You want to know why, if you wear glasses, you should always keep a spare pair?

Oh, sure, I know. I don't have to sell you on this one. You know you should have a spare pair. The fright of losing them runs through your mind in a quick rush. Dear God, I can't see without them! I really should get around to getting another pair. I really should. But really, with the availabilty of one hour glasses shops, it's probably the last thing on your mind, particularly when one takes into account how much a pair of spectacles costs these days. If they break, I can get another pair with minimal hassle. Besides, you say to yourself, how likely is it that I'll need a spare pair? After all, that only happens when the worst case scenario comes and visits my life.

My devoted Cake Eater Reader I am here to tell you that, conceivably, it need not be a worst case scenario that would cause you temporary blindness. Provided you're legally blind without your spectacles. Like I am. In something like seventeen states.

Never mind losing your best, most effective pair of corrective lenses in the sea.

Never mind losing your best pair in a car crash.

Never mind losing your best pair on a roller coaster that goes upside down.

Never mind losing your best pair as you run from a mummy---a freshly resurrected mummy, I should add---who's chasing you through Hamunaptra because one of your party had the bad sense to read the Book of the Dead out loud. (Dude! It's small consolation, I know, but pretty soon it won't matter. But you should probably know that your tongue's next!)

Never mind any of those wild rides. Occam's razor, my friend. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is, most often, the correct one.

Ahem

You could, theoretically speaking, have just washed your spectacles. You could---again, theoretically speaking---be drying them. You could hear a small snap and in your hands you would find that the bridge of your glasses has separated into two pieces, leaving you with a lens and a corresponding earpiece in either hand.

What follows next could, conceivably, be interesting.

You could, conceivably, let out a small yelp of surprise.

Your spouse could, conceivably, ask, "What's wrong?" from the other room.

You could, conceivably, walk into said other room, eyes narrowed as you manuever your way around blurry-looking furniture, saying, "Look, honey, my glasses broke!"

Your spouse could, conceivably, take the two pieces into his hands and he could say, "Oh, I can fix that."

You could, conceivably, nod your head and stumble back into the other room where your spare pair of spectacles awaits their moment in the spotlight. They've been understudying for quite some time, after all. It's time for them to come into the limelight.

Now that you, conceivably, have your spares on your nose after rummaging around your desk for the case, you could, conceivably, go about your business.

Ten minutes later, conceivably, you could find your husband sitting at the dining room table with a lit votive candle, a small tool you're too distracted to notice, and your broken spectacles, looking very much like he's about to perform some voodoo ceremony sans the bloody chicken's head.

You could, conceivably, hold your breath and then say, in a voice loaded with skepticism, "Honey, I thought you were going to glue them back together."

Your spouse could, conceivably, respond, "I thought I'd try this instead."

You could, conceivably, walk away, not really wanting to know.

You could, conceivably, walk back a few minutes later, only to note that the candle has been blown out. It's mysteriously vanished, all except for the lingering smell of smoke from when it was extinguished. Your husband, conceivably, could be pulling himself up from the table, a sheepish smile on his face, and he could, conceivably, say, "Well, that didn't go so well."

You could then, conceivably, turn your head to look at your still-snapped spectacles as they sit on the green placemat your husband's been using as a workstation. When you, conceivably, pick up your spectacles to take a good look at them, you might note that the plastic had been completely torched and melted into something that would now be completely unrepairable by even the least competent glasses technician available.

You could then, conceivably, shrug good-naturedly and say, "It's a good thing I've got the spares, isn't it?"

Posted by: Kathy at 10:17 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 745 words, total size 4 kb.

Moo knew has been having some issues this morning. Sorry about that, but it's working rather well with my master plan for the day. Which is to get the Cake Eater Pad cleaned up because---ahem---my parents are coming to town tomorrow!

This may not seem like a big deal to you guys, but it is to me. Because we've lived in the Twin Cities for nine years and other than a couple of visits over at el aeroporto when they've had layovers, they've never been to visit us. Which I know sounds rather lacksidaisical on their part until you take a couple of things into account:

• First, we haven't reproduced. Hence there are no grandkiddy functions that it's necessary for them to attend, hence providing an excuse to visit.
• Second, I don't want them driving up here in the middle of winter, and that means the months between November and April are automatically unavailable for visitation. Besides, there's nothing to do here when it's cold. They also generally go to Florida for the month of October and over to Texas to visit my sibilings who live there for part of November, too. Mom's busiest season ALSO is from April to right until they leave for Florida, too. (You did know that September and October are the new June for weddings, right? You didn't? Well, they are.) That pretty much takes care of a whole calendar year right there. And if there was one weekend that was available, well, one my stupid siblings, OF COURSE, had to plan a trip into Omaha and that generally put a kaibosh on the whole deal right there.
• Third, I don't belive my father is really all that interested in coming to the People's Republic of Minnesota. I believe he thinks he's going to be forced to pay our extorbitant tax rate even if he only comes for the weekend.
• Fourth, it's generally easier for us to visit them than the other way round. The Cake Eater Pad not being a huge place.

So, they do have good excuses. But Mom isn't busy with being the bridesmaid couturier with the mostest any more (she's a word of mouth kind of gal and "her circle," as she puts it, is pretty much done with marrying off their kids, hence her business has slacked off.) and she finally blew my other sibilings off, hence they're coming to visit!

Oh, and there's a polka festival this weekend, too.

One of my dad's friends, Big Joe, the friendly and lovable scourge of Sunday mornings when I was growing up, is putting this show on out at the Medina Entertainment Center. Joe is a good guy and he's managed to parlay his love of polka into a show on RFD and he's putting this thing together so he'll have some footage to air on his show. He's also asked my Dad to come and help out with the running of the thing. When I was eighteen, Big Joe hosted a huge festival out at Ak-Sar-Ben (spell it backwards) and Dad helped him run it. Of course, I went out to see what was going on with this thing one night with my mom. Imagine my surprise one day, years later, when we were down in Clear Lake, Iowa for a wedding reception for some friends, I turn on the tee vee where we're staying, the room has Dish Network, and I stumble across the RFD channel to see my eighteen-year-old self dancing with my dad across the Ak-Sar-Ben ballroom. AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! But I digress. Anyway, Joe trusts Dad, hence he's asked him to come out and help. If you like Polka Music, and you happen to be in the Twin Cities from Thursday to Sunday and would like to partake in some HAPPY MUSIC FOR HAPPY PEOPLE! it's $15 at the door. Ten bands a day for four days! What more could you ask for?

