He died last night.

The husband and I take a walk around the neighborhood every evening. It's our post-dinner constitutional. As we were walking back into the Cake Eater Alleyway from our walk, we ran into our ex-hippie neighbor, of whom we're very fond, and we chatted about the wild thunderstorm that passed through this afternoon. In the background, I saw that our other neighbor---Eric, the landlord's roommate---was fiddling around with his car, which hasn't been around the house for the past couple of days. Or at least I thought it was him. There was a fair amount of hair on him, and that didn't ring quite right, because the last time I'd seen him, he was completely bald. But, I thought, it had to be him. It was the same color hair, and if you can lose your hair that quickly, well you can get it back at the same rate, right? It seemed logical at the time. We said goodbye to one neighbor and walked up to the house, greeting another neighbor, readying ourselves for yet another neighborly conversation. After all, this is what you do on summer nights when you live in Minnesota. The weather will turn to shit soon enough, and you won't see your neighbors for six months because no one wants to spend any time outside then. We all hibernate here during the winter, so you work on your relationships when the weather's warm.

Well, it wasn't him. And it wasn't the conversation we expected to have.

It was his brother, who looks an awful lot like him. He introduced himself and then and he had the unfortunate task of letting us know that Eric had passed away last night. He'd been in the hospital for the past few days, dealing with complications due to the round of chemo that he was on for the testicular cancer. He'd been doing fine with the chemo, which he started at the beginning of last month. The husband chatted with him last week and while Eric had said he'd had twenty treatments in the last two weeks, he was hanging in there. He was doing all right, that he was going to beat this. He was even going to work every now and again. He worked at a bank and his co-workers had decorated his car with get well messages soaped across the windows, like people do when someone gets married.

The get well messages were still on the car this evening as his brother and his brother's fiancee packed up some of his belongings. Eric's originally from Ohio. I assume that's where they're from as well. It never came up in the course of conversation.

I didn't know him well enough to be upset over his death, but I'm still very sorry that he's gone. He was a nice guy and he didn't deserve to die. I respected him for his upbeat attitude. He wasn't shy about letting anyone know what was going on. The first conversation I ever had with him was a few days before he went in for surgery. We hadn't met yet. At that point, he was just "the roommate," and was, for me---as a person who's lived in this house for more than five years and has seen people come and go---someone I had yet to meet. It was dark outside and I was walking back into the house, and he walked in right after me, startling me because I hadn't seen him. He introduced himself and then he apologized over and over for scaring me. He was so sweet in his earnestness. We found a few days later about his surgery and thereafter every conversation was flavored with information about his cancer. He wanted to let us know how he was doing, in case we were afraid to ask. He wasn't ashamed that he had cancer---and testicular cancer at that, which is not something I wouldn't think you'd want to advertise if you were a man. He was always talking about how he was going to beat it, and while it was apparent he wasn't pleased about some of the treatments he was going to have to endure, he was going to endure them nonetheless. Because, of course, he wanted to live.

It's just so bloody sad that he's died. If anyone had the right attitude, it was him.

The memorial service is on Friday and, of course, we'll go. It's something of a milestone: this will be the first memorial service I will have attended for someone I know in the Twin Cities since I moved here nine years ago. I said when I lived in Des Moines and I attended the funeral of a co-worker's husband that, ahem, it was time to move: someone we knew had died. It was an odd sort of a fringe benefit when you move somewhere new: when you're new in town, funerals aren't a part of your regular schedule of activities. It does take time to meet and make friends with people when you're new to town. If I still lived in Omaha, I'd probably be going to funerals and wakes on a regular basis simply because that's just the way things work in your hometown. You know people all your life, and then they die. You go to either their wake or their funeral, depending upon your closeness, and pay your respects. You look at the obituary section of the paper every day. I can't tell you when the last time I looked at the obits was.

It's a common thing, death. As common as birth. As common as all the happy things that can happen to you in a lifetime. I think we all forget that sometimes.I know I have. It never occurred to me tonight that Eric's brother was going to tell us that he'd died.

I just hope Eric is somewhere happy and that he's free of pain and cancer.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 994 words, total size 5 kb.

With the ladies of The Cotilion. Go and visit these fine blogs for your weekly fix.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, for the husband's birthday, I told him he could go skydiving. This will be the third time he's done a tandem jump, and despite the fact the man has ruptured his spleen doing stupid things on a snowboard in the past (and was two hours away from death, or so the surgeon told me), skydiving doesn't worry me. Why? Because someone else is attached to him and has all the responsibility.

But perhaps it's his other hobbies---specifically his gaming habit---that I should be worried about.

SEOUL (Reuters) - A South Korean man who played computer games for 50 hours almost non-stop died of heart failure minutes after finishing his mammoth session in an Internet cafe, authorities said Tuesday.

The 28-year-old man, identified only by his family name Lee, had been playing on-line battle simulation games at the cybercafe in the southeastern city of Taegu, police said.

Lee had planted himself in front of a computer monitor to play on-line games on Aug. 3. He only left the spot over the next three days to go to the toilet and take brief naps on a makeshift bed, they said.

"We presume the cause of death was heart failure stemming from exhaustion," a Taegu provincial police official said by telephone.{...}

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of Jonathan we have what would have been a wonderfully insightful and informative article by Andrew Ferguson about the current problems and challenges facing the National Mall in Dee Cee if it weren't for the blatant Dee Cee snottery displayed.

