![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Newday wants all its readers to know that they've redesigned the paper. Not that we'd be likely to miss it, but today's paper included several pages describing the changes and stating some of the reasons for them. I'm not sure yet how I feel about the whole thing, but I'm glad that they discussed and named the fonts they're now using, as well as mentioning explicitly that they aren't changing the point size for body text.
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
( exercise, in numerical form )
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
( exercise, in numerical form )
Newday wants all its readers to know that they've redesigned the paper. Not that we'd be likely to miss it, but today's paper included several pages describing the changes and stating some of the reasons for them. I'm not sure yet how I feel about the whole thing, but I'm glad that they discussed and named the fonts they're now using, as well as mentioning explicitly that they aren't changing the point size for body text.
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
( exercise, in numerical form )
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
( exercise, in numerical form )
.