PASS THE SPF 200, PLEASE

You Should Spend Your Summer at the Beach

You're a free spirit who is always thinking of new ways to have fun. And you don't just love summer... you live for it. So, you really should blow off your responsibilities and head to the beach!

Where Should You Spend Your Summer?

But you know, I burn really, really badly. So could we make it a 4-star hotel by the beach, w/ cabanas and pool boys that bring you margaritas and set up umbrellas for you? That would work.

MY SON THE POET

Okay, let me be the proud mom for just a sec here.

Plowing through the stacks of papers my kids brought home the last week of school, I came upon a poem Cory wrote.

At last count, he was 11 years old, about to turn 12. I am beginning to doubt that. It's so strange to look at your own kid and think, "Where did that come from?"

THE BEAST

When he saw her
Something awakened with him.
A beast burst out of his heart.
The beast was Love,
And it was both beautiful and terrifying.
It infected his mind with its poison
And the poison spread.
And as the beast reared its head,
He fell to his knees
And was consumed.

TV THOUGHTS: TREASURE HUNTERS

Some of the first things Lee and I ever wrote together were participatory weekend murder mysteries and elaborate road rallies/scavenger hunts. So of course we had to watch Treasure Hunters, which, despite the advertising attempts to bill it as a Da Vinci Code clone, is really a giant world-wide scavenger hunt.

The concept is simple even if the execution is complicated: Ten teams of 3 people follow clues to get puzzle pieces which will eventually form one giant clue leading to a prize.

It took a while for Treasure Hunters to get rolling in its 2-hour premiere, but by the time everyone was headed for Mount Rushmore (or not), we were pretty interested.

That could be because that's when the clues got interesting and, coincidentally, when the teams got interesting. Because these shows are ultimately as much (or more) about casting as they are about the design of the show.

The interesting clue at Mount Rushmore: The "history out of order" clue combined with the need to link that to the presidents on the mountain and use the number of each presidency (Washington =1, Jefferson =3, etc.) to open a lockbox. (Although the fact that one team -- and presumably others offscreen -- were able to whip out a laptop and use ask.com to get the order of presidents really felt like cheating to me. And excuse me -- there's wi-fi halfway up Mount Rushmore? When I can't get a cell signal at my own house?!)

Also found it interesting that the team labeled the "Geniuses" made the biggest mistakes. One of them commented that they were overthinking the clues, and they certainly were. They were the only team to miss the clue that the combination of Washington + Lincoln + Roosevelt + Jefferson added up to Mt. Rushmore. (They went to nearby Mount Roosevelt instead, and there missed the -- admittedly difficult -- visual clue that would have told them earlier they were on the wrong path.)

The "Geniuses" made two other mistakes once they finally made it to Mt. Rushmore. They teamed up with a team of hillbillies, just 'cause the hillbillies asked, handed over the answer on how to open the lockbox without getting anything in return, then watched as the hillbillies rushed off with the prize. Then, when they couldn't get their lockbox to open (knowing their combination was right, because the hillbillies had used it successfully), they kept trying and trying to open an obviously defective box, rather than switching out for another one.

They did manage to stay in the game, but only because the Miss USAs were so dumb. But I would say the Geniuses better start living up to their name soon. In the meantime, my money's on the ex-CIA guys.

Lee and I would rather go on a show like Treasure Hunters than watch it. And we'd much rather design a show like this than go on it.

But if all we have available is watching it, then that's pretty good. Certainly we will watch for the summer. (And I expect they'll be repeating the first episode, since it was creamed by basketball finals, so there's time to catch up.)

ANOTHER THOUGHT ABOUT CARS

While teaching some young women in high school about the spiritual needs of the audience the other day, I brushed on a theory first proposed to me by Regina Doman, with her thoughts quote at length in my 08/03/04 post regarding the relative fears of adults vs. children.

Regina, a children's book author, believes that while the greatest fear of adults is death, children don't really fear death (not understanding it). Instead, they fear being lost.