Beer, perhaps, but I do believe they serve it out there. Because a polka festival is just not a polka festival without copious amounts of beer.

(Ok, Dad. There's your plug.)

I don't know which day we'll be out at the festival, but if I happen to know before we actually walk out the door, I'll let you know so, if you happen to be really, really bored, you can come out and meet me.

Anyway, all of this is to explain that posting might be sporadic over the next couple of days.

Now, I'm off to clean the house.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

Wee One ponders the joys of being an omnivore.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, so here's one good thing about Live 8: Pink Floyd was incredible.

And I mean INCREDIBLE!

Watch for them to replay it. Please. You won't be disappointed. David Gilmour is the most underrated guitarist of his generation. He is technically perfect. The sound was incredible. Oh, to have been there! You lucky Londoners! I'm so jealous!

But, and I must insert a complaint here, the m*th*rf*cker at MTV that cut the feed just past the half-way mark of "Comfortably Numb" deserves to be SHOT! Thank God we had it streaming on the internet as well was watching it on tee vee, but if we hadn't...we would have missed the last three glorious minutes!

Pink Floyd---THE Pink Floyd with Roger Waters in tow---gets back together, is performing live for the first time in twenty years and YOU CUT THEM OFF BEFORE THEY'RE DONE? Who the FUCK do you people think you are? One of the GREATEST rock bands of all time gets back together and YOU CUT AWAY BEFORE THEY'VE LEFT THE STAGE? Good grief. You whippersnappers have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for those who came before you. Shame on you!

Posted by: Kathy at 06:01 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That MTV guy is toast. He's having a shit storm fall down on him and probably won't survive. There's a reason Dark Side of the Moon is STILL on the Billboard Top 100 after all these years.

Posted by: Mark at WitNit at July 02, 2005 07:22 PM (OF1DQ)

2 Amen!

Posted by: Kathy at July 02, 2005 09:51 PM (59hUk)

3 As "Lawrence" from "Office Space" would say: "No, Peterman, I do believe that you'd get your ass kicked for doing something like that." I've been wanting to use that quote for awhile now.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at July 03, 2005 09:34 PM (M7kiy)

4 They were back, and they were THAT GOOD, and they got cut off. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Fausta at July 04, 2005 12:54 PM (G3tVf)

5 Man, I love Gilmour's vocals and guitar work. I really couldn't care less about Waters coming back except if they release another album...'cause the man can write some good lyrics.

Posted by: zonker at July 05, 2005 08:02 AM (/y7q3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, I'm sitting here in the Cake Eater Office, watching the live feed of Live 8 over the internet.

The husband and I were talking about how freakin' cool this all was. They have managed to throw together huge concerts worldwide to get their message out there. I read that between the internet, tv, mobile phones, etc. something like eighty percent of the world's population will have access to see the concerts. So, even if you don't agree with their message, you still have to admit this is all pretty damn cool, and that they threw this all together in six weeks is extraordinary. It's amazing.

It almost makes you want to believe that it's actually going to make a difference.

One of the things I didn't think they'd be able to pull of was to keep this very large political movement apolitical. But they were going to give it their best shot. Geldof kept saying this isn't about the war, we don't want people Bush Bashing because we want to engage him (and other world leaders) and if everyone keeps injecting their anti-war fervor into it, well, we'll alienate him. He won't listen and he'll have good reason not to listen. And I almost bought it.

Until goddamn Green Day got up on the stage in Berlin---that bastion of Anti-American fervor---and plays their song "American Idiot."

Here are the lyrics:

Thanks for that, kids! Woohoo! You don't think you could have put that one song on hold for the day? I mean if this is all really about justice and ending poverty in Africa, instead of record sales, one would think that you could put it on hold. Just for a day. But you didn't. I'm watching REM right now and while Michael Stipe has some stupid blue mask painted on his face, even he's managing to keep the petty everday politics out of it. I've watched ten other bands perform and they've all managed to keep politics out of it. They've managed to stay on the message Geldof listed out for them. Why couldn't you? Because you're an idiot American in Berlin who's just dying to have their voice heard by people who will UNDERSTAND? You've just clarified it for me. I will not be aligning my voice with these idiots. Because even if they claimed this was bigger than all of us, well, it's obvious that these people hate me, and everyone who doesn't think like they do, so why would I want to? And that they would play that song, on all days, for a German audience? Billy Joe or whatever the fuck his name is just ruined it for everyone. They were shooting for something bigger than petty day-to-day politics, but they had to bring divisiveness into it.

Well done, asshat.

UPDATE: So, I turned on the VH1-MTV feed and they were interviewing Kanye West. Who he is, I have no idea. But he claimed this was a big deal. All of these things were preventable, he said. So far so good, right? Weeeeel, he said poverty was preventable like HIV/AIDS was preventable: that if we'd created all of it, we could end it. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that HIV/AIDS was "man made" and had been introduced into Africa. He didn't say why or who had introduced it into Africa, or why anyone would do such a thing, but he was sure that this was the truth, and the inference we were to draw was that it was to "kill off black people." It's the same thing with crack cocaine, he claimed, which had been introduced into the black community to kill people off. He said he knew this "for a fact" because "his parents were activists" and they'd told him what the real truth was.

What a fargin' idiot. He probably wants to Free Mumia, too.

If Geldof had been smart and really wanted this thing to go in the direction he had declared, he should have banned press access to any of the artists performing. To keep them from spouting ridiculous views.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

{Insert copious amounts of snickering here}

Posted by: Kathy at 08:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, see there's a problem with their recommendation. The nearest bar to me is a wine bar. There's a fancy-schmancy Tex-Mex place three doors down from that, but it's not like I'm going to be able to purchase some Tortilla Tequila there, ya dig? Padrone? Yes. Tortilla? No. And God only knows I need some TORTILLA TEQUILA to lighten the hell up!

