September 01, 2004
A commenter here and at
A commenter here and at other blogs has decided to take the Great Leap Forward and start up her own. I know she'll be more successful with her Great Leap than Mao was with his. Go and visit Kitty at Traces of Time and spread the love.
I've also been remiss in not pointing you in the direction of Effortless Atrocities,
which is written by a character who goes by the name of Prufrock and
who has some very interesting insights. He/she is also a friend of
seldom sober (at least the blogroll seems to indicate as much) who I
think has to be the biggest blogging enabler I've met yet. Both blogs
are well worth your time, so point your mousie and click away.
I've also been remiss in not pointing you in the direction of Effortless Atrocities,
which is written by a character who goes by the name of Prufrock and
who has some very interesting insights. He/she is also a friend of
seldom sober (at least the blogroll seems to indicate as much) who I
think has to be the biggest blogging enabler I've met yet. Both blogs
are well worth your time, so point your mousie and click away.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
I'm bummed. Emma at Miss
I'm bummed.
Emma at Miss Apropos has
decided to close up shop. Email has been exchanged and suffice it to
say she has her reasons---and they're good ones---so I won't harrass
her too much for choosing not to share her talents any longer. Ah well.
Such is life. However, since she's no longer around, I've removed her
link from my puny blogroll. It feels odd to have done this: she was one
of the first people who added me onto her blogroll, and whatever
limited success I have in blogging is partially due to her. Since I
choose not to be a link whore, when I get added onto a blogroll, it's
generally a big deal here in Cake Eater Land. I whoop and holler and
praise God that I'm not out in the ether anymore. But even more so, it
means someone has read me and likes my stuff enough to go through the
pains of adding to a blogroll, rather than that they are just
reciprocating for a link because it's good manners. Emma was the second
person to notice my stuff, through a comment I left at another
now-defunct-for-the-time-being blog, and without any promotion on my
part, wrote a very nice post about me and added me onto her blogroll.
So, it feels very odd that she's no longer in business. I, for one,
will miss her and wish her nothing but the best.
Emma at Miss Apropos has
decided to close up shop. Email has been exchanged and suffice it to
say she has her reasons---and they're good ones---so I won't harrass
her too much for choosing not to share her talents any longer. Ah well.
Such is life. However, since she's no longer around, I've removed her
link from my puny blogroll. It feels odd to have done this: she was one
of the first people who added me onto her blogroll, and whatever
limited success I have in blogging is partially due to her. Since I
choose not to be a link whore, when I get added onto a blogroll, it's
generally a big deal here in Cake Eater Land. I whoop and holler and
praise God that I'm not out in the ether anymore. But even more so, it
means someone has read me and likes my stuff enough to go through the
pains of adding to a blogroll, rather than that they are just
reciprocating for a link because it's good manners. Emma was the second
person to notice my stuff, through a comment I left at another
now-defunct-for-the-time-being blog, and without any promotion on my
part, wrote a very nice post about me and added me onto her blogroll.
So, it feels very odd that she's no longer in business. I, for one,
will miss her and wish her nothing but the best.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.
Of all the Silly German
Of all the Silly German stories I've linked over the past year, I have
to say, this one is pretty close to taking the cake.
He must have been really desperate.
to say, this one is pretty close to taking the cake.
He must have been really desperate.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
The Art Institue of Chicago
The Art Institue of Chicago is currently holding a Seurat exhibition on The Making of La Grande Jatte. The husband sent me this link yesterday, noting that CBS' Sunday Morning program did a wonderful piece on it.
If you've never been to the Art Institute to see this painting in person, know that it's a huge
canvas. On the metric scale, it's 207.5 cm x 308 cm. In English
measurements that's 6'8" x 10'1", which makes the level of detail
involved all the more impressive. Pointillism is not the easiest of
painting styles---and it surely wouldn't have been easy for that
massive of a canvas. I've always thought that the size of the canvas
was one of the reasons why this painting was so admired and lauded: no
one other that Seurat would have had the guts to attempt such a thing.
But it's also beautiful and was groundbreaking in its day. It pushed
Impressionism further and Seurat is often credited as the first
Postimpressionist.
So, muy mucho culture and art history references aside, we come to the
pop culture aspects. (You knew it was coming, right? If you didn't,
know that I'm most disappointed with you. Sigh.) Most people my age
recognize this painting as the one that Cameron got lost in while Ferris and Sloane played tonsil hockey. If you'd like to have your own Cameron moment, go here, scroll down to the Enlargement of La Grande Jatte
function and futz around. You'll have fun. And if you can't make it to
Chicago, it's almost as good as pushing your face into the canvas.
If you've never been to the Art Institute to see this painting in person, know that it's a huge
canvas. On the metric scale, it's 207.5 cm x 308 cm. In English
measurements that's 6'8" x 10'1", which makes the level of detail
involved all the more impressive. Pointillism is not the easiest of
painting styles---and it surely wouldn't have been easy for that
massive of a canvas. I've always thought that the size of the canvas
was one of the reasons why this painting was so admired and lauded: no
one other that Seurat would have had the guts to attempt such a thing.
But it's also beautiful and was groundbreaking in its day. It pushed
Impressionism further and Seurat is often credited as the first
Postimpressionist.
So, muy mucho culture and art history references aside, we come to the
pop culture aspects. (You knew it was coming, right? If you didn't,
know that I'm most disappointed with you. Sigh.) Most people my age
recognize this painting as the one that Cameron got lost in while Ferris and Sloane played tonsil hockey. If you'd like to have your own Cameron moment, go here, scroll down to the Enlargement of La Grande Jatte
function and futz around. You'll have fun. And if you can't make it to
Chicago, it's almost as good as pushing your face into the canvas.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.
I'm a little late on
I'm a little late on this one.
I didn't see it last week when it was published, but it's still
relevant. If it's been linked elsewhere, I apologize for my slovenly
habits. If you haven't seen it, well, it seems the average insurgent in
Baghdad has more than a few conflicts to resolve before he protests the
occupation by trying to kill soldiers.
{my emphasis}
Go read the whole thing.
So, let's see. This group is rejecting the occupation because it didn't
deliver milk and honey on a platter within the first few days. Their
solution to the problem is to go out and kill soldiers, who this guy
fully realizes are only doing their jobs. Yet, it's a "particular
humiliation" to have black soldiers taking part in the occupation, so
if there aren't any black soldiers available to snipe at, they don't
bother. How they blow soldiers up depends upon how much money is being sent from abroad.
And yet, and let's be clear about this, he's only resisting the occupation. His group tries not
to kill innocent civilians. He thinks the other resistance groups are
crap. He thinks Allawi is an American lapdog. In essence, he's not
pleased with his current lot in life. No more, no less. Does he go out
and work hard to make his life better? Does he join the effort to make
Baghdad and the country more secure so the economy can flourish and the
food and money will start rolling in? Nope. He makes the situation
worse with his actions and completely ignores his own complicity in
creating the problem by saying that if everyone had a full belly, no
one would fight. Sheesh. Get a clue.