(And as I pointed out in that earlier post, the kids have it right: As Christians we know that we should fear being lost far more than than we should fear death.)

Anyway, while discussing the subject with these young women, I realized that virtually all of Pixar's movies center around the theme of being lost.

Regina's original thoughts brought up Toy Story. Toy Story 2 centers around Woody being lost, with Buzz leading the rest of the toys to rescue him. In Monsters, Inc., Boo is lost, and the monsters themselves also end up being lost. Finding Nemo is a grand ode around the concept of being lost. In The Incredibles, Mr. Incredible disappears (he may know where he is, but a lot of good that does anyone else) and his family must find him. And in Cars, Lightning McQueen gets lost off the main road. (I don't remember enough about A Bug's Life -- their weakest movie -- to say one way or another. Anyone?)

...And of course, the movies appeal to adults as well as kids... because every character that's physically lost (or, as in Nemo, the character doing the searching) is also emotionally/spiritually/psychologically lost as well.

Has any studio ever shown such thematic unity before? No wonder Pixar is now 7 for 7 at the box office!

MOVIE THOUGHTS: CARS

I have never cared all that much about my cars.

I have never detailed my car in my life. I've never read a car magazine. I used to know how to fill the oil and water and such, but probably couldn't do it in my current car. I've never seen a car race, either live or on TV. The first car I bought, I bought without ever opening the hood and looking at the engine -- and didn't feel guilty about it, because looking at the engine would have been meaningless to me. I never even watched Knight Rider growing up.

All of which to say, I am really not the target audience for Pixar's new film Cars.

As most of you know, Cars is the story of a race car, Lightning McQueen, about to be the toast of the country (an odd country, btw, populated as it is solely by cars), who gets lost on the way to a big race in California, ends up in Radiator Springs, a near-ghost town off Route 66, and learns how to slow down and enjoy life.

I did enjoy the movie, for the most part. It really took until McQueen got to Radiator Springs for me to start enjoying it, however. I didn't really get much out of the opening race footage, and the world comprised solely of cars was just weird to me, and a little off-putting. (Okay, I liked the cars doing the wave in the grandstand.) I also really did not like the design of the cars, with their eyes in the windshield. The eyes seemed flat to me, and I was aware through the whole movie that the "eyebrows" were doing all the acting.

Once we get to Radiator Springs, the movie starts (for me) to have some life. The very clever landscape design, the plight of this almost-abandoned town (like so many I've driven past in the Southwest, wondering, "How does anyone live out here?!"), the very fine character work, especially from Luigi, and Paul Newman as the Hudson Hornet... All of that was lovely.

And the ending, where McQueen proves the change in his character by his behavior in the final race, is perfectly plotted and quite satisfying (and surprising at the same time -- the sign of good plotting).

But for me, the highlight of the movie was the gag reel played over the credits. (Very funny!!)

I don't think the problem was the movie itself. Lee certainly loved it (the kids wanted to take him for Father's Day), and the kids loved it, Cory more than Sabrina, not surprisingly.

I think the problem was that the movie was by and large speaking in a foreign language where I was concerned. I know there were in jokes I didn't get (I read, for instance, about how the lights at the "V8" drive-in flick on and off in the firing sequence of pistons in a V8 engine. Okay. Sure. Whatever.).

Let's face it, nothing but the Pixar name could get me to see a movie called Cars anyway. So the fact that I enjoyed it at all is an achievement. Will I buy the DVD? Probably not -- but Lee or Cory might. Will I watch it repeatedly the way I do The Incredibles or Finding Nemo or either Toy Story? No.

But if you love your car, you will love this movie.

THE 100 MOST INSPIRING MOVIES (?)

With not much on TV these days, I flipped on AFI's "100 Most Inspiring Movies" special the other night. I was surprised when Cory decided to watch too -- in fact, he really got into it. We took turns making a list, and decided we would watch all the kid-appropriate movies on the list as a summer project.

