May 18, 2005
It was incredibly clever storytelling. If you missed it, well... you're just going to have to wait until the reruns come along this summer.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:32 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
After reading this, I'm pretty damn glad I didn't contribute to Chris Martin's ever expanding ego.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - British rock band Coldplay played Manhattan on Tuesday to promote their highly anticipated new album and said they are uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can move a major corporation's stock price.EMI Group Plc, the world's third-largest music company and owner of Coldplay's label Capitol, warned in February that profits would be lower because the band took longer than expected to finish their first studio album in three years.
This I can understand. The fate of a record company resting on your shoulders would not be an easy thing to deal with...or so we'd think, if we were assuming that Coldplay was actually, you know, a humble entity.
This does not appear to be the case.
{...}But lead singer and charismatic frontman Chris Martin said in an interview, "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that.""I think shareholders are the great evil of this modern world," Martin told Reuters before a concert at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre.
But however uncomfortable Martin is with what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders," the reception to Coldplay's third studio album will be closely watched by EMI shareholders.{...}
Oh, it's slavery, is it? Shareholders are the "great evil of this modern world."
{...}Still, for all the corporate involvement in the band of four friends who met in university, Martin said it was all worth it, since it gave them artistic freedom and the ability to talk about subjects dear to them such as fair trade, or paying fair prices for products such as coffee and cotton from developing nations.On Monday, the band recorded an episode of VH1's "Storyteller" show and told the audience there, "Deadlines mean nothing to us. We'll sink the whole company (EMI) if we have to," Billboard reported.
Hmmph. Someone's got a wee bit of a head on them, haven't they?
In this day and age of program trading---where missing projected numbers by a hundredth of a percentage point can cause the NYSE to go down fifty points in the blink of an eye---one would sincerely hope that the brokerage houses have factored Martin's mouth into their programs.
Furthermore, it'd be pretty nice if everyone who held EMI stock would tell Martin to bugger off, and to not bite the hand that keeps him and Gwyneth in expensive soy-based products (he's a vegetarian, don't you know) by dumping said stock. You know, sort of like these guys. Only without the violence.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.
May 17, 2005
All I can really tell you is that one mile for me is now pushing it.
And all I really want right now is to lay on the sofa and have the husband feed me bon bons.
Posted by: Kathy at
05:55 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
Well in case you hadn't, here's a wee bit of reading material to go with your sherry this evening.
"Star Wars" director George Lucas says that although he wrote the original film during the Vietnam War, his six-part saga could apply to the war in Iraq.''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.
''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.{...}
In response, Mr. Chenkroff has written an open letter to Mr. Lucas.
{...}You might be aware that all of us who saw the "Star Wars" trilogy throughout the communist world saw it as an entertaining, yet still nonetheless powerful commentary on the current world events. We simply couldn't escape the conclusion that the militaristic and freedom-crushing Empire with its legions of stormtroopers is a futuristic version of the Soviet Empire, which had conquered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people like myself. For us, of course, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and all the others fighting to restore the Republic were brave oppositionists and freedom fighters in the truest sense of the word. Like the Western movie goers, we too cheered when the Death Star was destroyed (twice), but whereas for our counterparts in the Free World this was just a great cinematic climax, for us it embodied the hope ("A New Hope", if you pardon the pun) that one day the specter of totalitarianism will vanish and we will be free again.Apparently, however, we were wrong - we didn't read your movies correctly.
{...} May I also add that whatever your thoughts about the United States and its supposed descent from a democracy into empire, had the Rebels won, you would have never had a chance to film a critical allegory on your own government. At best, your artistic output would have consisted of short features about the 150% increase in the wheat harvest, and at worst - if you had stayed true to your conscience - you would be dreaming your "Star Wars" trilogy from behind bars.
{...}But if in your mind, it's the United States that has slowly transformed itself into an evil Empire, and therefore, logically all those who stand up to it are our story's true heroes, than I have to say that the Dark Side is very strong indeed, and I have crossed over a long time ago. If America is the Empire, then please prepare a black helmet and uniform for me too.
