Happy New Year; New Hobby

Posted by Pinky.

Today is the first day of the Chinese lunar calendar, year 4705. As such it's the Year of the Boar (a.k.a. Year of the Pig). According to the Wikipedia entry, many people traditionally don't eat meat (animals) on the first day of the new year in order to insure greater longevity for themselves. I don't know if that really works or not, but at the very least I'm sure it's appreciated by all the animals that would have otherwise been eaten today. To be on the safe side I would have liked to have avoided eating any animal-related food today too but by the time I read the Wikipedia stuff I had already eaten some dried fish flakes (I think that’s what it was). So I guess no longevity for me.

Bunny has a new hobby. She is now sewing dolls. The way this came about is that we were down by the highway looking for things to eat (as usual) and while we were there we came across a large plastic bag with lots of smaller packages of different colored fabric remnants in it. We're thinking it fell off a delivery truck. Anyway the four of us dragged the whole thing back to our trailer (very tiring). Bunny started cutting out pieces right after and now she is sewing them together in the shape of cats. I will post a picture of one when she is done. Me, I'm not really into sewing. It looks relaxing but I can't get the hang of tying knots.

I think since this is the beginning of a new year, I would like to start a new hobby too. I'm going to try to decide on one before I go to sleep tonight.

~p.

After the Political-Social Stuff...

Posted by Pinky.

Exactly one month ago, I posted our (then) production cue:

"...two new blurbs; a follow-up Q&A episode to the Lt. Watada episode (061222-01); an episode about pollution in the Pacific Ocean; a tutorial on how to videotape an interview; a mini-biography episode (Bunny's current pet project); and hopefully, if we can coordinate it, an episode about nuclear non-proliferation."

Well, the two blurbs were done (Thomas Edison Hates Cats, and Ant: Light Pollution) and we're almost done with a third. The Lt. Watada Pt. II episode morphed into the Iraq War: Legal or Illegal? episode (approx. 2 weeks from completion). Bunny is still working on her mini-biography episode (according to Bunny ETA is "March-ish") and who knows when the Pacific Ocean one will get done (that one is actually being worked on by a friend of ours, so...?). But we did finish the episode on nuclear weapons last night - it's called 27,000 Holocausts. Special thanks to Dr. John Burroughs, Executive Director of Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. I thought he was very clear and easy to understand so I'm happy with the way it came out.

Anyway, after we bring our current production batch to a conclusion, I think I'd like to make an effort to work on some episodes or blurbs that maybe aren't so 'dark'. It's not that I think nuclear weapons or war aren't important enough to keep making new episodes about - of course they are, and we plan on making lots more episodes on these kinds of subject matter. But when we started this Pinky Show project Bunny and I also had lots of ideas for episodes that were about pop culture, the arts, education, traveling, and things like that. We really like that kind of stuff too. But I guess with the war going on our minds have been sort of preoccupied with the more overtly political subjects. So anyway, I guess I'm just writing this entry as a way to remind myself that we shouldn't forget to do some 'non-war' episodes soon.

~p.

New Episode: 27,000 Holocausts

Posted by Bunny.

We just finished this episode last night; it's about nuclear weapons (you can see it here).

Reminder: All our episodes & blurbs have transcripts. The transcripts (plus credits, bibliography, etc.) are located via the [ transcript / credits ] link below each episode or blurb. A typed-out version is good for classroom work or individual study. I do the transcripts now because Pinky types slower than turtles.

~B.

Today's Quote Courtesy of: Aldous Huxley

Posted by Pinky.

​I was poking around Nancy Snow's website and found this quote.

Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings and actions that make for peace and freedom. Conversely almost nobody wants war or tyranny; but a great many people find an intense pleasure in the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for war and tyranny. - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

Good quote. Before I'm gone I'd like to have a deeper understanding of 'why'.

~p.

p.s. It's 8:45pm and the newswire says that the court-martial of Lt. Watada has been declared a mistrial. Not much information yet - I'm so curious about the details. All I've heard so far is that a new trail is set for March 19.​

Abuse, The Easy Way

Posted by Pinky.

Bunny and I have been closely following the feedback we've received for the Ehren Watada episode we posted at YouTube.

