Has a full week already gone by since my last entry? Is it already time for a new one? Is it really Saturday again? And Christmas Day to boot?!?

What a month December has been! It’s flying by at warp speed. Somehow, it feels like it should be October for some reason.

Last week, it was Dave who beat everyone else to the button to be the first one to play! Congrats, Dave!

Jellogirl has played for a while, but posted a link for the first time, so she gets the nod as a “first time player” for the benefit of those who haven’t seen her journal, yet. Be sure to stop by and say hello.

There were a couple of other journals whose names I didn’t recognize, but it’s quite possible that my mind might be clouded from all of the turkey…if I didn’t mention you and you did play for the first time, please drop me an E-mail and I’ll be happy to add you to the list!

To play you can either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! (And if you’re playing for the first time, please be sure to say so in the comment!) Enjoy!

1. Did you travel for the Christmas holidays? If so, how did you get where you were going and how was the trip?

2. Did you get most of the gifts you were hoping for?

3. If you were to check Santa’s list, would your name appear to indicate that you had been good enough in 2004 to have DESERVED those gifts?

4. If you HAD to make one New Year’s Resolution next year, what would it be?

5. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #36 from Mrs. L: What is your favorite kind of Christmas cookie or dessert?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #37 from Promise: Who inspires you the most in your life?

My answers:

1. I drove from Virginia to South Carolina…it’s a 6-hour drive, and despite a little rain, it was pretty much uneventful.

2. I got all of the gifts I was really hoping for, so I have no complaints at all.

3. Most definitely.

4. To lose weight. I’d like to look like Brad Pitt by December. (I’m not holding my breath, either.)

5. A nice helping of Apple Betty, still warm from the oven.

6. This is a tough one for me…I would suppose that my mom inspires me the most, because I want her to be the most proud of me.

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas!

When do non-English words become English? What constitutes a word’s integration into more than one language as a legitimate word within each language?

The word no, for example, means the same thing and is spelled the same way in English, Spanish, French and Italian, among others. It is exclusively an English word? When Spanish-speaking people hear the word no, do they accept it as a Spanish word or do they consider it a foreign word?

Have you ever tasted sauerkraut? It’s a German dish of chopped salad. Its name is spelled the same in German and in English. The word refers to a specific item associated with Germany, but it is part of the American lexicon. Is it English and German, or only German?

The popular hamburger, a word that describes one of the most “American” foods that exists, traces its origins to the “Hamburg steak,” which was a reference to a German city. Is hamburger a German word or an English word? The word is listed in the dictionary as an “Americanism,” which is to say that it originated in or is peculiar to American English.

In the southwestern United States, one can find mesas in the desert. It is a word that comes from Spanish for a small, high plateau with a flat top and steep sides. Plateau is a French word that means an elevated tract of land that is more or less level. But both words are regarded as English words as well, because they are used in English and their spellings and meanings are not changed in any kind of language-to-language conversion. These words are not Americanisms, because they originated in other languages but are used in everyday English to describe American things. Does this mean that one can talk about the desert and refer to mesas or plateaus without leaving the English language?

A recent debate in my writing journal involved two Yiddish words. Yiddish, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a language of Middle High German derivation, written in Hebrew with vocabulary “borrowed” from Russian, Polish, English and Hebrew. What constitutes which “borrowed” words from other languages become Yiddish? And what constitutes which Yiddish words which have made their way into English become part of English? If a Yiddish word can never be part of English, can those words regarded as Yiddish but borrowed from other languages not be Yiddish?

A great deal of English derives from Latin words. Countless other languages have contributed words into our language, just as English words appear in foreign languages with the same spelling — and often the same pronunciation — they have in American English. Does this mean that no word that originated in a different language can ever be considered English? Does this mean that anyone who uses a common word that is “supposedly” part of our language but has its roots in Latin or a different language really speaking in a foreign tongue?

