1. i got up too late to get across a bridge into the district.
2. it was cold outside. really, really cold.
3. i was hungry, and food was more readily accessible in my kitchen than on the mall.
4. jesse and justin and james and i (yes, four “j”s if you’re counting) got sucked into the comfy sun room furniture.
5. the beer fridge was stocked.

so, there’s my excuse. i attended clinton’s and both gwb inaugurals. i missed this one – didn’t even pay that close attention to it on the television. and what i did see was michelle o. in an outfit that would’ve turned me into a lalocasicle.¹ and almost-president obama giggling right before taking his oath of office in a way that reminded me rather unfortunately of my first wedding vows. (hopefully his tenure will last longer than my first marriage.)

james and i did scope out the mall on monday, though, and i took some pictures – but it was overcast, so they’re not great.
_____________
¹ it was in the 20s, woman!

…quite like a meteorologist saying that tonight will be frigid. “three to five degrees downtown.”

if that’s not a good reason for curling up in bed, or in front of the fire, i don’t know what is.

although i doubt he reads my blog (my mother does, on occasion), i’d like to wish dear old dad a happy birthday today. he’s winging his way to destinations african, and has asked his children to perform a most vital service in the weeks to come (recording the u.s. v sweden on jan 24 and the u.s. v mexico on feb 11, the second being the more important game). but more importantly, he’s my dad and i love him very much.

he’s also a history buff, so it’s appropriate that i link to this boston event, at the time blamed on anarchists, that occurred a quarter-century before his birth: the explosion of a tank holding two and a half million gallons of molasses.

i think i did this one right about the time judy died.

i think i’m a few days late, but for your viewing pleasure:

the twelve yats of christmas.

“Evangelical Leader Quits Over Gay Union Remark” reads the headline of one of wapo’s stories today. and glancing at it, i thought it odd that a) an evangelist would be talking about labor unions, and b) that there would be any such unions organized around one’s sexual orientation.

the lede makes it clear that they mean civil unions, though, not labor unions, so that makes a bit more sense.

*facepalm*

have i mentioned it’s a bit early in the morning for me?

random note to myself ‘cuz something’s wrong with ravelry.com’s upload feature.