the enquiries and encouragement, so thank you Gladys.
So where does your good lady leave that eye? On the bed post? Kitchen wall? Garden? On the 'roof' of your computer?
Mm - yes that is the likely spot. No telling what you get up to once you start tapping those keys.
Is the eye protected? Is it all seeing? Can it revolve? Can it slip down and travel? Does it need eye drops? (nope not the sort that requires picking up the eye and letting it go!)
A wonderful lady indeed. I am in awe! (Can she only knit half a jumper while she's away?)
Gladys: Missus Inkletter leaves one eye on top of her wardrobe in our bedroom when she goes away. Don't make the mistake of assuming, however, that I am out from under her scrutiny when I leave the boudoir: like most women, her eye can see through walls, and around corners.
Speaking of knitting, you are prescient, for she did indeed pack wool and needles for an activity during the quieter moments between the many nadirs she and her mate Margie have planned in and around Balingup.
No pulling the wool over her eye then!
Gladys: At long last my wife's secret singleness of eye tyranny of me is unravelling.
Yep, she knows how to keep an eye on the ball. And I'm not talking about sufficiency of wool.
Gladys: Might there be, perchance, some cryptic suggestion pertaining to monorchism in your comment?
Post a Comment