The two words that started the discussion were schlemiel and schlimazl. Schlimazl does not appear in Webster’s New World Dictionary. Oddly enough, schlemiel does appear…and as all things, as an Americanism! The word that we know as schlemiel in English, comes from the Yiddish word shlemil, which, in turn, came from the Hebrew word shelumiel, the name of a tribal chief identified in the Talmud with a prince who met an unfortunate end. If schlemiel is an Americanism, if it truly is a word that originated in this country or is used in its current form only in English, then how can it not be part of the English language?

Where do you draw the line? When does a word become English?

It’s time for another edition of the Six. The Reader’s Choice feature takes a brief break this week, but it will return next week.

One of my favorite people in J-land, Scott retains his title as “first responder” (and according to some other players, “hottie!”) once again.

And just to remind everyone else, to be recognized as the official first player of the week, you must be first to answer the questions in a comment here or to leave the specific entry’s address in a comment here. A generic link to your journal doesn’t count.

Also, welcome to first-time players Mosie and Pamela. Be sure to visit their journals and say hello to the newest members of the Saturday Six family!

Now, on to this week’s questions. To play you can either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! (And if you’re playing for the first time, please be sure to say so in the comment!) Enjoy!

1. What is your all-time least favorite Christmas Carol or holiday song?

6. What is your favorite thing to wear around the house when you know no one else is at home? Is that what you’re wearing as you answer these questions?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), click the e-mail link on the About Me bar and send it to me.

MY ANSWERS:
1. “My Favorite Things” The melody is too somber for me.

6. Lounge pants and an oversized t-shirt. (Yes, that’s what I’m wearing now.)

The hometown of John Steinbeck, author of The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men and East of Eden, is taking a drastic measure to deal with a budget shortfall: they’re closing down their libraries, including the main branch named after the author, according to a report from Reuters.

When voters rejected a plan to raise local sales tax by half-a-cent, the town of Salinas, California, found itself $8 million in the red. Closing down the three libraries will make up $3 million of that deficit.

It’s a shame when any community has to shut down its libraries. Most communities don’t have libraries operating on full hours these days, anyway. But even though libraries may be an easy target for cost-cutting city planners, one must wonder what kind of message such a plan sends to young people.

Back in July, I posted an entry about a new show in the UK called “Private Stars,” a new reality show that put five beautiful female porn stars in a house with five regular guys. The housemates are screened 24 hours a day as they produce their own X-rated videos. The men are eliminated one by one based on their abilities — or lack thereof — until one winner remains, who is then offered — what else?!? — a contract with a porn producer!

Now, it seems, this show has been such a success that talks are underway to bring it to America. Yahoo! News reports that the first ten episodes of the UK version were so successful that they were rerun 76 times in Europe on the UK Bravo channel.

There is no word on who would air the channel or how it would be produced and edited. One can only imagine.

I found an interesting newspaper article about a local business man who “has a lot of nerve,” as the columnist writes: “You say ‘Happy Holidays’ to him and he’ll come right back with ‘Merry Christmas!’”

This businessman owns a local office park is fed up with the “political correctness” that seems to want to remove “Christmas” from Christmastime. So, unlike many other businesses that have replaced mentions of Christmas with more generic holiday wishes, his proudly displays banners with heralding angels and a manger scene.

Noting that more than 90 percent of this country’s residents celebrate Christmas, he says, “the Christians are not taking a stand. They’re letting a small amount of people demean the holiday and the reason for the season. Somebody has to take a stand. It ought not be me — it should be the preachers of Richmond.”

Christmas, a holiday intended to commemorate Christ’s birth, finds itself at the center of a “holy war.” Ironic, isn’t it?

One of the business park’s tenants doesn’t share its owner’s enthusiasm. “We think that the winter solstice is the reason for the season,” said a doctor who did not want to be identified. He says the Christmas banners make him feel “proselytized and excluded. It’s an imposition of a world view — we don’t like it shoved down our throats.”

He calls for “less-charged iconography”…like holly, snowflakes, and Frosty.

(Nothing says “winter solstice” like Frosty, right?)