(We watched Chariots of Fire -- no. 100 -- last night. It took a lot of explaining -- why people dressed up so much back then, why Eric Liddell wouldn't run on Sunday, why people were prejudiced against Jews, why it was wrong for an amateur runner to have a coach, why only men went to Cambridge. It was as much a journey into a foreign world as any sci fi flick.)

Looking over the list, I was not surprised by the top choices. In fact, I called the top six movies almost from the beginning of the show.

But further down the list, I was quite surprised. Thelma and Louise inspiring? Inspiring to do what -- kill men and commit suicide? Makes me wonder how Bonnie and Clyde got left off... And what would A Beautiful Mind inspire one to -- insanity?And there were some notable movies missing. Where was The Passion of the Christ? -- one of the most deliberately inspiring movies in years. (The answer to that, of course, can be seen in the fact that Entertainment Weekly just picked The Passion as the "most controversial" movie of all time -- and if there's anything that the always-fundraising AFI avoids, it's controversy.)

Anyway, here's the list. Try this: Think of your own 10 most inspiring films and see if they're on the list. Then you tell me: What else is missing? What else shouldn't be on the list at all?

100. Chariots of Fire
99. Ray
98. The Karate Kid
97. Madame Curie
96. Searching for Bobby Fischer
95. Places in the Heart
94. Captains Courageous
93. A Beautiful Mind
92. Fame
91. The Paper Chase
92. Hotel Rwanda
89. Harold and Maude
88. Yankee Doodle Dandy
87. Working Girl
86. Stand and Deliver
85. What's Love Got to Do With It?
84. Serpico
83. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
82. Fiddler on the Roof
81. Boys Town
80. Babe
79. The Ten Commandments
78. Thelma and Louise
77. Driving Miss Daisy
76. The Birdman of Alcatraz
75. The Verdict
74. Gunga Din
73. Erin Brockovich
72. Dark Victory
71. Cool Hand Luke
70. Coal Miner's Daughter
69. The Spirit of St. Louis
68. An Officer and a Gentleman
67. The Day the Earth Stood Still
66. Silkwood
65. A Raisin in the Sun
64. The Black Stallion
63. Rain Man
62. Braveheart
61. Sounder
60. The Killing Fields
59. Dances With Wolves
58. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
57. Sargeant York
56. Ben Hur
55. The Defiant Ones
54. Rudy
53. Shane
52. Dead Poet's Society
51. The Color Purple
50. Seabiscuit
49. Meet John Doe
48. The African Queen
47. 2001: A Space Odyssey
46. Lilies of the Field
45. On Golden Pond
44. Spartacus
43. Gone with the Wind
42. Twelve Angry Men
41. The Sound of Music
40. Mrs. Miniver
39. Star Wars
38. Pinocchio
37. Forrest Gump
36. On the Waterfront
35. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
34. All the President's Men
33. City Lights
32. Casablanca
31. Glory
30. Lawrence of Arabia
29. Gandhi
28. Field of Dreams
27. High Noon
26. The Wizard of Oz
25. Sullivan's Travels
24. National Velvet
23. The Shawshank Redemption
22. The Pride of the Yankees
21. In the Heat of the Night
20. Philadelphia
19. The Right Stuff
18. The Diary of Anne Frank
17. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
16. Norma Rae
15. The Miracle Worker
14. The Bridge on the River Kwai
13. Hoosiers
12. Apollo 13
11. The Best Years of Our Lives
10. Saving Private Ryan
9. Miracle on 34th Street
8. Breaking Away
7. The Grapes of Wrath
6. E.T.
5. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
4. Rocky
3. Schindler's List
2. To Kill a Mockingbird
1. It's a Wonderful Life

TV THOUGHTS: THE TONYS

Lee started his creative career training to write for musical theatre, so we make sure to watch the Tonys every year. Usually it's a terrific show, worth it for the musical numbers alone.

