Just what is the American Dream?

People mis-perceive what the American Dream is.

• it is not, to achieve riches
• it is not, to become powerful
• it is not, to become the President of the United States

These things have come to be discussed as the possibilities available in living in the greatest country in the history of this planet.

The American Dream really is (now get this straight people):

• to be free, not to be indentured to a royal, a tyrant or a wealthy landowner
• to have a decent opportunity at working for a living that will support you
• to have the capability to work to have the possibility of owning your own home
• to be free of being considered guilty first, when charged with a crime
• to be free of cruel and unusual punishment
• to be free of religion, or to choose your religion
• to be free to enter into government, to have the possibility of becoming President, unless you are not a naturally born citizen, a reasonable thing I think
• to be free to have the possibility to receive an education

Therefore, the American Dream is not to have all the wealth possible to anyone, but rather to be free of those things that kept all people down over millennia. That being low born, rather than equal born, would not be something that would hold you down. To have the possibility of achieving things, but not the absolute achievement requirement. And that, is where we seem to have gone off track.

The first thing we need to do is to stop expecting so much from being American. We need to bring that expectation back into reality, to enjoy, to appreciate what we do have. To make use of what is available and not expect it to come to us without our effort. We do not have the right to drain our fellow citizens of their taxes for our benefit to be able to not work, unless it is not possible to work. State Welfare is for those who truly cannot work, or cannot find work because there isn't any work. But people who simply decide not to work and live off the taxes of their fellow citizens, was never the idea.

We depend upon our government for protection from there being oppression, no jobs, no equality, no availability to those things mentioned above. But only the base line notions of those things. The possibility of owning your own house does not say a house with a pool, a house in the best neighborhoods, but a house. We should be able to have a modicum of expectation for living in a safe neighborhood, with decent access to protection from fire, crime and death or harassment, be it from fellow citizens or government authorities (Police, agents, etc.).

We should not have an expectation of being bailed out when we move into a flood plain and then lose everything because, hey, surprise, it flooded. If this is someplace like New Orleans, then perhaps that would be different and a unique situation.

But to live by a river for instance, that floods year after year and to expect the government to constantly bail you out, is unreasonable and a nearly criminal waste of tax payer's money.

This does not include criminals who, if they abuse their rights, may lose them, but even then they should retain some, like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, which isn't to say, they should have access to porno and such luxury items, as one inmate recently sued the government over. But even they deserve to have the right before judgement in court, to a fair and impartial treatment. Just in case they are innocent and only look or act guilty. Some people are just too stupid to know not to act guilty, or are mentally incapable of it.

My point here is that we expect too much from the "American Dream". We should have more respect for it, for our country, for our fellow citizens who in some cases are supplementing our pursuit of that dream. We should put the labor in to achieve our dreams, we should fund those dreams, and if anything, we should expect a stable platform from our government to have the opportunity to achieve those dreams through our efforts. We should not, for instance, expect to have fifteen kids, unless we can afford them, afford to clothe them, feed them, put them through school. We need to pay our own way, not expecting others to foot the bill.

They say that "Heaven" helps those who help themselves. They do not say that Heaven will come to your home, carry you to the perfect job and give you riches. That comes with hard work. It comes with intelligent thought.

You must have heard the joke about the guy stranded on the roof of his flooded house, water nearly up to the roof? I'm not religious but if religion is good for anything, it's giving moral lessons. The story goes that there was a huge flood in a village. One man said to everyone as they evacuated, "I'll stay! God will save me!" The flood got higher and a boat came, and the man in it said "Come on, get in with us, we're here to save you!" "No" replied the man. "God will save me!" So they left him. Then the flood got much higher and the man was getting nervous, knowing he would drown soon if something didn't happen. A helicopter came by and offered him help. "No," he said, "My God will save me!" Eventually the man did drown. When he got to the gates of Heaven, he asked God, "Lord, why didn't you save me?" And God replied, "For goodness sake, you fool! I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter. What more did you want!"