Asked if he was offended enough to relocate, he said that he wasn’t. He likes the location.

Retail outlets are quietly removing mentions of “Christmas” in their advertising and signage. Yet they continue to decorate their stores with Christmas trees and images of Santa Claus — the famous “Father Christmas” who does his magical work on Christmas Eve — hoping that those who celebrate Christmas won’t notice.

Some retail outlets have signs that wish shoppers a “Happy Hanukkah.” Even more will pull out the “Happy Kwanzaa” signs soon. Why is it okay to wish these sentiments if Christmas has to be lumped into generic ones? If I walk by a sign that says “Happy Hanukkah,” it doesn’t impose someone else’s view on me. I understand what Hanukkah represents, and though I do not celebrate it myself, I find nothing offensive about being reminded that others do. I understand what Kwanzaa means, and I’m fairly certain from conversations I’ve had in the past that I understand the history of Kwanzaa better than at least a few who do celebrate it. It doesn’t impose someone else’s views on me if I pass a sign that wishes me a happy one.

I don’t understand why it bothers people who don’t believe in Christmas to see the word. If someone wishes you a “Merry Christmas” and the concept of Christmas means nothing to you, at worst, they’ve still told you that they hope your 25th of December is pleasant. Is that so terrible? When I wish someone “Merry Christmas,” I don’t do so because I want to convert them. If I know that they don’t celebrate Christmas in any way, I say something else. But if I don’t know their holiday plans, I assume that they are celebrating what most people celebrate, and so far, I’ve never been challenged. (If one ever is offended enough to correct me, I wish them happiness at the holiday of their choice. I don’t generally ask a complete stranger what religious affiliation they are right off the bat because that’s often considered more offensive than wishing a non-celebrant “Merry Christmas.”) Oy vey!

If these stores are going to pretend that it’s not about Christmas, they should stop with the Christmas decorations. Yes, it would mean they’d have to put their money (or lack of it from potential lost sales) where their mouths are, but if it’s really that important to them, they shouldn’t be afraid to do so, right?

The owner of that business park thinks it’s important enough to him to risk offending people whom he wishes “Merry Christmas,” whether they want to have a merry one or not. The doctor who rents space is offended, but doesn’t want to identify himself or relocate because he’s afraid of losing clients.

And on December 26th, when that “certain holiday” is over for another year, who’s really hurt by people having wished each other a merry day?

The news media reported recently that the FCC had requested tapes of NBC’s broadcast of the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics. That fact is important, because the FCC requests tapes when it investigates complaints of indecency, and because it only investigates possible indecency when it receives a complaint to begin with. So, it is logical that someone had to have complained about indecency in NBC’s broadcast.

So let’s review the opening ceremonies.

There were male dancers dressed in gray body paint and gray bikini bottoms with prosthetics to simulate the nudity of Greek statues. The prosthetics could certainly be offensive to some.

The only problem, of course, is the time difference. When NBC broadcast the opening ceremonies in America, it had already had seven hours to edit out all of the potentially-offending fake genitalia. The American audience — presumably where the complaint originated — never saw it.

It is possible that someone read a description of the opening ceremony as performed or attended in person and assumed that the ceremony aired in all of its glory (pardon the expression).

But if you think that television is always looking for new lows to sink to and that standards are out of control, perhaps this single example is enough to convince you that there are those on the other side of the fight who have run somewhat amok as well!

When we’re resorting to complaining about nudity that doesn’t even exist, it’s no wonder that we’re in the middle of some kind of culture war.

The more romantic among us who have visited Verona to place love letters on the house where legend has it that Romeo wooed Juliet under her balcony are in for a disappointment: their messages are headed for the dump, according to an Associated Press report from Rome.

A Verona town hall official says some of the notes are attached with chewing gum, which threatens the medieval stucco walls. Cleaning began last month and is expected to end in February.

But there is a high-tech solution in the works, for those who want to continue to celebrate the spirit of one of literature’s greatest love stories: authorities are considering a giant screen in the house’s courtyard that would allow lovers to post large statements via a cell phone text message. How romantic!