But this year it was just... tame.

They dispensed with a host this year -- the 60th anniversary so they had 60 hosts instead, some of whose connections with Broadway were flimsy indeed. And I have to say, they needed the host. Hugh Jackman's presence over the last couple of years has been a jolt of electricity the show clearly needs (especially doing that bump-and-grind with Sarah Jessica Parker).

Without having seen the actual productions, I can't opine on the merits of the wins. (I'm still scratching my head over how Wicked didn't win the other year...) Clearly Jersey Boys has more going for it than just the Four Seasons soundalikes we saw -- but equally clearly, while Drowsy Chaperone is fun and clever, that's all it is.

Frankly, our interest was more piqued seeing the ads for upcoming shows. Ooh, could we possibly afford a trip to New York to see the revival of A Chorus Line? And wouldn't it be wonderful to take the kids to see Mary Poppins (a sure thing for the investors if ever there was one!)?

Our kids have watched with us from year to year, but this year, they had no interest whatsoever. We tried to attract them by pointing out the presenters and nominees -- Look! There's Voldemort! There's Rogue! There's Uncle Vernon! There's Maria von Trapp! There's Emperor Palpatine!... it didn't work.

Turns out we really needed Wolverine after all.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

I blogged a few weeks about how my memory-deprived, legally blind mother wanted, oh so desperately wanted to go see The Da Vinci Code. Even though she really didn't understand what it was about, she felt it was an important movie, one she had to go to.

So yesterday she finally dragged herself and her caretaker out on a long bus ride (hard to climb on and off) to the mall (where she can't ride escalators anymore and can barely manage to haul herself from the entrance through the first department store, let alone to the theatres). Believe me, getting anywhere is such an ordeal for her, and going to the movies (those stairs to climb!) is worse.

She let me know ahead of time she was going, as she knew I disapproved. She said she'd call me when she got back so we could discuss it. I was ready.

And she did call. "What did you think of the movie?" I asked. "Oh, it was a horrible movie from start to finish," she said. "The only good thing about it was that the lead character's name was Sophie." (Guess what my mom's name is...) And that was the extent of our discussion on The Da Vinci Code.

As I pointed out in my "Power of Presuppositions" post: If a movie sucks, you can't "dialogue" about it.

Thus ends a controversy, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

MAKING THE HEALTH SYSTEM MAKE SENSE

Coming home from school yesterday, the kids and I stopped to pick up something for dinner. At the sandwich shop, there was a homeless-looking guy, very dirty, no English, sitting outside. A guy from the flower shop next door was trying to talk to him and help him. He helped him stand up, and the homeless guy couldn't put any weight on one leg; he'd clearly just been injured pretty badly somehow.

By the time the kids and I were ready to get back in the car, a fire truck had shown up, and the paramedics were helping the homeless guy, getting ready to strap him on a gurney.

As we drove away, Cory asked, "How could the homeless guy afford to have the fire department come like that?" I explained that the fire department is free -- our taxes pay for it. If your house is on fire and you call the firemen, you don't have to pay for it. Cory actually found that pretty amazing.

"So is it the same with ambulances?" he asked. Sort of, I explained. The paramedics are part of the fire department, so if you call 911 because you need paramedics, they might send a fire truck or they might send an ambulance, but either one is free. But if you call a private ambulance company, that you'll have to pay for.

"So what about when you get to the hospital?" Cory asked next. "Is that free too?" No, I told him. "So if you don't have money, you can't get help if you go to the emergency room?" Not quite, I told him. Emergency rooms are supposed to help everyone who comes in, regardless of ability to pay. Doctors could turn away a patient who can't pay, but an emergency room should help. Maybe sometimes they do turn people away, but they're not supposed to.

