--- What I want most of all for everyone is world peace

Heheheheheh.
Hey, maybe I had it wrong all these years. I always thought those
swimsuit competitions were completely bogus, but hell, maybe they can
serve a purpose after all. --- More blogging tomorrow. The back is
better, I'm off the advil and I can actually get up from a prostrate
position without screaming. Woohoo! Life is relatively good.
We will have movie reviews for you. And when I write "we" I mean
we---the husband has accepted my generous offer (sha! generous my lily
white ass---he's saving my lily white ass) to blog about Matrix Revolutions. In fact, he's doing research right now: he's watching the Reloaded
DVD he insisted he needed to write this esteemed article. Yeah, I
know---I got suckered. But he's good in bed, so I suppose I'll have to
let it slide or mamma ain' gonna get none. I have no idea what tack
he's going to take in the writing of the article, but I'm assuming it
will be defensive in nature: he's not really pleased with all of the
critiques it's receiving. Have at it, babe! It will be posted sometime
this week.
The other movie we saw was Finding Nemo. The nephew's birthday
was this week and I have to confess. I did a bad, bad thing on Friday
night. You see, we bought him the Finding Nemo DVD for his
birthday and curious to see the film, I cracked it open and we watched
it. GASP!
Yeah, I know. I'm evil. The Auntie from hell. Next thing you know I'll
be pinching chubby little cheeks and knitting the assorted hordes of
nieces and nephews horrible sweaters a normal person wouldn't have the
decency to put on a dog. But hell, it was worth it, and if nothing
else, I learned how to take shrink wrap off a box without ripping it
entirely. Talk about a worthwhile skill to have. And that says nothing
of removing that nasty sticker they place on the tops of all CD's and
DVD's---you know the one I'm talking about---the one that's a bitch to
remove and usually makes you scream in frustration when you're stuck
trying to remove it when all you want to do is listen to the damn music
and you can't do that until you get it off? Yeah, you know the one I
mean---I got that sucker off in five seconds flat. I'm good.
But I'm experiencing a massive guilt trip over watching the DVD and
then giving
it to the nephew the next morning at his birthday party, praying no one
would notice the scotch tape holding the shrink wrap together, and
watching him get all excited over it while I know it's not a new
present.

{Insert Chris Issak playing Baby Did A Bad, Bad Thing
here}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

---When I̢۪m looking for a concise, literal definition of some concept, I usually turn to Black̢۪s Law Dictionary
because it̢۪s written by lawyers and legal scholars, not writers.
Lawyers make their living from highlighting esoteric language
conundrums to protect their clients; writers (and I should know) have a
tendency to exploit those same language difficulties. Lawyers may not
be good for a lot of things, but one thing they are good at is keeping
certain definitions in the English language clear and concise. I
don̢۪t believe, as you see below, that we can say the same of most
writers, particularly the subject of today̢۪s excoriation: Steve Berg
of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Today̢۪s definition from Black̢۪s is Plagiarism
The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts
or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and
passing them off as the product of one̢۪s own mind. If material is
protected by copyright, such act may constitute an offense of copyright
infringement.
To be liable for plagiarism it is not necessary to exactly duplicate
another̢۪s literary work, it being sufficient unfair use of such a
work is made by lifting of substantial portion thereof, but even an
exact counterpart of another̢۪s work does not constitute plagiarism if
such courterpart was arrived at independently. O̢۪Rourke v. RKO Radio
Pictures, D.C.Mass, 44F.Supp. 480, 482, 483.

Now, to be fair my edition of Black̢۪s
is quite old---about ten years or so, so the legal definition might
have changed with precedents that have unfolded over that period of
time, but I can̢۪t imagine that it would have changed in a substantial
enough fashion to let a plagiarist off the hook. Undoubtedly, you̢۪re
asking now, what the hell is she rambling on about this time? Fair question, I admit, but I was shell-shocked to read Steve Berg’s editorial in the Star Tribune, titled Growing Divide, here and afar and I just can’t keep quiet about it: the man is guilty of plagiarism. Using the Black’s definition of plagiarism as our guide, Berg â€Â¦appropriate{ed}
the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his
writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and pass{ed} them off
as the product of one̢۪s own mind.

The source material that was so blatantly plagiarized was a series of articles on America published in The Economist̢۪s
November 8, 2003, edition. On a regular basis this magazine publishes
surveys of geographical regions, countries, business topics, and, in a
recent edition, a world religion---Islam. The purpose of these surveys
is to occasionally go back and review what is actually going on in
these areas: they highlight how things are the same since the last time
this subject was surveyed, and more importantly, they also show how
things are different. Now, The Economist publishes these quite
regularly---I would say once a month or so, and they̢۪re fascinating
to read. I enjoyed reading the survey of America: it was enlightening,
to say the least. The survey̢۪s stated purpose was to try and explain
why America is different than Europe or, for that matter, any other
country on Earth. It asked important questions: why is American
politics so polarized; what part does religion play in our politics;
why is our patriotism different; what sets us apart from Europe, etc.
It was twenty pages of well-researched, non-politicized, empirical
explanations of America̢۪s people and our government̢۪s behavior and
Mr. Berg, apparently, found it to be as thought provoking as I did. I
was going to write about it, as well, but Mr. Berg beat me to the
punch, and in such a blatant way.
It̢۪s compare and contrast time, boys and girls. Are we ready? {insert
collective nod of heads here} Ok, and we̢۪re off.
Berg: As recently as two years ago the United States cast a long
shadow of sympathy and unity. The civilized world was horrified at the
vicious terror attacks on New York and Washington. "Nous sommes tous
Améri-cains," proclaimed the French newspaper Le Monde. We are all
Americans.
The elder George Bush predicted that these attacks would "erase the
concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone." The
historian Francis Fukuyama, in line with his "End of History" writings,
said that 9/11 had made America a more ordinary country in terms of its
interests and vulnerabilities "rather than thinking of itself
unilaterally able to define the nature of the world it lives in."

Ok, so if you were reading this and you hadn̢۪t read The Economist this past week, you̢۪d think hey, they guy̢۪s well read, or he at least knows how to research.
Not everyone knows who Francis Fukuyama is: he̢۪s pretty obscure---big
in certain academic circles, but his work is not really something
you̢۪d pick up at Barnes and Noble to while away the time. I knew who
he was, however, and the only reason I knew was because I̢۪d
read a few articles of his during my political science days back at
Iowa State. But I̢۪d remembered him being quoted recently---in the Economist---and
this is the passage that set my alarm bells off. So, I went and snagged
my copy and started looking for the passage that quotes him, andâ€Â¦
Economist: At first, America and the world seemed to change
together. “We are all New Yorkers now,” ran an e-mail from Berlin
that day, mirroring John F. Kennedy's declaration 40 years earlier,
“Ich bin ein Berliner”, and predicting Le Monde's headline the next
day, “Nous sommes tous Américains”. And America, for its part,
seemed to become more like other countries. Al-Qaeda's strikes, the
first on the country's mainland by a foreign enemy, stripped away
something unique: its aura of invulnerability, its sense of itself as a
place apart, “the city on a hill”.
Two days after the event, President George Bush senior predicted that,
like Pearl Harbour, “so, too, should this most recent surprise attack
erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it
alone.” Francis Fukuyama, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins
University, suggested that “America may become a more ordinary
country in the sense of having concrete interests and real
vulnerabilities, rather than thinking itself unilaterally able to
define the nature of the world it lives in.”
Shaking my head, I read on. Berg then decided to throw in some of his
own commentary, you know, to break up the plagiarism (sorry, kids, but
it̢۪s a distinct pattern).
This turn toward humility and unity with other Western democracies
never happened.
President George W. Bush, with the apparent assent of most Americans,
led the nation in quite the opposite direction. Perhaps never has
America stood so alone and alienated from the community of nations as
now. Seldom has domestic politics been so irreconcilably divided.

Then we get back to copying someone else’s work. Berg jumped articles. The passage above is taken from “A Nation Apart;” In this next section, he plagiarizes from a different article: “Politics As Warfare.”

Berg: The
man who campaigned as a unifier has accomplished the opposite. Two
years ago, more than 80 percent of Republicans and Democrats gave Bush
their approval. Today, the president enjoys nearly as much support
among Republicans, but the approval of Democrats has nose-dived to
below 20 percent. This is a gap of historic proportions leading toward
next year's elections.

Economist: As for Mr Bush himself, he
has proved a polarising president, better at solidifying the Republican
base than at extending it. Two years after September 2001, his own
party's approval of him stood at over 80%, but Democratic approval had
fallen below 20%. This stunning gap marks Mr Bush as even more divisive
than Bill Clinton, who suffered just as much from Republicans'
hostility as Mr Bush does from Democrats'. But whereas Mr Clinton's
policies were more popular than he was, with Mr Bush it is the other
way around. His ratings on the economy and tax cuts are lower than his
overall approval levels.
Wait, it gets even better.

Berg: Apparently
we are, as the social historian Gertrude Himmelfarb described us, "one
nation, two cultures" -- one more religious, traditional and patriotic,
the other more secular, tolerant and multicultural.

Economist: In
1999, Gertrude Himmelfarb, a social historian, argued that America is
becoming “One Nation, Two Cultures”. One is religious, puritanical,
family-centred and somewhat conformist. The other is tolerant,
hedonistic, secular, predominantly single and celebrates
multiculturalism. These value judgments are the best predictor of
political affiliation, far better than wealth or income.

Then Berg goes on to extrapolate from this description, by using one paragraph to state his case, whereas The Economist
used the rest of their article---all seventeen paragraphs of it---to
back their case up with actual (gasp!) empirical evidence. Berg: Bush's pugnacious attachment to the first culture, his
eagerness to export the superiority of American values, has severely
damaged America's standing in the world, as the president may discover
on his trip to Britain this week. And it has profoundly divided the
home front.

You can find the article here.
Berg then goes into actual anecdotal evidence that he̢۪s garnered, rather than stolen.

Berg: It's
not hard to find this divide in daily life.
In my church parking lot last Sunday, two friends paused to engage in
what has become a common lament: what to do about a president they find
deeply offensive, repulsive and embarrassing. "When he comes on TV, I
can't bear to watch," said Sandra, a college professor. She can't abide
Bush's overly simplistic view of the world, she said, his paper-thin
patriotism, his glib tossing out of phrases like "America believes in
freedom" and "America will fight evil," his aura of simultaneous
arrogance and ignorance.
Mostly she hates the notion that she, as a critic, is not patriotic,
not "normal" in the sense of what a good American should be. She told
of a casual political discussion on a recent hiking trip during which
she was scolded for being "a Democrat -- which also means you're an
atheist."
Then on Wednesday I had a lengthy phone conversation with my friend
Bob, who is a radio station broker in St. Petersburg, Fla. He told me
what he so admires in Bush: moral clarity.
The president may not be well-spoken, but his unashamed embrace of
American values is profoundly important, Bob said, because it's clearer
now than before 9/11 that the world is divided into good and evil.
Being an American, he said, carries with it belief in fundamental,
universal ideas: that individual liberty is better than collective
effort, that free societies are not just different from oppressed
societies, but are better.
"I know how this must sound to much of the world and to some people
here, but I don't mind being an arrogant American because I stand for
something," Bob told me, adding that he's sick of the notion that
Americans must continue to examine themselves when it's others who are
at fault. There's no shame in Bush's attempt to secure basic freedoms
for the people of the Middle East, he said, because it's for mutual
benefit.
I̢۪m not going to congratulate him for actually doing his job, but it
should be said that he knows how to do so, even if he does get lazy on
occasion.
The next section is obviously where all those nagging little doubts
about being a plagiarizer came into Berg̢۪s mind, because he decides
to cover his ass. Berg: These are the tenets of "American exceptionalism," a phrase
popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville in the mid-19th century to
describe the American character. As discussed exhaustively in the Nov.
8-14 issue of the Economist, the expression carries both the notion of
America as peculiar and the presumption by Americans that the rest of
the world would benefit by copying us.

Oh, so that̢۪s where all this stuff came from, eh, Steve? But, you say, he credited his source. I̢۪ll get to that in a little while, but no, really, he didn̢۪t.
It̢۪s important to note that The Economist
did not come to the same conclusion about de Tocqeville̢۪s description
of “American Exceptionalism.” That’s Berg’s conclusion of de
Tocqueville: not theirs. The Economist went on where Berg stopped and the following is just a sample of the rest of the article.