IF YOU WANT A VISION of hell, look here: the national mall in Washington, D.C., at noon on a summer's day. Mom and Dad and Buddy and Sis stand on the treeless expanse, baked by the pitiless sun, looking lost. Dad wears a muscle-beach T-shirt stretched over a Cheesecake Factory body, his hair matted in shiny ringlets round the crown of his head. Sweat begins to show at the waistband of Mom's stretch pants. The air is hung with scrims of haze. To one side the Capitol building shimmers in ghostly outline. To the other, the Lincoln Memorial looms in what might or might not be Hellenic grandeur; it's hard to tell through the waves of heat. Both landmarks seem unreachable, impossibly distant, in opposite directions. Buddy's fanny pack won't stay hitched up, and the intense physical discomfort is the only thing that keeps Sis from dying, like totally dying, of boredom.{...}

See, this is how Ferguson starts the piece off. A "normal" family, in from out of town, going to see the Mall. He simultaneously sneers at this family for all their bourgeoisie manners and appearances yet sympathizes that they're being given the runaround because the mall is so poorly kept these days. It's hard to imagine why he's so sympathetic to their plight due his cariacturish description of this imaginary family. You don't know where they're from. You just know they're not from Dee Cee, as if living in the nation's capitol is the benchmark for having good taste. Perhaps they are imaginary, perhaps they're not, the world being overstuffed with fanny-pack, muscle T-shirt wearing Americans, but I have to imagine there are plenty of people who visit the mall whose manner of dress and behavior don't quite offend Ferguson's delicate aesthetic sensibilities quite so egregiously. To be blunt about it: no matter how informative Ferguson's article is, the snotty tone of the opening paragraphs ruin it.

This is what I would like to know: is there some sort of dress code for when people from out of town visit Dee Cee? You see, I've never been. And I haven't considered it to be all that much of a loss, either, I might add. The husband has and he tells me it's a wonderful experience and that when we go, at some distant point in the future, we have to block off at least six days to tour the Smithsonian. But it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to visit the nation's capitol when the residents are such unrelenting snots. One thing I hear over and over again from residents is how inappropriately people are dressed when they visit the monuments. I've listened to people whine on about the horror of the fanny pack. How no one should wear shorts (even in the summer) to visit any of the museums. How if Congress was really Republican they'd ban the wearing of tank tops. Ad nauseaum, ad infinitum. If you Dee Cee residents would like people to dress appropriately, perhaps you should have a fleet of maitre'd's patrolling all the entrances to town, handing out coats and ties to everyone you deem is dressed inappropriately. Otherwise, you should, perhaps, just perhaps, realize the unwashed masses out here in the rest of the country foot the bill for your largesse. And that perhaps, just perhaps, that might mean you should shut the fuck up, eh?

America is a big country. That there are many, many different styles of dress and behavior that are deemed appropriate enough elsewhere in the country. Dee Cee is a very small place. The rest of the country is huge. You're outnumbered, people. Lighten up.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:56 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

And I should be back to blogging, no? Particularly since I took the whole weekend off. Right?

Well, I probably will get around to posting something interesting later on in the day, but I had a wonderful, relaxing weekend with the husband and I'm still feeling a wee bit logy as a result. It's nothing to do with you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers. It's got everything to do with me not feeling particularly outraged or interested about/in anything right now. While I'd like to pass along my sincerest condolences to his family on his passing, Peter Jennings' death is not even remotely interesting to me currently.

That says something, no?

Anyway, in the gratuitous announcement department, since the boys are out of town this week, I'll be guesting over at The Butchers until they get back.

Heheheheh. They say revenge is a dish best served cold. And since it's been positively frigid around the Cake Eater kitchen lately, the revenge I have in store for my dear pal Steve-o for his outrageous behavior here, here and here, should be nicely chilled.

Much mayhem and hilarity will ensue shortly.

But first I must start the laundry and go and work some lard off my arse.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Kathy's going to get really mad at me for hijacking the Cake Eater Chronicles like this, but I just need to get this off my chest in a very public manner.

I have finally decided what I believe the problem is with Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 as a whole: It's over-developed.

They've gone to such lengths to be able to accomodate nearly every concievable situation, that the simple, straighforward solutions that most small businesses need become convoluted configuration nightmares.

If I'm building an outhouse, I don't want to have to deconstruct the Sears Tower to do it.

I feel better. I'm sure you're confused. Don't worry. Kathy will probably delete this momentarily.

UPDATE FROM KATH: If this means I don't have to listen to complaints about a software program about which I know absolute SQUAT, the post stays.

Capisce, darling?

Related aside: For a minute there, I thought Steve-o had hijacked the blog again.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at 02:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're a guy who is perhaps, ahem, a wee bit heavyset, please make sure you wear a belt if you find yourself bending over a lot.

Any efforts you could make to reduce the amount of crack I have to see would be very much appreciated.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not exactly The Hunt For Red October, is it?

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia - A Russian mini-submarine carrying seven sailors snagged on a fishing net and was stuck 625 feet down on the Pacific floor Friday, and the United States and Britain were rushing unmanned vehicles there to help in rescue efforts.

It was unclear whether there was enough oxygen aboard the mini-sub to keep the crew alive long enough for remote-controlled vehicles to reach them from bases in San Diego and Britain.

Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Viktor Fyodorov was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying the air supply would last until sometime Monday. However, he earlier told Russia's Channel One television that air would last "a little more than 24 hours."

The Russian sub's propeller became entangled in a fishing net Thursday, Russian navy Capt. Igor Dygalo said on state-run Rossiya television. The accident occurred in Beryozovaya Bay, about 50 miles south of Kamchatka's capital, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, officials said.