"Then who pays for that," he asked. "Taxes again?" Sometimes, but not quite, I told him. It all depends on if you have health insurance, I said. Say you get hit on the head really badly, and the E.R. wants to do an MRI to see if you're okay. They might charge, say, $2000 for the MRI. (Numbers are very roughly rounded up from the explanation of benefits form we got on an MRI Lee had to have a couple of months ago.)

But the insurance company isn't going to pay $2000 for the MRI. Because the insurance company has cut a deal with the hospital, so they only have to pay, say, $800. And out of that, the insurance company will pay, say, $700, and the person who actually had the MRI will pay $100 out of their own pocket.

"But what about people who don't have health insurance?" Cory asked. Well, I explained, they get billed for the whole $2000. "But if they can't afford health insurance," Cory said, "how can they afford the $2000?" Well, often they can't, I said. So maybe they pay a little bit at a time, say $50 a month for as long as it takes to pay it all off. Or maybe they borrow money from someone to pay the bill. Or maybe they don't pay at all, and the hospital gets stuck for the $2000.

"But was the MRI really worth $2000" Cory asked. "Or is it worth $800?" Probably closer to the $800, I told him. No one can really say. But what happens is that the hospital takes the $2000 from the people it can get it from, and uses it to cover the costs for the people who didn't pay anything.

"Wait a minute," said Cory. "Then the hospital is taking money from the people who can't afford it to pay for other people who can't afford it?"

Well, often it works out that way, I said. Take the homeless guy who started this whole discussion. We all know he can't pay anything, so the hospital will get stiffed for whatever care they give him. So they charge other people extra to cover the care he ends up getting for free. That's why even if an MRI is worth $800, the hospital actually charges $2000.

Cory then sat there for a long time, thinking about all this. "Are you sure?" he asked. yeah, pretty much, I said. Numbers rounded, everything simplified, but that's basically how it works.

He just shook his head. "That does not make any sense," he said. "None."

...Um, yeah.

WHAT FOOD ARE YOU?

And following up on the flavor meme...

They got this one right. Mexican food is my default option to order. (And to think, my Scottish-bland-food-only dad wouldn't even let me eat at Taco Bell growing up because he feared it would be too spicy!)

You Are Mexican Food

Spicy yet dependable. You pull punches, but people still love you.

What Kind of Food Are You?

THE FLAVOR MEME

I was hit with another meme a while ago, and am just getting around to posting it. It struck me as particularly interesting when I was talking to a friend who needed to cook a dish guaranteed to please a particular person -- who is only pleased by eating things they haven't eaten before, so there's no way to repeat a dish guaranteed to please! That dilemma reminded me of this meme -- maybe a solution to that problem.

The idea is to list five to ten of, not your favorite foods, but your favorite flavors. For instance, if you read a menu, what are the words that jump out at you. Or if you had to plan your last meal, what flavors would be mandatory to include? If you're a true chocoholic, chocolate would be at the top of the list. This might include your favorite spices or condiments as well -- say you put cinnamon on or in things a lot.

Since it sounded more interesting than picking random sentences out of books, I thought I'd give it a whirl. So here, not in any particular order...

THE FLAVOR MEME

1. Sour cream.

2. Grilled onions. (Raw is okay. But it wouldn't make this list.)

3. Lemon curd. (Or the equivalent -- lemon meringue pie, etc)

4. Cilantro. (One of the great flavors brought to us from Thai and Mexican food)

5. Vanilla. (Real vanilla. Not so much in ice cream, but in everything else.)

6. Tartar sauce. (The best reason to eat fish.)

7. Potatoes. (Okay, not a flavor, so a cheat. But if it has potatoes, I will probably order it.)

8. Smoked salmon.

9.

10.

...I couldn't come up with 10. I flirted with putting peanuts on the list, but I really don't eat peanuts or peanut butter, so really it would just be there to pay homage to peanut butter cups and Thai food.

How 'bout you? Send back your list...

HOW THEN SHOULD WE WORSHIP?

