Sunday morning

Ran all the errands that fell by the wayside yesterday thanks to Project TV. Filled up Kuro. Dropped by the hardware big box for light bulbs and garbage bags. Bought groceries. Came home and fed the pups. Sat down to unwind a bit when Gaby wandered in and tossed up her lunch on the rug.

She seems fine now. Hungry--she went back and licked her bowl. But I will hold off on feeding her. Maybe I'll give her a little rice in an hour or so.

I've caught her eating stuff outside. I'd hate to think I have a girly-girl version of King here.

Sunday morning

Ran all the errands that fell by the wayside yesterday thanks to Project TV. Filled up Kuro. Dropped by the hardware big box for light bulbs and garbage bags. Bought groceries. Came home and fed the pups. Sat down to unwind a bit when Gaby wandered in and tossed up her lunch on the rug.

She seems fine now. Hungry--she went back and licked her bowl. But I will hold off on feeding her. Maybe I'll give her a little rice in an hour or so.

I've caught her eating stuff outside. I'd hate to think I have a girly-girl version of King here.

A point to ponder

Why are some folks so determined to prove that Will Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, or had help, or fronted for a nobleman? Is it a class issue, a refusal to accept that a man from comparatively humble beginnings could write so well? Is it just something to do?

Listened to NPR on the way to the store this morning, and heard part of an interview with Mark Anderson, the author of "Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare." Anderson felt that the similarities between de Vere's life and relationships in frex Hamlet (the relationships between Polonius, Ophelia, and Hamlet) and King Lear (deVere's period of destitution) indicate that he played a major role in the writing of the plays. I missed the next interview with the guy who demolished that argument.

Is it because humans love a conspiracy theory? Because they feel some things are too great to have been accomplished by one man?

A point to ponder

Why are some folks so determined to prove that Will Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, or had help, or fronted for a nobleman? Is it a class issue, a refusal to accept that a man from comparatively humble beginnings could write so well? Is it just something to do?

Listened to NPR on the way to the store this morning, and heard part of an interview with Mark Anderson, the author of "Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare." Anderson felt that the similarities between de Vere's life and relationships in frex Hamlet (the relationships between Polonius, Ophelia, and Hamlet) and King Lear (deVere's period of destitution) indicate that he played a major role in the writing of the plays. I missed the next interview with the guy who demolished that argument.

Is it because humans love a conspiracy theory? Because they feel some things are too great to have been accomplished by one man?