It's a requirement.

*bonus points for whomever can identify the quote

{Hat Tip: Doug}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Did no one try to guess? Isn't it that John Cusak movie where he goes across country for some girl? "A Sure Thing" or something like that. I would have guessed sooner, but was w/out internet connection for few days.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 05, 2005 03:46 PM (jiSuM)

2 BingBingBing! You are correct and you are the winner of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Thanks for being a good sport. And actually it's called "The Sure Thing." A marvelous movie if people haven't already seen it, and it's one that my family can quote from liberally. (We've all seen it about a thousand times courtesy of one of my brothers)

Posted by: Kathy at July 05, 2005 03:56 PM (i+tYQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Brian Williams' Blog yesterday:

{...}Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England.{...}

{emphasis mine}

Bullshit.

No one in England---or anywhere else for that matter---would have called George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams "terrorists." They would, however, have called them---ahem---traitors, because that's what they were to the average Joe or crown sporting monarch in England. They told King George III to go and do something obscene with said crown because they were fed up and they weren't going to take it anymore. That, generally, will get you labeled as a traitor because Kings, as a rule, don't like that sort of behavior. It makes them testy.

Yet, there's a bit of difference between a traitor and a terrorist. And if you can't see that, well, you're a dolt, Williams. But we already knew that because you're the "managing editor" of the NBC Nightly News, which, let's face it, is not exactly the most taxing form of employment and you only need the IQ of your average zoo-residing chimpanzee to get the freakin' job.

{Hat tip: Martini Boy's Bartender. See also: Doug}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

The 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar comes and goes and we have not one squeak out of Robbo about it.

Hmmmph.

I wonder if this could be the reason.

Oh, and just because I can...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been hit again---twice---in the meme department.

If you're interested, take the jump! more...

Posted by: Kathy at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1410 words, total size 9 kb.

*At least that's the Cameron I think they're referring to, but we are talking about MIT geeks. It could be something obscure.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I simply cannot make my mind up about Live 8. I really can't.

I remember watching Live Aid during the summer of 1985. I remember actually having permission to watch MTV all day long, and that was unusual because MTV and VH1 were VERBOTEN in my parents' household. (According to my parents, they only showed "smut," in case you were wondering.) Not like that usually stopped me, but at least, for one day, I didn't have to be covert about it. Don't ask me why I remember this bit, but I also remember my mother having purchased a boatload of peaches that weekend. She was going to can something like fifteen flats of peaches (there had been a bumper crop that summer) and she needed my help to slip them of their skins while she filled the jars and manned the canning equipment. This wasn't a job you had to be there the entire time to do: she'd pour the hot water on the peaches, she'd call me in from the family room where I was watching Live Aid, I'd run and do my deal, scalding my fingers in the process, then I'd run back to the family room, three rooms down to see what else was happening.

Because a lot happened that day and it was pretty cool for an impressionable fourteen-year-old. People were actually doing something about the pictures they saw on the news every night and that was cool. And it was new. History was being made and I, who was busy running back and forth between the tee vee and the kitchen in my house in Omaha, Nebraska, was a part of it because I was watching. I didn't have any money to give, but they had my support. My fourteen-year-old self supported their efforts wholeheartedly.

But I'm not fourteen anymore.

And that's precisely why I'm leery of this whole thing. Here's the official website of The One Campaign. I'm sure you've seen the ads in recent days, like I have. And while I'm wholeheartedly for the overall goal they're advocating, it's this "One Voice" business that's bothering me. Because if we're all to speak with "one voice," well, if I sign my name to this, doesn't that, in a way, make me responsible for stupid statements on the part of the celebrities who are a part of this along with the good things they're advocating? Because they've made it plain and clear that they don't want my money: they want my voice instead.

And I value my voice more than I value my money. Even if neither of them means all that much in the real world.

Here's their declaration:

“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”

I agree with most of that. Debt relief is good, provided it's not going to countries ruled by kleptocrats and dictators, like Zimbabwe. Corruption is, of course, reprehensible and should be fought against vigorously. Same goes with the living conditions of much of the developing world. I disagree, however, with the notion that there is such a thing as "fair trade"---nothing in life is fair, particularly economics. These people, I believe, would advocate more WTO and IMF intervention in these matters and I don't believe that would help anything. A free market is what is needed to level the playing field. A free market where countries could get a fair price for the goods and services they produce without protectionist tariffs and subsidies screwing things up for the little guy. These people, I believe, would advocate a legal solution that would ensure that first world economies would suffer and that the see-saw would swing toward developing nations. I think that if first world countries ended subsidies and tarriffs, the market would open up to developing countries' goods and services and the market---not some IGO---would decide who would be successful and who wouldn't. But that's just me.

And my voice isn't worth as much as say, some rock star's voice.

{...}"I think in some ways that's the key thing -- the actual money on the table," said Richard Curtis, the writer of hit films such as Four Weddings and A Funeral who is one of the leading members of the anti-poverty campaign.

"None of the pop stars would tell you that they understand these issues in depth, but the politicians do and what politicians have to understand is that actually the pop stars do represent normal people."{...}

{emphasis mine}

Ummm, no they don't. Chris Martin---Mr. "All Shareholders Are Evil, Yet I'm Very Happy To Cash The Multimillon Dollar Checks My Record Label Sends Me"---doesn't represent me. I have absolutely NOTHING in common with Chris Martin. He's not a "normal" person. Or Richard Curtis, other than we both call ourselves writers. He's not a "normal" person, either. I have nothing in common with Brad Pitt or Emma Thomspon or Jamie Foxx or Tom Hanks, either. These are not common people. They're all loaded to the gills with money. They live in big houses that cost millions of dollars, and they don't have to struggle to come up with the mortgage payment. They drive fancy cars that they purchase with cash. They are famous, well-paid people, who are probably, in part, motivated to help because they feel guilty about all the money they have. My voice means absolutely squat in the real world. I can yell all I want, but all I'm ever really doing here with the blog or in real life is adding it to the cacophany of people who still won't be listened to no matter how loudly we all yell. We're easily blocked out by those in charge. But my voice still means something to me. I value it highly, even if other people don't. These celebrities' voices, however, are worth something. When they speak, the world listens.