Go read the whole thing.
{Hat tip: Fausta}
Posted by: Kathy at
05:46 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.
(You'll need to click on the image to actually be able to read it.)
And do women ever love jewelry. In my humble opinion, there are very few exceptions to this rule. Even if some women don't opt for the all the flash a professional, Certified Gemologist-employing jeweler can provide, they still wear a chain around their neck, a ring or two on their fingers, and earrings. The question, to my mind, would be why? The reason I ask this question is because I don't think most women have stopped to think about why they wear all this stuff.
Jewelry is such an automatic thing for most women. I know it is for me. I don't have my ears pierced, so I rarely worry about earrings, and when I do, well, I can't find any that I like because the clips you find in department stores are not designed with my demographic in mind. I don't wear anything around my neck mainly because chains and I do not, for the most part, get along. But I always wear my wedding ring, my watch, and a bracelet the husband bought me in Kuwait that I'm particularly fond of. I believe this throws me in the "low maintenence" section of the jewelry department, but even I am susceptible to the thrills of all things sparkly.
I don't know what that's all about, either. I'm not a jewelry hound. Never have been, never will be. I suspect you'll never find me draped, head to toe, in diamonds at any point in my life. Even knowing this, I still cannot stop myself from looking at the sparklies on display. I just can't. My friends are the same way. In the past, I have compared this susceptibility in women to oooh and aaaah at the offerings in a display window to men's fascination with women's breasts: in either situation, we can't really help ourselves when it comes to looking. Heterosexual men, always, always, always, look. They cannot help themselves. I think it's hardwired. When they're younger, they stare and gape and generally act like it's the first time they've seen a pair of boobs. But when they get older, the better they get at looking surreptitiously. The open-mouthed staring becomes a quick glance downwards that you might easily miss if you're not paying attention. They might not have any need to look; they might be happily married to their wives, whom they adore, but they still look. It's the same with me and jewelry. I have no need for more jewelry, but I still look.
But I don't feel the need to be sneaky about it.
Case in point: when the husband, Mr. H and I were in San Francisco and were walking around the high-end shopping district that is Union Square, we passed a few jewelry stores along the way. We'd be walking along, minding our own business, enjoying the city, and then---whammo! We'd pass a window with diamonds and pearls on display and I'd stop to stare. The boys would keep walking until they realized I was no longer with them, and then they'd come back to see what I was gazing at. The husband didn't mind my behavior: he was used to it. It was Mr. H. who was surprised with me. He knew I didn't ever really want more jewelry, and that I wouldn't probably wear it if I had it, so he didn't understand the fascination with the stuff. I couldn't explain it to him. It's just that it was pretty, it caught my eye and I wanted to look at it. It was particularly bad when we got over to Chinatown, because there was an amazing wealth of goods on display, and they, unlike the pricey shops over in Union Square, had stuff I could actually afford to buy.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to walk into a jewelry store and say, "May I please look at that bracelet? And that ring..." with the actual intention of buying. Looking is one thing that I like, but actually laying down cold hard cash for something, that in reality isn't all that rare? You do know that, right? That diamonds aren't rare at all? Well, you do now. You can walk down a creekbed in South Africa and the pebbles you would feel crunching under the soles of your shoes would not be pebbles at all but rather diamonds. Uncut and unpolished diamonds, but diamonds nonetheless. The only reason diamonds are an expensive quantity is because of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, who not only went on to found Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe), but also DeBeers. You see, Cecil, and the men who followed him, through some seriously ruthless business practices, created a monopoly for DeBeers. Through this monopoly they were able to keep prices high for something that is not rare at all. You should have seen the look on my sister-in-law's face the first time I told her this: a world-reknowned jewelry hound, she looked like she was about ready to burst out in tears. My brother, her husband, however had a different look on his face: I think the phrase "abject fury" would describe it quite well.
