We’ve all done it — unloading the dishwasher, carrying the plates from down below to the cabinets above, when you misjudge something and bonk! your head on the edge of the open cabinet door.
Oooh, that smarts. If you’re really unlucky, you hit it on the corner of the cabinet. And if you’re really really unlucky, you scream a few obscenities, and then open your teary eyes to find blood dripping onto the floor.
I was only really really unlucky. If I’d added another “really,” it would have meant a trip to the ER for stitches, a wound I know is called a “scalp lac,” thanks to years of “ER” reruns. Add another “really” to that scenario, and I would have fallen unconscious onto the still-full silverware rack, with all its upturned forks and paring knives, and risked becoming a Wayne County brief — Metro Woman Hospitalized in Dishwasher Mishap — and then almost certainly an “ER” subplot, for comic relief. As it was, a little direct pressure with a dish towel got things under control and all I have is a bloody scab and a headache.
Of course, if I had gone to the ER? Some doctor would have looked at my head and said, “Huh. You were lucky. Could have been worse.” I’m sure whole squadrons of Jerry Seinfeld wannabes have made routines out of the idea that the first thing a doctor says to you after you’ve been in an accident is, “You were lucky.”
I don’t like Mondays.
But my hair-color appointment in a few days is safe.
Congratulations again to Julia, who is probably sleeping off last night’s Pulitzer party. It’s my recollection that Julia was, when she was living and working in Columbus, the focus of ongoing harassment by a self-appointed “media critic” writing in the local alt-weekly. He was mainly bugged that Julia, who has a PhD, made the outrageous assumption that at least some of her readers were as smart as she was, and used fancy vocabulary and made the occasional literary reference. He called her “Dr. Keller.” He was an asshole. Still is, I expect.
Julia also told me that, like so many of these folks, her critic was egged on and fed items by a particularly jealous colleague, whose name she shared with me. He’s still in Columbus. He’s an asshole, too.
I wonder how they’re feeling this morning. Probably pretty sour. Being bitter and jealous is its own punishment.
As for Julia, she has a certain cat/canary look in this photo. I’m sure she’s not thinking of either of her tormenters. Being smart and accomplished is its own reward.
But within 36 hours, I expect some editor at the Trib will ask her, “So, what do you have for Sunday?” Oh-bla-di, etc.
Richard Cohen writes a deft column today about the Pope, warts and all. A refreshing break from the face-beaming-love crap in most newspapers.
Finally, I read stories like this, and I yearn for the days of tar and feathers: In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) — a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee — said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
Cornyn continued: “I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.”
What do you suppose Judge Lefkow, up in Chicago, did to bring on the murder of her husband and 90-year-old mother? How about the judge in Atlanta? I supposed God killed him so Brian Nichols could come to God, eh?
Another asshat. They’re everywhere, I tell you.
Oh! Google Maps is now doing satellite images. Too, toooooo cool.
Jeff said on April 5, 2005 at 9:49 am
Google Maps, beta or not, is the ultimate bookmark deleting resource. Have you tried putting in two addresses one after another, and then clicking back and forward again? The route highlighting simply jumps back and forth, without reloads (and being on dial-up with a 5 year old laptop, that’s pretty cool too.
Oh, and Cornyn is just creepy talking about anything, let alone making threats that, no matter how “indirect” would probably get me a visit from a federal officer if i made it in a letter to my local courthouse. And it should, too.
Laura said on April 5, 2005 at 10:17 am
Re: Julia Keller. Her Other Paper tormenter was the first thing I thought of when I heard she won. I always thought the OP’s diatribes were all about misogyny.
4dbirds said on April 5, 2005 at 10:45 am
John Cornyn is justifying the murder of judges. Perhaps he does deserve the barbaric act of tar and feathering but I think just voting him out is more civilized. I remember seeing historical cartoons of folks being tarred and feathered, tied to the rail of a train and sent out of town. It looked like a mild embarrassment for the one being tarred. What it really is, was brought to home in two HBO series that featured scenes of the act. Boiling hot pitch is applied to the skin of a restrained victim. The skin burns as if on fire. The tar doesn’t come off and traps the heat next to the skin. It is agonizing. It is probably fatal. In the series Deadwood, the victim is rescued after the tar is applied only to his shoulder. After the tar has dried, the victim has to endure the tar being ripped off, along with his skin.
Tom Wilk said on April 5, 2005 at 11:16 am
Re: Julia Keller. The problem with Keller in Columbus wasn’t that she wrote above her audience. It was that she saw everything through the lens of literary theory, everything, whether it was her dissertation, a PBS drama, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Somehow she never got past the name-calling aspect of “Dr. Keller”, even though she always used the tools of the doctorate in her craft as a journalist.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts looking like a nail. Congrats on the Pulitzer, Julia, but a hammer by any other name…
Jeff said on April 5, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Literary theory? Huh? She did commit analysis, which i suppose is an indictable offense to those whose idea of analysis is comparison to, oh, how they would have done it. Julia was a good writer, a skilled and incisive cultural critic, and, oh yeah, she has a Pulitzer.
Which they don’t just give on the basis of syllable length, last i checked. And i stopped reading The Other Paper a couple years back when it became the Victorian Village Neighborhood Association Newsletter, anyhow. And no, today’s Dispatch ain’t much better, mainly because they don’t have many Julia’s left.