We're not surprised that there's been negative responses. But what was really eye-opening for us was the feeling of rage and hate that dominates the language of the negative feedback. There's not much reasoning going on, not much analysis or argument. Mostly name-calling, racist epithets, and exclamations of self-evident 'truth'. It's weird how people can sound so sure of what they believe even though it appears (based on the logical gaps and misinformation in the responses themselves) that they haven't done much research into the matter. So bizarre: If someone doesn't make the effort to sort out the facts and historical foundation of a given situation, why would they then feel justified in expressing their position with such simplistic and self-assured language?

Until we've done the research on any given subject, it's actually pretty obvious that we don't have enough information to form a well-informed opinion on that subject. In other words, until we do some kind of inquiry into the matter, we are, by definition, ignorant. I don't think there's anything embarrassing about admitting that.

So how come so many people think it's okay to make hurtful declarations, directed at an individual or a group of people, based on nothing but stereotype and preconception? Isn't it useful to think carefully about where and how we learn the things that we are positive we 'know'?

Probably until the day I die I am never going to understand how it came to be that human beings can have so little compassion for each other. I can understand that somebody who is very smart can review all the same information that Lt. Watada did, and then come to the conclusion that he should be sent to prison. After doing some research, I can say that I've actually come to the opposite conclusion, but to be real, of course I believe that it's also possible to see things differently. If I disagree with you and it's important enough, I'll try my best to try to convince you that you should think differently. And maybe there are even some situations where I might even fight you for what I believe in.

But I hope I will never take pleasure in dehumanizing a human being. I doubt there has ever been anything good to come out of reacting to a situation clouded by hate and hasty judgement. What are the benefits of strong, decisive action based on misinformation or misconceptions?

I've been told that human beings should try to respect each other - not just when they are alike, but especially when they are different. Does this also apply to differences caused by the holding of different ideas?

The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever. - Soren Kierkegaard

I doubt that many of the people who are directing the most scathing words toward Lt. Watada could bear the emotional weight of a million people's animosity for even one day. And if that concept seems hard to even imagine, then I think that means something too.

~pinky

Pinky Show T-shirts Poll

Posted by Bunny.

Hi. We have four Pinky Show t-shirt designs in the Pinky Show store. Please vote for the one you like best. Any comments would be appreciated (send us an e-mail). Thank you.

[ the poll has been closed. ]​

Minor Change of Plans; Here Come the Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Pinky.

A little while ago I think I mentioned that we were working on a follow-up to episode 061222-01, Ehren Watada: a Soldier Refuses an Illegal War. The follow-up was basically an analysis of Lt. Watada's rationale for refusing to deploy. As we were working on it, we looked at hundreds of responses to his statements on the internet and in newspapers, and based on this started diagramming out what kind of stuff we kept on seeing over and over again. We were looking for patterns. And what we saw was that there seems to be one overriding question that people want to know: "Is the U.S. invasion of Iraq legal or not?". No disrespect intended towards Lt. Watada, but we think that knowing the answer to this question is even more important than the other question that keeps popping up - namely, "Are officers in the military allowed (or even obligated) to refuse orders if they are, in fact, illegal orders?" Of course the two questions are connected, but in the interest of keeping the episode easy to follow, we decided to change direction a bit and try to get to the bottom of the first question rather than the second. The current working title of the episode is now The War in Iraq: Legal or Illegal? - or something like that.

Speaking of Ehren Watada, today is the first day of his court-marshal trial at Fort Lewis, Washington. All of us here at The Pinky Show are praying that he receives a fair trial. One thing that especially concerns us is that we heard that the Army has in advance disallowed any presentation of evidence as to why Lt. Watada refused deployment. The presiding Army judge, Lt. Col. John Head, has stated publicly that he considers the reasons behind his actions as "irrelevant". Maybe the Army has learned something from the Pablo Paredes trial...

Last Thursday (February 1) I interviewed John Burroughs, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. I asked him some things about nuclear weapons; I think I really learned a lot. Anyway, we're almost done putting that episode together. Unless we run into some unforseen problems or difficulties, it should be on our site in about a week. The Iraq War one I just mentioned above probably won't be done for another couple weeks ...at least. We want to be as careful as possible about getting all our information in order, checked, and double-checked before we release stuff.