And that, I believe, gives us a clue as to why some women drape themselves in sparklies: it shows off how well they---or their husbands---are doing in the world, financially speaking. Sure, when you're younger, jewelry is about decoration. It's about it being pretty and nothing else. Yet, once you get to a certain point in life, jewelry takes on more meaning than simple decoration. This is how you judge people. Is this shallow? You bet it is. But is it any more shallow to judge someone based on what handbag they carry, what clothes they wear, what car they drive? Nope. It's just one more benchmark we have to use to decide about people without actually having to ask them a thing.
My sister-in-law, sensing a threat to her world, and how she judged the people therein, God Bless Her, blocked out the information I'd related to her. (That is if, of course, if she remembered it, all of us being somewhat inebriated at the time of telling.) I don't think my brother really had a choice in the matter, this not being information that would serve him well in his negotiations at Borsheims.
But anyway, don't take my word for it: go and read what our other Daring Demystifying Divas have to say on the matter. And, because five is always better than four, make sure to check out what my lovely blog child, and Divaesque Lady, Phoenix of Villains Vanquished has to add to the conversation.
As far as The Men's Club is concerned, well, I'm afraid I have good news and bad news. The bad is that Zonker has decided to frame his membership badge and hang it up on the wall because he's got too much work going on at the present moment. We will miss him. The good, however, is that the wonderful Villains over at Naked Villainy have decided to jump into the testosterone pool that is The Men's Club. So, make sure to go over and read what our Maximum Leader has to say, while also checking out Phin, and Puffy. The Wiz was called off on a muy importanto business trip at the last minute yesterday, so I will update when he gets around to posting about this topic.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:33 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1290 words, total size 8 kb.
May 16, 2005
It's an exclusive. *Must Credit The Llamas*
Posted by: Kathy at
11:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
But wait, there's more....I even got threats of physical violence, too!
wOOt!
I'VE HIT THE BIG TIME, BABY!
You see, I've been waiting almost two years for this to happen. I've toiled in obscurity for so damn long, just begging for someone to declare the desire to whack me on the shins with a seven iron! I prayed to God. I wondered when my time in the spotlight would come. I worked hard, hoping that it could, but gosh, I will admit, I was beginning to lose faith. I didn't think it could ever happen to me! I really didn't! Geez, I'm so surprised. It's like winning an Oscar or even a Golden Globe!
I feel like I should have a speech prepared. First, I'd like to thank the Academy...
Hot damn! I am so frickin' excited I can't hardly believe it!
And all this on a post that a. wasn't directed at Learned Foot and b. he didn't bother to read. Does it get better than that? Oh, it just might!
The phrase "ad hominem attacks" was used! Tee frickin' hee!
I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, does it get any better than that? I don't think so.
Oh man! It's like Christmas came on my birthday or something! It's just too much to ask for!
Shit. I think I need to break out the whisky to celebrate this one.
UPDATE: Someone over at Kool Aid Report deleted my trackback! And after I went to all that trouble to manually ping them, too.
Classy stuff, that.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
WASHINGTON - Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan, which supporters said were aimed at protecting local wineries and limiting underage drinkers from purchasing wine without showing proof of age. In all, 24 states have laws barring interstate shipments.
The court said the state bans are discriminatory and anticompetitive.
"States have broad power to regulate liquor," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers.""If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms," he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The ruling means that legislatures in the 24 states barring out-of-state shipments will have to review their laws to make sure in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally. As a result, states could choose to allow wineries to sell to consumers directly, but could also bar all wineries from doing so.{...}
Hurrah for interstate commerce!
{Hat tip: Absinthe and Cookies}
Posted by: Kathy at
11:39 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
It'll be interesting to see what he's sentenced to.
Anyone want to wager that hard labor in Siberia's an option?
Posted by: Kathy at
09:05 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Woohoo!
Make sure you go over and welcome her to our little home!
Posted by: Kathy at
08:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
May 15, 2005
My failings as a World Champion Web Surfer aside, let's get down to brass tacks. If you're interested, take the jump. more...
Posted by: Kathy at
11:45 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3138 words, total size 19 kb.