We should have an expectation of some sort, but let's face it, at some point, we are simply being stupid about it. We should expect only the basics. Being able to give our hard work to the work place, to make decisions that lead to our lives getting better. Still, that does not say that we WILL make good decisions, that our choices WILL lead to what we desire. And when we fail, we should pick ourselves up and try again, not expect to be bailed out because we blew it. And so we will always have people who fail, who do not achieve the American Dream, but that does not mean that we are responsible for those people to be all they can be. They are. We are responsibly only that we will reasonably try to keep them safe, alive and "reasonably" healthy if they want to partake in that.

It seems the American Dream has turned into something it's not and never should have been and we need to get back to our roots. Too high of an expectation about anything will ruin that. Possibly we can see that in many areas of modern American life, health, wealth, relationships.

That being said, we should be protected from Corporations, from the Corporate way of thinking. As times get better FOR THE CITIZENS, we should be working less for more. But that has gone the other direction and we have to ask, why?

Henry Ford

Why is because we decided many decades ago that corporations were individuals themselves and have rights. And that, is obviously wrong. That is something that came to be during a time when corporations seemed like a wonderful thing. Where certain individuals such as Ford, Rockefeller and others looked to us like Gods. These men seemed to embody the American Dream. From the top down, the outside in, they did seem to have achieved that Dream. But from the bottom up, from the inside out, this was not, this was never, what the American Dream was to be all about.

John Rockefeller

That was the beginning of the end and how we all ended up where we are.

With Corporations and their way of thinking now running nearly everything, invading nearly all forms of employment and activity, they have taken the role of us and we have become their drones. We thought that those famous men were something to be held up to be respected and envied (and there was the problem in a nutshell). And those men wanted, like their corporations, to make more money, to have more power. Regardless of any of their benign and philanthropic pursuits, what they did was like a cancer to our society and has lead to our current out of control situation. At the time, it didn't seem that bad, but as things grew out of all proportion and understanding, it turned into a monster.

When you consider that as well as things were going for decade after decade, people, not shareholders, should have been the final recipients of the benefits that the corporations had received. This is not socialism, it's just good management. Yes, the shareholders should have reaped benefits but they didn't need to get as much as they got and the orientation should have been equal on the employees and the owners; not just for the owners. The amount of money made at the top now is unethical, immoral, and yes, fattening.

Which brings us to the fattening of America, because if we, at the bottom can only afford to eat junk food and carbs, which are far cheaper than protein, isn't it our way of achieving a false sense of prosperity? And so you see the poor growing fatter and the rich growing richer. The employees work longer hours and the rich still grow richer.

We need to reverse this and perhaps the threat of nationalizing corporations may not be a bad way to scare the hell out of these creatures, to motivate them into doing what is right. Decades ago I felt that things were going so well that we should soon be seeing four day work weeks, six hour days, one to three month vacations a year as you see in some European countries, younger retirements and healthcare for all. Healthcare that will not bankrupt people when things go wrong for them.

So after all this being said, what IS the American Dream?

It's complicated. But it's not what we seem to think it is.

"Forks over Knives" a new documentary

Did you know that no medical school in the US teaches nutrition? When you go to the doctor with a problem, do they ever ask you what your diet is? Is meat and dairy good for you in reality? Let me say, I love a good steak. I eat meat and dairy. Love ice cream. Love many of the products we get from animals. But I have to say, in recent years, I'm starting to wonder about this.

Remember the food pyramid?

This has always bothered me: if you put bad fuel in a car, it runs like it's on bad fuel. If you eat bad foods, or the wrong foods in either the wrong combination or wrong amounts, why wouldn't it affect your body, which would affect your mind and your (if there is any to consider) spirit (depending upon how you define that term)?

At least they tried to update it

Remember the food pyramids? It just makes sense. Doesn't it?

So, why do people get so up in arms about this concept?


Many nutritional experts, like Harvard nutritionist Dr. Walter Willett, believe the 1992 pyramid does not reflect the latest research on dietetics. Certain dietary choices that have been linked to heart disease, such as three cups of whole milk and an 8 oz (230 g). serving of hamburger daily, were technically permitted under the pyramid. The pyramid also lacked differentiation within the protein-rich group ("Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts").

Dr. T. Colin Campbell

There is a new documentary called "Forks Over Knives", meaning, eat right and you avoid going under the knife in surgery. Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Nutrition, Cornell University, made this documentary to try and get this concept across to us.

Apparently, in 1995 there was one US State that was considered generally having overweight citizens. Now, there is one US State that is NOT designated as overweight.