I've been pondering some thoughts my friend Sean posted over on his blog about worship (i.e., music) styles at various churches he's attended recently.

Here's a snip:

I'm not a fan of the music at my church (no, you read that right; I'm in a full disclosure mood). The band is very, very good -- it isn’t quality that I'm not a fan of, but rather performance style.

You see, they "lead" worship in what I call "concert style." The emphasis here is on serving G-d through quality -- so the band works to sound the best it can. Decisions are based primarily on what sounds good on the stage. And the audience is invited to sing along if they so wish.

Now, the reason I was thinking about this is because Sean and I go to the same church. So I walked in to worship this Sunday with Sean's words in mind.

And I have to say, I almost completely disagree.

Yes, our church band is very, very good. (I took a non-believing friend to a service last December -- she turned to me with a gasp after the first number and said, "They sound like U2!" I would take that as an unbiased thumbs up for the quality of the band.)

But I don't think that's a bad thing. And I don't think it detracts from worship.

Here's what detracts from worship for me (assuming a similar style, etc.): A band that draws attention to itself. A band whose leader feels the need to preach between songs (thus usually drawing attention to himself). A band whose singers "show off" with all sorts of riffs or variations on the melody on a regular basis. Our band does none of those things. They just stand up there and play really, really well.

Here's something else that detracts from worship for me: A band (or worship leader) who just isn't very good. I cringe when someone hits the wrong chord. Or when a singer hits the wrong note. Or when the drummer (or the organist, for that matter) loses the rhythm, slows down, speeds up inappropriately.

Sometimes I visit churches that aren't musically sophisticated. I listen to the mediocre guitar player (probably about as good as I used to be), and I try to use the moment to be grateful for how fabulous our music us at Bel Air. But after a while (especially if that mediocre worship leader is using worship time to tell a story about him/herself, or to preach in an otherwise trite manner, as so often happens), I start looking around the congregation. And I find myself wondering... Out all these people, this is their only choice for worship leader? No one else here has any musical gifts whatsoever?

I stand with C.S. Lewis on this issue: A choir should sing in tune, or it should not sing at all.

Now, to be fair, Sean isn't objecting to how good our band is. He's objecting, as I understand it, to the "performance" orientation he senses, and also to the congregation's responding to the band with applause.

Two separate issues, I think.

First, the "performance" issue. You know, I've been at our church for a very long time. I was here before we had a "contemporary" service, when all we had was a traditional choir. A choir that, if you were watching them, you would never have accused of having a "performance" orientation.

But I was also on the task force that first studied the idea of a "contemporary" service. And I saw how nastily, how untruthfully, and how selfishly that pristine-looking choir fought the idea of a contemporary service. They really didn't give a rip whether there were potential worshippers who might be better served by a different kind of music. The mere thought that they could be asked to give up "their" time up front was a horror to them. And they lied, slandered, schemed to try to keep that from happening. Take it from me, I was the road kill in their way -- they were devastating, they were ungodly.

Their entire attitude was one of "performance." You never would have known it, though, from watching them on Sunday mornings. (Most of the individuals from that era, only 7 or 8 years ago, have left the church -- things didn't go "their" way eventually, so they tucked up their robes and walked.)

Just because someone is technically proficient, even truly excellent, doesn't say a thing about whether it's a "performance" or "worship."

As to the issue of applause... well, I'm a little closer to Sean on this issue. I don't clap in church as a matter of course. Sure, I'll applaud for the second-graders being presented their Bibles, because I want them to understand that we as a church support them, that we, well, applaud them on their accomplishments. And let's face it, here in L.A. at least, applause is a pretty universally acknowledged sign of approbation.

But I rarely applaud the band. Sometimes when they are so astonishing, when they have truly moved me, yes, I do applaud -- though to be honest, I feel I'm applauding God as much as or more than the band in those special moments. And I do understand why the pastor sometimes ends the service by applauding the band -- I know how much time the band must spend, individually and collectively, to be that good, and I also can guarantee, based on my own years and years of Christian service, that virtually no one bothers to express appreciation for all that work.

I think what it boils down to is that we have one mode of communication (applause) that can communicate many things, and most often communicates appreciation for a performance. So when that mode of communication shows up in church, it can be misleading.

I love our worship. I love our band. I love how truly excellent they are. I love it that my guests are blown away by their excellence (which helps shatter the image they are likely to have of Christians as shoddy creators). I love it when the drummer does something unexpected, when the lead guitarist blows me away with an astonishing riff, when an unexpected chord changes the mood of a song.

Is there anything that bugs me about our worship, you ask. Oh you bet there is -- Would someone please proofread the lyrics projected onto the screen?! It's vs. its. You're vs. your. "Crucifiction" -- I'm not kidding (I did call and raise a tad bit of hell on that one). Now there's something that can pull me out of worship much faster than a band that can actually play!

But other than that, I'm proud to have been the road kill on the path to a service that ended up being what ours is today.

COMMENT BOXES

I realize there have been problems with the comment boxes here, and I do apologize. I went over to the Squawkbox website to see if I could do anything about them, and learned that Squawkbox is in fact shutting down in a few months.

So I guess I will have to change my template here and go back to the Blogger comment boxes (I originally didn't use them because there were problems with them when I first set up this blog 2 1/2 years ago).

Oy.

Here's the problem: I could easily switch over, but would lose 2 1/2 years of comments. And some of you have said some really cool things.

Does anyone (more techno-minded than me) have any ideas on how I could possibly save or transfer the existing comments? Just asking....

WELTSCHMERZ! KAMAAINA! URSPRACHE!

I was expecting to be a bit disappointed in the prime time broadcast of the finals of the National Spelling Bee last night. After all, after seeing Strictly Ballroom, I tuned in to watch some real competitive ballroom dancing, and really didn't enjoy it at all (I seem to prefer the less "real" version on Dancing with the Stars).

But I really enjoyed watching the Spelling Bee.

And Cory cemeted his place in geekdom by walking in, watching for a couple of minutes, then sitting down, saying, "This is really cool."

Wow. Would that being a compulsively good speller had been cool when I was a kid!

The whole thing took me back. Way back, to the only spelling bee I ever participated in. I was in third grade, and I pretty much knew I was the best speller around (in my blue collar, school-is-for-losers neighborhood, I was pretty much the best around at anything academic).

I did okay. But I was knocked out by the word "curiosity" (third grade, remember). I can even see the auditorium as I (to my surprised) was told that I was wrong and went to take my seat.

I learned two things that day, at the age of 7. I learned that visual memory and audio memory aren't the same thing (I was stumped by not being able to see the word -- I would have known instantly how to spell it if I could have written it down -- it didn't occur to me to "write" on my hand or arm as the constestants did last night). And I learned that I really didn't mind losing if it was a fair, measurable loss. It didn't bother me at all that I lost, because I knew it was fair.

Thinking back to that old memory actually made me a bit sad. Because there's no one left I can share that memory with (in the real sense of 'share,' not the sense that people use today meaning 'tell'). I have no siblings, no family around that knew me back then (my mom's memory being so shot that she doesn't really count anymore). I'm not in touch with anyone who dates back earlier than 6th grade in my life. It's as if the first 10 years of my life were wiped off the map.

Oh well...

Still, despite the somewhat Weltschmerzian memories it conjured up, it was fun to watch the Spelling Bee. All those smart, dedicated kids who studied hard and were respectful, in prime time, no less! It was fun to try to guess the words and get a few -- oh so very few (but all those in the title above) correct. I ached for the kids who made mistakes and heard that little bell ring -- remembering that moment myself so well. And I truly appreciated seeing any version of academic excellence being featured on TV as something to admire, so that my kids could even think it was cool.

Maybe someday they'll get to be in their own spelling bee. I'll help them study...