May 14, 2005
The other 364 days out of the year, politicians in Washington act like they've never heard the word "constituency," let alone have realized that they are, indeed, in hock to the voters of their respective districts for their jobs.
This one day, however, when their jobs are on the line because they didn't have enugh clout to keep their local bases off the base closing list, well, they're scrambling around like a half dozen eggs thrown into a pan of hot bacon grease.
I just love it. It's so enjoyable watching them squirm for a change.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
Just to get them off my chest, and to entertain and enlighten you all, I shall list them out here.
1. "Shot Dead." As in, "So and so was shot dead on an L.A. freeway and it was broadcast on live television." I cannot tell you how much I hate these two words when they are thrown together. I will not quibble that "shot dead" is efficient language. Two words are used to get a message across, instead of five or ten or fifteen, which is handy when you have a word count to pay heed to and there are other things to focus on because their death is not the real story, but rather an unfortunate by-product. Yet, I cannot help but feel it's callous language. That its usage alone denies a victim of their dignity. I hate this phrase. It knocks someone's death down to two words. How cruel is that? Particularly when the rest of the story is nothing but hot air or bloated speculation meant to fill air-time, rather than to inform? The repeated usage of this phrase irks me to no end.
2. Filibustering. As in, "Senate Democrats are filibustering Republican judicial nominees." I did a doubletake on this one last night. It was so blatantly wrong that it stuck out like a sore thumb. This, to put it mildly, is inaccurate language. This is lazy language. If you took this literally, you would be well within your rights to believe Teddy Kennedy is out there on the Senate floor right now, a coffee cup full of scotch at the ready, reading the collected works of William Shakespeare into the Senate record. He's not. Neither is Hilary Clinton warming up her vocal chords by singing scales at a piano bar in Georgetown. They're not filibustering anything. Yet. The Democrats have threatened to filibuster Republican judical nominees; they have not, however, followed through. There is a difference. The threat of the filibuster is not the same thing as the actual filibuster itself. Yet, as far as the media is concerned, it is. Hence the liberal usage of the word "filibustering" to describe something that hasn't happened yet. In the process of using this lazy language they are misleading people. They skip over procedural steps that the public should be informed about; they are creating a foregone conclusion where there is none.
Since the Republican leadership is threatening to get rid of the filibuster altogether, it might behoove this news channel (and all the other ones) to describe the filibuster correctly, so as not to mislead their audience on this very important bit of news.
Ok, I feel better now. Throw your own lingustic pet peeves into the comments section. You'll feel better, too. I promise.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:25 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.
What the hell does this mean? How can the Cake Eater Chronicles be #445 in the Ecosystem?
Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute.
Just in case you're thinking I believe this blog should be higher, think again. I believe it should be lower in the rankings. A few weeks ago I was in the seven hundreds. Now I'm in the mid-400's? Something's really wrong.
All I can think is that the Ecosystem must have been consuming large quantities of beer (hey, maybe it's been hanging out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?) is drunk and is about to let loose with one heck of a belch.
UPDATE: Title fixed.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:26 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
You can't drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08 in Minnesota.
Which of course doesn't count the fact that Sgt. Vick got into his car and was in the process of driving home when he was murdered.
According to this paper:
Two thirds of drivers in alcohol related fatal accidents have a BAC of .14 or higher. The average BAC involved in fatal accidents is .17
Think about that one for a minute, eh?
I'm sure Sgt. Vick was a good guy and a good cop, and he most certainly didn't deserve what happned to him. I'm not trying to smear the guy. Really, I'm not. He was out doing his job, which meant he was working undercover. In bars. Where you have to drink to fit in. I think he probably had one too many and that's that.
While I am concerned about the fact that I'm pretty damn sure the St.Paul police, had he lived, would have done nothing more than slapped him on the wrist for this behavior---that he would have in no way, shape or form, ever been prosecuted for this behavior, unlike the general population---this isn't really what interests me. What I find curious are Sgt. Vick's defenders.