"There is air remaining on the underwater apparatus for a day — one day," Dygalo said at about 6 a.m. EDT. "The operation continues. We have a day, and intensive, active measures will be taken to rescue the AS-28 vessel and the people aboard."

Fleet spokesman Capt. Alexander Kosolapov said contact had been made with the sailors, who were not hurt.{...}

Seriously, though. Death by suffocation is one of those things that gives me the heebie-jeebies, so I sincerely hope they manage to rescue those poor men. I'm particularly glad that the Russians learned their lesson with the Kursk accident and asked for help early on. Hopefully it won't be for naught.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Wee One's gonna get it when she gets home on Sunday.

I have to admit, if she was my child, I'd be like Chrissy and readying the bad-behavior-breaking boot camp, too. But since she's not, well, I just get to enjoy her. Which I do. Tremendously.

That child cracks me up.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

So, what exactly is it about Edvard Munch's paintings that encourage theft?

OSLO (Reuters) - Masked robbers stole three worthless copies of pictures by Norwegian artist Edvard Munch from an Oslo hotel Wednesday in a bungled raid, almost a year after Munch's 1893 masterpiece "The Scream" was stolen.

Thieves wrenched the copies off the walls of Oslo's Hotel Continental with crowbars, a Reuters reporter at the scene said.

The thieves struck almost a year after armed robbers stole "The Scream" and another work by the pioneer of modern expressionism from an Oslo museum in front of stunned tourists.

Police were searching for three robbers, two who entered the hotel and one who waited in a getaway car that was found abandoned nearby.

"They both had crowbars and were wearing hoods and masks," Reuters reporter Anne Merete Henriksen said.{...}

You're, of course, asking where the ineptitude alluded to in the title is. I live to deliver you, my devoted Cake Eater readers, the goods, so here it is:

{...}The hotel has 12 Munch originals -- lithographs, wood cuts and an etching.

{...}"The three paintings were copies but we are handling the case as if they had been genuine," Hjulstad told Reuters. He said he did not see any link to last August's museum theft.

So, you've got lots of Munch goodies to steal in this particular hotel, yet these bunglers manage to steal three copies rather than any of the real stuff. Duh.

Which leads me back to my original question: what exactly is it about Munch's work that encourages theft?

I'll admit, Munch is not my favorite, but that's my own deal. It's good art, because it makes you think. But as far as my personal preferences are concerned, well, The Scream is not something I'd want hanging on my living room wall, ya dig? It's just a wee bit uncomfortable for my liking because that's probably what I look like when I scream, and like everyone else, I only want flattering portraits of myself hanging in my home. But, again, that's just me. Apparently Munch is very popular with some people, as they've been following the story of last summer's museum heist rather closely.

I've long wondered if, perhaps, RP's interest has---ahem---a wee bit more behind it...if you get what I'm driving at. Hmmmm? Like he's a litigator by day and Thomas Crown by night?

Hmmmm?

I'll be curious to see if RP has made a trip to Norway recently. Sure he said he was moving. And cleaning off his desk yesterday. That doesn't mean he didn't have something to do with the theft.

He---gasp!---could have been lying!

{Insert any number of conspiracy theories here}

But, really RP. I think you could have at least hired some competent thieves. You know, ones who could distinguish between the real stuff and the fakes. You're taking too many risks with these smash and grab jobs. Or are the smash and grab jobs just a clever diversionary tactic? You know, to keep suspicion from falling on you for the real theft? Hmmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

Sadie has a question for you:

Pop quiz time - who wrote the following inarticulate statement?

I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is.

Well, folks, in case you were wondering, it's that cutting-edge, I'm-a-big-shot-and-you're-not "Conservative" Blogger, La Shawn Barber.

To be fair (more fair than she is apparently) this is what she wrote in its entirety:

Rice for President: One of my advertisers is a group called Americans For Rice, and IÂ’ve been asked by several people where I stand on the Condi-for-president meme. I wouldnÂ’t vote for Condoleezza Rice for president of the United States. First, I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is.

Second, Rice is pro-choice and might be pro-race preferences. No moderate Republican who I know is a moderate will ever get my vote.

So, what we have here is a statement against Condoleeza Rice for President. La Shawn has her reasons for not potentially voting for her. That's all well and good, but to say that "I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country" is beyond the freakin' pale. Note how she uses the qualifier "generally," as if that's going to keep her from getting into trouble. Then she acknowledges that people might be a wee bit upset about her sexist remarks and makes the most unbelievably arrogant statement I've seen yet: "Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is." (My emphasis.)

You know what, LaShawn, I don't read your blog unless someone points out something inane and stupid that you've written. What can I say? I revel in it when someone who has such a puffed-up sense of self-importance gets slammed. I'm mean that way. Sue me.

I could say an awful lot about LaShawn's blatantly sexist attitude, but Jody does it better. But it doesn't end there. Oh, no. {Insert best Ron Popeil voice here} But wait....there's more! When LaShawn, in a fit of magnamity, deleted Jody's trackback, Beth had a few choice words to say about La Shawn's apparent inability to have people disagree with her.

Apparently, according to a comment La Shawn left at Jody's place and an update to the post linked above, the easiest way to discount someone who disagrees with you is to chalk it all up to jealousy over traffic and Ecosystem rankings.