The 14th century house belonged to the Cappello family, which some believe were the inspiration for Shakespeare’s Capulet family, leading them to suggest that the fictional character of Juliet may actually have lived there.

When I first heard this story, I honestly thought it was the setup for some kind of joke:

A Marine wounded in Iraq is being treated by physicians. They tell him that they have to cut his wedding band to treat his badly damaged finger. He tells them that he can’t stand the thought of them cutting his wedding ring and instead tells them to cut off his finger!

Really…I thought it was a joke! Unfortunately, it isn’t. It really happened.

Supposedly.

CNN (link corrected), ABC News, and Military.com all report the same basic story, originated by the Associated Press: the 19-year-old suffered a mangled left hand and serious wounds to his legs.

Doctors were preparing to cut off his wedding ring in order to save as much of his finger as they could.

“But that would mean destroying my wedding ring,” he said. “My wife is the strongest woman I know. She’s basically running two people’s lives since I’ve been gone. I don’t think I could ever repay her or show her how grateful … how much I love my wife, my soul mate.” The article goes on about how they met in eighth grade, etc.

If you’re sighing in admiration, if your eyes are welling up as you blissfully float within some kind of romantic haze, I have four words for you:

Snap out of it!!

This isn’t some sweet gesture…it’s just stupid!

Here’s a 19-year-old, wounded in a war, probably in shock, suffering several shrapnel wounds and resulting blood loss. A doctor tells him that they need to cut a piece of metal to save one of his fingers and he somehow decides for himself that the finger is less valuable than the ring?? And what’s worse, a doctor agrees to this?!?

Yes, yes…I’ve left off one important part of the story. In the ensuing chaos, the surgical team managed to lose the ring the Marine sacrificed a finger to save. Perhaps they were so shocked by his ridiculous decision that they forgot what they were doing. When the person telling me this story got to the part about them losing the ring,I then had no doubt that it was really a joke.

People, let’s get serious here. A ring isn’t a marriage. It’s a piece of jewelry. If a doctor tells you that they have to cut your ring to save a portion of your body, let them! The ring can be taken to a jewelry store and repaired to the point that no one would ever know it had ever been cut to begin with. It doesn’t work that way with severed digits.

And if the worst happened (as it did here) and they lost the ring, you could always buy a new one! You could even have a new wedding ceremony or have it blessed by clergy. The point is, you’d still have the finger on which to wear the ring!!

Do you think that the spouses of soldiers currently in combat would prefer that their loved ones return with their wedding rings intact, or themselves intact? Do you think that letting them cut the ring off would have honestly ended the marriage?

I am most surprised that a doctor, treating Marines wounded in action would even entertain such negotiation in an operating room.

I know I sound insensitive here…but this whole story just sounds very fishy to me. I’d love to hear from any medical professionals out there: would you have agreed to amputate an appendage that you didn’t have to?

For someone who is willing to consider both sides of the issue, I wasn’t surprised by the results of this one:

You Are a Liberal Republican

When you tell people that you’re Republican, they rarely believe you. That’s because you’re socially liberal - likely pro-choice and pro-gay rights. You’re also not so afraid of big goverment, as long as it benefits people and not politicians. You are the most likely of any Republican type to swing over to the Democrat side sometimes.

What political persuasion are you?

I wanted to respond to a few of the comments and E-mails I have received about the death penalty entry.

A friend E-mailed me to remind me that after the Bible’s first recorded murder, God punished Cain for the death of his brother, Able, not by putting him to death but rather by making him live in the shame of his deed.

Genesis 4:
11 “Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 “When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.”
13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear!” 14 “You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
15 So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.

Not only does the Lord not kill Cain, he shows him mercy by making sure no one else will take the law into his own hands!

Several, including Neil of Neil’s Journal, have asked how a Christian society can really support the death penalty. But capital punishment does exist in the Bible, as issued from God to Moses.