~pinky

Sudden Piñata Invasion

Posted by Pinky.

I experienced a very bizarre day the other day. Bunny was teasing me about having gained some weight recently (I haven't) when she used the word 'piñata'. I'd never heard of a piñata.

Bunny: You don't know what a piñata is?
Me: No.
Bunny: Are you serious? You never heard of piñatas?
Me: No.
Bunny: What are you? From Mars?
Me: grrrr.

Annoying, but at least I learned a new word. So anyway, fast forward a few hours and Mimi is watching TV and there's this comedian on Comedy Central telling jokes (Demetri Martin - he's actually pretty funny). Anyway, he says something like "I like parties but I don't like piñatas because piñatas promote violence against flamboyant animals". I got the joke because Bunny had just told me what a piñata is. Cool.

Then, the same night, now we're all watching TV and there's this commercial for a show called Viva Piñata. It's a animated show where the characters are all piñatas. Info from the website:

"Viva Piñata™ is a wacky, zany, anything-can-happen animated cartoon series about the world of Piñatas.

In the lush environment of Piñata Island, a multitude of happy, colorful Piñatas live the sweet life, frolicking, dancing and filling themselves up with the most delicious goodies a child could ever want!

They eagerly await the glorious day when they are chosen by the Piñata Factory to attend birthday parties or special celebrations all over the world, bringing joy, treats, and tons of fun to kids of all ages. It's no wonder that wherever the Piñatas go, they're the life of the party!"

Very cute, and interesting premise - though oddly enough it kind of reminds me of the rhetoric of martyr recruitment (not that I know what that really sounds like...). I realize this is all just make pretend, but don't you think the piñatas should be terrified to get the call? What a horrible end:

1) hang you from the rafters or a tree.
2) children take turns beating you with a stick.
3) beating continues until you break open and your insides spill to the floor/ground.
4) much celebration and joy as children madly scramble for candy.

*shiver* All I can say is I'm glad I'm not a piñata. Anyway, I still can't get over the coincidence. They do say that strange things happen in threes, but I didn't know it was true till yesterday.

~pinky

the Viva Piñata piñatas.

....................................

Posted by Bunny: Piñatas come in all kinds of shapes, including non-animal shapes. I don't know how it is elsewhere but in LA there are supermarkets and piñaterias where you can get practically anything popular with children in piñata form - Pokemon, Batman, whatever. But kids like animals. And a festive-looking donkey is at least 10 times more fun for kids than, say, a piñata made in the shape of a toilet bowl or telephone.

....................................

Posted by Kim: I bet they have cell phone piñatas. Kids love cell phones.

Complexity is Good

Posted by Pinky.

I've been thinking about Bunny's response to my last post these past couple of days. I think her point about me comparing apples and oranges (different historical moments; 'high' & 'low' art forms) is pretty important. Because after I thought about it some more, I came up with lots of additional observations and questions that didn't really answer my question (basically "Are Artists Irrelevant?") but did help make me to think through things some more. A couple of examples:

• Maybe the general public can't name 5 contemporary artists, but is that really a reliable indication that artists are not impacting society in a meaningful way? Maybe their innovations or ways of thinking are being assimilated by society and culture in other ways (other than simply becoming individually 'famous', cult-of-personality-style). Maybe their art is just being filtered though a broad network of 'middlemen' - including some of the same formats Bunny mentioned (advertising, comic books, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.). It's possible that the public really does have a connection to practicing contemporary artists without being aware of it. I should talk to the art directors at the big advertising or design firms, and ask them if they look to contemporary artists for inspiration and ideas. I'm guessing they do.