Economist:
In his book {de Tocqueville} “Democracy in America”, he described
not only what is particular to democracy, especially the way in which
it changes how people think and act (what he calls “the quiet action
of society upon itself” . He also described what was, and is,
particular to America: its size, the institutions it had inherited from
England, its decentralised administration. These two versions of
American exceptionalism have more in common than might appear at first
sight. Both suggest that the experience of America is open to others.
The idea of America-as-model implies that other countries can come to
be more like America, though American differences may still persist
over time. The idea that America is intrinsically different is also
consistent with the notion that outsiders can become American, but they
must go there to do it and become citizens—hence America's
extraordinary capacity to assimilate immigrants.
There are three points to grasp from this gallop through the history of
American exceptionalism. First, it is, as Mr. Lipset put it, a
double-edged sword. It helps explain the best and the worst about the
country: its business innovation and its economic inequality; its
populist democracy and its low voter turn-out; its high spending on
education and its deplorable rates of infant mortality and teenage
pregnancy. Exceptionalism is often used either as a boast or as a
condemnation—though in reality it is neither.
Second, the two strands help explain why exceptionalism is divisive
within America itself. Most Americans are doubtless proud of the
“exemplary” qualities of their country. But the non-exemplary, more
peculiar features do not always command universal approval.
Third, there should be nothing surprising, or necessarily disturbing,
in a revival of exceptionalism. America has almost always been seen as
different. The question is: has anything changed recently?
Ok, I can accept Berg̢۪s truncated conclusion of de Tocqueville, but
in truncating it in the first place, he excluded all of the significant
parts of de Tocqueville: mainly, to quote the man himself, (and this is
from The Economist as well, so don̢۪t shoot me down for not citing properly)
“Everything about the Americans,” said Alexis de Tocqueville, “is
extraordinary, but what is more extraordinary still is the soil that
supports them.” The main point being that America is America
because the land we live on allows our democracy to flourish because
there̢۪s so darned much of it. The rest of the article goes on to
compare and contrast Europe and America to make the point that American
Exceptionalism is unique to our country and unlikely to form
elsewhere---a key point that de Tocqueville heralded and has yet to be
proven as viable. But that̢۪s a niggling little detail to Berg: he̢۪s
afraid it might happen---now---with George W. Bush as the standard
bearer. Berg: Bush's response to 9/11 has greatly magnified American
exceptionalism, the British magazine suggests, causing much of the
world to worry about this nation's military strength, its growing
religiosity, its veer to the right. As democracies grow wealthier, they
tend to be less militaristic, more secular and more introspective, the
magazine notes. But not America.
The Economist, long a keen observer of all things American, concludes
editorially that just because America is different doesn't make it
wrong, that the world has more to gain than to lose from American
exceptionalism. I agree. I'll put our values against anyone's. But no
one trusts a bully, even if he insists he's doing you a favor. Like my
friend Sandra, I wish for a president who's less reckless and a
government with a touch more humility. As Tocqueville wrote in 1840,
"There's nothing more annoying than this irritable patriotism of the
Americans."

I don̢۪t have much to say to that, because The Economist does state as much in its editorial, albeit in much less sinister tones. You can read it here
and judge for yourself. The point would be, however, at least he
credits the editorial, whereas the rest of Berg̢۪s commentary revolves
around appropriating others work and using it as evidence to back up
his points.
Now, Berg did cite his source. I can agree with that statement---in
theory. But it reads like it̢۪s his. And that̢۪s what I have a problem with. If he had simply started off the article with, in
last week̢۪s issue of The Economist the research division published a
twenty page, mulitple article, survey of America, focusing on the
theory of American Exceptionalism and how it leads to profound
differences in understanding what America is all about and how it will
affect other nationsâ€Â¦ But he didn’t: he didn’t think it was
necessary. Berg led the reader to believe he was the one who unearthed
Francis Fukuyama̢۪s studies. It̢۪s the same situation with Gertrude
Himmelfarb. He didn̢۪t even bother to quote the source of his
statistics---which The Economist cited as a Gallup poll---that Democratic approval of President Bush had fallen to 20%. In other words, to use Black̢۪s, definition of plagiarism, Berg
appropriate{ed} the literary composition of another, or parts or
passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and
pass{ed} them off as the product of one̢۪s own mind. The
plagiarism is particularly egregious if you were reading the Star
Tribune̢۪s print edition: most of the article ran on the front page of
the OpEx section, but the section where he cites his source was on page AA3.

Now, he did cover his ass technically speaking---but how many of us have written research papers? Would an act of appropriation such as this gotten you
thrown out of school? I know I would have been booted if I had tried
something so egregious on a term paper. What makes it different for
Berg? The fact he̢۪s has the obvious column length restrictions? The
fact he̢۪s got only so many column inches means he̢۪s allowed a pass
on intellectual dishonesty because there wasn̢۪t room for it?
Baloney. For me, Berg̢۪s plagiarism is on par with a kid who̢۪s got a
report to write and little time to achieve the task. What does that kid
generally do? They pull the encyclopedia off the shelf or they hit the
internet, looking for research. Invariably, the child will be tempted
and will start copying straight from the source, changing words here or
there to make it sound like it̢۪s their own work. What makes Berg any
better than some kid who pulls as stunt like this? Go back up and read
Berg̢۪s explanation of Himmelfarb̢۪s thesis and then read The Economist̢۪s and I think you̢۪ll get my point.

It̢۪s intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort: the author cites the source but obviously assumes you̢۪re
too lazy to go and look up the citation; that you̢۪ll just take his
word that this is the actual conclusion the source came to and that the
author is citing them correctly. And it̢۪s very easy for Berg
to get away with it, too. After all, if you̢۪re a regular reader of
this site, you know you can̢۪t get any of these articles off The Economist̢۪s
website without paying for a subscription. And what makes it worse is
that Berg’s trying to sway your---the reader’s—opinion with his
clever research and quotations. But it̢۪s not his
research. Does that help or hinder his credibility? It definitely
hinders it for me. I don̢۪t know about you, but I̢۪m not likely to
take this guy at his word from now on because I know he lied to me. He
was dishonest with his work. And if Berg really wanted to make
a point with this commentary, perhaps he shouldn̢۪t have stolen others
ideas and work in such a blatant fashion. (Oh, and he also gave the
wrong link to the Economist in his citation)

Posted by: Kathy at 07:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3345 words, total size 23 kb.

--- Hey, I'm still alive.

I know---you were worried, weren't you? All five of you thought I'd disappeared into the internet ether. Poof.
Ghandi. And you were feeling the void. I'm sure of it. Sigh. I'm sorry.
I just got busy with pre-holiday preparations. Polishing silver and
cleaning the house takes time, you know? These things just don't do
themselves, although it would be cool if they did. Can you imagine
buying a house that cleans itself? How fabulous. I mean, why the heck
hasn't someone come up with this? We can come up with self-cleaning
ovens---why not a self cleaning house? I'd be the first in line to buy
one. But, then again, what would I have to bitch about? I need
something. Might as well be the house and the dirt within it.
--- Thanksgiving was good. We had some friends over as the rest of the
Cake Eater family was in Colorado for the holiday and we weren't able
to make it down there. Damn shame, too: it was in the sixties there.
Such is life.
But we had a nice fire, a GREAT turkey (the husband took that one
over---stuffed the bird with an apple and garlic and loads of garlic
butter---mmmmmm), some very tasty wine and good company. What more
could a girl ask for? Other than roomier jeans, not much. When I was
growing up, my mother always used to point out to us kids that we
should be thankful every day of the year---and not just on the one day
specifically designated for such thanks. Sort of like celebrating
Valentine's Day all the time, instead of just on February 14th. Makes
sense, but it's harder to put into practice than you think it would be.
Life gets in the way. You start getting caught up in all the little
slights (perceived or real) that happen on a daily basis and the rest
of what you do have seems inconsequential, damnit, because if only this
one thing would work out, you'd have more. It's long been an observation of mine that we're a pretty greedy people, on the whole. We want
things, regardless of whether we need them or not. It's no great bit of
irony to me that the busiest shopping day of the year comes directly after the day we're to give thanks for what we've got. It's like saying, hey, I'm seriously thankful for what I've got, but now I need more---where's the VISA?.
But that's not necessarily wrong. How many other people in the world
would like to have the luxurious and typically American conundrum of
basic-needs-met-what-the-hell-else-can-I-have? We're blessed to be able
to think like that. I'm sure there's a poor man in Zimbabwe or Brazil
who would love
to be able to think like that. I'm sure there's a woman in Sudan right
now who would enjoy just looking at the adverts that came in the paper
yesterday, because just looking at what's available is half the fun.
We're blessed with our success. Does this mean we should pull back?
Start pulling on the hairshirts and flogging ourselves whenever the
desire for the Prada handbag becomes too strong to resist? I don't
think so, because after all, hairshirts and bullwhips cost money, too,
but I don't think we should lose sight of our blessings, either. We
should be readily aware of how blessed we are. So, in the spirit of
gratutitous overabundance, here's a few things I'm thankful for being
blessed with. Needless Markup catalogs
Amazon.com
The Economist Lunds
Costco Movies DVD's (and my sweet DVD player)
Sony televisions
The Matrix
CD burners and friends who are willing to break copyright laws
Real One Player for making the aforementioned copyright law breaking so darn easy.
The Edge
DirecTv (but not their DirecTV DVD-R with Tivo---will never be grateful for Tivo)
Digital cameras
The books of Arturo Perez-Reverte
Merrells and Birkenstocks
Gap Jeans
The wine bar down the street
Walgreens
Wells Fargo
The promise of any Hugh Grant movie
CSI and The West Wing
The Convention Grill (greasiest hamburgers and fries anywhere in the developed world)
My sofa
Diana Gabaldon
Nellie (my car)
The possibility of Minnesota Public Radio's going completely broke
Concrete Blonde's Live From BrazilMichelin
Maps (and of course the bulimic Michelin Man)
Frequent flyer miles
Star Wars Galaxies--just kidding
Yo Yo Ma and his cello
CNN International
Lileks (have an enjoyable nonblogging December, dude)
Sullivan
Instapundit
A Small Victory and her ever so gentle art of making enemies
Vodkapundit
Mil (you bastard!)
Down pillows and comforters
Grover (yes, the blue one)
imdb
France (and yes I mean that) and friends who live there.
Scotch---preferably the stuff that was 18 years old when I was a
toddler
Silly Germans
President Bush
Runzas
Johann Sebastian Bach
Nat King Cole
Windows XP and of course, Wee Bastard
Marlboro Ultra Light 100's
And disposable lighters
This is to say nothing of family and friends who manage to keep this
sort of commercialism all in perspective. I'm thankful for it all. I've
got it good thanks to the ancestors who got on the big stinky boats and
sailed across the big, blue sea so that I could have this sort of
gratitutious overabundance.
Bless you and have a glass of wine on me. You deserve it.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 894 words, total size 5 kb.

--- Well said.
Ann Coulter annoys me. This is no surprise to anyone, I̢۪m sure. But
what might surprise you is that most of the time I think she̢۪s got a
point. However, it̢۪s how she chooses to phrase that point that always
leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. Invariably, she will come up
with a valid point of contention and because she relies entirely upon
inflammatory rhetoric that automatically presumes I, the reader, am
stupid, it turns me off. There are no shades of gray with Coulter̢۪s
world. It̢۪s always and forever black and white with this woman. This
commentary proves my point. No, it is not exactly classy that the
Democratic candidates seem to be bringing out their dead in an effort
to get elected, but don̢۪t you think she might have been able to state
her objections without being extremely crass in the meanwhile? Would
that have been possible? I think it would, but for Ms. Coulter, tact
has no place in discussing the Democratic candidates for President. She
disagrees with the positions they hold, so they̢۪re wrong on everything, and this would just be one more example to prove her point that conservatism is the only
way to go.
Not exactly the most nuanced tack to take, if you ask me. But plenty of
people lap it up, because she̢۪s the head cheerleader. And make no
bones about it---when it comes right down to it, Ann Coulter is that
obnoxiously peppy cheerleader you hated in high school. You know---the
rah-rah type, who hung out with all the football players and thought
that anyone who didn̢۪t support athletics {insert Valley Girl accent
here} was, like, a loser who just didn̢۪t, like, know what was important! Duh!
Does anyone know if Ann was a cheerleader in high school? I̢۪d bet my
last dollar she was. Her whole mentality reeks of it.
(Then again, I was never a cheerleader, so perhaps I̢۪m inserting my
own bias into the situation. I was a mime. What does that tell you?)
There are no “good guys” in Washington. There is no political party
that is right all of the time---every time. This
pick-your-team-and-support-them-to-the-death-mentality that is attached
to party politics rules out any number of things, but mainly free will
and the intelligence of the average voter. Partisanship, is the
technical definition, and it simply states that if you̢۪re not with
us, you̢۪re against us. This is what Ann Coulter believes and argues
for every time she pens a column or opens her mouth and lets her
punditry goodness spill forth on a news show. Anyone who isn̢۪t a
right wing Republican is stupid in her mind and there̢۪s no
possibility that she might be the one who is stupid by forever underestimating the intelligence of people who don̢۪t agree with her.

This type of partisanship---the take it or leave it type of partisanship---has no place in politics. And when I say politics
I mean the technical definition you are taught in political science
classes. Politics, say the professors, is the “allocation of
resources.” In other words, politics is how the butter gets spread
across the Wonder bread. A pretty simple concept, and therefore,
logically following this definition, in a democracy such as ours, we
work under the concept that everyone gets a say in how those resources
are allocated. This implies compromise and negotiation. But Ann
doesn̢۪t want to negotiate: she wants you to take it or leave it:
there̢۪s no room for compromise in her play book. And that to me,
smacks of totalitarianism---which is a word I take very seriously when
describing Americans---unlike Ann, who throws around the word
“treason” willy nilly. I don’t want to think anyone, in
this country is like Mussolini, and I particularly don̢۪t want to
think this of Ms. Coulter. But damnit, she wants the trains to run on
time and she thinks her side, and only her side, can get them to do so.
The simple fact that she refuses to listen to any criticism---valid or
not---proves this point: she̢۪s totalitarian in her beliefs.
I believe the same to be true about Al Franken and Michael Moore. They,
too, choose to only accept their point of view as being the correct
one. They refuse to think that anyone on the other side of the
political spectrum has a point. And for that we̢۪re all cheated.
Because, whatever you may think of their partisanship, they̢۪re all
very bright people. Ann, Al, and Michael are intelligent
people. And those of us in the middle of the political spectrum can see
their intelligence; we realize they may have a point, but they̢۪re
absolute refusal to think that maybe the people in the middle have a
point hamstrings them. There is no place for the rah-rah mentality when
it comes to allocating resources in a democracy. Assuming that anyone
who isn̢۪t on your side of the fence is stupid is no way to go about
arguing your points. No author should underestimate the intelligence of
their potential audience, yet this is what these authors do on a daily
basis. To put it another way, they̢۪re lazy. They don̢۪t want to
bring anyone over to their side: they just want more cheerleaders. They
want people to say “hey, I like the way you shake your pom-poms, no
matter what side you’re cheering for.” And for those of us who
don̢۪t think the way they shake their pom-poms is all that attractive,
well, we̢۪re screwed, aren̢۪t we? We don̢۪t get a spot on the side
of the field because we̢۪re not cheerleaders---we̢۪re just
spectators, we̢۪re relegated to the stands, and what would we know
about it, anyway? If we̢۪re not there to cheer, what̢۪s our purpose?
We̢۪re not involved; we haven̢۪t put ourselves out there; we have no
potential stake in the outcome. Or so they think. But that̢۪s where
they̢۪re wrong. Those of us in the stands do have a stake in the outcome, but you just can̢۪t hear us over the bullhorns.