I didn't see it last week when it was published, but it's still
relevant. If it's been linked elsewhere, I apologize for my slovenly
habits. If you haven't seen it, well, it seems the average insurgent in
Baghdad has more than a few conflicts to resolve before he protests the
occupation by trying to kill soldiers.
{...}Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into
none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before
the invasion. 'The only way to breathe under the old regime was to
watch American films and listen to their music,' he said. He had been a
Bon Jovi fan. 'It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that
the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq I was very happy. I felt
that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to
do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I
thought the US would come here and our lives would be changed through
180 degrees.' He spoke of how his faith in the US was shaken when, via
a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw 'barbaric,
savage' pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing.
The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters
ran unchecked through Baghdad. 'When I saw the American soldiers
watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to
suspect the US was not here to help us but to destroy us,' he said.
{...}Their next try was more successful. The lead vehicle of an
American military convoy ran over an anti-tank mine the group had laid
in a road. 'We think we killed the driver,' he said. 'We found the mine
in a house that had been used by the military during the war. The
Americans were not expecting that sort of device.' Over the next months
the group varied the tactics. 'One day we try and snipe them, the next
we use an IED [Improvised Explosive Device], the next a mine. We never
get any orders from anybody. We are just told: "Today you should do
something," but it is up to us to decide what and when.' Black soldiers are a particular target. 'To have Negroes occupying
us is a particular humiliation,' Abu Mujahed said, echoing the profound
racism prevalent in much of the Middle East. 'Sometimes we aborted a
mission because there were no Negroes.' In contrast to many
militants, who have killed hundreds of Iraqis in the last year, Abu
Mujahed said his group was careful not to kill locals. 'We are now
planning to use bigger bombs in central Baghdad. But it is hard because
there are so many civilians.' Support for the militants is far from
universal. They are not attracting new recruits and finances are tight,
he admitted.
Tactics depend on resources. The price of rocket-propelled grenades has
gone up recently as supplies dried up during August's heavy fighting
between Americans and the Mahdi Army in Najaf. The missiles now cost
25,000 Iraqi dinars (around £10) in markets in Sadr City, the northern
Shia Muslim-dominated area of Baghdad - 10 times the immediate post-war
price. The group is restricted to one attack every few days. There are
also spies. He boasted of information from 'friends within the
coalition' and said that his group have executed two suspected
informers within Adhamiya. One was killed less than three weeks ago,
after being under surveillance for a month. 'He had a wife and child
but I did not feel bad. He was a fox. He was made to kneel and shot in
the head.' Other suspected spies have been threatened and fled Baghdad.
{my emphasis}
Go read the whole thing.
So, let's see. This group is rejecting the occupation because it didn't
deliver milk and honey on a platter within the first few days. Their
solution to the problem is to go out and kill soldiers, who this guy
fully realizes are only doing their jobs. Yet, it's a "particular
humiliation" to have black soldiers taking part in the occupation, so
if there aren't any black soldiers available to snipe at, they don't
bother. How they blow soldiers up depends upon how much money is being sent from abroad.
And yet, and let's be clear about this, he's only resisting the occupation. His group tries not
to kill innocent civilians. He thinks the other resistance groups are
crap. He thinks Allawi is an American lapdog. In essence, he's not
pleased with his current lot in life. No more, no less. Does he go out
and work hard to make his life better? Does he join the effort to make
Baghdad and the country more secure so the economy can flourish and the
food and money will start rolling in? Nope. He makes the situation
worse with his actions and completely ignores his own complicity in
creating the problem by saying that if everyone had a full belly, no
one would fight. Sheesh. Get a clue.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.
For a somewhat lucid recap
For a somewhat lucid recap of last evening, go here.
That is all.
That is all.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
Why won't Blogger post? I'm
Why won't Blogger post? I'm getting really freakin' tired of writing posts that Blogger won't, for whatever reason, publish.
Grrrrrrr.
We'll see if this one goes through.
Grrrrrrr.
We'll see if this one goes through.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
...for many reasons. But the
...for many reasons. But the fact that he can sew buttons back onto his
shirt is really endearing him to me this morning.
I'm really not that good with a needle, thread and clothing that needs
to be mended. I can needlepoint from here to Paris and back again, but
for whatever reason, whenever a button needs to be sewn back on, well,
I'm hopeless. Particularly first thing in the morning.
Lacking. Coordination. Am. I.
shirt is really endearing him to me this morning.
I'm really not that good with a needle, thread and clothing that needs
to be mended. I can needlepoint from here to Paris and back again, but
for whatever reason, whenever a button needs to be sewn back on, well,
I'm hopeless. Particularly first thing in the morning.
Lacking. Coordination. Am. I.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.
Oh, tee hee. The French
Oh, tee hee.
Oh, yeah. Like that's gonna happen. This is the proverbial lead balloon. It's just not going to fly. If only Chirac would stop paying his cows $730 a year just to exist , or would realize he's paying a friggin' fortune on his grocery bills, (honestly, his wife is the worst keeper of a household budget...ever)perhaps
farmers in the developing world could not only survive, but thrive.
Hence there would be no need for a tax on all those nasty, rich
westerners to equalize the woes of globalization. Alas, however, Chirac
thinks differently.
Go figure.
I have a little diddy running through my head right now. It's the theme
to Speed Racer. I think you all know how it goes. Only, my version is slightly different.
Go. Go. Go, Go, Sarkozy!.
{Hat tip: Fausta. Who also has that wonderful, laugh-inducing picture of Blaque Jacques up on her blog.)
The French and Brazilian presidents have called for new
action to fight poverty in the developing world. At a New York meeting
ahead of the UN General Assembly, they urged radical steps to raise the
$50bn UN officials say is needed to tackle the problem. Money could
come from new charges or taxes on such things as greenhouse gas
emissions, arms sales, airline tickets and credit card purchases. More
than a billion people live in absolute poverty (less than $1 a day).
The meeting focused on a report by a UN commission which said that the
global imbalances were morally unacceptable and politically
unsustainable. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and French
President Jacques Chirac said world leaders should ensure that the
world's unprecedented wealth became a vehicle for the integration -
rather than the exclusion - of the most underprivileged. "We must
harness globalisation, we must turn it into a positive force for all
peoples of the world," Mr Lula told the meeting. Mr Chirac said they
needed new approaches to the problem of poverty. "It is up to us to
give globalisation a conscience," he said. "There is no future in
globalisation that tolerates predatory behaviour and the hoarding of
its profits by a minority. There is no future in globalisation that
destroys the social and economic balances, crushes the weak and denies
human rights."