So, you can understand why I would be a bit leery to sign this thing, can't you? I mean, in essence, I would be advocating an international shadow government made up celebrities, who want to wield their power to do good, but whose methods I would perhaps disagree with. Is the end worth the means? And that's only provided their ends actually work and do some good. If I add my voice to theirs, well, it would finally be worth something, wouldn't it? But is that what I want? To signal politicians that the only time they have to pay attention to the masses, me included, other than on election day, is when celebrities get involved and push hard for something?

I don't know. Good intentions do indeed pave the road to hell. I believe the Ethiopians who were supposed to be helped by Live Aid might have some opinions about that, provided they're still alive today to give them. Yet if this whole thing could mean even a partial end to poverty; that it could potentially give relief to people who need it, how could I deny them that? After all, my voice isn't worth much by itself or even with a million others added to it; my voice is cheap; why should I hesitate to add mine to theirs?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1315 words, total size 8 kb.

Victorino, one of the Galley Slaves, had the opportunity to attend a screening of The Great Raid, which is a story about American POW's being rescued from a Japanese camp in the Phillipines in 1945 and has a mini-review about it up. (Sorry, kids. Couldn't find a trailer to save me life!)

The Japanese were horrible during WWII. They hadn't signed the Geneva Convention, hence they weren't going to even bother with the little things, let alone the biggies, like food, water, basic sanitation, or even medicine. In particular the Japanese treated the Philippines like it was their own personal violent sandbox. And, yes, we're talking civilians, too. Once the Americans evacuated in 1942, it was like someone had waved a red cloth at the charging bull. They'd already done their worst in Nanking and Shanghai and other parts of China: I don't think anyone thought the Japanese could actually do worse than that, but they were wrong.

(Victorino has his own bit of disclosure about his father, as do I: my next door neighbor when I was growing up---the closest thing I had to a grandfather---was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. And he was a doctor, too, so just try to imagine what he saw and lived through. And, no, I never talked to him about it, so I don't know. After looking it up in the encyclopedia, I couldn't bear to ask, even though my mom encouraged me to.)

I digress as usual, so, anyhoo...

Noting that portraying such baddies might be touchy for Japanese actors, Victorino states:

{...}Credit should also be given to the Japanese actors who no doubt made a courageous decision in accepting the roles of ruthless killers. And who knows if the film will ever be shown in Japan? (Thanks to its distributor, Miramax, the movie should get some good press stateside.) Unlike The Thin Red Line, there are no moral ambiguities here. It is quite clear the occupying power did some really bad things.{...}

This is where the "you never know" bit comes into it. It might be released in Japan, and they might actually like it. A few years back I read a wonderful book: My Spy: The Memoir of a CIA Wife by Bina Cady Kiyonaga, a redheaded Irish-American from Baltimore who married a Japanese-American from Hawaii. In 1946. Yeah, your eyebrows should be up somewhere near your hairline. Her husband, Joe, worked for the CIA and, in between stopovers at Langley, was posted all over the world---along with his wife and five kids. As you might imagine, one of his postings was in Tokyo. Where, one night in 1957, they were invited to see the Japanese premiere of The Bridge on the River Kwai.

You can find the relevant excerpt after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1070 words, total size 7 kb.

Courtesy of Sheila, we have MORE Tommy Boy nuttiness.

{...}Cagle: Most people are reluctant to talk about religion, or anything controversial, when it is your job to be likable to mass number of people around the globe. Why, especially in recent years, have you become so vocal about Scientology, about psychiatry, which you're against?

Cruise: Communication is the universal solvent. That's why I talk about it. What I believe in is that people should be able to think for themselves, and they should be able to make decisions, based on information, on being informed. I don't believe that children should be forced on drugs. I think parents should be informed on the effects of these drugs.

Cagle: I think what upsets some people when you talk about this, what upset Brooke Shields, for example, is that you imply that someone's own experience with psychiatric drugs was, they were mistaken by the way it helped them; that other studies that are done that contradict what you believe are erroneous

Cruise: What do you mean?

Cagle: Other studies that show that maybe Ritalin does help some kids.

Cruise: When you see a study done, you have to look and see who did the study. When someone's on these psychiatric drugs, they have to try and step off these drugs, and I've stepped people off these drugs, Jess. They can go into seizure. All right, it's easier to step someone off heroin. It's more dangerous. They need a medical detox on these drugs.

Cagle: And yet some people have said they've taken them for a while, and then they've gotten off them, and it's helped them through a rough time.

Cruise: Jess, it's a point of, you look at something and you go OK. I've been on the other side of that, when people's lives have been torn apart, where you talk about suicides, where we're looking at now Ritalin is street drug; it's a study drug, because it's an amphetamine. Look, you don't have to believe me. I'm just saying, look at the data and where does that data come from? Now you need to evaluate" What is help, Jess? Is "help" that that person will sit there quiet? Did you really get to the root of the problem?

So, let's see where Tommy Boy has upgraded his message since his interview with Matt Lauer.

1. Tommy Boy, apparently, cannot conceive that someone's own good experience with psychotropics is better than Scientology studies that make claims to the contrary. Because they only took them as a result of faulty research. And if we only really knew the whole story, well...

2. Tommy Boy, apparently, seems to be implying that suicides happen because people are on psychotropics. Most people see them as the things that KEEP PEOPLE FROM KILLING THEMSELVES.

Now, Tommy Boy is not only claimng to be an expert on psychiatry, he's also a detox counselor. And apparently Ritalin is worse to get off of than heroin. Yeah, right. And he knows this for a fact because he helped them "step off" these drugs. Yeah, Right. I'm pretty freaking sure he sat there and held their hair back while they puked. Mmmhmmmm.

And the phrase, Tommy Boy, is not "step off" it's "get off." Learn your detox lingo, my friend.

"Doctor," heal thyself! Before someone gets killed.