Sigh.

--- Oh, yeah, the economy is in such
trouble.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1027 words, total size 7 kb.

--- Ah, Monday. I̢۪m late in getting things done today because I was
up late again reading Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1)
last night. It took seven hundred pages for this book to really get
into its groove, and now it̢۪s chugging along quite nicely. Although,
being the complete and utter math weenie that I am, the bits about the
calculus that are so integral to the plot are still baffling me. The
discovery and subsequent development of calculus is the one major
subplot of this book: it comes, it goes; it pops its head in unusual
ways while the rest of Europe is en fuego with wars, religious
conflicts, court intrigues and, of course, lots of sex. A pretty good
book on the whole, but the math is still baffling me, and hence makes
for difficult reading when I get to a portion of the book that chats
extensively about it. I never got beyond Trig in my study of
mathematics. Well, I did, but it was to matrix algebra, which I have no
clue as to if it was a step back from Trig, or a step up. And, fourteen
years after I took this course, I still fail to see why getting rid of
the x̢۪s and y̢۪s and bracketing the problems is a worthwhile subject
for a college freshman to study. It makes no sense: the x̢۪s and y̢۪s
are there for a reason: they represent variables on the Cartesian
plane. If you̢۪re still going to use the Cartesian plane to describe
how to work out the problems, why the hell did you get rid of the x̢۪s
and y̢۪s? Like I said, it makes no sense, but I digress, as usual. My
questions about the value of studying this type of math aside, it
should give you, my faithful audience, a reason as to why I proceeded no further in the study of it.

That, and the fact that Calc was just not a requirement they thought we liberal arts majors needed to fulfill.

Thanks be to God. Anyway, I was reading a portion of the book to
the husband that described the various bits and bobs calculus measures
(I think), parabolas, hyperbolas, and ellipses, and once again, I was
struck down by the sheer brilliance of the man I married. For the love
of God, one paragraph into the descriptions, he had the diagrams in his
head (conveniently printed on the next page for us dummies) and
understood precisely what Neal Stephenson was describing. Oh, except
for one diagram: he had mistakenly turned it upside down. Pffft. Now,
the husband has never taken calculus, yet he understood it. {shudder}
And if you want a solid, concrete example why standardized testing to
determine the course of study a child should follow is a bad idea, you
need look no further than the husband. The husband is brilliant. He̢۪s
predisposed to logic and as a result, likes things like math and hard
sciences. In the past, he̢۪s read physics textbooks for fun. To
paraphrase his description of his intelligence: he likes seeing how the
clock is put together, and the world is just one big pile of clock
parts. But he was never allowed to study how the clock goes together at
a level suiting his intelligence because he couldn̢۪t do his
multiplication tables fast enough. Yep. That̢۪s right. We lost out on
all of his potential scientific brilliance because some dolt at the
Iowa Department of Education decreed, once upon a time, that no child
who couldn̢۪t do their multiplication tables in a set amount of time
should be allowed to study higher math. As the husband will tell you he
didn̢۪t memorize his multiplication tables: instead, he worked the
problems out when he took the test. It took him a few moments longer
than the standardized amount of time would allow for and bam! he got stuck in math classes that bored him. For the duration of his elementary and secodary education.
Compounding this decision, his parents never moved from the town he was
tested in. Hence, there was no need for retesting.
And by the time he got to college, well, he had no desire to fight for
the right to study such things. What was the point? He was already
seriously behind. Hard math and interesting sciences were lost to him
as a potential course of study and all of the things that could have
followed because he didn̢۪t memorize his multiplication tables.
Grrrr. Anyway, I know this stuff probably bores my audience to no end.
But it̢۪s always shocking to me whenever he takes a problem that̢۪s
baffling me apart and solves it quickly---and easily. I had a
significantly higher G.P.A. when we graduated. I have taken graduate
level courses: technically speaking, I̢۪m more educated than he is.
But I̢۪m nowhere near as naturally smart. It̢۪s always stunning when
you̢۪re humbled in that fashion. I have no idea what lesson we̢۪re
supposed to learn from this sort of thing, because you know, there is a
lesson here. Perhaps, if nothing else, it should serve as a cautionary
parable to those reading this thing that a person̢۪s level of
intelligence is not easily quantified. I wonder how many other people
have been shunted by our school system, just like the husband. He
can̢۪t wait to read Quicksilver, by the way. He̢۪s
anxiously awaiting me to finish up so he can dive in.
And now that I̢۪m almost done with it, well, I̢۪m pissed that
Stephenson wrote the trilogy all at once and that they̢۪re not
releasing the next one until April.
Grrrr. --- So, anyway, since I was up late again last night, I woke up
late and this was the scene that greeted me when I spied out the
window.

Oh, happy day, says she with more than a fair amount of sarcasm.

--- I did some interesting research this weekend. And was recognized for it as well

I was reading the Instapundit on Saturday morning. A reader had sent in the cover of an issue of The Saturday Evening Post
from January of 1946. One of the headlines on the cover was “How We
Botched the German Occupation,” by Demaree Bess. The Instapundit was
curious to read the article and asked if anyone had it. I did some
quick Googling, nothing popped up, then I went to the Post̢۪s
website and saw that if I wanted a copy of the article, I would have to
shell out ten bucks for a reprint and then wait a goodly amount of time
for it to arrive via snail mail. (When are these print publications
ever going to learn?) So, instead of putzing around, I went to the
Mecca of all information in the Twin Cities: the Hennepin County Library Website. I did a quick scan of their resources and found that the Saturday Evening Post was not electronically archived before 1983, but
they did have microfilm copies going back to 1897 at my branch.
Woo-freaking-hoo. This was particularly interesting and convenient as I
already had to go to the library anyway to do some research on the
manuscript: I could do this, it wouldn̢۪t cost much and I could get in
good with the big dog. Pie---a slice of, please, in other words. It was
serendipity defined. As I was driving down to the biblioteca, however,
I became a wee bit dismayed: it had, after all, been ten years since
I̢۪d done research of this sort. Sure, it was easy in college, but
that was ages
ago. And besides they had all those really hunky guys working at the
microfilm room at Parks Library at Iowa State who were always willing
to help out when you jammed up the machine. It could be a lot
different nowadays. Technology has advanced in regards to all sorts of
things: just because this is microfilm doesn̢۪t mean they haven̢۪t
come up with some scary new viewer that will confuse the ever-living
daylights out of you. This could be a very bad idea.

All sorts of nerdy questions then decided to pop up in my brain, like dandelions on a pristine lawn:
What sort of index would they use to catalog the microfilm? Would it be
hard to find? Would I, horror of horrors, have to actually ask the
librarian for help? Because you know all reference
librarians---particularly microfilm librarians--- are hassled
individuals, and as a result are as cranky as a cat that̢۪s just been
doused with a pail of water. They hate it when people ask questions.
They think everyone should know exactly where things are, how to use
the machines and that if you don̢۪t, you̢۪re the equivalent of an
amoeba on the evolutionary scale. You are a single celled being in
their eyes; worse than a slug because you have no idea of how to find
something without relying upon their skills to find it. Nevermind
that̢۪s what they̢۪re there for: they̢۪re the keepers of the
information and they don̢۪t let just anyone in to view it. So, as
you can see, I really can work myself into a tizzy over just about
anything. Anyway, on the basis of past performance in the field of
microfilm research, I boosted myself up and tentatively made my way to
the reference section, found the microfilm, found that there was no
arcane separate index/oracle that needed to be consulted to find the
reels I was looking for. Surprised, and thanking my lucky stars, went
to a microfilm viewer. I must have looked like a complete eedjit as I
stood there, my mouth gaping open, because the technology had advanced
in only one way: I could---holy of holies---make copies directly from
my machine rather than having to submit a request to the librarian to
make them for me. You see, at ISU, they kept those super-special-secret
machines to themselves: you had to submit a request for copies, after
you̢۪d already done the hard work of finding the article on the reel.
Not so at the Hennepin County Library. You can make your own copies. Hot Damn!
I sat down and five minutes later I had what I wanted, had replaced the
reels in their place of origin and went about the rest of my research
without issue. The plan was to call the neighbors and use their scanner
(ahemâ€Â¦hint, hint to the husband/chief technology
purchaser---Christmas is just around the corner) on the articles and my
mission would then be complete after a quick email to the Instapundit.
Alas, however, it didn̢۪t happen. I wound up typing the things into
the computer---four thousand plus words per article---and attached them
that way. So, the point of all this would be, I got in good with the
big dog himself and was educated a bit on how important tone is to
critical pieces of journalism. Demaree Best was, indeed, critical of
the American Occupation of Germany, but he or she did not feel it
necessary to vent their bilious humors in their writing: their
criticism was timely, accurate in scope and still holds up. More than a
few journalists reporting in Iraq should read this piece as I believe
it idealizes a higher standard of journalism than we see today. Now, I
will grant you, the media is a completely different beast nowadays and
spectacularly craven reporting does boost ratings and sell newspapers,
but it̢۪s nice to see, that at one point in time, it was possible to
be critical without the need to flog an agenda simultaneously.
Honestly, there are days when I wish Woodward and Bernstein had just
kept their big mouths shut. Because that̢۪s when it all changed. Now I
don̢۪t think this because I̢۪m a big Nixon supporter, or because I
think the media should always tippy-toe around difficult issues. I
don̢۪t think that: not at all. I think this because Woodward and
Bernstein, depending upon how you look at it, either raised or lowered
the bar in terms of reporting. Thirty years later, their style of
reporting has permeated into all journalism, from big exposé’s all
the way down into innocuous wire articles. Nixon, and subsequently,
Woodward and Bernstein, took everyone for a ride, and as a result, all
journalists are now, even thirty years later, completely critical of
every move the Government makes because they̢۪re on the lookout for
the next big burglary at the Watergate: that one tiny story that will
bring a President down. It̢۪s tiresome, to say the least. And perhaps
if the media changed its style of journalism, they, in time, would stop
being barraged by the equally tiresome charges of being biased in one
direction or another. But that̢۪s just me. Other people see it
differently, I know, and I should perhaps keep my opinion to myself
because I was just a baby when Watergate happened and what the hell
would I know about it anyway. Wellâ€Â¦I don’t know. Like I wrote,
it̢۪s up to you, but something̢۪s got to give and this is as good as
a place as any to start an actual debate on what has gotten us to this
place and what we should do to get out of it. Now, as you can see, the
Instapundit did not want to do more than excerpt the one article I̢۪ve
sent him so far. He felt posting the entire article went beyond fair
use. Ok, fine, I can see that, but here̢۪s where I hope he will agree
to a disagreement. If memory serves a copyright is viable for
seventy-five years, and then it̢۪s open season for anyone who wants to
republish the piece of writing in question. I̢۪ll grant you, it
hasn̢۪t been seventy-five years since 1946, so Bess̢۪ copyright and
that of the Saturday Evening Post
is still valid. But to my mind fair use is fair use---and honestly,
when was the last time this article was “in use?” It’s not like
this is a commonly referenced article that is in circulation today,
where people still need to make money and will hold the copyright dear.
There is a difference. If you want to be all legal about it, the Saturday Evening Post
for a fee, offers access to this article. Or, if you live in a large
city like me, you can find this sort of thing at the library. They̢۪re
easily referenced, in other words: I̢۪m not cutting into anyone̢۪s
paycheck by republishing them, so, “How We Botched the German
Occupation,” and its sister article, “How Long Will We Stay in
Germany?” can be found here
and here respectively.

Use them responsibly.

And if you know any journalists, forward them the links.


--- Here̢۪s your Chuckle for the Day.

Vlad the Impaler?

Ouch.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2473 words, total size 16 kb.

--- Ignorant puritanical morons abound. In Colorado this time. Scroll down to the bottom for the original story.