What the Hell people?

Dr. Campbell has a theory of eating "whole foods" as nature gave them to us. Acording to their web site:

"Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting animal-based and processed foods. The major storyline in the film traces the personal journeys of a pair of pioneering researchers, Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn. "

It's obvious we eat too much, the wrong things, basically we have too many options and have shown, many of us, that we cannot be trusted to use this abundance to our benefit. If we did, we would all look healthy and in good physical condition. This bleeds over into other areas of our lives. When faced with prosperity and variety, one needs to pick an choose and not just go for the most fun, the most tasty, the most pleasing, but to make a conscious choice to do what is best for us, and then, on occasion, indulge to enjoy these benefits and this bounty.

Much like with making money. It is good to save, to pay your bills, but at some point, you should go out and enjoy spending the money your hard efforts bring you, otherwise, why are you doing it? Yes, saving for retirement is good and wise, but we need to enjoy the path to the end and not only concern ourselves with that end. But as with foods, to go out and do things that get you killed, makes no sense. Calculated risk is what it's all about, and being reasonable in your decisions.

Like Ben Franklin said two hundred years ago: "Eat to Live, not Live to Eat."

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge

“I [insert name] pledge to the taxpayers of the state of Nevada and all the people of this state that I will oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

This has been around for quite a while now, but I'd never heard about it until this weekend. So, who is Grover Glenn Norquist and why do we care?

A walking Republican Cancer?

We don't actually.

Just like we don't really care about someone like Sara Palin, who is either an example of America's Cancer made visible, or else, a reflection of ourselves and we should give us a good look before continuing on. The vastness of Sarah's room to improve is second only to the vacuousness of her ability to not finish what she starts. This woman could have become our next President, as running as Vice President, had they won, had something happened and she became President, or once McCain was out of his term, had she run and won, where would America be? Think about it, after four or eight years of McCain, then Palin....

So as much as we want to ignore the insanity, we really cannot.

These are people dangerous to our Country and people should be made aware of them and their weird sense of what is functional for America. Because anyone who has these kinds, whose effect on our Government is so skewed in reality, especially those who can get people in authority to pledge to an absolute, especially one as ridiculous as this one, well, simply put, they are dangerous.

Norquist

Political Activist (that's basically a guy that gets himself involved) Grover Glenn Norquist was born October 19, 1956) and is president of taxpayer advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. He has been described as "the driving force in pushing the Republican Party toward an ever-more rigid position of opposing any tax increase, of any kind, at any time." Norquist is best known as the founder of Americans for Tax Reform in 1985, which he did at the request of President Ronald Reagan.

Wikipedia mentions: "Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the lobbying scandal for which Abramoff pled guilty in 2006. Norquist has denied that he did anything wrong. Records released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee allege that ATR served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns"

First of all, allow me to point out that this pledge, is an "absolute". Absolutes, tend to be bad, stupid in many cases and typically foolish to make, simply asking for problems. And guess what. We have problems. I wondered why the Republicans were so dead set against raising taxes and now I understand.

When they are going for office or get in, they are asked if they want to sign this pledge. If they say no it can be political suicide. If they say yes and sign, they have trapped themselves. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Founding Fathers feared. This and ignorant groups getting in power. That is why our democracy was set up in America for indirect power by guidance of those better in the know. This is partly why originally only landowners were voters. They tended to have more at stake and had a better possibility of being educated, at least, somewhat.

We really do need the educated to be making the decisions. It's like surgery, which is complicated. Would you want an equal vote with your surgeon while he's performing surgery on you to save your life? Or do you just want this highly educated guy making the decisions and just save your life? Yes, street knowledge or grass roots wisdom is good, but some of the issues today require more and more complex considerations in order to make informed and accurate decisions. This isn't to say, only educated people should vote, but we need to realize why we need some safe guards.

It seems pretty obvious to me that now a days we are seeing more and more less informed and less critical thought involved in decision making. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in this situation that we are in today.

Ya think?

The Purpleism Art Manifesto

The Purpleism Art Manifesto
a production of the Church of the Pure Purple
(also known as "The Religion Purple")

[more here from a future article...]

Some light fare for a Monday to start the week off right....