• I'm not sure about the 'high art/low art' dichotomy. It's complicated enough that I don't really know how to use it for analytical purposes. I mean, intuitively I know there are some pretty powerful associations that people make that are hard to entirely dismiss. Like there are tons of people who wouldn't really want to go visit a museum on a Sunday afternoon because they just don't consider themselves 'museum people'. I think there's a lot of assumptions rolled into labels like that - there's an implied class thing, the education-level thing, and so on. I wonder - is that a relatively new phenomena? Did a wider segment of the population go visitng museums on Sunday afternoons, say, during the 19th century? If they did, was it because television hadn't been invented yet as a form of competition? Or if they didn't, what kind of stuff were ordinary people looking at back in those days? Certainly they didn't have billboards and advertisements and photographs and glossy magazines everywhere like we have today. Come to think of it, did museums back then even function the same way they do nowadays? Nowadays anybody can pay $5 or $10 and then go in and roam around for a few hours. How back then? Were they free? Were they exlusive? When were museums invented anyway?

Anyway, so I guess one big thing that I've been reminded of in the past couple of days is that every question is like a fortune cookie. A fortune cookie with at least 50 or a 100 slips of paper stuffed into it, each with even more questions on it. And instead of getting freaked out that the original question is getting too complicated to answer, I guess it's important for me to try to keep a good attitude about it and be open to complexity.

Oh, by the way, in Bunny's posted response, instead of the word 'obtuse' she originally called me 'stupid'. She only changed it after Mimi and Kim said she was being mean.

~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: I did not call you stupid. I called your post stupid.

Where Are the Artists?

Posted by Pinky.

I like art. I like looking at it and I like drawing too. But something occurred to me yesterday when Bunny, Mimi, and I were talking about art. They were asking me who my favorite artists are. I named a few but they hadn't heard of any of them. They know some artists - Giotto, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Degas, etc. But no one who doesn't fall into the 'dead white men' category. Isn't that interesting? They both read the newspaper every day but can't name even one artist who is alive and practicing art right now.

Which started me to wondering: In today's society, are artists irrelevant? I mean, to me, maybe because I like art and I try to go out of my way to read about it whenever possible, I would say "Of course artists are relevant!". But to be realistic I think that may be an extreme minority position these days. Imagine: You ask a thousand random Americans to name five contemporary artists. Artists from the U.S. or from anywhere else in the world, I don't care. I doubt more than 1% of them would be able to name even five. Some people might have a hard time coming up with even one! If no one knows you exist then it becomes kinda difficult to argue that you're making any kind of impact on society.

Art is one of those things, like 'education' or 'strong families', that nearly everybody automatically will say is good, important, and so on. Very few people are going to say "Art is bad. Destroy all art." Even people who don't like art themselves will probably try to soften the tone by saying something like "Well I'm not really into art myself, but I guess it's important...". Something like that. But if it's so good or important, then how come nobody cares enough to know something about it?

Another weird thing: When I say 'art', I think most people automatically assume I mean 'visual art' (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.) - not the literary arts, not film, not theater, not dance, and so on. So the term 'art' is most powerfully connected to the visual arts; it's not like saying 'the arts', which I think then implies the inclusion of all the different arts, right? So why then, of all the arts, contemporary visual art is possibly the most off-the-radar screen with the general public? I mean, most people can name at least a few current writers, at least a few filmmakers, TONS of actors I'm sure... but no visual artists. Okay, I just realized - no one cares about dance either. Unless it's in a movie like Flashdance or Save the Last Dance or whatevers.

I'm not saying that Raphael, Degas, Vermeer, et. al. aren't worth looking at, I'm just wondering why people don't care enough about the visual arts to go check out what's going on right now. Isn't there anybody out there doing something important?

~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: This is one of your more obtuse posts so far. Yeah, art is dead to the masses. But that's 'high art'. Popular visual art is bigger than ever. It's advertisements, comic books, pictures on t-shirts. You're comparing high art with low art, and across different moments in history. What about all the independent and avant-garde filmmakers who are making films nowadays - you think most people even know who they are? Nope. So not a fair comparison. Corporations (and their respective design/PR departments) have replaced the individual artist. And guess what - I didn't read any of your art books to figure that out.

On Protecting Marginalized Perspectives

Posted by Pinky.

I just received an e-mail from my friend who teaches in an Asian American studies department at a university in New York. She was telling me that the university is seriously considering closing the department. What's really discouraging is that I've been hearing the same thing from other folks from other universities from around the country - not just Asian American studies but also African American studies, Chicano/Chicana studies, Native - the list goes on (same thing can be said for art, music, drama, dance...). Seems like every time matters of insufficient funding (or abundant controversy) come up at schools, the automatic response is to question whether or not these more marginalized areas of study are 'still necessary' or 'still relevant'.