“The Cat Who Killed Lilian Jackson Braun: A Parody” and
“Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,” will
remain on the shelves of libraries run by the Weld Library District.
But members of the board still are considering an objection to a book
that has explicit depictions of sexual development during puberty. That
book, “It’s Perfectly Normal: A Book About Changing Bodies, Growing
Up, Sex and Sexual Health,” is by Robie H. Harris and talks about
sexual orientation, birth control, sexual abuse and cartoon panels show
biological functions such as egg fertilization. The objection was
raised by Evans resident Jeannie McAllister, a 33-year-old mother of
four. She said she usually screens her kids̢۪ library books but she
missed this book in a stack her children brought home. Later she was
horrified to see the book her 8- and 5-year-olds had been flipping
through contained illustrations of nude people, including a couple
having sex. “I would call it mildly pornographic,” she said.
Oh, so Ms. McAllister drops the ball and suddenly it̢۪s the
library̢۪s responsibility? She admitted she missed the book in the
stack her children had picked up, so now the book should be banned. And
that̢۪s what we̢۪re talking about here---banning a book---a book that
might actually be helpful for other parents who might have a heck of a
time explaining the birds and the bees to their kids because this woman
dropped the ball. It couldn̢۪t possibly be her fault that her children were exposed to illustrations of sexual intercourse: it̢۪s the library̢۪s
fault for having it on the shelf in the first place. There are two
separate issues with this type of book banning. The first would
obviously be the banning itself. It̢۪s just wrong to ban any type of
book. Mein Kampf
is on book shelves worldwide. It was written by one of the few people
in this world who could actually be described as “evil” in a
literal sense, Adolph Hitler. It̢۪s important that this book be on the
shelves, even though it̢۪s an impressive example of hate speech,
because it shows us what a nutjob the man was; it shows us what not
to look for in a leader because we all know how successful Nazi Germany
was at their attempt at world domination. Just blindly banning a book
because one person finds it offensive robs the rest of us of the chance
to use our own judgment. The action effectively says, Take my word for it. You don̢۪t need to read it. I deem it offensive, so you will too.
Well, no, maybe I won̢۪t. I have my own intellect on which to rely and
my own sense of judgment to depend upon: I don̢۪t need yours because
maybe, just maybe, we have differing concepts of what is and is not
valuable to know in this lifetime. The second issue with this book
banning is the subject matter of the book. As Michele
noted (hat tip), is that these kids will probably grow up with a warped
notion of sex. If cartoons depicting all sorts of natural biological
processes are deemed “mildly pornographic,” by these children’s
mother it makes you wonder what, precisely, would this woman
judge as hard core porn? Perhaps a video that the rest of the world
would describe as soft core? What is she teaching her children about
sex? Because, after all, she opened the door: if she̢۪s going to tell
me what̢۪s all right to teach children about sex, then she should have
to tell us what she̢۪s taught her children about it. Which, you
guessed it, means she̢۪s not only opened the door of criticism, but
that of her bedroom as well. She doesn̢۪t have a leg to stand on in
this regard. She has to open the door now, so we know what is and isn̢۪t all right by her standards and can arrange the library to her specifications..
Do you think she̢۪s ever had an orgasm? It̢۪s a valid question: if
she views sex as something that̢۪s dirty, well, she may never have
received any pleasure from it and doesn̢۪t think anyone else has,
either. Are her views about sex based in religion? Well, which religion
and what does it preach? Where do her kids think they came from? The
stork? I can understand wanting to shield young children from this type
of material while working under the assumption that kids should be kids
for as long as possible, but that̢۪s really beside the point. She̢۪s
not asking for the book to be moved to a spot behind the counter, where
access could be restricted; she̢۪s asking for it to be banned
completely from the public library. She̢۪s asking us to take her
word that this book is “mildly pornographic,” and let it be the
final word on the subject.
So, Jeannie, let̢۪s hear it---and all of it, too. If we̢۪re to take
your word for what is and is not pornographic, you̢۪d better start
spilling the beans so we can understand why you have the position on
sex that you do. I want to know if you were ever abused, how you lost
your virginity and when, if you̢۪ve ever tried out positions from the Kama Sutra
with your husband---or anyone else, for that matter. How were your
children conceived? Were you on birth control at the time? Any ooops babies in your clan? How well is your husband "situated"? Does he satisfy you? Or is he a wham, bam, thank you ma̢۪am type of guy? {Ed. Yeah, this would be the part I deleted. My mother should only be forced to endure so much. Sorry Mom}

You can probably guess what Ms. McAllister̢۪s reaction to those kind of questions would be. It̢۪s none of your business. Well, I̢۪m sorry to tell you, ma̢۪am, it is my business if you want to dictate what kind of access I, or anyone else, should have to a book on sex.

Methinks she̢۪d run the hell away from this debate quite quickly if someone were to pose this argument to her.

--- Ok, we have fun links from the husband today. He̢۪s been a busy little surfer.

First off, ever wondered what the air velocity of an unladen swallow would be? Go here.

And if you don̢۪t get that reference, just skip over it---it won̢۪t make any sense to you.

Second, instead of silly Germans, today we have Russian dolts!
That̢۪s a lot of vodka.

--- And that̢۪s all for today, folks. It̢۪s nice outside, so I̢۪m going for a walk.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1124 words, total size 8 kb.

--- I was gone yesterday. I apologize. I had every intention of
blogging yesterday, alas, however life intruded and I never got around
to it. Late last night, Mr. H. suggested (after a more than a few vodka
sours) that I simply tell my blogging audience that I̢۪d turned 29 and
that had consumed most of my day.
Works for me, even if it is a slight fib.
However, to keep those nagging feelings of guilt at bay, I̢۪ll be really honest and say I turned 29 for the fifth time and we̢۪ll call it even.

--- And I threw my back out yesterday.

Happy Birthday to Me!
Now, as is usual in most back related incidents, I haven̢۪t the
foggiest notion of how this happened. I was walking from the grocery
store with one lousy bag of groceries, the husband and I put our
various loads into the trunk and off we went to the bakery to pick up a
fabulous German chocolate cake for dessert. Somewhere between putting
the bag of groceries into the trunk and the bakery, the back went out. Well, you say, the bag of groceries was probably too heavy.
Nope. The neighborhood grocery store makes a point of being an
equal-opportunity-employer and as such, they have hired some very sweet
kids who are not, to put it kindly, operating on all four burners. One
of these kids is very nice and has been working there for a few years
now. He chats about the weather, asks how your day is going, and has
learned the lesson, apparently, that he̢۪d rather carry more bags to
your car than carry one or two heavily loaded ones. I pay attention to
this because generally I̢۪m walking and would like only two bags---no
matter how heavy---and direct him as such. But he knows that when the
husband is with me, he can load up as many bags as he likes, and so the
husband walked out of the store with three bags and I walked out with
only one---and all it had in it was a bag of tortilla chips. Applying
Occam̢۪s razor to the problem, it would seem as if I was felled by a
bag of tortilla chips. But that can̢۪t possibly be the case. I mean, come on! A bag of
tortilla chips? Of all the lousy things to cause a beastly amount of
lower back pain? The needles that shoot up and down my spine were
caused by something that weighs less than a pound? Nope. I refuse to
believe it. But my life has a habit of being perverse, so it really
shouldn̢۪t surprise me. And just to reassure ML: no, this did not
bother me when I walked Sierra earlier today. You can relax. My invalid
status is not nearly as bad as yours, m̢۪dear, and all is well on that
front. At least the ibuprofen is doing something
for me, where that is not the case in your situation. Chill. Walking is
not the issue: bending over at more than a 45 degree angle is,
and fortunately, I have big, chunky, muscular (oh, so we know that
one̢۪s a lie, but work with me here!) knees that allow that to be
easier than if I had to rely upon my back alone.
I̢۪ll see you tomorrow when we go to pick up the kiddies.
--- I̢۪m going to link to this article, even
though it seems everyone else is doing so, too. I can̢۪t tell you how
many times I̢۪ve heard this argument, albeit in different words from
the husband or one of his friends. But they were never so bold as to
vent those views outright. This was a late night subject, best brought
up after everyone has had more than a few beers and they felt safe that
the alcohol and the lateness of the evening would soften the blow of
their words come morning. And they always
took their audience into mind before stating this opinion, believe you
me. When it became obvious, after many meetings, that I was not the
kind of woman who would chop their heads off for just thinking these
thoughts, they allowed me to be in the audience. So, this isn̢۪t
really anything to new to me. I̢۪ve even heard this before: You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why
binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?
It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand
it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst
themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a
purpose.
Because only the strong men propagate.
And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because
powerful men still attract women.

Yeah, women know it and some of them even put up with it. Some women---young or old---wantto
be thrown down on a bed and have some young man do what they will with
them. Whether it̢۪s a subconscious desire or a conscious one is
neither here nor there: it̢۪s in their brains. And if you think I̢۪m
wrong on this one; that I̢۪m refusing to acknowledge that all women
know that rape is a bad thing, go check out any porn or erotic fiction
site. I dare you. Peruse some of the pictures and literature and know
that this is precisely what some women want and fantasize
about. It works its way into the bedroom in sneaky and insidious ways
and some men, nice guys, have absolutely no idea what to do about it.
They̢۪re taught one thing, and yet are confronted by a complete and
utter 180 when they actually get down to business.
No wonder they̢۪re confused. But that̢۪s really neither here nor
there, is it? It ignores the big picture to get up in arms about that
one statement while ignoring the rest. Kim̢۪s rant is an impressive
piece of vitriolic writing. It̢۪s obvious he feels put down by being a
male in this day and age. Now, some women would say this is a good
thing; that men are just getting a taste of the medicine they̢۪ve been
dishing out to women for millennia. Men, understandably, are now
backlashing in exactly the same way, by striking out against their
oppressors (or at least Kim is). But to my mind, both sides are just
wrong, and it̢۪s because of the fatalistic strategy they̢۪ve adopted
to present their arguments. In their minds it̢۪s a zero-sum game. If
women want to gain, they must take away from men in a quantitative
fashion---easily measured and missed by their opponents, and it̢۪s the
same for men. They just assume there̢۪s no middle ground between the
two arguments. And as we know, working from the assumption that any
philosophical argument, such as the battle between the sexes, is a
zero-sum game is to ignore the realities of the situation. (In fact,
the word “battle” is probably the wrong word, because in any
battle, there are winners and losers; some piece of disputed territory
is gained by one side and lost by another---in effect, a zero-sum game.
Perhaps we should think up a different term to describe this situation,
though for the life of me, I have no idea what it should be.) And
I̢۪ll use the analogy of marriage to demonstrate my point. Ever been
married? Or even in a long-term committed relationship? If you have,
you know what I̢۪m talking about. Marriage is not a zero-sum game. Long term relationships are not
a zero-sum game. The people who treat these as if they were a zero-sum
game, in my opinion, generally don̢۪t make it very far and break up
quicker than you can get a horse to water after a long ride through the
desert. Now this is a generalization, and it doesn̢۪t take into
account any specifics, I̢۪ll grant, but, on the whole, it̢۪s the
truth: couples break up because the individual partners don̢۪t want to
bend. Sometimes, not bending is the correct thing, but for the most
part, bending is the correct thing to do in a marriage. Because
if you want your relationship to last, you have to bend. You have
created a partnership between you and another person: and you must
treat it like a partnership, which means you are not going to win on
every single issue that you want. It may grate, it may create an itch
between the shoulder blades that you just can̢۪t reach and is annoying
you to no end, but that̢۪s the point: for every instance where your
shoulder blades itch, your partner̢۪s have itched as well. You bend
once, your partner bends at another time. And if you think your partner
hasn̢۪t done some bending for you, well, you might want to rethink
your stance, because assuredly they have. Extreme feminists have always
bothered me. I don̢۪t like the fact they lump all of societies evils
upon men because it reeks of opportunism. Men are an easy target, I
will admit, but to knock today̢۪s men for the fact women weren̢۪t
allowed to vote until the 1920̢۪s is like saying a slave owner̢۪s
great, great, great, great grandchildren should have to pay reparations
to the slaves their ancestor owned. It̢۪s ridiculous and lacks
context. It̢۪s the same with men like Kim DuToit, who claim that
today̢۪s, governmental, social security stance is the fault of women
getting the vote. Or that they̢۪ve been pussified, to use Kim̢۪s
charming phrasing, is why there̢۪s an increase in date rapes. It lacks context.
Rather than it being a battle between the sexes, it should perhaps be
called an ebb and flow. Because that̢۪s what happens, like a marriage.
Bending, in other words. Men give a little here, they might get a
little there. Women give a little here, they might get a little there.
Why does it have to be a stupid zero-sum game? I would suggest to Kim
and anyone on the other side of the argument to realize this. Forcing
the pendulum to swing, violently, in the opposite direction does
nothing to solve the overall problem of equality between the sexes.
--- Ok, that̢۪s enough for today. It̢۪s time to go and lie down. All
of this sitting upright and trying to be productive even though my back
is screaming has put a big ol’ damper on the day. Note to self: more Advilâ€Â¦NOW! And a note to The Doctor: if there
was ever a time to use your prescribing powers for the overall good of
the universe, now would be the time. I can feel my bad mojo spreading:
you could save the world from a horrible catastrophe just by writing
out a prescription for some lovely pharmaceuticals that will knock me
out entirely and I mean that. I really, really mean that! The fate of
the world rests upon your shoulders: use your powers responsibly and
wisely. But I̢۪m not going to have a nice lie-in on the bed. I̢۪m
going to decamp to the living room where the husband has, very nicely,
laid out a sleeping bag for me. I simply can̢۪t go and lie on the bed.
It sucks, to put it nicely. Too much vigorous sex over the years has
crapped the thing out entirely. It̢۪s been one of those things we keep
putting off in exchange for other furniture, but it can wait no longer.
Well, it̢۪s going to have to, obviously, because no way, no how, am I
going mattress shopping right now. Ain̢۪t gonna happen, but suffice it
to say, it̢۪s going to happen just as soon as I can go
shopping for a new bed. In the meantime, enjoy the visual of me laying
on the living room floor of the Cake Eater apartment, in a sleeping bag!