A few years ago (2005?), my son and I got fed up with two things, Religion in general, and how Art has been abused. From that grew attention to other areas, such as relationships and about then we realized that this was a movement all about the simply stupid things in life and how we should be doing things. We also realized it needed to be defined and published as a word, and so, Purpleism is now defined on the Urban Dictionary. W thought it needed more, and so we drafted up a Manifesto. And here it is, in part, for your edification and perusal, and enjoyment.

The Purpleism Moving Pictures Manifesto

Altering movies from their original state should only be done under certain circumstances if at all:

--"Pan and scan" (what is sometimes misleadingly called, "full screen") is an outright sin. --Language / content should never be altered. Only the director has that right, and even that should be greatly limited.

--Updating some films, like Casablanca (colorizing them, remaking them, anything other than "remastering" the quality) should be punishable by loss of your director's guild card. --If a general TV audience station wants to broadcast a movie it should never alter it, nor place ads over top of it, nor stream information or data over it (if something is that important, break into the film and announce it, then go back to the film or cancel it. --Commercial breaks are only acceptable on "free" tv and should never occur under 15 min increments.

--If a movie has questionable visuals or languange, then it should be showed as the original artist (director) intended it, without censorship of any kind. Usually this also applies to the artist (director) too. Director's cuts just like sequels, have had variable quality. Amadeus is a good example of what not to do in a Director's cut.

--Words should not be altered to make a film "G" rated.

--Words that are no longer politically correct should not be "updated". --Nudity is not ugly or offense, people that think it is, are. --Sound should be standardized so you are never blasted by changing channels, or when you go from a show to a commercial. Commercials that break this rule should lose their access to the television (or radio, etc.) medium.

--No commercial should appear on any one channel or station more than once per hour, or more than once per show. If the same company wants to have additional advertising slots, they have to supple another commercial, not the same one over and over again. Saturation advertising using redundant and replicated commercials is therefore considered a sin. --Colorization is good for certain types of films as the director would have used it if he had had the money or the technology. If however a film was filmed specifically in black and white, for example, Citizen Kane, it shall not be colorized.

The Purpleism Art Manifesto - Tele content (Sound / Visual)

Television/Radio - Altering movies from their original state should only be done under certain circumstances if at all:

--Adverts: Excessive Overlays should be considered an outright sin and never be used if noticeable or detracting from full attention to the showing. An innocuous advert at the bottom right of the screen isn't distracting if handled correctly and does the same thing, or should be considered to perform the same action as a large and annoying display. Best is to give a brand for a show or item that is transparent and just better than difficult to see; this gives the brand recognition and the viewer a warm feeling toward the sponsor.

--Adverts: Commercial breaks are only acceptable on "free" tv and should never occur under 15 minute increments.

--Adverts: Saturation advertising should be considered a sin. No commercial should appear on any one channel or station more than once per hour, nor more than once per show. If the same company wants to have additional advertising slots, they should supply a completely different commercial, not the same one over and over again. Saturation advertising using redundant and replicated commercials is therefore considered a sin.

--Format: "Pan and scan" (what is sometimes misleadingly called, "full screen") is an outright sin.

--Format: Language / content should never be altered. Only the director has that right, and even that should be greatly limited. Altering from the artist's (Director's) original intent should be considered a sin against Art, Artists, the Artistic community, and all others.

--Format: Updating of some films like Casablanca (colorizing them, remaking them, anything other than "remastering" the quality) should be punishable by loss of your director's guild card, broad- or cable-casting license, or possibly, jail time.

--Format: If a general TV audience station wants to broadcast a movie it should never alter it, nor place ads over top of it, nor stream information or data over it (if something is that important, break into the film and announce it, then go back to the film or cancel it). This includes Political voting results and especially, poll results of any kind.

--Format: If a movie has questionable visuals or language, then it should be showed as the original artist (Director) intended it at its release time, unless otherwise stated that it is a director's cut, etc., and without any censorship of any kind. Usually this also applies to the artist (Director) too. "Director's cuts", just like sequels, have had variable qualitative results. Amadeus is a good example of what not to do in a Director's cut.

--Format: Spoken or written Words should not be altered to make a film's rating, "G" (or less than its original).

--Format: Words that are no longer politically correct should not be "updated". Information about this may be supplied before or after the viewing begins.