Oh, yeah. Like that's gonna happen. This is the proverbial lead balloon. It's just not going to fly. If only Chirac would stop paying his cows $730 a year just to exist , or would realize he's paying a friggin' fortune on his grocery bills, (honestly, his wife is the worst keeper of a household budget...ever)perhaps
farmers in the developing world could not only survive, but thrive.
Hence there would be no need for a tax on all those nasty, rich
westerners to equalize the woes of globalization. Alas, however, Chirac
thinks differently.
Go figure.
I have a little diddy running through my head right now. It's the theme
to Speed Racer. I think you all know how it goes. Only, my version is slightly different.
Go. Go. Go, Go, Sarkozy!.
{Hat tip: Fausta. Who also has that wonderful, laugh-inducing picture of Blaque Jacques up on her blog.)
Posted by: Kathy at
09:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.
Yep. Once again, let me
Yep. Once again, let me make it clear that I am a sucker for these sorts of things. You know the drill.
Here's the deal: originally, these were in alphabetical order. The goal is to rearrange them in accordance with my preferences.
1. Bush I, Reagan, Bush II, Clinton
2. Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, George {I hate Seinfeld. Honestly couldn't care less)
3. Diet Coke, Coke, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi
4. Paul, John, George, Ringo (Because Ringo is the redheaded stepchild of The Beatles)
5. Mike Nesmith, Mickey Dolenz, Davy Jones, Peter Tork (Nesmith invented MTV! Seriously.)
6. Fonzie, Richie, Ralph, Potsy 7. NKJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV (I had to
think about this one for a moment. I didn't know what these were. Then
I remembered that NIV was a version of the Bible. A Protestant
version of the Bible. All of these Bibles are Protestant Bibles. For my
fellow non-Protestants: NKJV=New King James Version; NIV=New
International Version; NASB=New American Standard Bible; NRSV=New
Revised Standard Version Bible. Personally, I don't use any of these
heretical* bibles. I use The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible.
Which was approved by Cardinal Bernadin, who unfortunately is no longer
with us. A Catholic Bible must be approved by a bishop/cardinal/funky
hat wearing dude. This one was, and on the whole, I've found it to be a
good Bible. Although, I'm sensing the beginning of a theme with
this question.)
8. Sophia, Blanche, Rose, Dorothy (Betty White, while annoying, was
more amusing than Bea Arthur. Ugh.) 9. Superman II, Superman, Superman
III, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 10. Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III,
Rocky IV, Rocky V {I have no idea. Have never seen any of them. Don't
really want to, either.) 11. Luke, Matthew, Mark, John (The Theme
returns. Yep. It's official. This list was devised by a Protestant. In
my humble opinion, John was a drug user. How else to explain
Revelations?)
12. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes (The Theme. Again. Honestly,
who reads the Bible this way---besides heretics?*---like you're
supposed to be able to pick out which ones are your favorites? Bleh.
Take the overall message and go from there, ye hereticks!*) 13. Exodus,
Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers (The Theme. AGAIN. Which are
your favorites within the Pentateuch? This
is supposed to be good fun? Sr. Justina, my OT teacher, would be
laughing her ass off at these questions. That said, Exodus is always
fun to read. Great drama.)
14. Wonder Woman, Batman, Aquaman, Superman
15. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Snow White (While I could do
without Cinderella, I like the mice in the Disney version. Bippity, Boppity, Boo
indeed.)
16. Chandler, Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Ross 17. Linus, Charlie
Brown, Lucy, Peppermint Patty 18. Football, Basketball, Baseball,
Soccer (I'm going to qualify and say this is conditional on what level
we're talking about. I'm talking about amateur/college level. If this
were pro, well, it would be in a different order.) 19. McDonald̢۪s,
Burger King, Jack in the Box, Hardees (Honestly, neither of the latter
are anywhere near where I live. No Jack. No Hardees. They're either
down south or in rural areas. I haven't eaten at a Hardees since 1993,
when I lived in Ames, Iowa)
20. Pluto, Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck.
*The "heretic" business is a joke. Take it that way,
please, and don't fill my inbox with a bunch of emails about how I'm
going to hell because I'm Catholic and if only I could open my eyes
to the reality of the situation, I'd realize my mistake and switch in a
second, because I sound like I'm a really good, intelligent person, my
religious beliefs notwithstanding, that you can't possibly understand
how I continue to be duped by the Church and that I really should think
about saving my soul... I really could do without it today, ok? It was a joke.
Here's the deal: originally, these were in alphabetical order. The goal is to rearrange them in accordance with my preferences.
1. Bush I, Reagan, Bush II, Clinton
2. Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, George {I hate Seinfeld. Honestly couldn't care less)
3. Diet Coke, Coke, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi
4. Paul, John, George, Ringo (Because Ringo is the redheaded stepchild of The Beatles)
5. Mike Nesmith, Mickey Dolenz, Davy Jones, Peter Tork (Nesmith invented MTV! Seriously.)
6. Fonzie, Richie, Ralph, Potsy 7. NKJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV (I had to
think about this one for a moment. I didn't know what these were. Then
I remembered that NIV was a version of the Bible. A Protestant
version of the Bible. All of these Bibles are Protestant Bibles. For my
fellow non-Protestants: NKJV=New King James Version; NIV=New
International Version; NASB=New American Standard Bible; NRSV=New
Revised Standard Version Bible. Personally, I don't use any of these
heretical* bibles. I use The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible.
Which was approved by Cardinal Bernadin, who unfortunately is no longer
with us. A Catholic Bible must be approved by a bishop/cardinal/funky
hat wearing dude. This one was, and on the whole, I've found it to be a
good Bible. Although, I'm sensing the beginning of a theme with
this question.)
8. Sophia, Blanche, Rose, Dorothy (Betty White, while annoying, was
more amusing than Bea Arthur. Ugh.) 9. Superman II, Superman, Superman
III, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 10. Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III,
Rocky IV, Rocky V {I have no idea. Have never seen any of them. Don't
really want to, either.) 11. Luke, Matthew, Mark, John (The Theme
returns. Yep. It's official. This list was devised by a Protestant. In
my humble opinion, John was a drug user. How else to explain
Revelations?)
12. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes (The Theme. Again. Honestly,
who reads the Bible this way---besides heretics?*---like you're
supposed to be able to pick out which ones are your favorites? Bleh.
Take the overall message and go from there, ye hereticks!*) 13. Exodus,
Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers (The Theme. AGAIN. Which are
your favorites within the Pentateuch? This
is supposed to be good fun? Sr. Justina, my OT teacher, would be
laughing her ass off at these questions. That said, Exodus is always
fun to read. Great drama.)
14. Wonder Woman, Batman, Aquaman, Superman
15. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Snow White (While I could do
without Cinderella, I like the mice in the Disney version. Bippity, Boppity, Boo
indeed.)