First, the comment:

Way harsh and uncalled for. What did I ever do to you? Don't envy my ranking. I've worked hard for it. If you apply yourself, you can do it, too. By the way, save yourself the aggravation and don't wander over to my blog anymore. It's only going to get worse, I promise you. I'm starting to care less and less what people of any political stripe think of me, male or female.

Notice how she doesn't bother refuting the merits of Jody's argument. It's all about Ecosystem rankings and how hard she's worked to get where she is. I particularly adore the patronizing tone of the "If you apply yourself, you can do it, too" statement. I'd like to thank all of the little people...

Second, the update:

New/smaller bloggers, IÂ’ve got something to say to you. One day a few of you may become huge. Your traffic and Ecosystem ranking will rise, and your reputation in the blogosphere will grow. Or not. But whatever happens, do me a favor? DonÂ’t forget about or bad-mouth the bigger bloggers who linked to your posts and helped you back when you were smaller or first starting out, OK? ItÂ’s bad form. Especially if you asked them to link to your posts.

Sadly, itÂ’s happened to me, and itÂ’sÂ…sad. The bitterness dripping from one such post wasÂ…bitter, and I donÂ’t know why itÂ’s there. IÂ’m not a flame warrior, so I wonÂ’t link. It really doesnÂ’t matter who it is. Just remember old LBÂ’s advice.

To quote Kevin Spacey's character, Lloyd, from The Ref:

"You know what I'm going to get you for Christmas next year? A big wooden cross. So the next time you feel unappreciated for all the sacrifices you've made, you can climb on up and nail yourself to it."

See, since Jody asked the simple question: "Please someone tell me why she is so high in the ecosystem?" LaShawn could easily chalk Jody's criticism up to jealousy. I'm sure she'll do the same thing to me if she bothers reading this post, even though I don't give a rat's flaming behind about Ecosystem rankings. It's that simple for LaShawn: you don't like what I have to say? Well, since my blog is bigger and better than yours is, I must be bigger and better than you are. Hence your criticism is invalid and I will go along my merry way, spreading my inane ideas across the blogosphere to wide acclaim because no one will know if anyone disagrees with me because I will---ahem---delete their trackbacks and ban them from my blog.

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, is that an attitude that represents the best of the blogosphere? Is this an attitude that represents the most intellectually honest position one could take?

I don't think so. Furthermore, I just flat-out love how LaShawn is all about helping the little bloggers. Her post has many little bits flavored with all sorts of advice for bloggers, yet she makes one of the most egregious errors of etiquette you can make in the blogosphere: she deletes the trackback of someone who disagrees with her. The only time it's appropriate to delete a trackback is when it's spam---of either the blogger-generated or pr0n operator variety. That's it. The rest of us humble bloggers see this format as a means of having a conversation. It's a sort of cocktail party, wherein you can chat with many people, gain many different ideas, and, most importantly, make up your own damn mind about whether or not those ideas have merit. LaShawn is anything but humble. She, apparently, is the cocktail party guest who says "SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE I'M THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE ROOM AND THE REST OF YOU ARE PEONS!" Then, if someone has the temerity to speak up, she puts her hands over her ears, in a most childlike fashion and screams, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Most bloggers are interested in debate. LaShawn, from what I can gather, is only interested in herself.

I have some questions for all you bloggers/blog readers who read LaShawn's blog: does LaShawn Barber's Corner really represent the best and the brightest of the blogosphere? Does she embody all the promise blogs and the blogosphere present? What, precisely, do you get out of reading her blog? I'm completely serious when I ask these questions. If you think the Ecosystem has any merit to it, you should know that LaShawn is ranked #20 within it. Is her blog better or worse for her ranking? Or am I out of line when I criticize her inability to take criticism simply because I'm ranked #913 (as of today)? Would you judge my criticisms of her "work" as valid---no matter what my ranking---or should I just kow tow to a "big dog" because that's the way LaShawn would have the blogoshpere work?

I'm interested to hear what you all have to say about this one because it really does get down to the heart of what a good deal of us think the blogosphere is about: the spread of ideas. How those ideas are spread is, apparently, an issue of debate itself. Would you rather read a blog that cares about debate? Or are you only interested in blogs that are echo chambers of approval for their authors? The blogosphere, I believe, is all about saying what's on your mind and then listening to what people have to say about it. It's about furthering the discussion.

Is it really interesting to you to read a blog written by someone who only has a mouth, but no ears?

UPDATE: Yeah, LaShawn, we're all really jealous of your ranking!

{...} have reason to believe these people are either envious of my ranking (who cares?) and donÂ’t want me to be there, or canÂ’t figure out why IÂ’m there in the first place. HereÂ’s the irony: because of their boredom/pettiness and links, IÂ’ll rise even higher over the next few days. The ranking is based on links.

Thanks, kids, but IÂ’m not worth your precious time. Contribute something to the blogosphere that doesnÂ’t revolve around what another blogger is doing or writing. ItÂ’s boring.

Christ. Could LaShawn's head get any bigger without exploding and splattering stuff all over the place?

The only reason I ask is because I don't want to get any on me.

UPDATE DEUX: Oddybobo has a few choice words for LaShawn and Andy believes LaShawn's second post was actually directed at him for something Intelligent Design related in that massive linkdump---which, quite frankly, could be the case: she's just nutty enough to piss off that many people. Go and read both posts.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:21 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1622 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Great post, indeed, Goddess of Snark! I thought you might be able to answer that pop quiz with flying colours. A+

Posted by: Sadie at August 04, 2005 02:54 PM (7SNDe)

2 Bravo, Kathy, Bravo! Well said (written) Isn't it ironic, regarding the UPDATE entry, regarding what other bloggers are doing or writing? Hmmmmm. A. Isn't that half of what the 'spere is about? and B. wasn't that part of what LSB was doing in the post that Jody linked to?

