The Hound Of Ulster

THIS is a fun article, and comes from a fairly unexpected source.

Time Magazine is far more comfortable asking about “The Historical Jesus” than asking why young, beautiful women decide to take themselves “out of the running” permanently.

Some of the article’s assumptions seem a bit odd, such as the claim that “as opportunities opened for women in the 1960s and ’70s, fewer of them viewed the asceticism and confinements of religious life as a tempting career choice.” But that’s cosmetic.

The overall tone is quite lauditory, and the message is greatly encouraging. But most importantly, it seems very true. I myself have a number of friends in the convents the article is addressing.

And I will admit that the veil talk is particularly wonderful to me. The “business suit” approach taken by so many nuns in the recent past was greatly distressing. And the nearly complete rejection of this approach by the younger generations is a great sign.

Newer nuns see the veil as a public expression of faith, says Cheryl Reed, author of Unveiled: Inside the Hidden Lives of Nuns. “You can understand why a woman who has given up sex, freedom and money would want to wear her wedding dress–which is what they consider their habits to be. You want to say, ‘I’m special. I gave this up.’”

The notion of the nun as the “bride of Christ” is absolutely essential to this revival. And nearly as important as the view of the priest as the groom of the Church - another “back to the basics” approach that seems particularly popular with the younger generation of religious.

(HT: AMY, and a bit of commentary from DOM. He’s a bit more critical than I was, and I think I can see what he’s getting at. I guess I was so pleased to see the source, I was a big kinder than I could have been.)

Florida, the #3 team in the country, PLAYED Western Carolina yesterday. The game was not close. Actually, calling 62-0 “not close” does a disservice to badly beat-up teams everywhere. It was more like an annihilation.

This stat takes the cake, though:

Western Carolina only managed 59 total yards, or 523 fewer yards than Florida accumulated.

Wow. I’m betting WC wishes the twelve-game schedule had not been approved this year after all.

Harvey and his brother are crazy. True, they’re shrewd businessmen. And their actions are not entirely without artistic merit, either. (Anyone remember the Cinema Paradiso chop-job they did? A brilliant piece of work, really. And not just from a business standpoint.)

But this just seems CRAZY, from either perspective.

In an unusual exclusive arrangement, the Weinstein Co. has pacted with Blockbuster to make the vidtailer the rental outlet for all its releases.

Four-year deal dictates that TWC will not make available any titles through competing rental outlets — including Blockbuster rivals Netflix and Movie Gallery — beginning in January.

In return, Blockbuster will offer front-of-store placement and other marketing exposure for Weinstein titles. Blockbuster also will guarantee payments that amount to a certain percentage of box office.

Short-sighted, I think. Mostly because I think Netflix has overcome the Blockbuster challenge, at least initially. And that includes the “In-Store Option” from Blockbuster.

So, this feels a bit like tying your boat to the Titanic. (Of course, this is probably at least partially colored by the absolutely terrible experience I had in “The Block” last week.)

The fact that Weinstein Co. is small might make this a bit easier to comprehend, though. Sure, they’re cutting themselves off from a major market. But they’re saving a ton on advertising, I suspect. Perhaps that’s what’s driving the move.

Experts said move is unlikely to be replicated by larger studios, who are less concerned about creative and inexpensive marketing than about maximizing profits for every title in as many outlets as possible.

So maybe it’s not that crazy. Bummer. I like to think the W’s are insane. And I guess I still can, but I might need to find myself a different stick.

I’m not a fan of smoking. At all. I think it’s dangerous at best, and possibly a whole lot worse. (Yes, I have had arguments about whether or not it is mortally sinful. But let’s table that discussion for the time being.)

Even though I dislike smoking, THIS seems very strange to me.

The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves’ neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building.

In a Nov. 7 ruling, Jefferson County District Judge Lily Oeffler ruled the association can keep the couple from smoking in their own home.Oeffler stated “smoke and/or smoke smell” is not contained to one area and that smoke smell “constitutes a nuisance.” She noted that under condo declarations, nuisances are not allowed.

The “nuisance” clause seems like an odd one to invoke here. I can understand people making the “second-hand smoke is dangerous” argument, but a nuisance? What’s to stop me from arguing that their music is a nuisance? Is everyone in the association going to be required to play Bach? And what about pets?  (The Bach thing might not be so bad, actually.)

How does one apply this sort of “test?”

And I think there’s probably a bit of “a man’s home is his castle” thought drifting around in my head, as well. Course, most men don’t have a quarter castle - where they share the other three quarters with completely different kings. But I’m not sure that makes enough of a difference.