And when I say marginalized, I don't mean less important. From a cat's perspective (small animals are very marginalized - think about it), these areas of study may very well be more important. Because to me, a university is one of the last places in society where alternative perspectives can truly be cultivated (I guess now I'm talking about an ideal-world scenario - I don't actually see this happening so much). And it's precisely because Asian American/African American/Native/GLBT/Other-related knowledge and experience are so marginalized, undervalued, and even attacked in society-at-large that these departments in universities become worth of our best efforts to protect them. They are absolutely essential to the well-being to our society. If university people really understood and believed this, wouldn't it make sense that they should work to protect these departments rather than periodically threaten them with termination? My humble suggestion to all you people at universities (that means you too students!):

1) Fight for the protection and development of the most marginalized areas of study. Especially in repressive or otherwise unimaginative times. Diversity of thought will help our planet and all living beings, but we can't have it if we don't fight for the structures that'll create it.

2) Fight for the redistribution of money (especially public moneys) from hurtful and exploitative practices - both national and international - that benefit the privileged elite, to practices that enlighten and benefit the majority of all living beings. Money spent on nuclear missiles means less money to pay all those hard working adjunct instructors!

Oh hey, here's an idea. If you want to save money, go after the business school - those guys have lots of other resources and their track record for improving the condition of the planet isn't so good. If you still need to cut more from your school's budget, consider shutting down or 'down-sizing' (I love that term!) your most widely respected, most deeply entrenched departments. Don't worry, people won't stop reading Shakespeare - he's had several hundred years of worship in hundreds of nearly identical departments everywhere, so his place in the world is pretty solid I think.

~pinky

p.s. You can hold the hate-mail, I don't have anything against Shakespeare; I think he's awesome, blah blah.​

....................................

Posted by Bunny: All over the country Kindergarden-Grade 12 schools have cut physical education, health, music, art, and other good stuff from their programs. I think these decisions are being guided by an abnormal fixation on money, work, and competition. It is no longer fashionable for human beings to explore the full range of being human. Good luck with that.

New Blurbs & Diary Entries

Posted by Bunny.

I posted a couple of new blurbs a few days ago. One is about Thomas Edison, and the other is a message from Pinky's ants. You'll find both of them on our archives page. I also finally posted Pinky's diary entries from last month as well as this month's entries.

The Problematic Nature of Images

Posted by Pinky.

We have two new blurbs recently posted. You can find them here, on the archives page.

One is narrated by one of the ants from my AntFarm™, Ant 2-20. It's about the relationship between electricity and human beings' place in the universe. Very philosophical, those ants.

The other blurb is kind of/sort of about Thomas Edison. Before we posted the finished blurb online, Mimi, Bunny and I got into a discussion about whether some parts of it should be changed.

For example, there was a part in the video where I called Thomas Edison an "asshole". Personally I didn't think it was a big deal (because it's true and I still can't think of a more appropriate word), but in the end we edited that part out. Mimi especially felt that it wasn't necessary; that if viewers came to that conclusion on their own after hearing about some of the things he did, then that'd be a better way to present the material.

The other thing that was kind of difficult to decide on was the part where I mention Edison's interest in electrocution as a method of capital punishment. In the final version of the blurb I just show a picture of an electric chair during this part, but in an ealier draft I had included a close-up photograph of an electrocuted prisoner's face (Allen Lee "Tiny" Davis, convicted murderer, executed in Florida in 1999). I felt really conflicted about including that photo because on one hand, it's a very graphic and horrible photograph (face contorted/frozen in pain, blood spilling down from his nose and mouth) and including it felt a lot like exploitation and appealing to people's purely emotional side in order to make a point (i.e., that death by electrocution is not instant, painless, and/or humane, as it is often - and mistakenly - assumed to be). On the other hand, the image itself is shocking not only for how disturbing it is, but also because much of its power comes from the fact that the public never sees these kinds of images. It's kind of like images of war (real war, not glamourized/romanticized war) - I think it's easier for people to feel distant and disinterested when it's time to debate the morality of war (or capital punishment) when they've never been confronted by some of its more horrible aspects. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.