--Format: Nudity is not ugly or offense, people who think it is, are.

--Format: Colorization is good for certain types of films if the Director would have used it if he had available, the money or technology. If however a film was filmed specifically in black and white, for example, Citizen Kane, it shall not be colorized; doing so should be considered a sin.

--Technical: Sound should be standardized so that you are never blasted by changing channels, or when you go from a movie/show to a commercial. Commercials that break this rule should lose their access to televised (or radio, etc.) mediums. Being too technical, raising only certain ranges of sound in order to appear louder, also constitutes a sin against the quality of a viewer's or listener's life and should not be tolerated. Common sense should prevail.

There are other areas available to see on the Purpleism site graciously hosted by a good friend.

Weekend Wise Words

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

 Benjamin Franklin, had many good things to say. Franklin in fact, was the one who crosses out Jefferson's words, "These truths we find sacred" replacing the word "sacred" with "self-evident"; and that pretty much says it all about the orientation of the Founding Father's and separation of Church and State.

Here's some proof of many of the other good things Ben Franklin had to say:

“Content makes poor men rich; discontentment makes rich men poor.” 

“I have always thought that one man of tolerable abilities may work great changes, and accomplish great affairs among mankind, if he first forms a good plan, and, cutting off all amusements or other employments that would divert his attention, make the execution of that same plan his sole study and business.”

“Search others for their virtues, thyself for thy vices.”

“The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.”

“The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.”

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, For the want of a shoe the horse was lost, For the want of a horse the rider was lost, For the want of a rider the battle was lost, For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horse-shoe nail.”

“I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.”

“I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
 And finally....

“I wake up every morning at nine and grab for the morning paper. Then I look at the obituary page. If my name is not on it, I get up.”

Target Practice - a film

I just watched "Target Practice" on streaming Netflix.

Oh, and about what Netflix is doing to us, if you don't already know, I got an email from them yesterday saying:

We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each. Now our members have a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan, or both.

Your current $11.99 a month membership for unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray access) will be split into 2 distinct plans:

   Plan 1: Unlimited Streaming (no DVDs) for $7.99 a month
   Plan 2: Unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray), 1 out at-a-time (no streaming)
              for $9.99 a month

Right, whatever. What a bunch of jerks. Anyway, moving right along back to what I was saying...

Rich wrote and directed Target Practice. I kind of liked it. I'm not doing a review on the film here. I just sharing a moment. I love finding little gems of "B" movies. Movies I never heard of and found by whatever means and this was one of those.

I had wondered about the editing as I thought it was more competent than is usual for a "B" movie, but then I saw that he is an editor on such shows as Life on Mars, Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, Friday Night Lights and on and on.

In Rich's own words, the film: "Target Practice" is an intelligent but raw, visceral, extremely tense outdoor thriller with an emphasis on character as much as action. The story centers on 5 blue-collar friends on a weekend fishing trip - and the hell that's unleashed upon them when they almost run into a car that's been abandoned in the middle of an isolated mountain road. Stopping to see if anyone needs their help, they inadvertently stumble into the middle of an undercover operation involving a CIA agent and a hidden training camp for homegrown terrorists (molded after real-life, recent discoveries in both the U.S. and Canada). Suddenly, these 5 regular, everyday guys find themselves way out of their league, fighting a bloody battle against a cunning, well-trained, brutal enemy that knows the rugged terrain like the back of its hand. A battle that quickly spirals into a full-scale mini-war for which they are completely unprepared..

Now, I thought it was odd that a CIA operation was going on within the confines of the US, as they don't have a charter for that, meaning, it's illegal (without something like an executive order or something) but what the hey, they had a good explanation; kind of. You'd have to see it to know what I mean by that. And within that, is part of the fun of the film.

I've been lately studying making lower budget films. I'm used to writing scripts for bigger budget movies but if you can make a small movie, you can make a big movie, but not always the other way around. It's like someone once told me many, many years ago. If you want to be a novelist, learn how to write really good short stories; and if you want to be a good short story writer, learn how to write a one page story. Try it sometime, it's not easy.