16. Chandler, Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Ross 17. Linus, Charlie
Brown, Lucy, Peppermint Patty 18. Football, Basketball, Baseball,
Soccer (I'm going to qualify and say this is conditional on what level
we're talking about. I'm talking about amateur/college level. If this
were pro, well, it would be in a different order.) 19. McDonald̢۪s,
Burger King, Jack in the Box, Hardees (Honestly, neither of the latter
are anywhere near where I live. No Jack. No Hardees. They're either
down south or in rural areas. I haven't eaten at a Hardees since 1993,
when I lived in Ames, Iowa)
20. Pluto, Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck.
*The "heretic" business is a joke. Take it that way,
please, and don't fill my inbox with a bunch of emails about how I'm
going to hell because I'm Catholic and if only I could open my eyes
to the reality of the situation, I'd realize my mistake and switch in a
second, because I sound like I'm a really good, intelligent person, my
religious beliefs notwithstanding, that you can't possibly understand
how I continue to be duped by the Church and that I really should think
about saving my soul... I really could do without it today, ok? It was a joke.
Posted by: Kathy at
08:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 4 kb.
"Fausta, meet Robert." My work
"Fausta, meet Robert."
My work here is done.
My work here is done.
Posted by: Kathy at
08:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Kerry's economic plan. (registration required)
Kerry's economic plan. (registration required)
Read it and weep.
Read it and weep.
Posted by: Kathy at
08:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
I saw the commercial for
I saw the commercial for the new DVD boxed set of the Star Wars Trilogy
the other night and was amazed at how Lucas is lying to sell these
things. At no point in time during this commercial was it mentioned
that these were the "Special Editions" that were shown in the late
1990's, rather than the originals. There was lots of blather about
"digial remastering," but anyone who knows anything about the trilogy
and digitization (which, amazingly enough, includes me)knows this
happened with the special editions. Of course, these are the same
special editions where Lucas chose to make the trilogy "family
friendly" rather than to keep the original versions. He wanted to make
changes. These are, reportedly, the films that he wanted the first time
out, yet couldn't get because of technological problems. These changes
include Greedo shooting first and Jabba appearing as a friendly
slug-like creature. Hayden Christensen is also now in Return of the Jedi. Yep. They replaced Sebastian Shaw in
the celebration scene at the end with Hayden. And it's a convenient
situation for Lucas, too, because Shaw died earlier this year and can't
object. But if you weren't married to a Star Wars Geek like myself and
you didn't know any of this, well, you'd be screwed, wouldn't you? So,
I wonder, how many hapless shoppers are going to slap down their credit
cards for this thing, thinking they're going to get the
originals---finally!---on DVD? And how many are going to be as angry as
a pack of wet cats when they learn otherwise?
And pursuing this line of thought further---is it possible to sue Lucas for false advertising?
Just a thought. Someone has to stop this man before it's too late. Might as well be some greedy litigator.
UPDATE: 09/01/2004 For a full accounting of Lucas' treachery, go here, nod your head and say, "GODDAMN THE MAN TO HELL!"
{h/t The Llamas)
the other night and was amazed at how Lucas is lying to sell these
things. At no point in time during this commercial was it mentioned
that these were the "Special Editions" that were shown in the late
1990's, rather than the originals. There was lots of blather about
"digial remastering," but anyone who knows anything about the trilogy
and digitization (which, amazingly enough, includes me)knows this
happened with the special editions. Of course, these are the same
special editions where Lucas chose to make the trilogy "family
friendly" rather than to keep the original versions. He wanted to make
changes. These are, reportedly, the films that he wanted the first time
out, yet couldn't get because of technological problems. These changes
include Greedo shooting first and Jabba appearing as a friendly
slug-like creature. Hayden Christensen is also now in Return of the Jedi. Yep. They replaced Sebastian Shaw in
the celebration scene at the end with Hayden. And it's a convenient
situation for Lucas, too, because Shaw died earlier this year and can't
object. But if you weren't married to a Star Wars Geek like myself and
you didn't know any of this, well, you'd be screwed, wouldn't you? So,
I wonder, how many hapless shoppers are going to slap down their credit
cards for this thing, thinking they're going to get the
originals---finally!---on DVD? And how many are going to be as angry as
a pack of wet cats when they learn otherwise?
And pursuing this line of thought further---is it possible to sue Lucas for false advertising?
Just a thought. Someone has to stop this man before it's too late. Might as well be some greedy litigator.
UPDATE: 09/01/2004 For a full accounting of Lucas' treachery, go here, nod your head and say, "GODDAMN THE MAN TO HELL!"
{h/t The Llamas)
Posted by: Kathy at
01:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
Well, that's what happens when
Well, that's what happens when you take seventy-five percent of a worker's salary in taxes.
"Misdirected benevolence," indeed.
"Misdirected benevolence," indeed.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
Never forgotten.
Never forgotten.
Never forgotten.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 4 kb.
From the Opinion Journal: However
From the Opinion Journal:
Han's words to Luke are ringing in my ears: "GREAT, KID! DON'T GET COCKY!"
Now, I don't mean to underplay the role the blogosphere played in
Rathergate, or to demean those blogger's efforts. They brought down the
biggest of the big dogs---and, at the very least, they will be able to
mount Rather's pelt on their hunting lodge walls in short order. But to
have the Wall Street Journal
declare that "the liberal media establishment has ceased to set the
U.S. political agenda," while a very satisfying sentiment, is also
pushing it. Such a statement ignores the betrayal the liberal media
will feel at Rather's take-down, even though they played a part in it.
It also ignores the simple fact that there is no such thing as a vacuum
and the media could potentially entrench themselves even further,
refusing to see that change is upon them. I really don't want to be a
wet blanket here, because the blogosphere really did scoop the mainstream media on this story. The good work done cannot be ignored or downplayed. But, and there's always a but,
if we really want the blogosphere to continue to be taken seriously, we
have to keep on keepin' on. We need to stop tooting our own horns. Not
to underestimate the blogosphere's power, but let's face it: the score
in this game is 357-1. Just because we managed to finally score a point
does not mean we're going to win the game. Capisce? All of this adds to
the neverending debate we seem to be having within the blogosphere
about our own importance. Sure it's great when Insty
or one of the other big dogs goes on about how great, important,
newsworthy, etc. the blogosphere is, but unless you're a big dog
blogger, the honest truth is you don't make much of a dent. Some of us
barely make a door ding. Yet, some of the biggest names who host the
most widely read and quoted blogs are also mainstream media-types who,
to my mind, have decided to grace us with their web presence
to---ahem---sell their swag, rather than to "be part of the
revolution." I will fully admit this is a cynical point of view to
hold. While the content can be good, even great---because some of these
writers finally have the option to vent opinions they could never
present on the Op-Ed pages---still it's the motives behind the content
that interest me. Did Michelle Malkin really need to start blogging? She's a latecomer to the blogosphere. I've
been blogging longer than she has, which doesn't mean much, I know, but
I find it interesting that she started up a blog a few months before she released a book.