Posted by: William Teach at August 04, 2005 03:00 PM (cuTsc)

3 I don't read her. It's not that I have any great beef with her, but she's just not my cup of tea. The one time I linked to her was to comment on a disagreement she had with INDC Bill (I sided with Bill). A number of people took either side in the dispute, but at the time she said http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/06/03/if-2/ "Update IV (6/6): I canÂ’t believe people find this post so interesting. Was it something I said? Whatever. I hope youÂ’re putting as much energy into condemning thug terrorists who want to destroy the U.S. as you are commenting on this post. Say what you will about me, as long as you link to the blog and spell my name correctly." Apparently he editorial standard has changed to "link to the blog, spell my name correctly, and agree with me."

Posted by: The Colossus at August 04, 2005 03:45 PM (BHNam)

4 To be honest I rarely read LaShawn. But the one time I did link to her disagreeing with her over-the-top hostility toward anyone condemning Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo, she deleted my trackback too. Writing, "I don't care what anyone else says about me," while simultaneously trying to expunge all dissent from her trackbacks & comments is NOT the behavior of someone who truly doesn't care what others say about her. If others want to read her and link to her, so be it. I personally don't see the appeal. But I can't figure out why Atrios is popular on the left either.

Posted by: Doug at August 04, 2005 03:56 PM (7P5xE)

5 Would you judge my criticisms of her "work" as valid---no matter what my ranking---or should I just kow tow to a "big dog" I don't see what anyone's ranking has to do with whether or not you're allowed have an opinion. I base my opinion on who makes the most sense to me on any given issue. A lot of my favourite bloggers are ones I don't always agree with -- present company included -- and I like it that way. Less boring. (And BTW, I think ranking should be by blog age) (then I'd be a "big dog" and get all that kow towing)

Posted by: Ith at August 04, 2005 04:10 PM (P595i)

6 I gave up on the ecosystem, It ranks links higher than daily traffic. It's not too hard to get links everywhere. It's much tougher to get people to check your blog everyday. I also think LaShawn is a moron for not trusting women. That's just the kind of PR Republicans don't need.

Posted by: Tracy at August 04, 2005 04:44 PM (q0Pd2)

7 I confess I have been a reader of LaShawn's, if for nothing more than seeing some different perspectives. But long ago I began having serious reservations about her and her ideas. As she proclaims her faith, it seems, in practice, much has been left out in practice. Humility being one of them. As much as Christ stood firm on the truth, he was meek -- expressing his power as much through his silence as through his strong stances. Her self-given title of a Voice in the Wilderness leaves little more than a bad taste in my mouth anymore. And this 'little incident' has been the last straw for me. Sad.

Posted by: jae at August 04, 2005 04:48 PM (ijOac)

8 In the past, I rarely read La Shawn's page mostly because one only has so much time in the day to goof off reading blogs, right? Then I had the same exact experience as Doug from Bogus Gold. I disagreed with LSB over the Tancredo affair and her reaction and promptly got my trackback deleted. In the few times I've visited her site since then, I've noticed a disturbing tendency on her part to talk a lot about herself, her popularity and her influence in the blogosphere. My take? She's too thin-skinned to be a blogger and unless she backs off the 'I'm a big influential blogger and you're not' schtick, she's going to find herself extremely unpopular not for her ideas, but for her online persona.

Posted by: Slublog at August 04, 2005 05:06 PM (WGC+b)

9 This whole deleting of trackbacks thing is so immature. God - I have no words!! You've said it all, Kathy. Disagreement just cannot exist for some people. They experience it as an attack. They must belittle you for disagreeing. It's so stupid. But ... the deleting trackback thing is so transparent. Yuk. I like MY way of blogging much much better.

Posted by: red at August 04, 2005 05:08 PM (ht6hc)

10 Red, I do believe everyone loves your way of blogging There's always something good going on at your blog.

Posted by: Kathy at August 04, 2005 05:19 PM (QKvIa)

11 Oh Kathy that was great. I will disagree with her here: I have complete faith in the sensibilities of women to do the job of president. In fact, I think the position would be better served by a woman. I know I could do the job. I guess that LaShawn knows that she can't.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 04, 2005 05:22 PM (6Gm0j)

12 Arrogance is arrogance...and it's unbecoming whether it's being spewed by the top dog in the blogsphere, or an insignificant microbe like me. I'm all for differing opinions but the "I'm-so-great" attitude behind this blog is tacky. Then again, I'm just one of the little people. What do I know?

Posted by: Barbara at August 04, 2005 07:10 PM (k6r/W)

13 Oh...and just in case I wasn't clear...I didn't mean THIS lovely blog. lol

Posted by: Barbara at August 04, 2005 07:12 PM (k6r/W)

14 I have heard of Barber, but not read her blog before now. Sounds like maybe her traffic had gone down and she posted something deliberately provocative. She doth protest too much, and that ALWAYS makes me suspicious.

Posted by: Ruth at August 04, 2005 08:15 PM (K36aS)

15 Be fair, LaShawn feels that womnn are not generally fit to be president, Then neither are men generally I have more faith in male canidates, because there are vastly more men running for president. A certain percentage of men start running for president about the time they start to shave. With women, tney more apt to start running after they send their youngest off to college. Most men and most women do not want to be presidnet, but more men do. So the talent pool is larger. Maggie Thatcher was a great PM but she is rare bird. Right now that about the only women I can see as presidential timber is Condi Rice. As women tend to enter politics later, they don't have the time to develope as canidate.