Nance said on April 5, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Julia covered TV when she was in Columbus, which can occasionally be bent to literary theory, but not often. And while I didn’t read everything she wrote there, nor everything the Other Paper said about it, I did see enough to get the idea it was unfair and mean-spirited. For one thing, it missed the rather obvious point that writers don’t work alone (at least not at newspapers) — she had editors, several of them, and if she was able to convince them she had something to say worthy of going in the Big D, she shouldn’t be the only one singled out for abuse.
The other thing is, the O.P. stuff was unbylined, as I recall. Which is wussy. Michael Miner, Dan Kennedy and many other big-city alt-weekly media critics manage to do the job with their names attached. Surely the O.P. critic has the guts to try the same.
That said, I’ll admit to being biased on this subject. I was the target of years of this shit from our local “media critic,” who was and is even more of a small-time operator than the Other Paper’s. I became accustomed to seeing outright lies and abuse grinding out of the fax machine every week, later appearing on the web. I know how much of it came from green-eyed colleagues, and I know who many of them are. So even if Julia quoted French deconstructionists in the course of critiquing “Manimal,” I know whose side I’m coming down on.
And finally, it’s true that sometimes Julia’s criticism may strike the average reader as a little snooty. On the other hand, 90 percent of most newspaper copy assumes such an astonishing level of stupidity on the part of its readers, it’s refreshing to be taken the other way for a change.
Nance said on April 5, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Oh yeah, I saw that tarring scene on “Deadwood,” too. I was speaking metaphorically, of course. The ballot works much better, and adds the extra benefit of seeing someone have to give a painful concessing speech.
Jeff said on April 5, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Ah, Nancy said it first, but Cornyn’s getting a can of gourmet whoop-derriere opened on him by http://instapundit.com's Prof. Reynolds and Prof. Althouse at http://althouse.blogspot.com. No word on Volokh yet, but the internet law prof caucus seems to be of one mind: Cornyn is a reckless moron. I mean that respectfully, of course.
Tom Wilk said on April 5, 2005 at 3:08 pm
To Jeff: Since you seem to be calling me out personally—my idea of analysis is to use several tools to uncover the multiple layers of meaning embedded in whatever text, object, etc., is under investigation. It only makes sense to use as many tools as it takes to get the job done, no matter what you’re covering.
To Nancy: Interesting points about the lack of byline, and the gossipy online attacks. They do give me a better sense of where you’re coming from. They don’t really address my basic point, which is that Julia has a basic lack of critical versatility. You instead seem to argue that writers (and readers) have the right to wear the “right” kind of blinders. I can’t agree there, for the reason I wrote above. Maybe you can explain how to tell the right ones from the wrong ones.
Look, of course there’s nothing indictable about using Derrida to analyze “Manimal”, or the collected thumbs of Roger Ebert to analyze Shakespeare. Responsible critics do all that and more in order to serve themselves and their public. But don’t complain about people singling her out. Julia *was* singled out, first by the Trib and the Pulitzer committee, and then by *you* as a blow to her detractors at TOP. I’m here to remind you that her critics have a good point, one which you both so far have defended rather than answered. Still waiting to see more than just a couple of hammers…
joodyb said on April 5, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Nancy Nall joins Mark Brunswick in the Head Injury Hall of Fame!
mary said on April 5, 2005 at 3:37 pm
The dishwasher to cabinet door head lac is good, but I prefer the countertop to microwave door hit. The latches and things give the bleeding hole in one’s head an interesting shape. The dishwasher door shin dent is fun too.
I wouldn’t hold my breath about Cornyn getting voted out of office. He’s from Texas, after all. There’s something in the water there. Molly Ivins must drink the bottled stuff.
Carmella said on April 5, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Still have a dishwasher shin dent from 25 yrs ago. Had to run across the house…full speed…to answer the phone and forgot the dishwasher door was open. ………ouch…
different jeff said on April 5, 2005 at 7:23 pm
If Cornyn is correct, then the five Supreme Court members who put junior Bush into the white house in a coup should have been targeted by all of us liberals.
We haven’t done that!
Is it that we’re all wimps, no?
We’re the sane ones who believe in the Constitution!
Dave Reilly said on April 5, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Ouch, Nance! Ouch!
Did you get the sick headache too? Every time I do that I get one, which is worse than the initial clonk.
harry near indy said on April 5, 2005 at 9:38 pm
wonder what the wingnuts will say about cohen’s column on the pope — especially the catholic ones, for remember, until 1965 the morally infallable catholic church blamed jews for the crucifixion of jesus.
basset said on April 5, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Literary theory? French deconstructionists? Didn’t you people learn anything useful in college… or, excuse me, at university? and can you cite even one good reason why I or anyone else should give the slightest (expletive deleted) what Derrida et al. might think on any topic at all?
Every time I hear mention of such silliness it puts me in mind of a teaching assistant I had to deal with in the early 70s… this poor fool used to swan around our large Midwestern public university with a beret and cigarette holder running his mouth about auteurship and so forth, pronunciation as French as he could make it. laughable then and laughable now… empty pretension in another of its many forms.
Nance said on April 5, 2005 at 10:14 pm
OK, I’m cutting Tom some slack. At least he makes his argument honestly. At the moment, though, I’m too tired of a good dinner at the end of a good day to take up my cudgel. Tomorrow.