So, I have to wonder, did she really want to be an active part of "the
revolution"? Or was this an interesting PR tool that enables her to
sell more books about how the Japanese Internment in WWII was an OK
thing to do? Or is it a bit of both? What would her sales be like had
she not started blogging?
While it's interesting that none of the big dog bloggers had anything to do with outing of Dan Rather, they're the loudest bangers of the blogosphere drum nowadays. Which leads me to ask, where's the line? Do we really believe that a blogger like Sullivan
holds more power in the blogosphere because he's a mainstream
commentator and his presence lends us credibility? Or is the other way
around and the blogosphere is being used in a way we'd never thought
possible? In other words, where will most of us, as pure, non-media
types, stand when it's all said and done? Will the blogosphere become
the opposition to the mainstream media, as some of us would like to
believe it to be, or will we be co-opted into it? When seldom sober was
here last week and was describing his travails in Denver, he mentioned this conversation he'd had with zombyboy:
As it happens, zombyboy further clarified his arguments in this post:
I agree with both
of them. I think the blogosphere is a revolution in itself, that the
simple fact we cover what the mainstream media refuses to touch with a
ten-foot-pole is impressive. The information wants to be free and we're
playing a crucial role in the liberation. But I also think that that
the blogosphere is a niche. We're simply set up to be that way.
Whenever you get a million-plus people starting up webpages to
spout-off on any topic under the sun, you'll have that. I also agree
that blogs aren't "there" yet, if "there" will ever be a place we can
define quantitatively. We have a ways to go before our opinions hold
the same weight in the real world as, for instance, a guy like Safire.
You can go on about whether or not Safire should be paid attention to,
but the crux of the matter is that attention is paid to him. Why? He
has a prominent space on the New York Times Op-Ed page, and we all know that you don't get published on the Op-Ed page of the NYT
unless you have something valuable to contribute to the debate. The
blogosphere has rejected the argument that we should pay attention to
Safire simply because of the space he holds on the Op-Ed page. What
matters to us is the content. There are no sacred cows in the
blogosphere, and that in itself is a huge shift.
But as zombyboy so aptly declared, "we're not there yet." We're making
strides, but the blogosphere has a long way to go before it's seen as a
trustworthy, consistent alternative to the mainstream media. The
media---including The Wall Street Journal---may
be trumpeting the blogosphere's role in Rathergate, and while this has
gone a long way toward establishing our street cred, the media will
also hit back as soon as the dust has settled. I'm forseeing a return
to "business as usual" and Rathergate will be seen more in the
mainstream media as an anomaly, much like Drudge breaking the Monica
Lewinksy scandal, rather than as the way things are going to be in the
future. The blogosphere may have taken one step forward, but soon we'll
be forced to take two steps back. This is why I don't think bloggers
can get cocky right now. That bloggers have to push forward and break
the next
story. And the one after that. They have to keep their noses to the
grindstone so the media will come to respect the opinions of bloggers
as worthy competition, rather than seeing us, at the very least, a as
bunch of "people on the fringe" whose opinions don't mean anything in
reality, or at most, an interesting and new way to market their books.
The blogosphere is taking part in shaping the debate. We've made it up
onto the podium at a debate tournament. But if we are to be successful
in the debate we need to keep in mind that our debating skills need
sharpening and we might want to think about who we let on the team to
speak for our side.
However the flap over CBS and those National Guard "memos"
turns out, the past few weeks mark a milestone in U.S. media and
politics. Along with the Swift Boat Veterans' ads, the widespread
challenge to Dan Rather's reporting--to his credibility--means that the
liberal media establishment has ceased to set the U.S. political
agenda.
This is potentially a big cultural moment. For decades liberal media
elites were able to define current debates by all kicking in the same
direction, like the Rockettes. Now and then they can still pull this
off, as when they all repeated the same Pentagon-promoted-torture line
during the Abu Ghraib uproar. But the last month has widened cracks in
that media monopoly that have been developing for some time.
Han's words to Luke are ringing in my ears: "GREAT, KID! DON'T GET COCKY!"
Now, I don't mean to underplay the role the blogosphere played in
Rathergate, or to demean those blogger's efforts. They brought down the
biggest of the big dogs---and, at the very least, they will be able to
mount Rather's pelt on their hunting lodge walls in short order. But to
have the Wall Street Journal
declare that "the liberal media establishment has ceased to set the
U.S. political agenda," while a very satisfying sentiment, is also
pushing it. Such a statement ignores the betrayal the liberal media
will feel at Rather's take-down, even though they played a part in it.
It also ignores the simple fact that there is no such thing as a vacuum
and the media could potentially entrench themselves even further,
refusing to see that change is upon them. I really don't want to be a
wet blanket here, because the blogosphere really did scoop the mainstream media on this story. The good work done cannot be ignored or downplayed. But, and there's always a but,
if we really want the blogosphere to continue to be taken seriously, we
have to keep on keepin' on. We need to stop tooting our own horns. Not
to underestimate the blogosphere's power, but let's face it: the score
in this game is 357-1. Just because we managed to finally score a point
does not mean we're going to win the game. Capisce? All of this adds to
the neverending debate we seem to be having within the blogosphere
about our own importance. Sure it's great when Insty
or one of the other big dogs goes on about how great, important,
newsworthy, etc. the blogosphere is, but unless you're a big dog
blogger, the honest truth is you don't make much of a dent. Some of us
barely make a door ding. Yet, some of the biggest names who host the
most widely read and quoted blogs are also mainstream media-types who,
to my mind, have decided to grace us with their web presence
to---ahem---sell their swag, rather than to "be part of the
revolution." I will fully admit this is a cynical point of view to
hold. While the content can be good, even great---because some of these
writers finally have the option to vent opinions they could never
present on the Op-Ed pages---still it's the motives behind the content
that interest me. Did Michelle Malkin really need to start blogging? She's a latecomer to the blogosphere. I've
been blogging longer than she has, which doesn't mean much, I know, but
I find it interesting that she started up a blog a few months before she released a book.
So, I have to wonder, did she really want to be an active part of "the
revolution"? Or was this an interesting PR tool that enables her to
sell more books about how the Japanese Internment in WWII was an OK
thing to do? Or is it a bit of both? What would her sales be like had
she not started blogging?