As far as the whole universal solvent thing is concerned. That sounded a wee bit funky, like it came from someone else's mouth, so the husband googled it for me. Here's a funny, and telling, anecdote about "universal solvents."

One day the famed German chemist Justus von Liebig was approached by an assistant, who excitedly declared that he had just discovered a universal solvent. "And what is a universal solvent?" Liebig asked. "One that dissolves all substances," the assistant explained. "And where," Liebig replied, "are you planning to keep this solvent?"

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

Courtesy of the Llamas, we have an individual who's going to stick it to A Supreme for their Kelo vote.

{Insert evil cackling here}

Posted by: Kathy at 03:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Tuesday, so of course it's time for the Demystifying Divas and the Marvy Men's Club to step up on their soapboxes and start pontificating.

This week's topic on which I am about to start pontificating: The guy flick/chick flick thing.

Now, I will admit, I have been somewhat lax in following along on the message boards we have set up for the private hashing out of future topics. Hence, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be shooting for with this subject, or if I'm supposed to be shooting for anything at all. Fortunately, I have plenty of ideas for this subject without prompting from my cohorts in any particular direction. I'm all about the diversity, no?

When one thinks of the typical "guy flick" a beefy, greased up, camo-wearing, M-16 holding Sylvester Stallone comes to mind. You automatically think of Rambo, in other words. This, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, is the penultimate guy flick. Or at least that's what my brothers would have told you way back in the day. (I fully realize I'm dating myself with this one, believe you me. My only defense is that, at the time, I was twelve.)

I've never seen any of the THREE Rambo movies, nor will I ever want to. Why? Because a. Sly looks just freakin' greasy in these movies and it's revolting and b. I am not interested in some dude running around the jungles of Southeast Asia (read Vietnam) fighting off whatever the hell he's supposed to be fighting off. (At least that's what I think the plot line is about. Who knows? I could be wrong. Pffft. It's not like I'm interested enough in the subject to look it up.) It just doesn't interest me. Neither am I interested in any John Wayne movie. Neither am I a big fan of Clint Eastwood (And, no, I've never seen Unforgiven. Yes, I fully realize most people think it's one of the best movies ever made. Pfft. Just not interested in it.) or his Spaghetti Westerns.

However...

There are plenty of movies that most would consider to be "guy flicks" that I do like. I am a James Bond nut, and have been ever since my brother Dave introduced me to the joy and wonder that is Dr. No and From Russia With Love. I'm a Sean Connery girl, just in case you were wondering, but Pierce Brosnan is a very close second. My favorite Bond movie? Thunderball. It's got it all: Sean Connery in those tight little swim trunks; a good Bond girl and a bad Bond Girl (and, man, was she ever bad...and that was cool); supersonic jets landing on water; Largo and SPECTRE; and a massive underwater fight scene with those super-duper cool motorized thingymabobs. I, mean, honestly...what more could you ask for? Dave also introduced me to another guy flick that has since become one of my absolute favorites: Die Hard. When I was younger, I was a big Bruce Willis fan because of Moonlighting, hence he was the main reason I liked this flick. As I've gotten older, however, I've realized that Alan Rickman, truly, is the reason to watch this movie: it would be half of the movie it is without him. He's the man with the plan, and that's ever so much fun to watch.

And that, I believe, is what it comes down to. Guy flicks, provided they're not overloaded with testosterone, are fun to watch. Chick flicks, or what some people would describe as Chick flicks, like Beaches or Waiting To Exhale, aren't. They're loaded with estrogen. They're all about jerking tears, and if they can't get them honestly, well, they'll do it dishonestly and make everything sad, so that if you happen to be in a bad mood, well, pull out a box of kleenex and settle in for a long night of feeling sorry for yourself. As someone who personally despises crying, well, they're just not my cup of tea. There's something contrived about them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but that's the feeling I get. Yet, lest you think me a cold-hearted chick who's all about the espionage flick, all is not lost in the weeping department. I will fully admit to thinking Steel Magnolias is a brilliant movie, even if---those rat bastards!---it makes me cry every single fargin' time. As is Terms of Endearment, which also turns me into a blubbering fool every time I watch it. You could also throw Love Story into this category, because it will really turn on the faucets.

I have to wonder what it's like for women who don't have older brothers. I have four of them and each of them, in their own distinct way, transplanted a bit of their own likes and dislikes to me, and this includes their choices in movies, reading material and other things as well, too. Besides hooking me on James Bond, Dave also hooked me on a Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum (I'm referring to the Ludlum novels that were written before he died, of course). I have a fine appreciation of Steve McQueen and war movies (particularly Where Eagles Dare. I can't tell you how many times we watched that one together.) because of my brother Mike, even if I did reject his attempts to indoctrinate me into the Tolkein Fan Club. Steve helped to develop my love of fast cars. And Tim, well, let's just say that Timmy helped to put all of this into perspective for me. They led me down the path that gave me a fine appreciation for the middle-of-the-road guy flick. I have plenty of sisters, too, but they weren't as influential as the brothers. Interesting, no? Well, not really, I know, but still, it's a wee bit curious. What's it like for women who don't have brothers? It's an interesting question. If you, as a female, are influenced by the men in your life and you only have a dad, are you more into chick flicks?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, as far as this goes toward interpersonal relationships, well, the husband has also influenced me in the guy flick department as well. Star Wars was just another movie I was fond of before I met him. I didn't know what Anime was until I met him. And I most certainly did not know anything about the wonderful world of gaming until I met him. But, if you flip the coin, he wasn't familiar with the works of Jane Austen until he met me. He didn't have the patience to sit down and watch a historical drama until he met me. And he most certainly was not fond of the romantic comedy until he met me, either. I've gained an appreciation for new things because of him, and vice versa.

While our tastes have converged over the years, we sometimes still have to flip a coin to determine whose movie we're going to go and see. Because we rarely agree on which movies we want to see. This, we've learned, is the only fair to do it. We'll pull a quarter out and we'll flip while one of us calls it in midair. Whoever loses the flip is the automatic winner the next time around. If, by chance, there are two movies we both want to see, like the conundrum we had this past weekend, where we both wanted to see Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Batman Begins, we assign heads to one movie, tails to the other and flip the coin for that, too. It's simple and it works to keep the marital strife to a minimum.