Exodus 21:
12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.”

This chapter contains the famous phrase, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” and outlines several offenses considered appropriate for punishment by death. This, presumably, is the series of examples that justify to Christians that there are crimes in which death is a sufficient penalty. I believe that no matter what we as a society do to the guilty party, the ultimate punishment will come from God. But that does not mean that as a society, we should ignore the crime. I do not believe that God meant for his people to live in a society without rules or discipline.

Candace of Better Than Kicking the Dog, reminds us that Illinois and Texas have overturned convictions of death row inmates that were later found not to have committed the crimes of which they were accused. As I stated, I support any legal measures taken to ensure that only the guilty face any punishment. I support the concept of the death penalty for those guilty of murder. I also support any reform guaranteed to make the process work properly. That’s only reasonable.

Scott of Stories from My Ambulance makes an excellent point about the lengthy amount of time death row inmates spend on death row. He states that “if a person is accused of a crime, tried, and convicted based on confession or ABSOLUTE proof such as DNA evidence, I say execute them that day. If the absolute evidence is not there, even though my gut may tell me they are guilty, then I cannot support the death penalty because we have all heard about those who were wrongly convicted.” If there is no doubt of their guilt, based on overwhelming evidence, there is no reason why those sentenced to death should spend decades waiting for their sentence to be carried out. Kelly of In My Opinion is right when she says that the “cause and effect” portion of the death penalty “loses its punch” when it takes that long.

Is the death penalty a deterrent to crime? I honestly believe that if it was administered properly, it would be a deterrent to anyone who could be deterred from committing such a crime. I think it is safe to say that anyone who would commit first degree murder isn’t operating with the same set of principles that the rest of us live by. But even those people might be discouraged from committing murder if they knew that they would be put to death if evidence showed that they were guilty. I think many who commit murder assume that they will either never be caught, that they will receive a lesser sentence, or that by the time they are scheduled to be executed, their sentence will be reversed because of legal maneuvering.

If stiffer penalties can’t be a deterrent, then why do localities increase fines for speeding through school zones and quiet neighborhoods? If speeding is wrong, it’s wrong, and that should be enough to prevent drivers from ignoring posted speed limits. How much one should pay should have no effect, right? I think the death penalty, though certainly the most extreme example, is an extension of this punitive philosophy.

The issue of being humane is one of the most troubling parts of this debate. Armand of Uncommon Sense states: “Death Penalty opponents argue that it is too expensive to execute someone, but they can’t possible be comparing that to the price of a roof over their head, 3 squares, cable tv, weight rooms, education, libraries, security and every other amenity we hoist upon the guilty (but wouldn’t dare divert to our nation’s homeless veterans).” We shouldn’t expect prisons to be palaces, and for the most part, they aren’t. But some are unquestionably better than others: for example, should those who break the law be sentenced to serve time in penal facilities with charming nicknames like “Camp Cupcake?”

A fellow journal writer sent an E-mail with a very different picture of prison life: “The three square meals are no by any stretch of the imagination wholesome.” She knows one prisoner who was hospitalized for food poisoning on four different occasions. “Often the fruit, which was donated was spoiled and the few times cookies were given twice they were found with mold on them. There is not a lot of inspection that goes on when it comes to jail food. Especially when it comes to county jails.”

But then this is where the “humane” argument reaches a snag. Let’s use as an example, the 30-year-old convicted murder who can either be put to death or can be sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life — let’s say 40 years — in prison. If we are to accept that capital punishment is never humane, and we accept that prisons are little better than modern “torture chambers,” how is a life sentence in such deplorable conditions more humane? If, because the death penalty is inhumane, we should stop administering it at once, what should we do about prisons that are like the one described? Should we close them down at once and release all of the prisoners back into society as if their crime had never been committed? Where does the concern about humane treatment begin and where should it end?