While it's interesting that none of the big dog bloggers had anything to do with outing of Dan Rather, they're the loudest bangers of the blogosphere drum nowadays. Which leads me to ask, where's the line? Do we really believe that a blogger like Sullivan
holds more power in the blogosphere because he's a mainstream
commentator and his presence lends us credibility? Or is the other way
around and the blogosphere is being used in a way we'd never thought
possible? In other words, where will most of us, as pure, non-media
types, stand when it's all said and done? Will the blogosphere become
the opposition to the mainstream media, as some of us would like to
believe it to be, or will we be co-opted into it? When seldom sober was
here last week and was describing his travails in Denver, he mentioned this conversation he'd had with zombyboy:
zombyboy, of Resurrection Song got a bee in his bonnet
about how fringe bloggers are. We conducted a bar-wide survey and found
out that about ten percent of people know what 'blogs' are which, while
not a large amount, is far greater than, say, the amount of the US vote
that Nader's gonna get. Anyway. zombyboy was convinced that we needed
accountability, and editors and oversite to become mainstream and
respected journalists. Ignoring the obvious argument that we don't
represent ourselves as mainstream journalists, he received a tirade of
abuse from the other bloggers there. I think that wierd, blurry-faced
guy said something like "Fuck Big Media! Our readers are our editors
and our fucking accountability!" I was fully against zombyboy's
position too, though I couldn't find the eloquence to express myself
that blurry-face did.
As it happens, zombyboy further clarified his arguments in this post:
{...}I've said it before and I'll say it again, for blogs
to be meaningful they need to be more responsible and more
professional. As much as I enjoy blogging, as much value as I do find
in it, I still think the negatives make it hard for me to take the
impact that blogs have on events too seriously.
That isn't to say that blogs won't grow into a more important role, but
if you think we're there already just walk down the street and start
asking people how much they care what Instapundit thinks about any
specific issue. Then ask them about Dan Rather. Dan, even in his
embattled state and even with the obvious and real questions about his
credibility, will still have more recognition and more people who
consider him to be a trustworthy source.
I'm not saying that I believe blogs are completely without influence or
that they are worthless; I think there is a great potential for blogs
to have a positive influence on public debate over all kinds of
policies. I simply believe they aren't there yet, that some people
overstate their importance, and that for blogs to become truly
influential there has to be some kind of accountability in something
other than the latest troll comment on the site.
I agree with both
of them. I think the blogosphere is a revolution in itself, that the
simple fact we cover what the mainstream media refuses to touch with a
ten-foot-pole is impressive. The information wants to be free and we're
playing a crucial role in the liberation. But I also think that that
the blogosphere is a niche. We're simply set up to be that way.
Whenever you get a million-plus people starting up webpages to
spout-off on any topic under the sun, you'll have that. I also agree
that blogs aren't "there" yet, if "there" will ever be a place we can
define quantitatively. We have a ways to go before our opinions hold
the same weight in the real world as, for instance, a guy like Safire.
You can go on about whether or not Safire should be paid attention to,
but the crux of the matter is that attention is paid to him. Why? He
has a prominent space on the New York Times Op-Ed page, and we all know that you don't get published on the Op-Ed page of the NYT
unless you have something valuable to contribute to the debate. The
blogosphere has rejected the argument that we should pay attention to
Safire simply because of the space he holds on the Op-Ed page. What
matters to us is the content. There are no sacred cows in the
blogosphere, and that in itself is a huge shift.
But as zombyboy so aptly declared, "we're not there yet." We're making
strides, but the blogosphere has a long way to go before it's seen as a
trustworthy, consistent alternative to the mainstream media. The
media---including The Wall Street Journal---may
be trumpeting the blogosphere's role in Rathergate, and while this has
gone a long way toward establishing our street cred, the media will
also hit back as soon as the dust has settled. I'm forseeing a return
to "business as usual" and Rathergate will be seen more in the
mainstream media as an anomaly, much like Drudge breaking the Monica
Lewinksy scandal, rather than as the way things are going to be in the
future. The blogosphere may have taken one step forward, but soon we'll
be forced to take two steps back. This is why I don't think bloggers
can get cocky right now. That bloggers have to push forward and break
the next
story. And the one after that. They have to keep their noses to the
grindstone so the media will come to respect the opinions of bloggers
as worthy competition, rather than seeing us, at the very least, a as
bunch of "people on the fringe" whose opinions don't mean anything in
reality, or at most, an interesting and new way to market their books.
The blogosphere is taking part in shaping the debate. We've made it up
onto the podium at a debate tournament. But if we are to be successful
in the debate we need to keep in mind that our debating skills need
sharpening and we might want to think about who we let on the team to
speak for our side.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1685 words, total size 10 kb.
Now, there's some enterprising young
Now, there's some enterprising young capitalists for you.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Should I really give a
Should I really give a rat's ass about what Spicoli has to say about politics?
Nope. I don't think I should.
Yeah, Sean. Your life must be really frustrating. Being paid millions of dollars to do exactly what you love to do must really bite. I don't see anyone oppressing you Sean, or are you fighting THE MAN!
for all the little people without whose support you'd be nowhere?
Whatever. You may think you seem all noble and Gregory Peck-ish
whenever you open your big fat mouth but in reality, you look like an
idiot. Do yourself---and me---a favor, eh? Shut the hell up and stop
wasting my time!
And he was quick to take a jab at the current U.S.
administration when asked about parallels with the turbulent era
portrayed in the film. "I think that administrations have to look at
how they oppress their own people and people in other countries and
understand that if they take people's hopes and dreams away, bad things
can happen." Commenting on people with similar frustrations today, he
said: "I guess the problem is that, statistically, there's a lot more
of them today and we can be grateful to President (George W.) Bush for
that."
Nope. I don't think I should.
Yeah, Sean. Your life must be really frustrating. Being paid millions of dollars to do exactly what you love to do must really bite. I don't see anyone oppressing you Sean, or are you fighting THE MAN!
for all the little people without whose support you'd be nowhere?
Whatever. You may think you seem all noble and Gregory Peck-ish
whenever you open your big fat mouth but in reality, you look like an
idiot. Do yourself---and me---a favor, eh? Shut the hell up and stop
wasting my time!
Posted by: Kathy at
12:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.
Courtesy o' the Llamas: the
Courtesy o' the Llamas:
the one hundred most frequently challenged books 1990-2000.
The boldly highlighted selections are books I've actually read. Of
course, I can't but help to comment on a few of these selections. This
entire list disgusts me. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
Daddy̢۪s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Why would anyone want to ban this book? Because the "N" word is featured prominently. Talk about revisionist history
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck I hate Steinbeck, but what's so offensive about this book? Don't get it.
Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
Forever by Judy Blume Now, I don't even remember what this one was about. I had to go and look it up.
Ah, now I remember. I fail to see how a novel about one of the most
important choices a young woman faces in her lifetime---who to lose her
virginity to---is something that should be banned. Probably the whole chastity-belt-until-marriage crowd is behind this one.
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger Why?
The Giver by Lois Lowry
It̢۪s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
A Day No Pigs Would Dieby Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Sex by Madonna As if you could "read" such a book. There isn't
much to read. Mr. H., being the rabid Madonna fan that he is, has a
copy and I've perused it. I know there was some copy in it, but for the
life of me, I don't think anyone, let alone myself, read it. It's kind
of hard to take your eyes away from the pictures of Madonna standing
buck naked in the middle of a Beverly Hills street, hitching. I'm
pretty sure that's precisely what she wanted, too, so why ban the thing? Just don't bother reading it, as it's yet another self-serving PR stunt.