Posted by: David L at August 04, 2005 08:43 PM (enA7B)

16 Be fair, LaShawn feels that womnn are not generally fit to be president, Then neither are men generally Curiously enough, David, she didn't state that. She said: First, I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is. I fail to see why anyone should bother arguing about the merits of her argument when she has yet to present one.

Posted by: Kathy at August 04, 2005 08:54 PM (QKvIa)

17 Exactly, Kath. She just makes statements without backing them up...not very persuasive as a form of writing or blogging, is it? Another bit of irony is that she thinks bloggers who blog about other bloggers is too 'boring.' Isn't that the post that started it all anyway...she did a massive link dump with the Condi paragraph right in the middle. Whatever. She's a damn token and nothing more. If I were her, I'd probably go into denial over that painful little detail as well.

Posted by: sadie at August 04, 2005 09:21 PM (7SNDe)

18 Wow. Lately I've thought she went downhill by sounding like someone who would support Nehemiah Scudder for President, but I still read her. I don't even necessarily think it's wrong to opine that women aren't cut out to be President. I disagree, but it's not an unreasonable thing to believe or to say. Of course, I have been on the Condi for President bandwagon since before I started blogging, so I disagree about her in particular. The interesting thing is that she's one of those already-a-writer or already-MSM-associated bloggers who was never truly little or unknown, and she didn't have a long wait or big struggle rising in the rankings with which she seems to retain newbie levels of obsession. In her post about this and similar posts on other blogs, she went over the top, and that bothers me far more than anything she said in the original post. I actually held off linking her when she hit the scene for that reason; a distaste for the instant stardom effect. But she could write and was cool, so I got over it. Now? I dunno. Perhaps in a few days it'll pass.

Posted by: Jay at August 04, 2005 10:44 PM (l4+Wd)

19 I've considered her a good writer and someone who reports well, usually. She should come clean on the ego things, though, the sooner the better. Flame wars never accomplish much, and that is pretty much what this seems to turn into. It is its own form of entertainment, but I get the feeling that most aren't enjoying it all that well. But what do I know? I'm on the outskirts of the blogoshere, for the most part.

Posted by: ilona at August 05, 2005 12:36 AM (GFY6C)

20 I'm wary of anyone who behaves as if they are "holier than thou." Whatever their opinions. I used to read LaShawn -- but frankly, she's too conservative for me. I like a little liberalism sprinkled in with my conservative crunchies in the morning and well, frankly, it's people like her who made me quit visiting church on a regular basis. Too much clucking and tch tch'ing going on. And yet -- they're the first ones to have the "I'm not perfect but I'm SAVED!" bumper stickers. Mmmhmmm. Sorry, my bias is showing.

Posted by: Margi at August 05, 2005 02:51 AM (nwEQH)

21 LaShawn Who? Never visited, don't care to. All of those so-called top bloggers, in fact, leave me a little nauseous. The fact of the matter is, they are a bit too refined - I don't find them in the least compelling, original, or even GASP! interesting. I prefer to eat cake at the chronicle, enjoy a bit of feisty repartee, or even a few fistfuls of fortnights. I don't see what the big deal is - she sounds like an irresponsible and arrogant individual. I can't even imagine coming to the conclusion that "I'm somebody because the Nobodies care what I say." Sounds like Dan Rather, to be honest. As to the question of whether a woman "generally" has the "sensibilities" to be President...I've always felt that sweeping generalities are dangerous. Isn't it past the time when we should all be judged on our merits and not on our sexual organs? Seriously! This is too stupid for words.

Posted by: Phoenix at August 05, 2005 09:49 AM (4N2f4)

22 Hi, I'm Chris. We're the folks at Americans For Dr. Rice who advertised on her blog. Now we're not pissed off or anything like that. It's her blog, she can say what she wants. She could probably stand to do a little more research into where Condi stands on abortion or race preferences than she obviously has. But the fact that she's making a blanket statement that women can't be President because they're not wired to do the damn job is simply dumb. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir led their nations in two wars. LaShawn strikes me as a "more catholic than the Pope" conservative, who would hold out for a Human Life Amendment instead of trying to reach some sort of national consensus on the abortion issue as Dr. Rice would advocate.

Posted by: Section9 at August 05, 2005 11:22 AM (CkV9t)

23 Thanks for chiming in, Chris. It's good to know where you stand. I was just wondering, though, are you going to keep advertising on her blog? It's apparent that she's more than willing to take your money, but doesn't really care all that much about your cause...would that affect where you choose to spend your advertising dollars? Or is it simply a traffic thing for you? Do you even have any control over it? Don't feel you have to answer and divulge everything if you don't want to. It's simple curiosity on my part. Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Kathy at August 05, 2005 11:30 AM (QKvIa)

24 Up until now only thing that attracted me to Ms. Barber's blog were her frequant take-downs of people who advocate "minorities are victims" and "quotas are required to equalize the outcome". Her intolerance of commenters who disagree with her, though, has caused me to reduce my visits lately. That she cares not what they think makes me wonder why she even has a Comments section. Her idea that women "generally" are unfit for national leadership will probably increase my visits, though. I am incurable curious about commentors with views so ridiculous. Finally, yes, you could have done without the bit about the size of her readership. It does taste just a bit like jealousy. Otherwise, your Fisking of her is spot-on.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at August 05, 2005 11:46 AM (00DOn)

25 Doug - LaShawn is the one who starts the "readership" argument, not any of us. First she says "who cares?" about her ranking and then goes on to tell the little people how to get better rankings. This is cognitive dissonance at it's finest, opposing thoughts rattling around LaShawn's empty skull like some kind of cranial maracas. Also, it's being overly generous to call LaShawn's comments box a "comments box." I believe the correct wording is "echo chamber" (because maracas sound even cooler with echo effects!). I'll agree with others who have suggested elsewhere that LaShawn's popularity with the MSM is because she's such a caricature of the right. She makes right-wingers look like crazed, religious idiots. All of that said, it's still fun to poke her with a sharp stick.