Dave of Random Thoughts of a Progessive Mind points out disturbing statistics about race: a black convict is eight times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white convict charged with the same crime. But this isn’t the fault of the death penalty: it’s the fault of prejudices within the system. Think about it: if this disproportionate number exists for this form of punishment, isn’t it conceivable that blacks are more likely than whites to receive stiffer sentences for lesser crimes as well? If the system did what it was supposed to do the way it was supposed to, race wouldn’t be a factor…ever.

As for the cost of the death penalty, this depends, once again, on the legal process. Why is it cheaper to just stow a prisoner away in a cell for the rest of his life? Not because carrying out the death penalty is so expensive: it’s the cost of the nearly-endless appellate process given to all of those on death row — even those for whom the most scientifically-accurate DNA evidence proves are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Should there not be limits to this process when scientific evidence — the same kind that has proven some on death row couldn’t have committed the crime — proves that others did?

I’m not saying that our legal system — every part of it — doesn’t have problems. It does. They all need to be addressed.

Finally, Brian of All The Makings of Insanity” asks, “doesn’t anyone feel that it’s disgusting and barbaric when a huge crowd outside of a courthouse actually screams and cheers when it’s announced that someone is going to be put to death for their crimes? Humanity at its worst if you ask me.” I agree completely with him. As I indicated in the earlier entry, the family I know who losta loved one to violent crime did not cheer or celebrate the deaths of those who murdered him. It was not a happy day for them, but there was at least, a sense of closure. Someone being put to death — or being sentenced to die — is never something to be happy about.

That’s my opinion. I respect the opinions of those who do not agree with me. I’m merely suggesting why I support the concept of capital punishment. But I would certainly welcome changes to the system to make sure the guilty paid for their crime without concerns that the innocent might be paying the same price.

The Scott Peterson jury has recommended the death penalty for the convicted killer. This, of course, has renewed debate about the death penalty, its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, and its place in our society.

I do support the death penalty.

I don’t see the death penalty as society telling criminals that it’s “okay” to kill. or “society sanctioning murder.” That argument has never made sense to me. For one thing, it’s not about “society” making that statement, it’s about one’s peers, in a courtroom, listening to evidence and deciding that the punishment is appropriate in that given case. It’s not decided by “lynch mobs” who hang around outside the jail with burning torches.

And it’s not like criminals who are contemplating the murder of someone are really interested in taking any cues from “society” about what is and isn’t acceptable. Surely most people would agree that murder isn’t generally an acceptable first choice, anyway. Is it less offensive to the sensibilities of a would-be murderer to know that if he is caught, society will lock him up for the rest of his life? Is that option really so much more desirable to him?

Is it possible than an innocent person could end up on death row? One would hope not, but one can imagine the possibility. But as a supporter of the death penalty, I also support any legitimate and reasonable reforms made to avoid the wrong person being punished for a crime. I’m not sure how anyone can support the death penalty without wanting to make sure the innocent don’t get punished as if they were the guilty. But then, this should be the case no matter what the punishment might be, right? An innocent person shouldn’t have to spend so much as five minutes even in handcuffs.

But I don’t have a fundamental problem with death as punishment for murder. Perhaps my opinion is influenced by the fact that a close friend’s husband was murdered by two armed robbers who had already gotten the man’s money. He wasn’t resisting them, he wasn’t threatening them. But they killed him anyway before leaving. From prison, they threatened members of the victim’s family, vowing to make them pay as soon as they got out. They were executed after many long years of the appeals process.

Did it bring the victim back? Of course not. What ever could? Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole doesn’t, either. That’s not an argument.

Was the family “happy” that they were put to death? No. It was a very sad day for them, actually. Not as sad as the day their loved one was killed for no real reason, to be sure, but still a sad day. Unlike the way many opponents of the death penalty might have you believe, this family didn’t stage a grand party with cake and ice cream to celebrate. They marked the occasion as another dark chapter of their lives.

But they sleep better at night, knowing that the people who murdered their loved one can’t possibly escape and carry out their promises of revenge. They rest easier knowing that those men who received the “ultimate punishment” in this world are now receiving the ultimate punishment…from God.