His defenders say "he made a mistake" and his life and death shouldn't be judged by that one mistake. The Mayor of St. Paul said it was important that no one should "revictimize the family." If Sgt. Vick simply "made a mistake" and no one should be "revictimizing" his family for said mistake, why are people jumping to his defense left and right, instead of saying, "yeah, it happens" and moving along? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we treat those who have had too much to drink in this day and age? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we look at alcohol in this country nowadays?
Being drunk every once and a while never used to be anything to be ashamed about. Maybe you forgot to eat before you went out. Maybe you just had one too many. It never used to signal that you were a problem person because you tied one on and never was the reputation you worked hard over a lifetime to establish on the line because of a night of drinking. Not so anymore, it seems. As far as society is concerned, if you have a BAC as high as Sgt. Vick's, you're a bad person. Unless, of course, you happen to be Sgt. Vick. Then you're not a bad person. You just made a mistake. That by releasing this information, and then commenting on it, we're all speaking ill of the dead.
Ummm, I don't think so. I think this controversy points directly toward the fact that in this country we are moving toward a new age of prohibition. One where excessive regulation will act in place of a new Eighteenth Amendment. Outlawing alcohol outright didn't make the problems associated with those who drink---drunk driving, fighting, excessive screwing---disappear, so now the conventional wisdom is to not only make buying and consuming alcohol a nanny-state, regulatory nightmare, but it's to also shame people into line. The bar goes lower and lower every year in regards to what is acceptable behavior where alcohol is concerned. If something doesn't happen sometime soon, pretty soon you'll have a wine box in the fridge that will have a breathalyzer attached to it and it won't dispense any more wine if you blow above the legal limit.
I don't think Sergeant Vick was a bad guy because he had a BAC of .20, even if I don't think he should have been out policing with that much liquor in his system. But how many people do think Sgt. Vick was a bad guy simply because he had that much liquor in his system? That's the question that matters. How many have made assumptions precisely about what type of person he was strictly because of his BAC level? After all, if no one had made this assumption, he wouldn't need any defenders, would he? It would all be taken in stride.
Think about that for a minute and then try and tell me this country hasn't gotten out of line with its attitude toward alcohol.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:22 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 4 kb.
May 13, 2005
Don't go and read it unless you have one of two things handy: a. a shower capable of pumping out gallon after gallon of cold water or b. a partner in crime who can help.
Dang!
Posted by: Kathy at
02:45 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
Not so anymore. Courtesy of Fausta, we have this lovely tidbit:
The French art world is reeling after this week's announcement by the billionaire businessman Francois Pinault that he is pulling the plug on what was to be a major new gallery of contemporary art in Paris.The 69-year-old tycoon, who is a close friend of President Jacques Chirac, was planning to put on display his 2,500-strong collection of late 20th century works in a futuristic museum to be built on an island in the river Seine.
But on Monday Pinault said that he was so fed up with planning delays and other bureaucratic obstacles that he had decided to stop the whole project.
Instead, his collection - including pieces by Miro, Jackson Pollock and Jeff Koons as well as British artists Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin - will be housed in the magnificent 18th century Palazzo Grassi on the Grand Canal in Venice, which Pinault bought last month.{...}
Gallery-owner Emmanuel Perrotin said that "once again it holds up to ridicule the sluggishness of the whole French system".
"Here was someone who wanted to build a museum as big as the Pompidou centre... Seen from abroad, Paris keeps its image as a small town in the provinces."
Francois Pinault has been buying modern art for more than 30 years
Even the left-leaning Le Monde newspaper agreed: "The fiasco has sent a clear message, discouraging anyone tempted by a similar adventure."It underlines the supreme difficulty of launching an initiative in the field of the arts outside the path of public aid. This situation is untenable. The state cannot do everything.{...}
Fausta shows her shrewdness yet again when she says:
"I have the distinct impression that the Boulogne-Billancourt bureaucrats assumed that the Pinault project was "a done deal"(*) and that Pinault wouldn't dare locate the collection anywhere but in France.Clearly, they were wrong."