Posted by: andy at August 05, 2005 12:06 PM (vX6Is)

26 Just for the record, since I am guest blogging over at Steal the Bandwagon, I am enjoying the flame war immensely.

Posted by: William Teach at August 05, 2005 12:23 PM (Pzlrt)

27 LaShawn LOVE the ranking. Work HARD for it. Remember her roots, she does. Try like heck to help the little people. Little people ungrateful bunch of sots!

Posted by: Greg at August 05, 2005 03:36 PM (d8pUH)

28 Geez, Kathy, I wish you'd warned me about this stomping before I read the comments. I could have changed into a pair of coveralls to avoid getting any blood on my good work clothes. "Take down to the Cake-eater. Two points."

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at August 05, 2005 06:15 PM (6krEN)

29 I left the following comment on La Shawn's blog, which she deleted. " '...itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think...' "I'm not reading it anymore. You really need to check the ego, La Shawn." I'm also getting an access denied message. Did she ban me, or is there a technical problem?

Posted by: Matt at August 07, 2005 01:01 PM (FR7lz)

30 I'm also getting an access denied message. Did she ban me, or is there a technical problem? Matt, this may answer your question. LaShawn bans anyone who has ever disagreed with her, even if they do so on another blog.

Posted by: Slublog at August 15, 2005 10:03 AM (V7NgR)

31 Oops, I should use this type of redirect link instead. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Slublog at August 15, 2005 10:17 AM (V7NgR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fausta's pissed off at Colin Cowie (I swear, the man wears more eyeliner and mascara than I do!), who apparently had a feature on CBS' The Early Show yesterday about throwing a "Cuba Libre Party." The premise behind this being if you can't go to Cuba, well, bring Cuba to your home with a Cuban-themed party.

This didn't go over so well with Paxety or Val, because it patently ignores the reality of what's going on in Cuba. But Fausta, well, while she agrees with these two, she has a different sort of axe to grind with Cowie:

But Colin's on a roll:

"Instead of a tablecloth, use potato sacking or jute"

This one really got on my nerves.

Colin, let me hold you firmly by both lapels while I heap scorn at your face,

The most humble Caribbean host would rather DIE than use potato sacking as a tablecloth. Hand-embroidered linen tablecloths are de rigeur, and, if it's a sit-down meal, accompanied with matching dinner or lunch-sized linen napkins. If linen is not affordable, or the hosts want a more casual look, tablecoths of the best-quality fabric the budget would allow. Good-quality paper tablecloths are used for outdoor ocassions, such as picnicking. Not potato sacking, you idiot.

The Early Show's show of cluelessness would only be matched by having Colin feature his watermelon napkin rings at an NAACP convention.{...}

Fausta: The blogosphere's Latina Emily Post.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

From Joan Collins of all people.

{Insert irony bells clanging loudly here}

This from the chick whose finances skyrocketed after she (oh, pardon moi, her character) started beating up Linda Evans on a regular basis in the mid-80's?

While she's undoubtedly got a point, I don't know that she's the best person to be trumpeting said point.

{Hat tip: Martini Boy}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

In this instance "they" would be the Scottish Police and legal system. They must not because they're prosecuting some guy for cutting the fin off his pet goldfish.

A MAN cut the tail off his goldfish with a pair of scissors because he was "bored" after a day of drinking.

Kenneth Grindlay, 20, launched the vicious attack on his pet goldfish - before tossing it back into its bowl for his horrified mother to find.

Grindlay, of Rosyth, Fife had started drinking after being left alone in the house for an afternoon and decided to cut off the family goldfish's tail with the scissors - left out for him by his mother to trim his beard - because he was "just bored".

He admitted carrying out the cruel attack at a court hearing yesterday but will not learn of his fate until detailed psychiatric reports are prepared.

Dunfermline Sheriff Court heard yesterday how Grindlay's mother Shona returned home to find the bloodied scissors he had used to maim the six-year-old fish out on the kitchen worktop.

She found the fish thrashing desperately around in its tank without its tail. She then called the police - who arranged for the mutilated pet to be taken to the vet.

The practice decided, however, that its injuries were so severe it had to be put out of its suffering. Grindlay pleaded guilty by letter to cruelty and ill-treating the fish and causing it unnecessary suffering at a hearing last month.

The hearing was told by depute fiscal Azrah Yousaf that the fish's injuries were among the worst that the vet had ever witnessed.

She said: "The police were called. When they arrived the fish was still alive but the police had noticed that it wasn't very active in the tank. The vet described it as one of the worst injuries they had ever seen."

When police arrived to interview Grindlay he told them: "I cut the fin off. I was a bit drunk. I was just bored."

