Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts

Friday, 27 January 2012

Of goats and mountains and climbs

Posted by Tania Kindersley.

One of the things I like about the internet is that it is very levelling. There are no ivory towers out there in the prairies of cyberspace. (My only fear about this is that the levelling can go too far, and lead to abandonment of decorum, so instead of saying, ‘I’m not sure I quite agree with you,’ people scream ‘die, bitch, die’.) If ever I should get a bit above myself, I only have to look at the search terms which bring people to my blog.

In my hubristic mind, these might be Universal Verity, or Most Beautiful Canine in Existence. In reality, they include Goat Climbing Mountain.

I should be thinking about serious things like the morality of banking bonuses, and the tottering world economy, and whether poor Andy Murray shall ever stop being shouted at for not winning a grand slam. (I’m not very interested in tennis, but I find the Murray phenomenon fascinating. He works incredibly hard and is very talented; he is at the top of a highly competitive game; the three men who routinely beat him are titans; yet he seems unable to shake off the label of dour Scottish loser.) I should be contemplating big serious questions about government cuts and fiscal austerity and what is going on with Hungary and the IMF.

Instead, I am slightly obsessed by the whole goat climbing mountain thing. I don’t think I have ever actually written about goats. I may have reported on the half-joke plan that The Sister and I hatched in case the entire economy does, finally, implode. We are going to grow vegetables and keep goats. You see how cunning and finely conceived our plan is. Ha. The crazed bankers and know-nothing economists can do their worst; we shall have the goats to keep us warm. However, none of this involves mountains, or, in fact, climbing. How the Google gets to me from the clambering goats is a mystery.

I also love the idea of people sitting down and bashing ‘goat climbing mountain’ into a search engine. It’s either a Dadaist form of poetry, or someone is doing espionage. Goat climbing mountain could be Moscow Rules. Just as I imagine discreet operatives going up to each other in St James’s Park, which as everyone knows is where all the spooks meet in their lunch break, and saying ‘The geese are flying south for winter’, so I could see that ‘goat climbing mountain’ is clearly code for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The other, even more perplexing search is: girl fawn Maddow. This is code so abstruse that even Bletchley Park might be left wondering. I do write about Rachel Maddow quite a lot. I love her. The love might, I suppose, sometimes pitch over into fawning. But I do not think, at 44 years and 362 days old, I could be described as a girl, even by the most unreconstructed patriarch.

I don’t know. Perhaps Rachel Maddow secretly has a thing for fawns. The most brilliant thing about this odd search is that now, every time I watch the coruscating Maddow show, I shall think of baby deer. Which is probably a very good antidote to the latest loon thing Newt Gingrich is saying.

The sun is fading now, and the last of the frost lies still and white on the cold grass. It’s been a long week. I have, as is so often the case, not done quite enough work to satisfy. I bash on and bash on and think: come on, come on, not there yet. More, more, I think.

I have thought a lot about my father. In yesterday’s life post, I wanted to say: remember your dead well. Then I thought: that is a stupid thing to say, of course we all remember our dead. I don’t need to write that down. But then I wondered whether there is a part of mourning where one shies away from thinking of the departed. There is a childish, magical part of the brain that wonders: if I do not think about them, perhaps they will not really be gone.

On my desk, I have a photograph of the first man who ever believed in me as a writer. Since, at the time, I was writing books so bad that I need to invent a new word for execrable to describe them, his belief was a real leap of faith. He was not a relation; he had no skin in the game. He was an artist, who, for some reason, picked me up, and encouraged me. I was twenty. I knew nothing. But he treated me as if I were Virginia Woolf.

He died, much too young, from AIDS, many years ago. Every day, I look at his picture, and feel gratitude, and wonder what he would make of it all. I remember him well.

One day, I think, I shall be able to look at a picture of my dad in the same way, with glad remembrance, rather than a tearing in the heart.

 

I know it may be rather vulgar to keep harping on about this, and it could sound like the worst kind of pandering, but the Dear Readers have really been magnificent this week. And now I know I have the goat mountain Maddow fawn people on my side, I believe I can do anything.

 

Pictures of the day.

It was another afternoon of astonishing light. Most of these pictures are of the hills and trees I can see when I look due south. I hope they are not too same old, same old. But there is something about the Scottish light, seen at that angle, that is so magical I can't quite get over it:

27 Jan 1 27-01-2012 16-00-51

27 Jan 2 27-01-2012 16-01-17

27 Jan 3 27-01-2012 16-01-31

This one is completely out of focus. But these are two of my favourite little birches, and I rather love the blurred effect, as if they are in a painting:

27 Jan 5 27-01-2012 16-02-26

27 Jan 6 27-01-2012 16-02-33

The old iron fence. I can't get enough of that, either:

27 Jan 6 27-01-2012 16-03-08

27 Jan 7 27-01-2012 16-13-19

27 Jan 8 27-01-2012 16-05-51

27 Jan 9 27-01-2012 16-05-51.ORF

The beech avenue, from a low angle. (More attractive crouching from me, as The Pigeon looks on in bemusement.):

27 Jan 10 27-01-2012 16-14-11

This happy face is because I bought her a new ball. I know I'm always banging on about how all you need are free sticks, but sometimes I like to get her an actual bought object to have fun with:

27 Jan 15 27-01-2012 16-10-47

Here she is, with the bright orange thing in her mouth, doing what I used to call 'bottom in the air', but which I know now from the Dear Readers is actually a serious yoga pose called 'downward facing dog':

27 Jan 16 27-01-2012 16-11-10

27 Jan 17 27-01-2012 16-11-18

27 Jan 17 27-01-2012 16-11-24

As my friend The Playwright says: do admit.

