Iraqis Voting Today

Read about it on the New York Times or BBC Web sites.

Taxes and Food

I dared to start my tax forms, and I quickly got lost. Not only was I missing a W-2, but I was trying to read the instructions for the 1040 on my computer, after having downloaded a pdf file. That’s difficult when there are 80 or so pages of instructions and numerous schedules and calculations to worry about. Add this, subtract this, multiply, divide, the IRS has really got us working on our arithmetic. I wonder what sadist came up with these ridiculous formulas.

I finally got around to the New York Times Week in Review section from last weekend and read an excellent, funny article on the new dietary guidelines by William Grimes. I’d considered doing exactly what he did (actually trying to meet the dietary guidelines), so it was interesting to read about how frustrated he got. Grimes is a former food critic for the Times and also the author of My Fine Feathered Friend, one of my favorite short books.

Overexposed

One’s got to wonder if 1) he’s the second coming of Christ or 2) publishers really don’t have that much of an imagination. By that, I mean I don’t understand why seemingly every general interest publication has had to feature something about Bright Eyes these past two weeks, either on their cover or with a prominently placed article on their Web site. More on this later …

Oh, and by the Way, I Got $21,500

The Washington Post published a story about another writer (syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher) who was paid to promote a Bush plan and oops, forgot to mention it to her readers. Read about it here (or use BugMeNot to get on). Somewhere out there, Adam Penenberg is weeping. At least all the students from his Press Ethics class know by now not to do what Gallagher did.

Those Five Months Will Last Forever

There’s a full-page ad for a certain online matchmaking service in the Jan. 31, 2005, issue of Newsweek. The words “…everlasting love” appear on the left side of the page. A photo of a laughing couple in wedding gown and tux appear on the right. A caption, near the center of the page, notes the couple’s names as well as “married: September 19, 2004.” A paragraph of information about the service is at the bottom of the page.

I understand what the ad’s message is supposed to be, but maybe I’m cynical in noticing that the couple has only been married since the middle of September — for four months — that is, if they’re still married. Getting married these days just doesn’t seem that big of a deal anymore (to other people, I’m sure it’s still momentous for the people getting married).

This particular service was started in 1998. Couldn’t they have found a couple that met through the service and got married before the current century at the very least? Celebrating an anniversary, especially one over five years, would have convinced me more that the service leads to “everlasting” love.