What have we here? A France that was so unenthusiastic about the fact a private entrepreneur wanted to set up an art gallery that would be good for the economy that the entrepreneur in question became completely frustrated and set up shop in Venice. I'm not a business world junkie, by any stretch of the imagination, but even I know who Pinault is and he has a reputation as a shark. The article mentioned that he owned Gucci, and this should tell you something very important. Gucci was the subject of a hostile takeover by LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy), another French luxury goods maker a few years back. Bernard Arnault, the head of LVMH, tried for a very long period of time to get Gucci under the LVMH umbrella and ultimately failed. Pinault was the man who benefitted from Arnault's battle: he was patient and let Arnault do all the heavy lifting, then swooped in as a white knight on Gucci's behalf and snaked the company out from under his competitors nose. This shows that the man is canny and has plenty of patience. That he lost patience with the French government in all its local and national flavors should tell you something is not quite right here.
For all their moaning and whining about the assault on French culture, it doesn't even seem as if the French appreciate it enough these days.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.
As the wise man once said, "Perspective matters."
The new landlord moved into the Cake Eater Pad on May 1st, and we're pretty happy with the guy. So far, so good. He's a little loud when watching the NBA playoffs, but that's forgivable. I get a little loud when I watch the news. It's all good. The only issue I have with him is that he keeps putting off calling the plumber to see what needs to be done about my dishwasher that has been on the fritz since last fall. No worries, though. He'll get to it eventually; he's not ignoring me out of spite or cheapness like the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb would have done. He's young, too. As in his middle-twenties. Neither is he married. Hence, he has a roommate, who is yet another really nice, unmarried young man in his mid-twenties.
Well, the husband was chatting with the roommate last night and during the course of the conversation the husband learned that the roommate is going into the hospital today for surgery. He told the husband because he wanted to let us know that no one was going to be around this weekend, as the landlord is out of town on business. You see, the reason for the surgery is that he has testicular cancer and he has to have something (I think you can probably guess what) removed. The husband didn't give me many details about the conversation, because I think he was a bit stunned and didn't ask. The offer of "if you need anything at all, please let us know," was proffered, but I don't know that the guy feels comfortable enough with us to take us up on it. And that's fine: we've only known him for thirteen days.
I just saw him walking to his car to go to the hospital. His girlfriend was with him and he looked determined. He was carrying his suitcase, swinging it mildly, like he knew he wasn't going to be able to do that when he came home, so he was going to get in as much of that activity while he could. He was walking with a distinct purpose, like the time had finally arrived for him to go off to war, and there was no need to dither about like a sentimental fool. It was inevitable. The thought, "let's get it over with" was written all over his young face. His girlfriend looked resigned, maybe even a little tired, and her lips were puckered with worry. She was dressed comfortably in a polar fleece, basketball pants and cross-trainers for what will undoubtedly be a long day of sitting around a hospital, waiting for doctors to come and tell her what the scoop is.
Life, at this particular point in time, is sucking pretty badly for these two people. But it's obvious that they've acquired helmets and have put them on, to protect their noggins from whatever might come flying at them in the next few days.
I suppose this should serve as a friendly reminder that no matter what you're going through, it could always be worse. Sometimes we need a reminder every now and again of this fact. If you're feeling sorry for yourself this morning, and are weeping and wailing about your own problems, well, take a lesson from these two people: get your own helmet and batter through your own problems, because, after all, it could be worse.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:49 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.
Apparently you all don't think I'm the fount of wisdom I make myself out to be because no one---not one single, solitary person---sent a question to the divas sez mailbox for me to answer.
Hmmmph.
I was going to go and snatch a bunch of questions from Carolyn Hax's column, and answer them in my own way, but I just figured it's not worth my time to try and entertain and enlighten a bunch of people who just don't give a damn.
You'll excuse me, but I need to go and milk my martyr complex for what it's worth.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:41 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
May 12, 2005
It seems they'll let just anyone speak in authoritative tones nowadays.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:58 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
64 queries taking 0.131 seconds, 232 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