Earth̢۪s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L̢۪Engle WTF?
Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein
Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry
The Goats by Brock Cole
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
Blubber by Judy Blume Why would this book be banned? Because it's so honest
about the way girls work? I think not. I think this should be required
reading. It's about bullying, plain and simple, and the message is that
everyone, including the victim, is complicit in letting it go on.
Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
Final Exit by Derek Humphry
The Handmaid̢۪s Tale by Margaret Atwood It's never going to happen, people. It's fiction. Get over it.
Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
What̢۪s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton Again, why?
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
Deenie by Judy Blume Scoliosis isn't a topic kids---particularly
young girls---should read about? As a girl who was once sent off to the
orthopedist because the school nurse thought she had scoliosis, thank
goodness I'd already read this book. It made the situation much less
scary than it would have been if I hadn't known what scoliosis was. It
was still scary, but at least I had a bit of knowledge about what was
going on. It turned out that one of my shoulder blades is placed higher
than the other. It's completely normal, but it lead the very nice, but
brand spankin' new nurse to think my spine was curving, and sent her
into a panic. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes Again...why?
Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden
The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar
Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz
A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein Why? Because it's rumored that Shel was on drugs when he wrote all those wonderful poems? Fer cryin' out loud!
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
Cujo by Stephen King
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl This one makes me mad! I loved this book.
The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell
Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
What̢۪s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Are You There, God? It̢۪s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume It's about
a new girl in the neighborhood praying (she has some issues with
religion as well) she isn't the last of her new friends to get her
period. It was outdated when I read it (it talked about belts,
people---and I'm not talking about belts that match your Manolos), but
nonetheless was a good primer. I didn't get the whole "I can't be
last!" mentality. None of the girls I hung out with---myself
included---wanted our periods. We were all dreading it, so that part
didn't ring true to us. Crazy Lady by Jane Conly
Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
Fade by Robert Cormier
Guess What? by Mem Fox
The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende. Sigh.
The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding Again, why? Because a pack of little boys are shipwrecked and they revert to tribal instincts?
Native Son by Richard Wright
Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women̢۪s Fantasies by Nancy Friday
Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Jack by A.M. Homes
Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle
Carrie by Stephen King
Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume insensible, violent death is something kids never come in contact with?
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge
Family Secrets by Norma Klein
Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole
The Dead Zone by Stephen King
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain See what I said about Huck Finn. Grrr.
Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
Always Running by Luis Rodriguez
Private Parts by Howard Stern
Where̢۪s Waldo? by Martin Hanford
Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene
Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman
Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett Why? What's so controversial
about this book?
Running Loose by Chris Crutcher
Sex Education by Jenny Davis
The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene
Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder
The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney
Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
It shouldn't be so damn amazing to me that so many of these books have
sexuality as a theme. Yet it is. It's obvious that there are many
people out there who would really like young people---young women in
particular---to remain in the dark about what's going on with their
bodies when they hit puberty. Which is just wrong. What are people so
damn afraid of? That young girls might actually have a clue when it comes to maturing?
While there were many Judy Blume novels on the list, I noticed that all of them dealt with the problems young girls face. This
wasn't on there. This novel, I must admit, was my first introduction to
the curious male phenomena known as "nocturnal emissions." Why wasn't
it on the list? Hmmm? It should be if knowing anything about sexuality
is a bad thing. Or is it like I suspect and it's because it's about a
young boy coming of age? Oh, yes. They have to know what's going on because they have to instruct their wives on their wedding night... Good Gravy, people! Can't you see that your blatant sexist attitudes are showing?
I've got a little lecture for those who would ban books:
GET. OVER. IT. If it's in a public library, well, the chances
that it would be considered porn are slim. If you don't like it, well,
ahem, don't read it. Furthermore, if you don't want your kids reading
it, well, ahem again, make sure you know what they're checking out of
the biblioteca. Don't jump on the morality bandwagon and work to ban a
damn book because something offends you. Simply realize it's not for
you or yours, but that it might be for someone else. Stop limiting
others' choices because you get your knickers in a twist more easily
than other people. Grrrrr. Book banning makes me angry.
the one hundred most frequently challenged books 1990-2000.
The boldly highlighted selections are books I've actually read. Of
course, I can't but help to comment on a few of these selections. This
entire list disgusts me. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
Daddy̢۪s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Why would anyone want to ban this book? Because the "N" word is featured prominently. Talk about revisionist history
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck I hate Steinbeck, but what's so offensive about this book? Don't get it.
Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
Forever by Judy Blume Now, I don't even remember what this one was about. I had to go and look it up.
Ah, now I remember. I fail to see how a novel about one of the most
important choices a young woman faces in her lifetime---who to lose her
virginity to---is something that should be banned. Probably the whole chastity-belt-until-marriage crowd is behind this one.
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger Why?
The Giver by Lois Lowry
It̢۪s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
A Day No Pigs Would Dieby Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Sex by Madonna As if you could "read" such a book. There isn't
much to read. Mr. H., being the rabid Madonna fan that he is, has a
copy and I've perused it. I know there was some copy in it, but for the
life of me, I don't think anyone, let alone myself, read it. It's kind
of hard to take your eyes away from the pictures of Madonna standing
buck naked in the middle of a Beverly Hills street, hitching. I'm
pretty sure that's precisely what she wanted, too, so why ban the thing? Just don't bother reading it, as it's yet another self-serving PR stunt.
Earth̢۪s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L̢۪Engle WTF?
Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein
Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry
The Goats by Brock Cole
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
Blubber by Judy Blume Why would this book be banned? Because it's so honest
about the way girls work? I think not. I think this should be required
reading. It's about bullying, plain and simple, and the message is that
everyone, including the victim, is complicit in letting it go on.
Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
Final Exit by Derek Humphry
The Handmaid̢۪s Tale by Margaret Atwood It's never going to happen, people. It's fiction. Get over it.
Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
What̢۪s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton Again, why?
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
Deenie by Judy Blume Scoliosis isn't a topic kids---particularly
young girls---should read about? As a girl who was once sent off to the
orthopedist because the school nurse thought she had scoliosis, thank
goodness I'd already read this book. It made the situation much less
scary than it would have been if I hadn't known what scoliosis was. It
was still scary, but at least I had a bit of knowledge about what was
going on. It turned out that one of my shoulder blades is placed higher
than the other. It's completely normal, but it lead the very nice, but
brand spankin' new nurse to think my spine was curving, and sent her
into a panic. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes Again...why?
Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden
The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar
Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz
A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein Why? Because it's rumored that Shel was on drugs when he wrote all those wonderful poems? Fer cryin' out loud!
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
Cujo by Stephen King
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl This one makes me mad! I loved this book.