The hill:

27 jan 17 27-01-2012 16-15-12

Now I really am ready for the weekend. Happy Friday.

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

Things I don't understand, No 23

Posted by Tania Kindersley.

There are many things in life I do not understand. I do not understand why anyone would want to wear mustard yellow; I do not understand people who do not read; I do not understand why women get their faces sliced off, stretched, and then stitched back into place, in the name of beauty. I am a little bit confused by politicians who still think that no one will notice they have not answered the question. I am oddly baffled by bad manners (a smile costs nothing, my old mum might have said, had she been the kind of person who says things like that, which she is not).

Perhaps the thing that puzzles me most, in a whole box full of oddities, is what the magnificent Rachel Maddow would call the fear of The Gay.

In the grooviness that is modern Blighty, we adore Graham Norton and Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen. When, ten years ago, the British army allowed gay men and women to serve openly, there was barely a ripple of protest. (One grumpy brigadier did resign, but mostly 'people just got on with their work', as one naval officer remarked.) Sandi Toksvig and Clare Balding are stalwarts of the BBC. The police go on Pride marches. Even the Tories are bragging about how they will have more gay MPs than Labour after the election. The happy introduction of civil partnerships is one piece of legislation of which the government can be unequivocally swanky.

Of course pockets of homophobia still exist, and probably always will. It can be blatant, or passive aggressive. There was a very strange moment on this Sunday's Broadcasting House, one of my favourite programmes on Radio Four, when the enduringly odd Christine Hamilton started complaining about someone declaring their gayness: I thought it wasn't supposed to matter any more, she said, crossly. I've heard that tone before. It is usually code for: I wouldn't mind all those buggers so much if they would just shut up about it.

The point is: we are generally quite relaxed in this country about who sleeps with whom, so it is easy to forget that this is not so everywhere in the world. In Uganda, there is currently a ferment over prospective legislation to make homosexuality a capital crime. In Iran, if you are lucky you will be subjected to a public flogging; if unlucky, you are hanged by the neck until you are dead. Even in shining 21st century America, there is a huge, shouty fuss over gay marriage and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I wrote yesterday about the oddity of Hollywood being perceived as so outrageously liberal, and yet having a bizarre discrimination against women directors. Gayness is another area where the liberalism seems to take a long weekend. The film industry gets tremendously excited about itself when it daringly addresses the love that dare not speak its name. Look, look Sean Penn winning his Oscar for Milk! Patrick Swayze in a frock! Gay cowboys! Gay Cowboys! KISSING! In reality, the rule is: the gay characters must be played by straight actors, all the critics must then congratulate the straight actors on their 'brave' choice, and everyone gets to put on their red ribbon and die of smugness. Meanwhile, the actual gay actors must get married, have children, hide all their Judy Garland records, and put up with blind items in the gutter press about their 'special friends'.

I do not understand any of this. I am thinking of it because in the past week the very strange story of State Senator Roy Ashburn emerged, in the pages of the You Couldn't Make It Up News. Ashburn was a good old family values Republican, who voted against every single piece of legislation which even hinted it might do something nice for the non-straights. He voted against Harvey Milk Day. How can you vote against Harvey Milk? Then, he got stopped for drunken driving. That might not have been so bad, except he was leaving a famous gay nightclub, and there was another gentleman in the car. (I admit they might have been going home to play Scrabble; we shall never know.) Finally, after days of breathless speculation in the press, Senator Ashburn put the rumours to rest. 'I am gay,' he said. 'Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long.' I know I should have compassion and empathy for the afflicted, but are they really so difficult? Really? Three little syllables? Probably easier to say than: 'I am a big fat hypocrite.'

My question is: what is the fear? Lovely Rachel Maddow politely reminds her viewers, with a wry smile, that The Gay is not contagious. I am not sure I shall ever quite understand why it gets people in such a lather. I do not understand why they must quote Leviticus and wag their gnarly fingers and rush into closets and slam the door.

I do not get what is scary about this:

Oscar Wilde

Or this:

Greta Garbo

Or this:

Ma Rainey

(That is the fabulous Ma Rainey, who was having a high old time in the Harlem of the 1920s. Did you know that, in the twenties, Harlem was a positive garden of free loving? I did not. According to Richard Bruce Nugent: 'Nobody was in the closet. There weren't any closets'.)

How could anyone be afraid of a man who dresses as beautifully as this? Unless it was terror of being thought dowdy by comparison, I suppose:

119614_0918

(Is that a magnolia in his buttonhole? I want to take him home and gaze at him forever.)

I do admit, because if I have a fault it is that I am too fair, that there are those who might have reason to fear this:

Lord Mandelson

But that is nothing to do with gayness. It is because he is The Prince of Darkness, and he knows where you live.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin