I'm a wee bit late chiming in on this one, but good God, get a freakin' clue.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. {...}

One of my best friends is English. And she has, in the past, spouted off about how appalling she finds the Second Amendment to be. The last time she did this, I had to laugh. She stared at me for a time and then I explained.

"You do know why we have the Second Amendment, right?" I asked.

"No," she replied, after a long thoughtful moment.

I laughed again. "It's because of the English. King George decided it was all right to quarter his soldiers in colonials' houses and, while they were there, they stripped the owners of said houses of all their armaments. Armaments they needed to survive the wilderness. That's mainly why. The other reason is that the Founding Fathers decided we should always have the means to overthrow our own government if the need should arise."

She stared at me for quite some time. Like I'd grown a third head. Her eventual reply, which skipped over my final reason entirely, was, "Well, too bad we didn't take all the bloody things away."

I should probably mention that what brought this whole subject up was that while I was visiting her place in London, we were watching the news and they were reporting that a couple had been stabbed to death in their own home.

I wonder what she thinks about the possibility of her very nice set of Wustof-Tridents being banned. In her own country. Because they're too dangerous.

{Hat Tip: Andy}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

Did you miss me?

I doubt it. But here I am nonetheless.

And I will shortly be deserting you for the very nice weather that is currently gracing the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Sorry, kids. Iron hot. Striking. That sort of thing. The husband would like to have a conversation with one of his Cuban friends over at the lake (if you have no idea what I'm talking about know that the friend is not legal and he smokes quite nicely. If you can't figure it out from there, well...sorry) and I need to get outside and kill the creeping charlie that is profusely sprouting all over my flowerbeds. The junk that I have for creeping charlie demands that it have two days without rain to work. Since it finally appears as if we've got that with the weather forecast, well, this means you're screwed. Sorry. Life is occasionally like that.

I would like to thank my very nice guest bloggers, Robert and Sadie, for chiming in over the past couple of days. I hope you enjoyed their contributions---I know I did. Steve-o, I believe, was peeved that I did not allow him access to upload images, hence no participation. All I can say to him is that if you live by the sword, buddy, you'd better be prepared to die by it.

On the whole, I had a very nice few days off. I feel refreshed and probably will have a few things to say about this, that, or the other shortly. It was probably a good time for the blogmutes to settle in as I really did have "other things" to do. Which included some cleaning, some laundry and painting a sandwich board for the sidewalk outside the husband's new computer fixit shop. This meant coming up with my own stencils (thank you photoshop and acetate sheets!) and then hand-painting the letters in. Since I'm no Rembrandt, well, this took some time to get right. Hopefully this thing will bring in some customers. All I can really say is that I'm glad it will be leaving the premises tomorrow and I never have to look at it again.

As far as the archival transferral is concerned, well, that's an interesting thing. I asked the husband to help me out with it, and utilizing his high-level of logic, he decided it would simply be easier for him to do it rather than telling me how. Hmmmph. Go figure. Anyway, the reason you're not seeing almost two years worth of monthly archival listings over on the side is because he couldn't do it. He was able to package everything up according to MT's instructions, but as far as loading them onto the server, well...he couldn't do it. He didn't have the access to get them into the right spot, so he sent them to God Himself and hopefully they'll get uploaded sometime over the next couple of days. Keep your fingers crossed. In any case, since we have the archives elsewhere now, the old blogspot home has been BLOWED UP! Yep. That's right. I deleted it. It was a curious experience. I used to wait and wait and wait to upload a post to the blog yet the deletion of said blog took about three seconds...total. Hmmmm. Quite weird.

I don't quite know how I feel about this development. It's not really bothering me per se, but I do kind of feel like I've just blown up the trailer park from which I sprang forth. Every time I surfed over to the old home, well, I felt like poor white trash who'd gone off, got themselves edumacated, and went off into the big wide world only to come home and see the old homestead with a new pair of eyes---a new pair of eyes that thought the old homestead looked pretty damn shabby and simply couldn't understand how anyone could live like that. Which is a pretty snotty attitude to have, I gather, yet is one that I am completely unrepentant about holding. I'm spoiled rotten right now and I like it like that. Sue me.

Anyhoo, expect some posting after the sun goes down.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 707 words, total size 4 kb.

Next week, the House and Senate will vote on bills seeking to prohibit women soldiers acting in direct ground combat roles. This is the most controversial aspect of a bill that also seeks to increase the number of Army soldiers and Marines, increase pay grades, and guarantee military health care for members of the Army Reserve and National Guard.

Essentially, this is a clear political move to push the issue of women in combat to the forefront, and if these bills don't pass, the Democrats will be whooping and hollering at the audacity of Republicans to deny uniformed personnel pay increases and guaranteed health care. Yet I really don't see the major controversy at point here, especially in light of this exerpt from the cited article:

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat ... The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

These bills would only codify the long-standing practices of our Armed Forces, and secure women from being forced to perform in a job that they simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed. Of course, very few exceptions to this rule exist, although I doubt that many women soldiers possess the muscle tone and aggressive demeanor of Linda Hamilton's Terminator II character, Sarah Connor.

The current fitness tests used to evaluate combat readiness are scaled according to age and gender. This is self-defeating to the military's goal in predicting a soldier's success in combat. In addition, women on the front lines would disrupt the cohesive units of battle and underemine the esprit de corps though the politics involved with romantic relationships. This doesn't even touch the issues involved with pregnancies, but it suffices to say that the effectiveness of the military lies in the ability for every member to completely trust and respect one another.

Allowing women to compete for all military occupational specialties shouldn't be treated as an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to retain its status as most powerful and capable military power, we need to have the best person in each role, regardless of their gender.

NOTE: Since the Minister of Propaganda has decided to push the proverbial envelope, I'll likely continue this issue at some point Monday afternoonish. It will probably occur over at The Boileryard, as I'm sure that the Goddess of Snark will reclaim her blog in a few short hours.

UPDATE: Kath here. Interesting points to be found in the comments, although I'm inclined to agree with Sadie on this one. We used to have this argument back in high school (at the ALL GIRLS high school I attended) when the military had just started allowing women to serve in support roles and the debate---even then---was about expanding into combat. It was the general consensus that if women wanted to go and serve in an auxilary role, great, but women shouldn't be on the ground in combat. We were concerned that if the women in the service started actively pushing for this, we'd wind up being drafted later on down the line. The reasoning behind our argument against was that there was no way we could carry a seventy-five pound pack whilst running and shooting a gun at the same time. We're just not built for it. While I do not doubt there are some women who are built for it, the majority of us are not. The average height of an American woman is five foot, three inches. While I'm above average at five foot, six inches, I know I can't lift seventy-five pounds even when I'm at my most fit. I just can't do it. The laws of physics do not allow for it.

I simply cannot make any judgments about the esprit de corps arguments that Sadie listed simply because I've never served. While I'm sure there are a lot of men who would simply prefer that the military remain one all-male clubhouse, that this is what works best to ensure a "Band of Brothers" attitude that will keep soldiers alive, I am, however, not so sure that this is the case in actuality. But, like I said, I've never served, nor have I ever polled the family members who have/are serving to see what their opinions on the matter are.

That said, I do have issues with female service members who get pregnant while they're serving. I'm sorry. I'm sure this will rankle a few people, but there it is. If I have to see one more picture of that idiot Lyddie England in a camo-uniform maternity top, I'll gag. That the freakin' Army actually has camoflauge maternity tops, well... take from that what you will. If you want to serve your country in a combat capacity, knowing full well that you might be called away at any moment to serve in a war---in either an auxilary or front line position---you should be using birth control. It's that simple. (And of course this does not count for women who are at desk jobs. Duh. So don't ream me about it.) Men, obviously, cannot become pregnant. Their biology prevents such an outcome. It's irresponsible in the extreme for a woman to ignore their biology and then expect everyone to make allowances for them. You can't have it both ways, even though conventional wisdom---and the law---says you can. Take one for the team you want to be on: get on the pill.

Posted by: Sadie at 04:45 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

So Private Sadie is sitting here on a Sunday afternoon, and she is attempting to blog for her good pal Kathy. Meanwhile, this seventy-five pound golden retriever is staring balefully at her. Those big brown droopy eyes are delivering one heck of a guilt trip to her conscience, which is really saying something for someone who's usually getting pounced upon by a curly-haired, four-year old bundle of sheer enthusiasm.

PET ME. Ah yes, so the canine begs for a walk through the neighborhood, which is always fodder for the blogging mind. Never fear, she shall return!