The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell
Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
What̢۪s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Are You There, God? It̢۪s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume It's about
a new girl in the neighborhood praying (she has some issues with
religion as well) she isn't the last of her new friends to get her
period. It was outdated when I read it (it talked about belts,
people---and I'm not talking about belts that match your Manolos), but
nonetheless was a good primer. I didn't get the whole "I can't be
last!" mentality. None of the girls I hung out with---myself
included---wanted our periods. We were all dreading it, so that part
didn't ring true to us. Crazy Lady by Jane Conly
Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
Fade by Robert Cormier
Guess What? by Mem Fox
The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende. Sigh.
The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding Again, why? Because a pack of little boys are shipwrecked and they revert to tribal instincts?
Native Son by Richard Wright
Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women̢۪s Fantasies by Nancy Friday
Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Jack by A.M. Homes
Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle
Carrie by Stephen King
Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume insensible, violent death is something kids never come in contact with?
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge
Family Secrets by Norma Klein
Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole
The Dead Zone by Stephen King
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain See what I said about Huck Finn. Grrr.
Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
Always Running by Luis Rodriguez
Private Parts by Howard Stern
Where̢۪s Waldo? by Martin Hanford
Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene
Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman
Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett Why? What's so controversial
about this book?
Running Loose by Chris Crutcher
Sex Education by Jenny Davis
The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene
Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder
The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney
Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
It shouldn't be so damn amazing to me that so many of these books have
sexuality as a theme. Yet it is. It's obvious that there are many
people out there who would really like young people---young women in
particular---to remain in the dark about what's going on with their
bodies when they hit puberty. Which is just wrong. What are people so
damn afraid of? That young girls might actually have a clue when it comes to maturing?
While there were many Judy Blume novels on the list, I noticed that all of them dealt with the problems young girls face. This
wasn't on there. This novel, I must admit, was my first introduction to
the curious male phenomena known as "nocturnal emissions." Why wasn't
it on the list? Hmmm? It should be if knowing anything about sexuality
is a bad thing. Or is it like I suspect and it's because it's about a
young boy coming of age? Oh, yes. They have to know what's going on because they have to instruct their wives on their wedding night... Good Gravy, people! Can't you see that your blatant sexist attitudes are showing?
I've got a little lecture for those who would ban books:
GET. OVER. IT. If it's in a public library, well, the chances
that it would be considered porn are slim. If you don't like it, well,
ahem, don't read it. Furthermore, if you don't want your kids reading
it, well, ahem again, make sure you know what they're checking out of
the biblioteca. Don't jump on the morality bandwagon and work to ban a
damn book because something offends you. Simply realize it's not for
you or yours, but that it might be for someone else. Stop limiting
others' choices because you get your knickers in a twist more easily
than other people. Grrrrr. Book banning makes me angry.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1566 words, total size 10 kb.
Yet another one. Courtesy of
Yet another one. Courtesy of Phoenix at Villains Vanquished.
1. Name 3 personal hygiene items you would not want to be on a desert isle without.
Sunscreen (it's a desert isle, right? Hot and sunny. Need at least a 15SPF or we'll have "Kathy Crustacean" to deal with. Nope. Baaaaaad.) Playtex Tampons---and no, Tampax will not do. Lubriderm.
2. Name your biggest character flaw.
Not good with criticism. I'm getting better, but I'm still apt to take things too personally.
3. Name your worst addiction.
Smoky treats. Ugh. Should quit as they're disgusting. It's too damn bad that I just flat out love tobacco.
4. Name one person in history you'd like to have been an intimate friend of.
Machiavelli
5. What do you want your headstone to say?
I'm not a big one for statements on headstones, so I don't want it to
say anything other than my name and my birth and death dates. 6. What person of your acquaintance would you like to be more like?
My friends who have lives. That would be a good thing to have.
7. What song is your theme song, the one that would play at the intro if your life was a sitcom or drama?
Like I know.
8. If your life were a sitcom or drama, would it be a sitcom or drama, and who would play the two main leads?
A drama with humor. I would think Mary-Louise Parker would be a good
choice for moi, because reportedly we sound a lot alike---particularly
when we swear. Hmmmm. As for the husband, well, it would have to be
Russell Crowe, because he looks like the husband.
Seriously. In the past, people have stopped the husband, thinking he
was Crowe and have asked for his autograph. While the facial
characteristics aren't precisely the same, they have the same color
eyes, same color hair, same face shape, etc. And they're built exactly
the same---like a brick shithouse. Although, Russell would have to drop
about forty pounds to play him nowadays. 9. What would the sitcom or drama be called?
Precisely Measured Dosages of Insanity
10. If you could change one thing about your physical appearance without plastic surgery, what would it be?
Instantly? Well, I'd wish for just one more goddamn inch of height so I could reach the top shelves in my kitchen cupboards. Not too much to ask for, really.
1. Name 3 personal hygiene items you would not want to be on a desert isle without.
Sunscreen (it's a desert isle, right? Hot and sunny. Need at least a 15SPF or we'll have "Kathy Crustacean" to deal with. Nope. Baaaaaad.) Playtex Tampons---and no, Tampax will not do. Lubriderm.
2. Name your biggest character flaw.
Not good with criticism. I'm getting better, but I'm still apt to take things too personally.
3. Name your worst addiction.
Smoky treats. Ugh. Should quit as they're disgusting. It's too damn bad that I just flat out love tobacco.
4. Name one person in history you'd like to have been an intimate friend of.
Machiavelli
5. What do you want your headstone to say?
I'm not a big one for statements on headstones, so I don't want it to
say anything other than my name and my birth and death dates. 6. What person of your acquaintance would you like to be more like?
My friends who have lives. That would be a good thing to have.
7. What song is your theme song, the one that would play at the intro if your life was a sitcom or drama?
Like I know.
8. If your life were a sitcom or drama, would it be a sitcom or drama, and who would play the two main leads?
A drama with humor. I would think Mary-Louise Parker would be a good
choice for moi, because reportedly we sound a lot alike---particularly
when we swear. Hmmmm. As for the husband, well, it would have to be
Russell Crowe, because he looks like the husband.
Seriously. In the past, people have stopped the husband, thinking he
was Crowe and have asked for his autograph. While the facial
characteristics aren't precisely the same, they have the same color
eyes, same color hair, same face shape, etc. And they're built exactly
the same---like a brick shithouse. Although, Russell would have to drop
about forty pounds to play him nowadays. 9. What would the sitcom or drama be called?
Precisely Measured Dosages of Insanity
10. If you could change one thing about your physical appearance without plastic surgery, what would it be?
Instantly? Well, I'd wish for just one more goddamn inch of height so I could reach the top shelves in my kitchen cupboards. Not too much to ask for, really.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.
79kb generated in CPU 0.208, elapsed 0.2793 seconds.
50 queries taking 0.258 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
50 queries taking 0.258 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