Oh, the humanity.

Mr. H. is undoubtedly laughing his fool head off right now.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1998 words, total size 12 kb.

--- You know, I̢۪ve never been a fan of Courtney Love̢۪s.
The word “obnoxious” doesn’t really cover her or her behavior,
but it̢۪s the word that comes to mind when trying to describe her.
“Arrogant,” seems to work as well. We might also include
“Pompous,” “overbearing,” “idiotic,” “opportunistic,”
“vain,” “conceited,” “uppity,” and I’m sure we could
think of a whole host of other adjectives to describe Ms. Love, but
honestly, what does it matter?
She isn̢۪t brilliant---at all. Hole̢۪s music pretty much sucks, if
you ask me. She would obviously have us believe that there̢۪s
something new and worth listening to there, but believe me, it ain̢۪t
all that impressive: it̢۪s just a rehash of what she thinks should be impressive---she doesn̢۪t create anything new. She̢۪s also a bad actress---and don̢۪t tell me her performance in The People vs. Larry Flynt was impressive: it wasn̢۪t---she wasn̢۪t acting, she was just being Courtney. Acting, it seems to me, requires being
someone else for a time: Courtney can̢۪t be anyone other than herself
because her sense of ego is too strong to allow for it (see Cruise,
Tom). Courtney̢۪s main talent, it appears, is making opportunities for
herself with a little help from her friends---oh, and her husband, lest
we forget about him. Do you honestly think anyone would give a rat̢۪s
ass about Courtney Love if she wasn̢۪t Kurt Cobain̢۪s widow? I
personally think she would have pulled a Sharon Stone move from Casino
and ended up alone, in a sty. It̢۪s sad and cynical to say so that she
profited from her husband̢۪s death, I know, but it̢۪s the God̢۪s
honest truth: she made the most out of his suicide: it put her on the
world stage and she took full advantage of it. Look at it logically:
did anyone, outside of Seattle, know who she was before he died?
That̢۪s the reason why I despise her---and I̢۪m not a big Nirvana
fan. (I think most of their music, while decent, hadn̢۪t reached its
true potential---and if you honestly think Kurt Cobain was the true
genius behind that band, I would direct you to the Foo Fighters. The
more I listen to that band, the more it̢۪s patently obvious that Kurt
was not
the driving force behind Nirvana: Dave Grohl was.) It̢۪s the simple
fact she thought it was all right to make some money off her
husband̢۪s death that I find disgusting: she parlayed his suicide into
a money-making, celebrity granting, drug ridden excursion. Her
despicable golddigging widowhood aside, she̢۪s in need of serious help. The only reason I say this is because she has a child.
Yes, that̢۪s right: a child. If she can̢۪t get her shit together for
herself, she needs to get it together for her daughter. That poor girl.
I cannot even begin to imagine how screwed up she̢۪s going to be when
she hits adulthood. Her dad offs himself, her mother overdoses in front
of her---and that̢۪s the least of the sins of the mother that this
child has been exposed to---if any of the child psychologists are
correct, she̢۪s going to fall into the same vipers pit her parents
fell prey to. Ugh. --- HALLELUJAH!

Moore said he was not surprised by the decision, which he called a
step toward "prohibiting the public worship of God." "I have absolutely
no regrets," he said. "I have done what I was sworn to do. I have said
repeatedly that unless we can acknowledge God, we can not uphold the
oath of our office."

I̢۪ll say it again. First, there is a separation of Church and State in this country Mr.
Moore: God---which means any and all inclusions of God---is not a topic
to be brought into the legal system. Second, I doubt you have the
capacity to realize that even though you̢۪re spouting off about some
non-denominational idea of God, you don̢۪t honestly believe that. Your
religion dictates that everyone who doesn̢۪t believe in your
idea of God is going to hell, and no matter how many times you try to
tell me otherwise, your actions speak louder than your words. God is a
subjective idea for most, but not for you, so spare me your arguments:
even the Supreme Court wouldn̢۪t listen to you.
Now pull yourself down from the cross. We need the wood. (and yes I
stole that line, but it seemed appropriate under the circumstances.)
--- Ok, Keanu is set for life.

According to imdb, he pulled down $15mil a piece for both Reloaded and Revolutions plus 15% of the gross of each film.

So, doing the math, he made, roughly, a little more than thirty million last weekend alone.

Can you say, “Papa got BANK!”?

Papa̢۪s definitely
got a good agent. Methinks Keanu is not nearly as dumb as everyone
would have us believe. --- And while we̢۪re speaking of Keanu, he̢۪s
got a new movie coming out with Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton this
holiday season. It̢۪s called Something̢۪s Gotta Give and it looks to be amusing.

Check out the trailer here.

--- And here̢۪s your Chuckle for the Day. I think the next Olympics are going to be a wee bit different than the Salt Lake City Olympics, don̢۪t you?

Heheheheh.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 883 words, total size 7 kb.

--- Finally got caught up on my Economist
reading last night. And I have to say, every time I̢۪ve been in need
of a laugh this past week, all I needed to do was read their opinion
article on Vladimir Putin---the one that decried him as Vlad the
Impaler. In case you haven̢۪t heard about what̢۪s going on in Russia
these past few weeks I̢۪ll sum up for you. The richest man in Russia,
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was thrown in jail for tax evasion and fraud. Mr.
Khodorkovsky̢۪s wealth comes
from owing a large chunk of Yukos shares---the largest oil company in
Russia, which as everyone knows is a serious source of the black goop.
Yukos is currently working on a merger with Sibneft which will make it
the fourth largest oil company in the world. So, there̢۪s lots of money involved.

According to the Economist
the real reason this particular oligarch was thrown in the pokey was
because he was becoming too powerful and was beginning to challenge
good ol̢۪ Vlad. Reportedly, Putin made a deal with the oligarchs when
he came to power: you don̢۪t piss in my well, I won̢۪t piss in yours.
And every oligarch who̢۪s even thought of perhaps pulling down his fly
was thrown in the can until he thought the better of the action. It
remains to be seen what Khodorkovsky will do. His main “error”
seems to have been backing Putin̢۪s enemies in the Duma who helped
stop taxation changes on Russia̢۪s oil economy. Then Khodorkovsky
decided to push the envelope by alleging corruption at state
organizations at a public meeting with Putin, which, “provoked a
sharp presidential rebuke.” His main goal in running his business has
been transparency---the western kind. Paying taxes, running a clean
shop, “leading the way in corporate governance.” It seems as if
he̢۪s learned the hard way that slipping cash under the table does not
solve the problems of running a business: it only makes it harder in
the long run to walk away from that kind of behavior. And with this
newfound sense of altruism, it seems Khodorkovsky ran afoul of Putin,
who generally likes things the way they are because then he has a way
to hang someone who does something he doesn̢۪t like. If Khodorkovsky
toughs it out, rather than caving and just moving his business
interests elsewhere, he could force Putin̢۪s hand. This story is
fascinating to me because it has a goodly amount of prospect for change
in Russia. Yeah, sure, companies are doing well there now, but there
are still too many under the table transactions that don̢۪t help
anyone other than the oligarchs. It would seem as if Khodorkovsky wants
to change that. Whether he has the guts to do that, I don̢۪t know, but
it should be interesting to see how it plays out. But the Economist published perhaps the most naïve editorial I’ve ever seen from them. They seem to have been working under the assumption that Putin was a good guy.

Mr Putin, it has become plain, is not the sort of politician who
brooks either critics or rivals. He has shut down or stifled most of
Russia's independent media. As the recent elections in Chechnya and St
Petersburg illustrated so graphically, he has intimidated or bought his
way towards ensuring that his preferred candidates emerge as winners of
any vote. Few doubt that, by hook or by crook, he will retain majority
support in the Duma after December's elections: it was, indeed, the
approach of those elections that gave him reason to attack Mr
Khodorkovsky now. Nor does anybody expect him to tolerate any serious
challenge to his re-election as president next March. In other words,
the arrest of Mr Khodorkovsky must be seen as only part of a broader
pattern confirming that Mr Putin is no democrat.

In other words, the arrest of Mr Khodorkovsky must be seen only as
part of a broader pattern confirming that Mr Putin is no democrat .
Whoooooooo-eeeee! {laughing so hard tears are flowing} Jesus, Mary and
Joseph, people! Where the hell have you been for the past three years?
I can understand that you wanted to give him a chance to prove himself,
particularly when you had very little information on which to base your
opinions, but hell, it didn̢۪t strike you as odd in early 2001 when he
allied with the Germans, of all countries, on the ABT debacle? No, you
chalked it up to countering U.S. hegemony and his fondness for Germany
after being stationed there for years when he ---AHEM---worked for the KG-frickin-B.
It didn̢۪t ring a totalitarian, typical Russian strongman bell when he
cracked down on Chechnya under the guise of “going after the same
terrorists who attacked the US” after 9/11? That didn’t strike you
as a wee bit opportunistic? Putin does what̢۪s best for Putin: it̢۪s
that simple. What made you think he̢۪d act any different with
political enemies? This hope for the good of Russia under Vladimir
Putin is a naïve position to hold---it smacks of knee pants and
licking lollipops---and for me, at least, much hilarity. And don̢۪t
give me that stability argument, oh, but wait, you did already.

This, of course, may not upset the foreigners who have been pouring
money into the country over the past couple of years. Stability and
economic growth are what they, and arguably most Russian voters,
want—and they are what Mr Putin has managed, largely thanks to high
oil prices, to deliver. As the markets settled their initial nerves
after this week's dramas, investors seemed to be signalling again that
they would put stability above all else. Big foreign companies that
have bought into Russia, such as the British oil firm BP, were quick to
declare that they still had faith in the Russian government.
Now, I̢۪m not the best versed person to be commenting on Russian
politics, but it seems to me that to always think that Russians will
vote for stability each and every time seems to discount the
possibilities of the ̢۪91 Fall of Communism. Russians believed
democracy was a good thing: they wanted it so, throwing their weight
behind Yeltsin, they helped to bring the dregs of a weak system to
justice. Now, I̢۪ll be the first to admit, Russians do whine when they
can̢۪t get their black bread and cheap vodka because of a faulty
market economy, but it seems unrealistic to believe that Russians will
always consider stability first. Yes, yes. I know. Peter, Catherine,
and Ivan all kept things under control because they were harsh. And the
Russians like this. I will admit that they do like a strongman. But
this “they will always vote with stability” is unrealistic with
twelve years of market reform under their belts. They̢۪ve seen that
capitalism can work: that stability is something that the markets
make---not something that some leader will grant them magically. Yes,
Putin created a situation for stability, but the time is coming that
democracy, emboldened by market successes, will make another leap
forward. And Putin will fight that leap with every bone in his body
because it will mean a quantitative loss of power---his. Oil prices are
unlikely to drop dramatically; hence the success of the Russian economy
is bound to keep going for a long while. It is possible, that within
that period of time, that democracy in Russia will make serious strides
forward, perhaps under the leadership of Mr. Khodorkovsky. Who knows?
He may yet chicken out. But if he really wants a better situation for
his country, like its alleged he says he does, well, there̢۪s hope of
the non-naïve sort, isn’t there? --- More Economist
for you today. (Don̢۪t you feel special?) This time it's about one of
my favorite subjects: whether file sharing is, in fact, piracy and is
forcing the likes of Celine Dion to worry about her monthly income. We
have optimism on Celine̢۪s behalf:
PEOPLE in the music industry are feeling more optimistic than they
have for years. Apple's digital music-download service, iTunes, has won
customers in far greater numbers than once seemed possible. This week
saw the launch of Napster 2.0, a paying version of the service shut
down by big music and the courts in 2002 because its software allowed
people to share songs for free. Legal, paid-for online services, music
executives hope, together with lawsuits against file-sharers, could
save the industry from internet piracy.
In April, in its first week, iTunes sold over 1m downloads. By the end
of October it had sold about 14m. Now that Apple has made the service
available to PC users—previously, only a Mac system would
work—sales should soar still higher. Napster 2.0 has a library of
500,000 songs to choose from, 100,000 more than iTunes. Its strong
brand makes it a formidable addition to the market.

Sounds impressive, eh? Pffft.

But the fact that more people are willing to buy music online than
seemed likely does not mean that the industry's problems are anywhere
near over. In the next five years, says Informa Media Group, a media
information publisher, digital sales of à la carte downloads and
subscription services will grow 20-fold. But they will account for only
$1.8 billion, or under 6%, of the global music market. Peer-to-peer
file sharing will deprive the industry of $4.7 billion of revenues in
2008. For impecunious teenagers and students, the fact that
peer-to-peer sharing is free will always be compelling. Paying 99 cents
for a song on iTunes, says one British teen, is unappealing because at
that price she may as well buy the CD in a shop. Nor do the new
services yet come close to matching the libraries of nearly all music
ever recorded that the peer-to-peers boast. As for the risk of a
lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America, the selling
point for new versions of peer-to-peer networks in recent months is
that they can guard the identity of users. The most popular now is
Earth Station 5, based in, of all places, the Jenin refugee camp on the
West Bank. After the RIAA said it would sue, its software was
downloaded more than 16m times in 90 hours. So far, it seems to work.
Celine̢۪s going to the bread line. Britney̢۪s going to be out on the
street, whoring herself the old fashioned way. And that little prick
Lars Ulrich will soon have to pawn his drum kit to buy new sticks so he
can beat on an empty five gallon bucket. And why are these well-paid
artiste̢۪s going to be hitting the streets, scouring for spare change?
Because they support an association that̢۪s shortsighted enough to sue
twelve-year-olds. But wait, it gets betterâ€Â¦
To glimpse the future, big music companies should look not at
iTunes' encouraging numbers but at September's price cut by Universal
Music Group, the biggest record company of all, which reduced CD prices
for consumers by nearly a quarter. One reason for slumping music sales
is that customers believe that CDs cost too much. Now, other firms will
have to lower prices to compete with Universal. Discount stores such as
Wal-Mart, Circuit City and Best Buy will drive them down more.