To me, images are especially powerful, in some ways even more powerful than words. And sometimes only pictures seem to be able to engage people's emotions and prod them towards right action. Even off the top of my head I can easily think of quite a few photographs that, although emotionally wrenching to look at, moved human beings all over the world to demand action be taken - Ronald Haeberle's photographs of the My Lai massacre and Huynh Cong Út's photograph of napalmed civilians are only two obvious examples from the Vietnam war.

Actually, we had this discussion many times while we were making the Vietnam War episode - there are a lot of very disturbing photos in that episode and we actually sat around and debated the pros and cons of including or exluding every image. If there is a guide book regarding how to make ethical judgements regarding images in educational cat videos we haven't seen it yet. We make our own rules as we go along. [ post-entry note: I'm actually still kind of surprised that we have not received even one complaint or comment about the violent images in that episode. Those images made me so uncomfortable and sad on so many levels and I'm curious as to why no one has questioned our decision to include them... ~ p. ]

So anyway, in the end we decided to remove the electrocution photo. Which doesn't mean that we'll never use provocative or unpleasant photos in the future. For me it just means that I want to be careful about showing these kinds of images. If I honestly think that showing these pictures creates an opportunity to learn or change consicousness, I tend to think that it's okay. What I feel more uncomfortable with is reducing an image to pure shock value or (guilty) voyeuristic pleasure. In this particular case, we thought that the blurb-format is so short that it's more difficult to surround the image with some context for better understanding. It's a judgement call.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this discussion we had. It might seem like a 'nothing' thing to everybody else, but this kind of stuff seems really important to us and it's a big part of our learning.

~pinky

Doomsday Clock Moves Forward

Posted by Pinky.

Mr. Peter Weiss, interviewed for Pinky Show episode 061211-01 (What is a Crime Against Humanity?) sent us this memo:

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007... the first such change to the Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks.

I didn't know what the Doomsday Clock was, I had to go look it up. Now I can't stop thinking about it. I'm trying to schedule an interview with John Burroughs of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, I have some questions about nuclear weapons and stuff to want to ask him about.

~p.

Recording Booth; Mimi Wire

Posted by Pinky.

Happy New Year! Things have been pretty hectic around here these past few weeks. You probably thought we were just lazying around not producing new episodes, but actually we've been doing all kinds of stuff recently. First, we've been building a small recording booth. It was pretty rough going for a little bit (we have no construction experience) but finally we are almost done. If this works out like how we hope it will, this new recording booth will allow us to make episodes faster and easier. A heartfelt thank you to everyone who made a donation over these past few months. We saved up the money and used it to buy wood, screws, foam, paint - all the materials. Tomorrow I'm going to build a little table to use inside the recording booth (just something to put our papers on while we're in there); many thanks to our friend Tim in Los Angeles who donated the very nice table legs that I'll be using.

So anyway, here it is, our current production que: two new blurbs; a follow-up Q&A episode to the Lt. Watada episode (061222-01); an episode about pollution in the Pacific Ocean; a tutorial on how to videotape an interview; a mini-biography episode (Bunny's current pet project); and hopefully, if we can coordinate it, an episode about nuclear non-proliferation.

Very scary: Last Sunday (Jan 7) Mimi was playing with some wire and we don't know exactly how she did it but somehow she got it wound around and around really tight on her hand. The more she tried to get it off the tighter it got and I'm sure it was really painful. By the time we found her a few hours later it was almost impossible to take off but after a long struggle we finally cut it off with pliers. It's been four or five days but Mimi still can't walk good (nerve damage?), but we're just relieved that she didn't lose her paw. So everyone out there, please be super careful when playing with wire, rubber bands, and things like that.

Hmm. Looking over my diary entries from last year, it's pretty obvious that I am not a write-in-your-diary-everyday kind of cat. But I want to be - I do know how important it is to keep a written record of your thoughts, ideas, feelings, and so on. If you don't write things down, after you’ve forgotten them it's almost like they never happened!

~pinky