Now, that I've rambled on long enough to have bored a horse to death, it's time for you to go and see what the other fabulous demystifying divas have to say on the subject. Make sure you go and give a wonderfully warm welcome to one of our new Divaesque Ladies, the magnificent Margi Lowry, who's also got something to say.

I, unfortunately, have some sad news to pass along this week. The Wizard, the famous instigator of The Men's Club, had decided he has too much to do and too little time to do it in, so he is bidding us a fond farewell. We will miss his contributions, but he should still be stopping by on a regular basis. Hopefully. Fortunately, however, Stiggy, Phin and the Minister of Propaganda have decided to keep the side going, so go over and read what they have to say.

In other Diva related news, well, we have something rather large and exciting to announce. We're going to be moving our regularly scheduled Tuesday postings to THURSDAY. This will start next week, July 7, 2005, so adjust whatever you might need to adjust accordingly.

UPDATE: Since it's his perogative, The Wiz has changed his mind about leaving us to our own devices. Hence, he kicked in an essay. Go read.

WooT!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:34 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1504 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Message board?

Posted by: Margi at June 28, 2005 01:19 PM (nwEQH)

2 Now that's what I call pontificating. Excellent, dahling.

Posted by: sadie at June 28, 2005 03:07 PM (7SNDe)

3 I do believe Sadie is working on making it available to everyone...but is having some issues. Or something like that Like I said, I'm not good at keeping up with them.

Posted by: Kathy at June 28, 2005 03:43 PM (yCuZO)

4 Ohhh, YES! Sean Connery {{swoon}}}!! He is definitely the one against whom I guage all others. I'm a huge bond fan. I was so hoping that Highlander dude, Adrian Paul, would be the next Bond. ; )

Posted by: Chrissy at June 28, 2005 04:07 PM (zJsUT)

5 Ahh hes. Adrian Paul. Slurp! Yes, I am a slacker. I will make it my mission to get those invites out via email in the next two days.

Posted by: sadie at June 28, 2005 04:44 PM (2xn/2)

6 Which movie among the "guy flick" genre comes the closest to being a "chick flick"? I always considered "Desperado" to be one for the ladies, despite the death & destruction. Maybe it's Antonio's constant preening for the camera, but several women I've known have professed their love for that movie, despite their aversion to violence in the rest of their lives. Oh, and Kathy - the Ultimate Guy Movie of All Time is Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In the West". No Clint Eastwood, but Charles Bronson, Jason Robards and Henry Fonda ably take his place. The key to a great "guy flick" is having a deep bench, and the presence of Woody Strode & Jack Elam make this the movie the cinematic version of the Jordan/Pippen Bulls teams. You NEED to see this movie.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 28, 2005 08:46 PM (M7kiy)

7 The one Clint movie every "person who likes guy movies but doesn't like Clint all that much" has to see is For a Few Dollars More. He's doing his usual Man With No Name schtick, but the cool/grotesque Older Anti-Hero with Bond-like Gadgets and Dapperness (Lee van Cleef, much more sympathetic than in Good, the Bad and the Ugly, unless you have some strenuous objection to the shooting of horses) totally upstages and outwits him at almost every turn.

Posted by: derringdo at June 29, 2005 03:12 PM (BFuRo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you hadn't noticed, a new mini-blogroll has been added on the right hand side of the page. The Cotillion is not, in this instance, where you learn how to dance and which fork to use so you can consider yourself a proper member of society, but is rather a grouping of female bloggers who would like you to know that the answer to the question, "Where are all the female bloggers?" is "RIGHT FRICKIN' HERE!"

Every Tuesday a few different members of the Cotillion host a ball, where, between them, you can find a roundup of the latest and greatest of what the conservative better half of the blogosphere has to say. This week's ball is graciously being hosted by:

Righwingsparkle
Not a Desperate Housewife
SondraK
MaxedOutMama

Go and check it out.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

There's apparently a slump in box office reciepts.

{...}It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.

{...}Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

{...}If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.

"We're working with a pretty huge deficit that would take a lot of business to overcome," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "Just breaking the slump is not enough. We would have to reverse the trend and see attendance on a big uptick."

Well, kids. If the problem is low ticket sales, perhaps you should:

a. stop putting out crap
b. lower your ticket prices

Because option a flows into option b. I can't tell you how many times I've been subjected to full-priced crapola. I get tired of paying full price for crapola. You people have put out so much crapola over the years, and yet you expect us, the paying customer, to shell out our hard earned money for the pleasure of watching said crapola. Perhaps you should think about your business model, because you're not really paying attention to the laws of basic economics, are you? Supply and demand, kids. If you want to make money on the demand portion, you have to supply a product people are willing to pay for. It's pretty simple stuff, on the whole.

I was horrified to learn that a very good film we watched this weekend, The Machinist, was rejected by the American studios. The director had to go to Spain to get it made. Apparently, they know how to tell a story in Spain, whereas if the American studios had made this film, it probably would have been hacked to death to fit some stupid marketing demographic. I'm sad I didn't get the opportunity to see this one in the theater. I would have paid good money to see it in the theater because that action promotes the kind of movie I would like to see more of.

The choice now rests with the consumer. You have to please us or we won't spend the money. You do realize that, don't you? I sincerely hope so. Your expectations, Hollywood, are out of whack and you're now receiving this message loud and clear. Most people make certain calls nowadays about when to see a movie: they go to the theater only for stuff they want to see in the theater; if they're somewhat lukewarm, they'll wait for the DVD; if they really don't care all that much, they'll wait for it to come on cable. You people just seem to assume we're going to go to the theater, then we're going to purchase---or at the very least rent---the DVD, and then that we'll watch it again on cable. That's not the case. We're not made of money, kids. We have to be discriminating consumers nowadays because a trip to the movies can make a serious dent in your wallet.