And then shocker of all shockers---Moby comes out with my argument: the one I̢۪ve been spouting ever since the RIAA sued Napster.

In the end, says Moby, an influential musician, the record industry
will have to throw out its current business model. It will no longer be
able to make huge profit margins on CDs that cost next to nothing to
manufacture. To compensate for lower prices, he says, the industry
needs to cut its marketing for artists by as much as four-fifths. Once
the record companies have less marketing clout, and with internet
distribution, says Moby, artists will be in a powerful position.
“Why”, he asks, “is a record company any more qualified to send
an MP3 to iTunes than I am?”
AMEN Brother! (Although I should probably tell you right now, Moby,
that I̢۪m not likely to ever buy any of your music because most of the
time you̢۪re a pretentious prick who would like nothing better than
telling me what to do with my life. And besides, your music really
doesn̢۪t do all that much for me, ya dig? Synthesizers, for your
information, pretty much went out in the 80̢۪s. Sorry.)
But the point would be that AHEM going after the people who swap files is bad for business. The music industry took the wrong tack and now they̢۪ve screwed themselves!

Ok, stopping the Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy dance now.

--- As you will have noticed, the husband has posted his Matrix essay. Enjoy.

As far as Finding Nemo
is concerned, well, wow. Disney is finally producing something of worth
by funding that company. Nemo is a fabulous film. I don̢۪t care
whether you̢۪re my three year old niece, M. who̢۪s pout resembles
Nemo̢۪s and she̢۪s smart enough to pick up on that, or if you̢۪re a
ninety-year-old codger who doesn̢۪t smile about anything. It̢۪s a
wonderful film. It̢۪s not only beautiful to look at---their ocean is a
wondrous place---but it̢۪s humorous. Rent it, even if you don̢۪t have
any kids. You̢۪ll thank me.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2213 words, total size 15 kb.

--- Hey, Sully! I̢۪m doing my part. Go here and read this: it's important.

I honestly think this is pretty damning. For me it was never really a questions of if
Saddam and Osama had jumped into bed together: as Sullivan points out,
they had interests in common would lead them to hook up---it would be
more surprising to me if their people hadn̢۪t gotten together and
chatted. Then I would have had to question everything I̢۪d ever
learned about the reason groups of people---sovereign countries or
terrorist groups---ally themselves to fight a bigger enemy. But it
seems as if human nature hasn̢۪t changed dramatically where nimrods
like Osama and Saddam are concerned. This is a good thing: it̢۪s bad
enough we have to fight an enemy that lurks; it would have been
disastrous if we would have had to throw out everything we̢۪ve learned
about the way the enemy operates, too. I think Sullivan is also right
in that the media isn̢۪t reporting the story will prove the point to
many that they are biased in regards to the coverage of the war in Iraq
and what led up to it. I leave it to you to decide. --- Ooh, another
story about silly Germans.

Yes, you read that right: they're "branding Germany," like it's a type of laundry soap.

Is it just me or is this a sign that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will soon be charging down a street near you?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

No blogging today. Will be back tomorrow with more Cake Eat-ery
goodness. Have a lovely afternoon. God only knows, it's very nice
here---almost sixty and it's the middle of November.
I really do adore Global Warming.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Ok, this is disturbing.

Here̢۪s the link, but I̢۪m reprinting it here for those of you who can̢۪t afford to pay for the Economist̢۪s premium content.

Discrimination rules
Nov 6th 2003 | ANKARA From The Economist print edition
Controversy over the law on rape
IF A rapist marries his victim, he can walk free. It sounds an
outrageous notion. Yet it is what the law says in Turkey. And if the
country's justice minister, Cemil Cicek, heeds one of his advisers, the
law will not be changed. Recently Professor Dogan Soyaslan declared,
during a parliamentary debate on changes to Turkey's penal code, that
“nobody would want to marry a girl who is not virgin.” Mr Soyaslan
concluded that it was fine for a victim to marry her rapist, rather
then face a lifetime of spinsterhood. Mr Soyaslan would have been
sacked in most countries. Not in Turkey. Instead, the professor spouted
more wisdom in an interview with a conservative daily, Milliyet. His
boss, Mr Cicek, has yet to utter any reproof. When a member of the
opposition Republican People's Party suggested that Mr Soyaslan's words
might encourage sexual assault, he was accused of ignoring “Turkey's
realities”.
It was modern Turkey's founder, Kemal Ataturk, who gave Turkish women
the right to vote in 1934 and told them to jettison their veils. Over
the past year, the Turkish parliament has been approving legal changes
that would further promote equality. Today, for example, a Turkish man
is no longer automatically treated by law as the head of the family,
and women are entitled to an equal share of joint assets after a
divorce. Perpetrators of so-called honour killings of women who have
been accused of tainting the family name are no longer eligible for
reduced sentences.
Yet even with these changes, traces of old attitudes linger. Mothers
who murder infants can still get reduced sentences if the babies were
born out of wedlock, though a relative who does the job will no longer
be able to. “That's meant to be progress,” sniffs Feride Acar, a
sociologist. Another provision making kidnapping a married woman a
graver crime than kidnapping a single one remains untouched. So long as
men who think with “organs other than their brains” continue to
have a say over such laws, says Halime Guner, head of a women's-rights
group, there is little hope of a change of mentality in Turkey.

Step up and speak out against this sort of thing, Turkey, or you̢۪ll never gain entrance to the EU, which is something you̢۪ve claimed you wanted in the past.

--- Good.
I used to like Rosie. I thought her talk show was fun. That is, until
the day she ambushed Tom Selleck about his NRA membership. It was a few
days after Columbine, so, yes I can understand that she was upset about
the massacre and struck out, but it was the way
she struck out against him, like he was responsible for the bloodshed
because he chooses to go hunting on the weekend, was deplorable. I
remember watching the interview (if you can call it that); she threw
out a statement, then before Selleck could reply, she threw out another
attack, then another and another. The poor man was completely baffled
that he was being hung out to dry. He was an easy target, and that she
took full advantage of his status as such, shows to me that she really
isn̢۪t interested in debate. Her positions on gun control aside, the
whole debacle truly showed us a side of Rosie that we hadn̢۪t seen
before: she̢۪s Nellie Olson. You remember who Nellie was, right? Little House on the Prairie?
Is any of this ringing a bell? Nellie was the blonde, ringlet-laden,
suck-up who was nasty, but when an adult came around, she was childhood
perfection defined. Her father never bought her act, but her mother was
suckered completely. Well, where Rosie O̢۪Donnell is concerned, I̢۪m
going to take the position of the father who never bought the nice act.
But it seems everyone else is the mother, convinced that her child is
truly the best person around. Gag. Open your eyes people. Now, I̢۪m
glad the judge in this case had a lot of common sense. He ruled
correctly and no one̢۪s going to appeal this verdict because it̢۪s
favorable to both sides. It̢۪s disappointing that it had to go to
trial, but if Rosie̢۪s side actually wanted to settle this thing, I
would be really surprised. Please. You expect us to believe that she
kept offering “peace, but they wouldn’t take it”? Urgh. How dumb
does she think we are? This is a woman who told a cancer survivor that
only “liars get cancer” when confronted with something she didn’t
like? I don̢۪t give a rat̢۪s ass if she apologized to the editor
afterward: if she really were the Queen of Nice, as people have titled
her, she never would have said, let alone thought, of that sort of
comment in the first place. Let̢۪s just put it this way: I̢۪m pleased
with the verdict, she can go into obscurity for a time, and maybe, just
maybe people will now realize that this personality she̢۪s built up
for herself is a sham. --- Oh, God, not again.

--- Oh, so Putin̢۪s spinning now?

"They say Khodorkovsky is not a murderer and that is certainly true.
He did not roam the streets with a big stick,'' he was quoted as
saying. But that did not take into account, he said, millions of
Russians living in poverty and denied pensions because of
Khodorkovsky's alleged misappropriation. "Let those who are still at
liberty think hard about what they are doing,'' he was quoted as
saying. Russia's natural resources should "belong to your children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren.''
I don̢۪t really want to take the rich guy̢۪s side in this one, but
the charges, for me at least, seem weak enough that there is going to
be some manufacturing going on. (What did you expect from a Russian
prosecutor?) And the fact they̢۪re spinning like an Enron or WorldCom
situation does not sit quite right. First it was tax evasion and
fraud---now it̢۪s about the protection of natural resources so
they̢۪ll be around for the next generations. Pffft.
This is politically motivated and it does not bode well for Putin.
Khodorkovsky is refusing to back down. He resigned last week as CEO of
YUKOS. This has separated the company̢۪s current performance from his
political targeting by Putin, and has been seen as a favorable move on
the stock markets (doesn̢۪t hurt that the new CEO is an American,
either) shows me that he̢۪s not going anywhere. He did what was best
for the company to keep operating, which will provide him the power he
needs to beat off these charges. All of this is enough to prove to me,
at least, that Khodorkovsky isn̢۪t backing down. He̢۪ll stay in jail
for the two years, I̢۪ll bet anything. He wants Putin gone, and he
might actually succeed. Stay tuned for further developments. This is a
power struggle worth watching. --- I hope they take away his robes,
disbar him and if it̢۪s not too much to ask, fine him up the wazoo.
But that would be making a martyr out of a man who has no issues with
martyring himself upon the altar of Christian fundamentalism. And that
would probably just be playing into his hands. Perhaps it̢۪s best to
let him keep his job and then hope and pray the people of Alabama come
to their senses and keep this bastard from playing them in an effort to
push forward his causes, and his
definition of who God is.
--- Go and read Sullivan today. (Linkage on the upper right hand corner
of this page.) He has some very worthy comments about the Federal
Marriage Amendment. You̢۪ll have to scroll down to read it, but it̢۪s
well worth your time. I can understand why Gays and Lesbians are upset
about this proposed amendment: it̢۪s a ridiculous piece of legislation
that attempts to stick the government̢۪s nose into all sorts of things
that are none of its business. It̢۪s repulsive to me, and as a
heterosexual, married woman, I see absolutely no
reason why the “institution of marriage” has to be “protected.”
Claiming something has to be protected implies there is a threat to it.
Well, the threat to marriage is not coming from Gays and
Lesbians: it̢۪s coming from people who are allowed to marry, not the
ones who aren̢۪t. Over half the people who are married get divorced;
they don̢۪t think of marriage as something so precious it has to be
protected; they think of it as a disposable thing, like a dirty diaper;
something to be dumped when it gets too messy. If Gays and Lesbians
want to get married, I say let them. It̢۪s a violation of the 14th
Amendment: Equal Protection Under the Law (which also means equal
access under the law) to prevent them access to this most wonderful of
institutions. If they get married, then want to get divorced, well, let
them, is what I say. Equal opportunity under the law is exactly what
the 14th Amendment is meant to provide: let the law work. But Sullivan
gets it right today, although he doesn̢۪t go so far as he should. The
obnoxious clauses about celibacy that have been proposed for inclusion
mean that not only are they trying to dictate was goes on in
someone̢۪s bedroom, but that these people are trying to uphold marriage for heterosexuals as well.
It̢۪s no secret that fundamentalist Christians have long been in favor
of making it harder to divorce a spouse; they have also made it known
that they want it to be more difficult to obtain a marriage license, as
well. The “covenant marriage license” in Louisiana comes to
mindâ€Â¦you know, the one where the couple has to jump through more
hoops than just obtaining a blood test to get a license, and then they
are not allowed to divorce or something like that? I don̢۪t really
remember the details and am too pressed for time to go researching, but
it was a big deal in the media quite some time ago. I digress, but the
point would be that fundamentalist Christians are painting themselves
into a corner that will make this Amendment a moot point soon enough,
so I don̢۪t see the need to worry. Ok, I̢۪m sure I just enflamed a
few people on this one, but let me explain, and it̢۪s going to get all
technical and mathlike here, so I will try to simplify as much as
possible. According to the Constitution, Article V: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or
the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Ok, so to sum up, this Amendment, which has been introduced to Congress, must have two thirds of both
houses to support it. Two thirds of the House means it must have 287
votes; in the Senate, it must have 66 votes. Then we move over to the
legislatures, where three fourths of them must ratify this
amendment---that adds up to 38 states. Are there 38 states that would
honestly go for this? I don̢۪t think so, providing it goes that far in
the first place. It might pass the House, but not with all of this fundamentalist garbage in it (and if the fundamentalists insist
on having this garbage in it, well, they̢۪re doomed), but it will
never make it out of the Senate. And in the unlikely event that it
does, there is no way in hell that thirty-eight states will ratify this
amendment. If the congressional move fails, which is more than a
distinct possibility in my opinion, the next move would be to appeal to
the State Legislatures to propose this amendment, and that won̢۪t go
anywhere either. I truly believe it̢۪s doomed to
failure---particularly when you look at the math. No one---other than
ultra-conservative representatives---is going to vote for something so
discriminatory, not only to Gays and Lesbians, but to heterosexuals as
well. It̢۪s just not going to happen. But there are lessons to be
learned from this: we will see just how powerful and dedicated the
fundamentalist lobby is. We̢۪ve all heard the arguments that Bush has
to pander to these fundamentalists for the reason that they̢۪ll pull
their support and just won̢۪t bother to vote at all. It̢۪s an
oversimplification to say so, but some of them do work under the assumption that if their initiatives fail to gain support, well, the end is nigh! The Rapture is upon us; the world has gone to Hell and the second coming is soon to happen because of this failure. Well, that̢۪s just malarkey and is NOT a logical reason to pander for votes.