Dave, of Random Thoughts From a Progressive Mind, suggests that the death penalty undermines the notion that murder is wrong, because murder rates are higher in those states that have the death penalty. I’ll have to think about that one. I’m not sure that it is completely a “cause and effect” situation; perhaps the murder rates were higher before the death penalty was adopted, or perhaps the death penalty was adopted because the murder rates were already high. Perhaps, even if those murder rates have grown since the death penalty was adopted, there may be other, more pressing social problems leading people to contemplate killing their fellow man. I’m just not sure I believe that the death penalty alone is enough to make people commit murder. I don’t have historical facts in front of me on that; I’m merely guessing there.

But it comes to this: there is no humane punishment appropriate for someone who commits murder. If you believe that the death penalty is inhumane, and you prefer the notion of having someone in his thirties “suffer” in jail until they died of natural causes, presuming that someone in their 30s could live into their 70s or 80s, is it really so much more humane to want someone to “suffer” for decades, spiraling into a mental, psychological abyss? Can you complain about one punishment being too harsh if you prefer to see someone “suffer” for that long?

There’s no right or wrong answer, here: I’m just telling you what I think. The death penalty doesn’t seem so egregious to me in certain circumstances.

You’ve written your novel and it’s published. Then you learn that you’ve won an award. How good can it get? Wait a second…you’d better have a look at that invitation before you accept!

American author and journalist Tom Wolfe won an award that’s not exactly a mark of prestige in the world of literature: the British prize for bad sex in fiction, according to Reuters.

Wolfe won the prize, from his most recent novel, I am Charlotte Simmons, set at an exclusive American university.

A sampling of the prose judges described as “ghastly and boring:”

“Slither slither slither slither went the tongue.”

“But the hand that was what she tried to concentrate on, the hand, since it has the entire terrain of her torso to explore and not just the otorhinolaryngological caverns — oh God, it was not just at the border where the flesh of the breast joins the pectoral sheath of the chest — no, the hand was cupping her entire right — Now!”

Wolfe, incidentally, must have read the invitation: organizers claim he is the first writer in the competition’s 12-year history to decline his invitation to accept the award!

One of my heroes in the world of television, one of those people I watched while growing up that convinced me how much fun television can be, is celebrating a birthday today.

Legendary host and animal rights activist Bob Barker is 81 today.

I can only hope that when I’m 81, I still am as energetic as he is, and that I will still be working in a job that I love as much as he still loves “The Price is Right.”

Happy Birthday, Bob!

It’s time for another edition of the Saturday Six. And I warn you up front: this week’s Reader’s Choice question is a quite a thinker!

The ever-popular Scott, who some of you have dubbed a “hottie,” (yeah, he’ll get me for that!) got his answer posted first! But take a close look: actually, Chelle managed to transmit her answer at the same minute! It can’t possibly get tighter than that!

And just to remind everyone else, to be recognized as the official first player of the week, you must be first to answer the questions in a comment here or to leave the specific entry’s address in a comment here. A generic link to your journal doesn’t count.

Also, welcome to the following first-time players:
Promise, Anna, Amy, Meg, Lady T, Brian, and Ivory.

If you’re like me, you look forward to that part! I am always happy to find new journals to visit! Be sure to visit their journals and say hello to the newest members of the Saturday Six family!

Now, on to this week’s questions. To play you can either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! (And if you’re playing for the first time, please be sure to say so in the comment!) Enjoy!

1. What is your all-time favorite Christmas Carol or holiday song?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #35 from Armand: Read this quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson recently posted in Armand’s journal, “Uncommon Sense.” Given the context of the quote, how have you been most successful in your life?

MY ANSWERS:
1. Leroy Anderson’s “Sleigh Ride.” I prefer the instrumental rendition performed by a full orchestra. Nothing says Christmas to me quite like that song.

6. I am most successful at having laughed often and loved much, although I tend to forget how to laugh too easily and haven’t loved as much or to as deep an extent as I would like so far.