Now, the basic underlying problem comes in when you go to the theater to see something that looks appealing, you fork over the $8.50 ticket price (and I know this more expensive elsewhere) and then you come out of said theater two hours later, disappointed. You've been forced to sit through God only knows how many commercials and trailers before the film even started...and then the film turned out to be crap. The story was disjointed and poorly told. The overpaid actors didn't do their job very well. The director refused to use a stead-i-cam and you felt like you were going to puke when the action scenes started. All of these things will keep people away from the theater. Because if you want to charge $8.50, you might want to make a product most people would consider worthy of that amount of money, and you haven't done it lately. Perhaps they'll rent it on DVD later on, or maybe they'll watch it on cable. Who knows? But the overall point remains clear: you can only burn us so many times before we start voicing our objections by not buying your product. Do you get it yet?

You don't? Well, let's talk about ticket prices, shall we? This is where you could make up some losses. Because if it didn't cost $8.50 to go and see a movie, more people would go. It's pretty simple. It might become affordable for people. But right now you people don't seem to think that this is an expensive activity. Let me disabuse you of that notion, because it is. When the husband and I go to see a movie, we try to go to a matinee, which costs us a whopping $6.50 per ticket. Not much of discount, eh? And furthermore the local movie theater just informed us the other day that any show after four p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday was going to be the full-price $8.50. Do the math: if we go to see a matinee, it's $13. If we go after four on a weekend, well, it's $17. Imagine buying tickets for a family with four kids and two adults at these prices. The kid price at the local movie theater is $4.50 for a matinee and $6.50 for evening. That's $31 for a matinee showing and $43 for an evening showing. That's hardly affordable and that's just to see the movie. Then if you perhaps want the whole meal movie deal, like a soda or a bag of popcorn, you'll get raped at the concession stand. A small soda costs $3.00. In what universe are you people living? That's affordable? That's fair market value? That's baloney and you know it. People should not have to take out debt to see a movie. And that's what a lot of people do: they use their credit cards to pay for this treat. Because that's ultimately what a movie is: a treat; an entertainment. You make your money on entertaining people. That's fine and dandy, but perhaps you might want to realize you've built your business model on a foundation made of sand. Your product is not necessary in our lives. It's fun and it's cool, but it's not necessary. Your product is the first thing that gets cut from a family budget that needs to be tightened. I know you'd like to think that Art--with a capital A---is as necessary to life as breathing, but really, when the choice comes down between eating or going to a movie, you're going to lose every time.

So, you see, it all adds up. This is our bottom line. We have to pay attention to that like you have to pay attention to yours. We've made our adjustments. You, on the other hand, haven't. You expect business to go on as usual: with us forking over the cash for crap product, and you laughing all the way to the bank.

Not anymore.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:21 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1215 words, total size 7 kb.

Yes, usually I am full of it. I will be the first to admit to it, too. But there are times when my overlarge ego is well deserved.

And this would be one of them.

A-freakin'-HA! I have confirmation! My ego is well deserved.

I rule!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems Phin got Madame Sadie to thinking about her new profession:

Phin:

{...}In general I've found that most people hate to ask for help; especially to resolve a situation we've screwed up. Personal observations have lead me to believe that once we've shit the bed we're typically not happy until we've also to flung poo into the ceiling fan trying to take care of the problem ourselves. We'll finally quit when we're neck deep in our own crap with no way out and we call somebody else to clean up it up. It's that moment of being helpless, when we realize that we can't solve the problem and we've made it worse, that causes us to loath lawyers.

Sadie:

{...}With divorces so commonplace these days (Everyone's doing it, didn't you hear?), and most people thinking they got screwed over royally in the legal process, of course lawyers are disliked. Especially when one considers that it a divorce essentially results from the ill contributions by both parties, and not everyone is willing to admit that they failed in love. Add children to the mix, and it gets even stickier. Interestingly enough, the criminal law judge that I once worked for had just transferred off the domestic docket, and he pointed towards the relative civility of the criminal defendants in relation to divorcing couples. I do suppose that since most criminal defendants opt to plea bargain, they must be rather content with the relatively lighter punishment they receive at the hands of their attorneys. Heh. On the other hand, an attorney certainly isn't a marriage counselor, no?

When lawsuits are resolved by negotiation or mediation, there is possibility for solutions that perhaps might benefit both sides. When things get to a lawsuit, only one party technically "wins," although that party may not be as big a winner as they had hoped. So right there, that's at least fifty percent of people involved in litigation at any given time that would tend towards disliking lawyers. With multiple lawsuits and lower verdicts than ever these days, it's easy to see why more parties see themselves as "losers" in the fight against lawyers. {...}

There is much truth to both what Phin and Sadie have written, but as one who's been on both sides of it---working for lawyers and having to have my beloved represented by one---I think there's a wee bit more to it than just the inherent odds of the situation.

Lawyers are a specific breed: they are there to mediate your troubles away. And it's important to realize that they are there to mediate. To negotiate a compromise to a conflict, and to do it within the reaches of the legal system. That's why you hire them. They attempt to solve your problems to the best of their abilities. Now, many people don't realize this. They want the problem to go away and they expect to win. There is no compromise where these people are concerned. They believe they're right, the other party is wrong and that's the way it should be seen by everyone involved. Duh. So, to that extent, I will agree with Madame Sadie.

Where I disagree, however, is in how some lawyers conduct themselves. The good ones will lay the odds out on the table for you, first thing. They will say this is where we have the best option of saving grace, but to save said grace, we will have to give something else up over here. They will make it clear from the get go that there will be no winners, and hopefully everyone will come out of this without feeling like a loser. These are the lawyers who will work their butts off to resolve the situation. They will throw themselves into defending your side of the equation.

These are also, it should be said, the lawyers it costs an arm and a leg and part of the other leg to hire.

