|
|
|
We got new ID cards at my place of employ today. The old ones were huge, and the new one fits in my wallet, so I'm pleased about that.
But as always, having my picture taken and seeing the results is a little startling. I never kid myself that I'm God's gift to women (not to mention ten percent of the male population), but honestly, is that all I've got?
Thankfully, my Flo insists that she finds me not only acceptable but downright handsome. I've been told that very few times in my life, so I still squirm a little when I hear it, but I could get used to it.
I've long played a little game with myself, quietly, in my head. When I pass a particularly handsome man on the street, I try to decide, in mathematical terms, just how much more attractive he is than me. Five times as handsome? Ten times? A hundred times?
News of the passing of Yvonne DeCarlo reminded me last night of a funny, if coarse, anecdote involving her and Tony Curtis. I shared the story with Flo and, in doing so, described Curtis as a hunk or some other term for a handsome guy.
"No way," said Flo, skeptically. "He's not even handsome."
"Tony Curtis??" I said. "He was considered one of the most handsome men in Hollywood in the Fifties, right up there with Rock Hudson. Women went nuts for him."
She wasn't buying it. But she thought briefly that she might not be thinking of the right actor, so she looked up him up via Google. But no, she had the right guy in mind, and she insisted that he's a big dud in her eyes.
"So you're saying that I'm more handsome than Tony Curtis," I said.
(Yes, it was something of a leap on my part, but hey, she claims that Curtis does nothing for her and she insists that I'm as handsome as the day is long -- a winter's day, anyway -- so doesn't that add up to me being more handsome than Tony Curtis?)
Yes, she said, that was her stance.
"Honey, I love you, but you can't be serious. He's easily ten times as handsome as I am."
I felt confident in coming up with that ratio on the fly, after years of practice on the streets of New York City, but she wasn't buying it.
So, I'll leave it to you, gentle B&Y readers: How much more handsome was Tony Curtis in his prime than I am? Am I on the mark with my estimation of a factor of 10, or am I being easy on myself?
From today's New York Times:
Wage Increase Could Hinge on Tax Cuts
By Steven GreenhouseAs part of their 100-hour legislative blitz, House Democrats are expected to vote today to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, to $7.25 an hour, in a move that economists say will raise pay for 13 million workers.
The bill’s chances are less certain in the Senate, largely because of friction over a Republican push to include tax breaks for small business in the bill. Senate Republicans have hinted that, without such tax cuts, they will filibuster the measure, a move that the bill’s supporters would need 60 votes to overcome....
Here's the rest.
Senate Republicans filibustering over an increase in wages for the lower class?
Oh, please, please, please let that happen.
Again, I say -- please!
It's time their disdain for the well-being of the American worker was exposed once and for all.
It's been a distinctly unwinterly winter in New York this year. We've had very few cold days and more than our share of unseasonably warm ones.
Just last weekend, the high temperature in Manhattan was 72.
That may sound lovely -- and it was, in a way -- but I'm one who enjoys the change of seasons. I want some cold weather.
I even have a new (well, new to me) black suit from the 1950s I've never worn, but it is of such a thick, itchy wool that I couldn't even consider wearing it unless the temperature was in the thirties, and preferably even lower (I have a low tolerance for itchy wool). I've begun to fear the winter will pass without my having had a chance to wear the darned thing.
So it was with a sense of delight and even relief that I stepped out this morning to find a light dusting of snow taking place, as captured by my camera phone above. It was not exactly the Storm of the Century, but we'll take what we can get here in the Big Apple.
From The Independent:
Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law [emphasis mine], a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty....
Here's the rest.