He was later charged under the Protection of Animals Act of 1912 and referred to psychologists at Dunfermline's Queen Margaret Hospital. {...}

Yes, that's right. The guy was bored and drunk and cut the fin off his pet goldfish. He "launched a vicious attack" on his pet. He's having to undergo psychiatric evaluations because he did this. While this was not a nice thing to do and while I fully understand that harming one's pets or other small animals is a big alert that someone will become a serial killer, don't you think that perhaps, just perhaps this is a wee bit over the top? Particularly since it was a freakin' GOLDFISH that was maimed? A fish that, ahem, cannot feel pain.

What's the crime rate in Scotland again? Hmmmm. I wonder. Is there, possibly, anything the cops could be doing other than prosecuting people for cutting the tails off their goldfish? Hmmmmm? Could it be that the only reason they prosecuted this guy was because, ahem, he fessed up to his dirty deed?

It makes one wonder, doesn't it, what they'd do nowadays to all those people who used to participate in "how many goldfish can you swallow?" contests?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.

Random Pensees is donning his activist suit for a very worthy cause.

Go read all about it.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

In the immortal words of Jeff Goldstein: "{This}, my friends, is called throwing down the gauntlet, hard..."

Muslims who resent the British way of life should leave the UK, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, a senior Conservative said last night in comments that have heightened already tense community relations.

Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, last night told The Scotsman that extremist Muslims who see the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathisers during the Cold War. His remarkable claim shatters the tri-party consensus which Michael Howard, the Tory leader, sought to make with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Howarth said yesterday that he is incensed by suggestions from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that Britain is "part of the problem" in Iraq - and said that the problem in the UK lies in fanatical Muslims living within our shores.

He is the first mainstream UK politician to suggest that extremist British Muslims should leave for Islamic societies. The government is looking at deporting foreign-born nationals and imprisoning British Muslims who incite or glorify terrorism.

"If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out," Mr Howarth said. Asked what if these people were born in Britain, he replied: "Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

He added: "There are plenty of other countries whose way of life would appear to be more conducive to what they aspire to. They would be happy and we would be happy." {...}

Gauntlet, indeed.

The fact that this is a war against those who would advocate civilization and those who wouldn't is coming home to roost, it seems.

It's too damn bad that it took two bombings---one which, of course, failed---to get that message across.

Related: Gorgeous George Galloway also has been at it again.

Someone needs to slap a burqua on gool ol' George and then we'll see how much he enjoys Muslim "civilization."

Posted by: Kathy at 05:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

I have long harbored an animus toward women who deign to use public restrooms, but who simultaneously refuse to slap their fat asses down on the seat when they use them. These women "hover" above the toilet whilst doing their business and in the process splatter all over the seat they wouldn't deign to touch with their butt cheeks. Hence, they filthify it for the rest of us. These women, of course, can't be bothered to wipe up their mess. Which, of course, is disgusting.

The bitches.

The reasoning these hoverers always use is that "they could catch something." I think this is ridiculous. The average public restroom, unless it really is nasty, is cleaned more often than your bathroom at home. At some places it's cleaned several times a day. While I will admit there are shining examples of nasty restrooms everywhere, most are clean. What pisses me off is when you have a perfectly clean bathroom that becomes fit only for swine once these women get done. If the bathroom wasn't nasty before they got there, it sure as hell is when they're done.

But no one ever believes me when I tell them they should just sit down and do their business. Today is my day of sweet revenge. Because I have proof!

Ah-freakin'-ha!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Have you ever wondered why your teeth chatter when you're cold, or if you could really catch a disease from sitting on a toilet seat?

New York physician Billy Goldberg, pestered by unusual questions at cocktail parties and other social gatherings over the years, puts the public's mind at ease in his book "Why Do Men Have Nipples?" which hits the book stores on Tuesday.

"It's really remarkable how often you get accosted," said Goldberg, 39. "There are the medical questions from family and friends, and then there are the drunk and outrageous questions where somebody wants to drop their pants and show you a rash or something."

{...}During the course of their research, Goldberg and Leyner found reports of gonorrhea, pinworm and roundworm found on toilet seats -- but catching something from it isn't common.

The authors discovered that an office setting might be worse for your health than toilet seats. Charles Gerba, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona, found the typical office desk harbors some 400 times more disease-causing bacteria than the average toilet seat.{...}

{my emphasis}

Get that? Your desk is nastier than the average toilet seat, so, for the love of all that is good and holy, beeeyotches, slap your fat asses down on the seat and tinkle!

You will make me much happier by doing this than when you leave a mess for me to clean up.

The world, and I, thank you for your efforts in this matter.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Because I'm all about linking videos today, here's one with ApplePiePods.

(Say it really fast and then you'll get it.)

And yes, it's hard to dance when you don't have any limbs.

{Hat Tip: Stiggy}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't say that I enjoy email spam all that much, but there are times, I will admit, when I find the creativity of some spammers interesting. When your inbox is full of penis/breast enhancement spams, it's somewhat refreshing when someone actually puts some effort into trying to rip you off.

Between the husband and I, we've received some interesting variations on the Nigerian Oil Scam Spam in the past couple of days and I thought I'd share.

If you're at all interested, take the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1515 words, total size 9 kb.

This is so freakin' cool. Particularly the slo-mo footage. Note that it took seven bullets to break the sword---and it looks like the sword sliced one of the bullets in half. Talk about a close shave, eh?

If you don't know what a Katana is, go peek at this.

{Hat Tip: John L. at Texas Best Grok}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.