Posted by: Sadie at 02:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

I just might get in trouble with the Goddess of Snark herself for posting a photo, since she didn't give the humble guest bloggers file uploading privileges. Since this seems a perfect venue for a bit of cake blogging, I took the liberty of uploading this to my server:

You see, I am getting married this summer, and the Lad and I are going to Las Vegas. This plan was intended to avoid the muss and fuss of wedding planning, along with all of the madness (cue photo of Jennifer Wilbanks) involved with throwing what is essentially multi-thousand dollar party. Overall, this was the best decision for our future nuptuals, except for one teensy little aspect. I will indeed miss having a decadent and outrageously overpriced wedding cake. Mmmmmm.

'Tis a lovely tradition, to keep the top of the cake for a private one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, I've heard that the cake generally tastes horrid after one year in the deep freeze. Hmmm. Anyone have any suggestions on this dilemma?

Posted by: Sadie at 05:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Socrates always called rhetoric one of the "flattering arts," but of course, he is often considered to be the godfather of rhetoric. In law school, the professors aspire to employ the "Socratic method" of lecturing to the masses of frightened students. Generally, this is effective on the first-year students, who are eager to please and often quite intimidated when presented with the following sobering statistic:

Look to the students seated on your left and right sides. Don't get to know them too well, because at this point next year, one of you will be history.

Flunk-o.

Of course, this sends all the neophytes into a tailspin of round-the-clock studying for the next ten months. By virtue of hard work, intelligence, and let's face it, pure luck, two-thirds of them manage to wade through the Socratic obstacle course and return to finish law school. Of course, those who return become a part of the tradition, as they have realized that the Socratic method is essentially a very lazy-ass way of teaching. Two years later, these students graduate - and they are dangerous.

Bestowed with this newfound knowledge as power, I must now reflect upon my favourite answers to unexpected questions, courtesy of a few great oralists:

1. It depends...could you clarify your position so that I may provide a more accurate answer for you?

2. That could go either way, really....[insert some bullshit followup phrase similar to above]

3. Interesting thought there, freako. You got anything to back that up?

4. That is a valid question, but unfortunately, I am far to busy to answer it for you. Why don't you research that issue and let me know what you come up with? Indeed, I am very interested in the conclusion and all its resulting implications, but analyzing the problem yourself will benefit you far more in the long run. Oh, and when I said was too busy, I also meant that my time is more important than yours.

Ah yes, this will go far in the courtroom, indeed.

Posted by: Sadie at 03:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw picutres of these morons on the news last night, and it started me on a rant that Kathy unfortunately had to endure. (We trade off ranting whenever the news is on...this is our past time.)

Thousands of winemakers have staged protests in the streets of France to demand government help over falling exports and a slump in domestic sales.

They blame over-production, shrinking exports and a government campaign against alcohol abuse for what union leaders call a "crisis" in winemaking.

Idiots. You take money out of the hands of people who engage in marketable activity (via taxes) to facilitate more production than the market will bear and - NO SHIT - you're going to get the very over-production you're bitching about now! When the hell are you going to figure out that MARKET FORCES WORK!!

Of course, what does the collective economic genius of the French farmer come up with as a solution?

The unions want the government to provide money for farmers wishing to move from vines to other crops and greater compensation for uprooting unprofitable vineyards.

That's almost as rich as this stupid statement of the week: 'The focus by the world's richest countries on debt relief is misplaced and donors should instead concentrate onincreasing aid flows to poor countries' so says the IMF's chief economist, Raghuram Rajan.

Where'd you get your economics degree buddy? How in the hell do people get to these positions in powerful international organizations without knowing the first thing about how things work in the real world?

These are the kinds of things that make me hope against hope that the U.S. congress pulls it's collective head out of it's ass and approves Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. Forget sharp elbows, the U.N., the World Bank and the IMF need to have a flame thrower taken to them.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at 08:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

Isn't that how one deals with a showoff opponent in the boxing ring? Ah well, no matter, since I'm only teasing Robbo here. It's a pleasure to step onto the Cake Eater home turf, since I'm usually acting silly over here. Anyhoo, I thought it proper to step in and check the place out briefly, just to see if any renovations were needed. As expected, Kathy keeps a ship-shape operation, and all is in working order. As promised, I shall make an official appearance tomorrow.

Yip Yip!

Posted by: Sadie at 03:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.