If nothing else, it will instruct us as to who these people are, what they want specifically and maybe, just maybe, give us insights in how to deal with people who claim to be non-negotiable.

--- Ok, I̢۪m off like a pair of smelly socks. Enjoy your day---it̢۪s been snowing off and on here. Ugh.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2281 words, total size 15 kb.

--- The husband forwarded me this link this morning as a good example of what I was chatting about yesterday about media bias.

--- Now, you see any organization other than the UN first instinct would be to fire these people outright. What does the UN do? They put them on administrative leave until January.

And people wonder why that organization is screwed up.

--- Eeew.
It̢۪s a fish, dude. A bottom feeder, no less. Get your priorities
straight. --- And that̢۪s all she wrote. See ya tomorrow, when due to
the calendar and certain days on it that come but once a year, I will
undoubtedly be in a foul mood. Don̢۪t say I didn̢۪t warn you.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

I̢۪m tired. Just tired of all the garbage people are spewing about The Matrix: Revolutions. CNN̢۪s American Morning program has
a cultural segment they call 90 Second Pop. I haven̢۪t figured out if
this is because the audience has a 90 second attention span, or if the
3 idiots they get to talk about popular culture news can̢۪t string
more then 10 monosyllabic words together in front of the camera. They
each gave about 10 seconds to panning Revolutions. Did they give any
reasons? No. It was just more parroting of the blather that we̢۪ve
heard from other critics recently. Baaaaaaaaâ€Â¦Baaaaaaâ€Â¦baaaaa. More
sheep to the slaughter.
Most of the crap sounds a lot like this: “â€Â¦the movie that should
provide more answers, the movie that should clear us all about
everything, is actually a movie that seldomly (sic.) stops to dwell.”
Regardless of the made up word, this sentiment reveals the inherent
intellectual laziness in modern society. They wanted the answers
spoon-fed to them. They all claim The Matrix was brilliant, but it was merely an introductory course. They all claim that Reloaded
was full of “third-rate philosophy”, and yet never reveal if they
understood it or not. How many philosophical precepts were presented in
Reloaded? How many more in Revolutions? Even a book about the philosophy of The Matrix
failed to ‘get it’. This book was a compilation of the writings of
many different philosophy professors and writers and ‘people in the
field̢۪, I suppose. All of the theses were so self-centered and one
sided in their review of what they saw in the Matrix that I was amazed!
If these are the prevailing philosophical thinkers in the West
todayâ€Â¦we’re in deep metaphysical shit! (By the way, Eco-Feminism is
NOT a philosophyâ€Â¦it’s a political stance! And any professor forcing
students to look at the world from one political perspective at the
expense of all others should be criminal.)
I call these responses lazy, because if you want the deeper thought
provoking experience from Reloaded and Revolutions that most people
seemed to get from The Matrix, then you have to put some effort into
it. It̢۪s not kindergarten anymore. The Matrix
set the premise, and Reloaded and Revolutions use that setting to
explore many different questions. These questions are perennial.
They̢۪ve been asked by everyone from Socrates to Ken Wilber.
To think that the Wachowski brothers are going to hand you the answers
on a silver platter (silver screen?) is the height of presumption!
There is so much going on in these movies that already many books have
been written about them. Kathy was promising you some coverage from me
about the movies, but this is all I can provide in this medium. I could
talk for hours (and have already) and have only begun to organize my
thoughts on these films and the concepts they force us to examine.
I̢۪ll have to spend a month just organizing the different strata of
concepts available here. There̢۪s the philosophy of the group, the
philosophy of the individual, politics and power, free-will, belief in
self, faith, the role of religion and a whole host of other topics that
can be addressed by examples in the films. They are starting places.
Parables for a modern age meant not to deliver the answers, but to get
us to discuss the questions. These levels of involvement don̢۪t even
address the sheer entertainment value. These movies are DAMN cool!
Science fiction, cyberpunk, martial arts, anime all rolled into one. If
you only went to these movies for the effects and entertainment, you
would not have been disappointed. They̢۪re spectacular, and you can
see the Wachowski brothers pay homage to their influences throughout.
If you went for enlightenment, you can get it, but it̢۪s not going to
be spoon fed to you. It̢۪s like the Zen Koan that instructs by asking
an implausible question – forcing you to alter your way of looking at
the world, if only for a moment, to see beyond.
As far as actually watching Revolutions was concerned, it was a strange
experience. I had tried not to let myself get overly worked up for what
might have been a disappointment, so I went to the film with a very
open mind. Sitting there I became aware that I was not just watching
this movie, but experiencing it. It was like being on a ride for my
mind. I know this will sound very, very strange to some people, but
there was nothing at the end for me. No desire. It was complete, it
felt whole. I was satisfied. Just satisfied. Although I couldn̢۪t tell
you why I was satisfied. (I can̢۪t fully explain it now, either.) The
cycle was complete, the characters had ridden their arcs to conclusion
and we see the dawning of new hope. The ever present cycle of change
continues.
I̢۪ve seen some people writing very specific things about why they
didn̢۪t like it, what was wrong with it, what they think should have
been done, etc. In each one of those I read, I easily see the
‘answers’ that they were complaining weren’t delivered. I really
don̢۪t want to sound condescending, but most of the people who have a
specific problem with the plot or how things turned out just don̢۪t
get it. Honestly. Quite frankly, it̢۪s not my place to explain it
either. You have to get it for yourselfâ€Â¦or not. Ask the questions. Of
course, you could always just take it for the entertainment that it is,
which is phenomenal. Well worth the price of a ticket! And if it̢۪s a
particular level of philosophy you̢۪re looking for, try this. It is a good summary.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 7 kb.

---Well, we̢۪re going to try and keep it short today. Have many plans
that require my presence outside of the house, and they begin shortly
so I must blog quickly (and we know how relative that statement is) and run.

--- He should be happy no
one̢۪s suing him for being a crappy lover and should leave it at that.
That said, however, he̢۪s got a decent case and he should be suing.
Now, the husband downloaded the Paris Hilton sex tape---for research
purposes (sha!), and we watched it the other night, expressions of eeeeeew
dominating our facial expressions. Honestly, if that̢۪s their
definition of what is erotic, well, it explains a whole hell of a lot
about Paris Hilton.
Ick. There was nothing erotic about that tape, and it was fairly
obvious that everything Paris knew about having sex (this was not
making love), she learned from watching porn. I mean, honestly, who
other than a porn star makes eye contact with the camera
while---ahem---performing fellatio? And this Rick guy was NOT
impressive---at all. I honestly do not know why the Hilton clan is so up in arms
about this whole deal. They̢۪re deluded about their baby girl̢۪s lack
of moral fortitude, methinks. If they̢۪d watched the tape, it was
pretty clear that Paris was a willing participant. She was free to walk
away at any point in time. She answered her cell phone during the
escapade. If she was really frightened and felt it was assault, why
didn̢۪t she ask the person on the other end of the call for help? I̢۪m not buying it---not one little bit. And honestly, if you̢۪ve ever watched Celebrities Uncensored on E!
(yeah, I know I should be above watching that sort of garbage, but
honestly, it̢۪s fascinating stuff---you̢۪d think all these
celebrities would beat back the cameras---most of the time, however,
they preen and strut like proud peacocks), you̢۪d know that Paris is
no Victorian virgin. So, Rick̢۪s got a point about the slander and
I̢۪m sure he̢۪ll get some money out of the Hiltons when all is said
and done. But next time, Rick, (and Paris, too) at least learn how to
make your sex erotic before you make another tape. (Interesting aside:
why, precisely, does a woman who does nothing but party all the time
have a frigging publicist?)
--- Oooh, I̢۪m gonna run right out and buy some.

--- Go over to A Small Victory sometime
today or over the weekend and weigh in on Michele̢۪s Top 25 albums of
the ‘90’s. --- So, my life today is typical Cake Eater stuff. I’m
going to have a massage. The Doctor and ML (oh yeah, if you didn̢۪t
figure it out when they posted---they̢۪re married) and Mr. H. (he
lives in their basement) very kindly purchased two massage gift
certificates for my birthday. Woohoo! The back̢۪s still bothering me
so I̢۪m going to go and do something about it---and it̢۪s SO great
that I will receive therapy for the problem and don̢۪t have to pay for it!
None of this will surprise them when they read this: they know I̢۪m a
cheap wench and will most likely cack one day as a result of my
stubborn refusal to go to the doctor. It̢۪ll clear up on its own
is generally my line whenever there̢۪s a problem. I wasn̢۪t a sickly
child, but I suspect being the last of the long line of children born
to my mother wasn̢۪t really great for my health, either. I spent a lot
of time in various doctor̢۪s offices when I was a kid, and as a
result, I hate going now. Let̢۪s see, there was the orthopedist for my
pigeon toed condition; the pediatrician for the anemia (once a week
blood pricks for a goodly amount of time) and all of the regular stuff
you take your kid to see a pediatrician for; the ear, nose and throat
guy; the dermatologist; and that̢۪s skipping the dentist, the
orthodontist and the oral surgeon. Suffice it to say, if I̢۪m not on
my deathbed, I̢۪d rather be doing something else than sitting in a
waiting room, listening to muzak, reading yet another copy of People
that proudly announces someone famous has gotten married, who, by the
time I finally get out of the office, will have gotten divorced. I̢۪ll
suffer through the plague before I go to the doctor and suffer yet
another waiting room. (And a note to any doctor who might be reading
this: if you only have one lousy copy of Highlights
in your waiting room, you can guarantee the kids will be fighting over
it and all of the puzzles will have already been filled in---stop being
a cheapskate and chip out for more than one copy.)
But I̢۪m looking forward to the massage: it̢۪s therapeutic in a
non-doctorly way. It will be good. Then I need to go to the Gap and buy
a new pair of jeans. I ripped through the knees on this one, so I look
like someone who has yet to get over Bon Jovi̢۪s hair loss. Why do you only have one pair?
you ask. Well, it̢۪s a remnant of the days when I wore a uniform all
day long. When I was growing up, there was for more than one pair: you
never wore jeans except for after-school and on weekends and Mom did
the laundry when you were at school: why would you need more than one
pair? I fell into this habit long ago and haven̢۪t broken it. It only
becomes inconvenient when I rip through, but provides a good impetus to
go and actually buy the damn jeans. After this afternoon, I should be
good for yet another year, unless there̢۪s a drastic shift in the size
of my ass. Which is completely possible: think bigger, not smaller,
though.
Jean Related Question of the Day: Why is it that jeans always and
forever rip out in the same place? It̢۪s a different place for
everyone: the husband̢۪s always rip out in his crotch; mine always go
at the knee, but why do they always
rip out in the same place, every time? Hmmmm. There̢۪s your
thought-provocation for the day. Then I will be slapping on copious
amounts of war paint and heading off to partake of boozy goodness at a
fashionable watering spot with an old friend. Now, I don̢۪t know
whether to look forward to this or not. It̢۪s a confusing situation: I
like this person, but I don̢۪t know if I like what they̢۪ve become.
I̢۪ve known this friend for years. And when I say that, I mean over
ten, which is a long time at my age, when everyone you know scatters
like roaches when the lights are turned on because of relationships or
work or whatever. The fact we̢۪re still friends after all this time
speaks of the loads of tolerance we have toward one another: she̢۪s
led an interesting life, as have I---and the fact we don̢۪t hate one
another with a distinct passion yet speaks volumes. Yet, she worries me
and it̢۪s because I̢۪m very fond of her that I̢۪m worried. I don̢۪t
think she̢۪s got her priorities in the right place: she values social
climbing, forever being with the “in crowd,” money, jewelry and is
very much a “what have you done for me lately?” type of person.
She̢۪s a Cake Eater; I am not. I get a walk---for the most part---on
all of these things because I knew her way back when; sentimentality
earns me a pass for not valuing the same things she values. If I met
her now, as opposed to when I did meet her, the chances she would want
to have nothing to do with me are very high.
The evening̢۪s going to be filled with lots of stories about what
she̢۪s doing for her career, her many men, what they̢۪ve bought for
her and all of this stuff
will be flavored with her quirky sense of humor that I enjoy very much.
It will be like eating canned tuna flavored with incredible, costly
spices that once upon a time explorers and merchants circumnavigated
the globe to obtain. Question is, can I stand the stink of the tuna to
get to the spices? I don̢۪t know. Will report back on Monday with the
gory details. Have a good, lazy, do-nothing but sit in front of the
fire, weekend.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1419 words, total size 9 kb.

--- “Yep. Now that’s what I call a campfire!”

Bonus points to whomever can name the movie that quote came from. And maybe I̢۪ll send you something if you̢۪re really nice.

--- The husband found this on that vast assortment of shared knowledge we all know as the World Wide Web this morning.

He wanted to know if it was a farce.

And here I thought he was intelligent. I take it back.

--- It̢۪s about friggin̢۪ time.

The law prof himself weighs in with a quick synopsis of the decision. You can find it here.

I believe this says it all:

In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed
that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality
of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class
citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full
deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth,
the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate
reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to
decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality
of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of
courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the
court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It
prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable
advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure
in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It
cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize
children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents'
sexual orientation.

Emphasis added by moi because it̢۪s so obviously true.

It̢۪s a happy day.

--- Why?

You know, I really can̢۪t wait for the Behind the Music on Britney. And I don̢۪t mean this one. I
mean the one that will be shown twenty years from now when Her
Fabulousness will obviously be a recovering coke addict cum Holiday Inn
lounge singer begging for another shot at the big time.
Because you know it will happen. There will be a documentary that will detail all of that sumptuous dysfunction that̢۪s going on now
but that Britney---apparently---has enough sense not to reveal at this
point in time. She̢۪s waiting, I̢۪m sure of it. Down the road a bit,
she will undoubtedly reveal that she snorted coke off Christina
Aguilera̢۪s ass because she had horrible self-esteem problems in an
effort to get you to run right out to buy her greatest hits so she can
finally pay off the dealer who wants to break her legs. There is so
much here that we don̢۪t know about, but hell, it̢۪s gonna be good to
have all my suspicions about her confirmed. She̢۪s #$#@̢۪ed in the
head: she has to be. No normal twenty-one year old acts like she does unless there’s some serious issues underlying the façade.

I̢۪ll bide my time and it will be worth the wait.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.

--- Talk about overreaching.

“The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that
should be managed by national governments and, at an international
level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International
Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the
information summit.
Oh, great. Just what we need: the UN managing the Internet. They
already can̢۪t decide on how to manage the world, so we̢۪ll just put
the most important resource we have going right now in their competent and loving hands.
Puhleeze. And I̢۪ll bet anything that Al Gore wants to be the head of
that organization because he wants to make sure his invention is
governed properly. This is such a bad idea, on so many levels.
--- Today is Veterans Day. I am a warrior, that my son may be a merchant---and his son may be a poet.

---Thomas Jefferson

--- WTF?

--- Give us what we want or the bubbly gets it!
Why are they holding the bubbly hostage? It seems stupid. The
company̢۪s already bankrupt; they̢۪ll just declare the loss of the
stock in the bankruptcy and will move on. It̢۪s a moot point. My
solution, if the kidnappers really want to get vicious about it, is
that they should just drink the hoard and call it even. It seems better
compensation to me than what the bubbly kidnappers are likely to get,
which is fired and thrown in the pokey. I just don̢۪t get Europeans
sometimes. You people are an honest source of bafflement to me. I love
your cities, people and cultures, but hell, why on earth do you think
should have a job for life---particularly when the company you worked
for has gone belly up? Why do you hold champagne hostage instead of
opening up the help wanted ads and finding a new job? What point are
you trying to make here? That there̢۪s some sort of social contract
between employer and employee that̢۪s valid even if they can̢۪t
afford to pay you anymore? What the hell? {shaking head in bafflement}
Answers, please. I̢۪d like to understand this. --- To back up the
husband̢۪s Matrix essay, here̢۪s the transcript from CNN̢۪s American Morning 90 Second Pop Segment.

He̢۪s right: they just didn̢۪t get it.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

You'll forgive me for not blogging yesterday. We were waylaid by a six
year old boy and a three year old girl whose parents had dropped them
off for a few hours of quality time with the auntie and uncle. The
parents went Christmas shopping. We baked cookies and did laundry. Now,
which sounds like more fun to you? Anyway, I have horrifying news.
Ahem. MY PARENTS HAVE FOUND MY BLOG!

Read this and
then you will understand the horror of this situation. Much revision
will be done to keep them from keeling over from shock. Must get busy
editing posts.
And a note to my brother: I'm currently trying to decide which of the
varied tortures from the age of the Inquistion will suit best for your
punishment. Will it be the rack? The coffin lined with nails? Or maybe
we'll take a cue from Poe and commence with the whole "Pit and the
Pendulum" routine? I don't know, but it will be good, I promise that
much.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

--- My deal has officially been queered for the day. And it̢۪s not
even ten o̢۪clock. The husband just got an email from his mother
detailing a dream she had last nightâ€Â¦about me.

Now, I haven̢۪t the foggiest clue as to why the mother-in-law would be dreaming about me.
Personally, I think she tries to forget about me as much as she
possibly can. I know she doesn̢۪t hate me, as some mother-in-laws hate
the women who marry their sons. I just don̢۪t think she likes me all
that much. The reasons for this dislike are many, but I think it mainly
boils down to the fact I am not the woman she envisioned her baby boy
marrying. That̢۪s fine. I don̢۪t think he envisioned marrying
a woman like me, either. We̢۪re not close and to sum up our
relationship quickly, I̢۪ll just say that we̢۪ve never really gotten
beyond discussing the weather whenever we do chat, and then two seconds
later she asks if the husband is available to chat. For whatever
reason, this odd form of détente works most of the time. She stays in
her court; I stay in mine, and we̢۪re polite enough to let the line
judges make their calls. And it works. Don̢۪t ask me why, but it does.
The husband doesn̢۪t seem to mind, either. So, it makes absolutely no
frigging sense to me as to why I inhabited her mind as she slept last
night. Seems I was pregnant in this dream, but no one knew about it
until after I̢۪d given birth because I didn̢۪t show. And the baby could walk when they were one day old.

The Freudians whom I̢۪m sure make up a huge portion of my audience are now nodding their heads and saying Hmmmm. Seems to me Grandma wants some more grandkids.
I personally think it means she doesn̢۪t know me all that well. I will
undoubtedly swell up to the size of the blue ribbon winning hog when I
become pregnant and it will be obvious to the whole world. And second,
dear God, what high expectations she seems to have! The baby will be
walking in a week? Yeah, right. Dream onâ€Â¦
Erm. I suppose that was the point, though. She was dreaming.
I̢۪m baffled. --- And as far as the parents are concerned, I got over
the panic sometime on Saturday afternoon. I still don̢۪t know how I
feel about it, but I suppose that̢۪s irrelevant now: it was only a
matter of time before they found it. Suffice it to say, I know they
won̢۪t agree with everything I put down here, and that̢۪s fine. I
will probably alter the content some now that I know they̢۪re part of
my audience, but nothing will change drastically. It can̢۪t: I am who
I am. The only concern I have is that I now have to watch my language,
which, I will admit, is somewhat of a trial. I like swearing. It̢۪s
not ladylike, I know, but I don̢۪t really care all that much. I take
exception with those who think swearing is a sign of a filthy mind.
Pffft. Quite frankly, I think it̢۪s a sign of an unimaginative one,
and we all know I̢۪m just skating through here. I̢۪m not an
exceptional writer, although I do aspire to be one, but I also have a
tendency to call it like I see it. And sometime certain types of
situations just beg
for a curse word to be used as a descriptor as it drives the point home
quicker and more concisely than other, flowerier, adjectives. So, to
the Cake Eater Mother and Father: Welcome. I hope you enjoy the
content. I will try to clean up the language as much as possible so as
to honor that all important Fourth Commandment. --- It snowed here over
the weekend. Copiously. There̢۪s five or six inches of the white crap
on the ground this morning. And the sun has come out, so it hurts the
eyes to look outside right now. And it̢۪s cold. We have apparently hit
that time of year when it only warms up to snow. The rest of the time,
it̢۪s easy to remember that, indeed, Minnesota is the northernmost
state in the contiguous forty-eight because it̢۪s frigging cold.
When it stops snowing, we get that frigid Canadian air, which generally
has the result of me hating all things associated with the country of
maple leaves. Keep your damn Arctic air to yourselves. Isn̢۪t bad
enough I have to deal with all of your bogus coinage
that---somehow---makes it into my wallet? Why should I have to deal
with the frigid air that comes from your country? Huh? Keep it on your
side of the border and I promise I̢۪ll never come to your country to
watch the northern lights in the summer. I promise. You do your part
and I̢۪ll do mine. Quid pro quo. It could work. Let̢۪s give it a
whirl.
But it̢۪s currently twelve degrees right now, which is colder than
when I got up this morning. It was fifteen degrees then. Now that the
sun has come out, of course, it̢۪s gotten colder because the ground
cannot accept the warmth of the sun with its white blanket. The
sunlight reflects back up into the atmosphere and will until March.
This arrangement, as best as I can tell, is only good for the ground.
Oh sure, it̢۪s all nice and toasty, but am I? Noooooooo. I̢۪m pulling
long underwear out of the bottom of my niceties drawer. This is what
has comprised the unpleasant reality of my morning. In an unusual move
for me, I awoke at five this morning to drive Mr. H. to el aeroporto.
So, not only was it chilly, but it was dark, too. Pitch black, in fact.
But the snow plows were out, for once, doing their couplehood thing:
one snow plow, scraping determinedly, followed immediately by another
snow plow, scraping the stuff that the first one missed, and leaving a
trail of salt to melt all the ice neither of them could get. This seems
to get most of it and enables traffic to break down the rest of the
muck. The few hours between ice slicked pavement and dry streets are
dangerous, mind you, but it̢۪s only a few hours, and if you̢۪re
careful and stay the heck away from ignorant SUV drivers (ok, why do
SUV drivers seem to think that 4WD will keep them from slipping on the
ice? You may have two axels, kids, and drive power going to four wheels
and, yes, I will admit, this will help you in the snow, but when
there̢۪s ice involved, that̢۪s just TWO MORE WHEELS WITH POWER GOING
TO THEM. It̢۪s not an instant guarantee of more traction, like most of
you seem to think. It̢۪s more power that you don̢۪t have control
of---figure it out---for the good of mankind.) you should be ok. I was
pleased to see the snow plows go up the street in front of the Cake
Eater apartment, and then back down again as I sat and had my pre-dawn
cup of coffee: it made me feel like my taxes were doing some good.
Anarchy prevented, all is well with the free world and all that jazz.
Then I wondered if it would be the same in March and April. And I was
instantly disheartened. For those of you who don̢۪t live in the frozen
tundra, you should know that when it snows here, we have many issues
with the removal of said white stuff. The main one being that cities
never seem to have enough money to accomplish the task over the long
winters we live with. It̢۪s a hodgepodge of snow removal services, as
best as I can tell. The DOT takes care of the highways and the cities
take care of the streets, and neither party ever has enough money to
ensure that the prompt, efficient service we receive in November is the
same prompt, efficient service we should
receive in March, but only rarely happens. I̢۪m sure as I̢۪m writing
this, some accountant is fiddling with their estimates based on what
they think this large pre-Thanksgiving snowfall portends for the rest
of the winter and they̢۪re sure they don̢۪t have enough money
to cover the rest of the snow season. A few years ago, the DOT actually
ran out of salt. In January. Then they̢۪ll run up to the
legislature---and this is both the cities and the DOT---and will beg
for emergency money because they just hadn̢۪t counted on their funds
being depleted this quickly. It happens all the time. Even, supposedly,
during the “light” winters we’ve had the past few years.
We̢۪ll see how they do this year. It would be refreshing, for once, if
they could estimate properly. And it would also be highly refreshing if they could get all the snow out of my alleyway so I don̢۪t slide my way down to the street all winter long.

--- No doubt, this will be frustrating for all of us.
Oh, buddy, you have no idea how much. For me, that is. Not for you. You
have lawyers to protect and defend you, not to mention that you live in
your own little world where you̢۪re insulated from nasty little
things, like laws. You have absolutely no reason to be frustrated. You
can still play with your chimp or ride your roller coaster, but the
rest of us are stuck here in the real world and we are finding it
incredibly hard to get away from you. You have your freakish face
plastered across newspapers; the news channels are interviewing your
fifth cousins, twice removed, to fill the time. They actually showed
your SUV driving through Vegas the same day when there had been a major
bombing in Istanbul that killed over twenty people and wounded over
four hundred more: the media thought that you were the more important
story of the day. People died in the war against terrorism and those of
us who found ourselves wanting to know more about it were out of luck.
Why? Because the news agencies thought you were more important. For the
millions of us whose pleas for decent media coverage of the world
outside of America are ignored, I would just like to inform you, that
you, Michael Jackson, have a way of skewing perceptions. And this is
completely irregardless of whether you̢۪re guilty or innocent of
pedophilia. I̢۪ll let the courts decide that. And no, I̢۪m not
talking about people̢۪s perceptions of how good or bad a person you
are: goodness or badness is a moot point right now. No, what I̢۪m
referring to is that you, for some unknown reason, have a way of making
everyone throw their priorities into the wastebasket just so they can
focus on you.

It̢۪s not healthy, you know, all this attention seeking.

I̢۪m going to do you a favor and let you in on the secret. You see MJ, you are
the joke. You seem to have puffed yourself up to Godlike status; you
seemingly believe your press. But in fact, the truth is that you are
nothing. A big ol̢۪ nobody. You haven̢۪t cured cancer. You haven̢۪t
gone to the moon. You haven̢۪t ended war, murder, famine, oppression,
torture, rape, or any of the innumerable nasties that go on in the
world today. You sing songs. You live on a ranch with a chimp and a
roller coaster. Oh, I know you like to think
you̢۪re doing your part by bringing the world together with music, but
come on and get a grip, would you? Do you honestly think Robert Mugabe
listens to The Man in the Mirror and that your heartfelt lyrics
keep him from slaughtering and oppressing his citizens? I don̢۪t think
so. You̢۪re not important, MJ. And what̢۪s more pertinent is that you
never have been.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2007 words, total size 12 kb.