The same goes for small films, that is, low budget films. Many people think that "low budget" equals, "low quality". And it does in some respect. You cannot typically afford, in a low budget film, high paid talent, high quality cameras, film stock, lenses, lighting, equipment, special effects, and so on. But, for one you can make that work for you. If you have competent people, reasonable equipment and a good script, you can probably make a pretty good film.

Look for instance, at Robert Rodriguez and what he did with El mariachi and look at the career he gleamed out of that one.

Desperado was a great little film and pretty much a direct result of El Mariachi, a film that, according to IMDB, initially cost $7000 to make. Director Robert Rodriguez raised $3,000 of the $7,000 by volunteering to be a human "laboratory rat". He was used to test a cholesterol reducing drug. Paid $100 a day for 30 days, he wrote most of the script while locked in the lab. Peter Marquardt was a fellow "rat", but could not speak Spanish. He delivered his lines from card held in his hand or out of shot. Most of the $7,000 was spent on film for the camera. The version seen in most cinemas has had approximately $1 million of post-production work and promotion behind it.


Anyway, I love finding small films like this. And this just goes to show you, when you do make a decent film with little money, it doesn't always have to be a romantic, or philosophical, surreal or dramatic flick.

Algonquin Round Table

The Algonquin Round Table. Dorothy Parker: (1893–1967): Vanity Fair drama critic, New Yorker critic. Celebrated poet, short-story writer, playwright. Wrote Hollywood screenplays. Champion for social justice.

If you look at Dorothy, the author of "Concrete Blonde" and many other writings, in this photo of her with members of the Algonquin Round Table, you have to admit, she was kind of hot for a chick from 1919 until roughly 1929. The Algonquin Round Table were a group of her contemporaries who met at the the Algonquin Hotel which is still up and running (the hotel not the table). They simply got to hanging out there and at some point, had to get a larger table, which was done.

"The Algonquin Round Table was a group of journalists, editors, actors and press agents that met on a regular basis at the Algonquin Hotel in New York. [Gathering initially as part of a practical joke, members of "The Vicious Circle," as they dubbed themselves, met for lunch each day beginning] in June 1919 and continued on a regular basis for about eight years. There has never been another group quite like them in American popular culture or entertainment.The group contributed to hit plays, bestselling books and popular newspaper columns. Their impact is still felt today."

This was a rather prestigious group, the core of which was, Dorothy Parker; Alexander Woollcott; Robert Benchley, and Edna Ferber. Then there were the others: Harpo Marx; Murdock Pemberton; Herman J. Mankiewicz,  Press agent, early New Yorker drama critic; cowrote plays with Kaufman, produced Marx Brothers movies, won an Oscar for co-writing Citizen Kane; Harold Ross (founded The New Yorker magazine with his wife Jane Grant); and yet others. Many of these members were to become Pulitzer Prize winners.

There is a film, "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle", which was a critical but not financial success. I enjoyed it greatly, even with its flaws. 

Even in being a part of a group like this, we can see Dorothy was pretty normal in some very normal ways, albeit in many ways she was far from normal in many other ways. Her self doubt can be exemplified in this telegram she sent:

Writer's write, they say, but even writers have moments that keep them from writing, or allow them to write but what they write is simply not up to par for them. We all go through it. It's okay.

To this day, there are groups interested in the Round Table and Dorothy, as in the Dorothy Parker Society which was founded in 1999. The Mission of the Society:

1. To promote the work of Dorothy Parker;
2. To introduce new readers to the work of Dorothy Parker;
3. To expand the fan base of Dorothy Parker;
4. To have as much fun as possible;
5. To take part in service projects in the spirit of Dorothy Parker.

I have enjoyed many of her writings for a long time and some of her words are humorously legendary. And so I will leave you with some:

• A little bad taste is like a nice dash of paprika.
• Brevity is the soul of lingerie.
• I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true.
• I might repeat to myself slowly and soothingly, a list of quotations beautiful from minds profound - if I can remember any of the damn things.
• I've never been a millionaire but I just know I'd be darling at it.If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

If wild my breast and sore my pride,
I bask in dreams of suicide,
If cool my heart and high my head
I think "How lucky are the dead. 

• If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.
• Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.
• The best way to keep children home is to make the home atmosphere pleasant--and let the air out of the tires.
• This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
• That would be a good thing for them to cut on my tombstone: Wherever she went, including here, it was against her better judgment.