The bad lawyers, however, are the ones who promise the moon and the stars. They can make it go away, they'll say. And they'll do it for x number of dollars, which is not cheap, but is a more reasonable number than the other prices you were quoted. You, who are in the desperate situation, want to believe them, and you're really grasping for hope, so, despite your better judgment, you do believe them and you fork over their retainer. Then after a brief flurry of activity on your behalf---announcing to the court that they're your counsel, copies of letters they've sent to the prosecutor proclaiming the same, copies of police reports, etc.---you can't get them on the phone. Suddenly they're "in court" all the time. Their paralegals have no time for you, either. You only see them when you have a court date and then they spend as little time as possible telling you what the deal reportedly is. They scoot off as quickly as possible because they have some other pressing matter to attend to. These are the guys who have subscribed to doing their business by volume. And I'm not only referring to ambulance chasers here, but respectable firms, with nice offices, friendly, well-coiffed receptionists and a big, impressive client roster. These are the firms who strictly keep their eyes focused on the bottom line. You, to them, are a commodity, not a client. Yet another sucker who's gotten themselves into trouble and you are, in their eyes, just another way to make some coin. Hence, all their promises about the moon and the stars and your freedom, which is something you value highly, suddenly disappear. They've baited you, and now they're going to serve up a monster switcheroo: your case is worse than they originally thought. They believe this plea bargain they've arranged is the best option for you to take and they'll push for it. And if you want to take another option, and fight it out, well, it will cost x amount of dollars more than what was originally agreed.

And you'll say, "Hey! You can't do that! I signed a fee agreement where you promised these services, should it come to this, and you now want more money for them? Well, no. That's not the deal we struck. Damnit, live up to your end of the bargain." And they'll say, "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you weren't exactly honest with me (which you were, but apparently that's not the way they see it) when you signed up and you can feel free to find other counsel. Which is generally a bad idea at this late date. And by the way, don't bother suing me for breach because I'm a lawyer. I'll just countersue claiming that you breached the original fee agreement by not divulging certain information. This is what I do for a living. I sue people. Do you really want me suing you? I didn't think so. Really, it's not that much time in jail. Or on probation. Just take the deal because the deal with evaporate if you fire me. Then you're back at square one and the prosecutor will be pissed off, too, and won't be so generous the next time around, I promise. Just take the deal. If you don't, you'll find yourself in a whole mess of trouble."

Have I mentioned that this particular type of lawyer is also the kind who will send you a bill for their services and will then bill you for the postage which enabled your bill to work its way through the postal system? I just flat-out love that. It's just so brazen! So brash! So fucking arrogant! If the rest of us tried this sort of thing, we'd be beaten within an inch of our lives. So we don't do it. But that doesn't stop them. They're entitled.

Not only have I worked for this particular breed of lawyer (I was the low woman on the totem pole in the office: I was the one who had to add the cost of a stamp to every client's bill), the husband has also been represented by their ilk. And I despise them. They are so desperate to increase their bottom line, they will violate any and all trust that they've established with you to get what they want, which is maximum money for minimum effort. And they're not above using coercion to get it. The judge that Sadie refers to was so surprised at how agreeable criminal defendants were compared to divorcees. This is because, I believe, by the time they actually get before the judge to enter their plea, some criminal defendants have been beaten into submission by their lawyers. They're tired of it. They just want to get it over with. They've been abused already and what's one more whack when it's all said and done with?

Do I sound bitter? I'm sure I do. When you've paid thousands of dollars for ineffective, lazy counsel who did much less than they promised, you'd be bitter, too. Money doesn't grow on trees, after all, and when you've been suckered one too many times, it stings. Not only in the pocketbook, or because they did what they did, but because you let them get away with it. You may not have felt you had a choice in the matter, but you did let them off the hook nonetheless. You didn't call the Bar Association to complain, because would they actually listen to your petty complaints? No. Did you tell the judge? No, because why on earth would they believe you an "alleged" criminal. It's a "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," situation. And the shame of it is huge. Because not only have you been stung financially, you've lost your freedom as well. It's, ultimately, your own damn fault because you were stupid enough to believe them in the first place.

So, while I'm sure I sound bitter, let it be said, however, that we have had good experiences with lawyers, too. One in particular who saved the husband's bacon with his felony dwi. He was one of the aforementioned "good lawyers" who laid everything out on the table first thing. Not surprisingly, he also cost an arm and a leg to hire, too. He bluntly told the husband he could not escape jail time. There was just no way to do it. But he worked the situation and he worked it hard to make sure it was the most positive outcome he could deliver. He answered questions. His paralegal answered questions. He updated the husband on the developments in the case without having to be prompted. But, most importantly, HE DIDN'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR THE POSTAGE HE USED TO SEND OUT HIS STATEMENTS. He was worth every dollar we paid him. And he'll probably be hired again soon when the husband applies to the court to be released from his sentence. Because the husband has been a good boy and has done everything the court has asked of him. He thinks he has a fighting chance of being released early from his probation, and with this lawyer on his side, I, too, think he has a decent chance. But what's really important is that if the husband doesn't have a good chance, well, this lawyer will tell the husband that flat-out. He won't "try." He'll either do it or he won't. And he won't send us a bill, either, to tell the husband that.

So, to wrap up this bit of longwindedness, yes, lawyers perform an important task. No, they don't all deserve the bad rap they receive. But there are plenty who do deserve the bad rap and they're the ones who ruin it for everyone else.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1968 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Damn woman! I think I just received a crash course in professional ethics.... You definitely made your case. Just damn! Yeah. We all know that the pricks are out there. I just hope like crazy that I'll never become one of them.

Posted by: sadie at June 27, 2005 02:25 PM (7SNDe)

2 The toughest thing to do is that which the client needes most--the attorney's unvarnished assessment of where things are and how much it will cost. I do not sugarcoat anything and if something sounds like a bad idea, I will tell them that they will be wasting their money. Sometimes, I have to preface it with something like: "while my kids will appreciate your willingness to put them through college . . ." Clients appreciate it when you give it to them straight, even if the news is not what they want to hear.

Posted by: LMC at June 27, 2005 03:10 PM (61/Yb)

3 Sadie: you won't. I'm sure of it. LMC: I knew you were one of the good ones

Posted by: Kathy at June 27, 2005 04:01 PM (yCuZO)

4 Being that I work for attorneys also, I've found that the easiest way to separate the wheat from the chaff is ask a few trusted lawyers whom they would hire to represent THEM.

Posted by: Margi at June 27, 2005 09:35 PM (nwEQH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment