It's really a wonder that I haven't dropped all ideals, because they
seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in
spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at
heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of
confusion, misery, and death. I see the world gradually being turned
into a wilderness, I hear the ever approaching thunder, which will
destroy us too, I can feel the suffering of millions, and yet, if I
look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that
this cruelty, too, will end, and that peace and tranquility will reign
again." -- Anne Frank
Show the people in Madrid that you, too, still believe in the
worthiness of humanity. Show them that you believe human beings are
really good at heart because, right now, I'm sure they need some
reassurance. Spanish Red Cross

Send flowers to the Spanish Embassy in Washington:

Mr. JAVIER RUPEREZ, Ambassador
2375 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037.
202.452.0100

Posted by: Kathy at 11:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

--- I've calmed down enough to chat about the auto show we attended
with Mr. H. last Thursday night. Every year we round up the troops and
attend the auto show. Our group likes cars---we enjoy them. We lust
after them. We have fun getting in them and having our picture taken.
It's fun activity for the group. This year, however, The Doctor, has
been having a rough time adjusting her immune system to the frigid
Minnesota climate---not to mention she works at a hospital: she's been
ill more times than not this past winter. Poor Girl: this is what
happens when you move here from Southern California and because of yet
another illness--this time it robbed her of her voice---she and her
wife, ML, were not able to attend. So, it was just the three of
us---the husband, Mr. H. and myself---out in big bad downtown
Minneapolis on a school night. Oooooooh. The thrills! The chills! Downtown in the middle of the week. Woooooooooooooo.
That said, we had a blast. Ate at Copelands then meandered over to the
Convention Center and perused the fancy automobiles. Since we've always
gone on Saturdays in the past, it was quite refreshing to visit on a
weeknight: there weren't any rugrats running around; it wasn't crowded;
you could actually get up close to the really COOL cars.
In fact, I think I look rather hot in this BMW 6 series coupe.

Eh? Eh? I'm a BABE in a hot car. I RULE!

Here's what it looks like without me in it.


The thing is ALL sunroof. It's very nice inside. Just yesterday at
coffee, Mr. H. and I were chatting about how, in the past, BMW's were
all about the cramped cockpit; that there was always a lot of junk that
didn't need to be there and it crowded the passenger. I didn't think
this was the case at all with the six series. When I sat in the front
seat, I didn't feel cramped. Granted, there were a lot of buttons whose
functions might have set off a Stinger missile or
might have turned on the windshield wipers, but it was actually quite
roomy in there,and I think the sunroof had something to do with it.
Look closely at the roof in the first picture---it's like a Citroen
convertible, only instead of pushing back a soft top, you press a
window and the ceiling slides back. I enjoyed it---and not just because
it made me look good, although that factor cannot be denied when push
comes to shove. The husband is a Ford guy. His Dad is a Ford guy---they
like Ford cars. I don't get it. I tried to get into the whole Ford
thing when we first got married, but to my mind these cars were, on the
whole, forgettable junk. (He'll shoot me later for that statement, I
can guarantee it. At the very least, I'll have to listen to a lecture
about Detroit superiority.) We generally don't get a lot of concept
cars here at the Minneapolis Auto Show: we ain't Detroit or Chicago.
But, we did get this one, and the husband was enamored.
That is a Ford GT, in case you didn't know: a car they haven't had in
production for years, but brought back for a concept car. I don't get
what the big deal is. I'm sorry, baby, I just don't. I suggested the
other night that it looked like a souped-up Mazda, and the husband got
really mad at me. And I mean mad---like he was going to storm away
because I made a joke about such a thing. Whatever. It didn't ring any
bells for me. Sorry, darling. It's nothing personal. Cool your jets.
The rest of the time we meandered around the show. We hit the Porsche
display---got to sit in a Cayenne. It was still too tall for me,
although Mr. H. (Mister Six-foot-two, I might add) tried to exclude it
from my rule. You see, I refuse to own a car that is taller than I am.
I'm five-foot-six---this pretty much knocks most SUV's out of my range.
And minivans, too, but I'm not complaining one little bit. The
reasoning behind this is that I think small people, of which I am the
tallest, look ridiculous in SUV's and Minivans. Tall people---fine,
they fit. But people as short as I am or shorter? Nope. We look like
little kids behind the wheels of these vehicles. I also hate having to
jump to get into one of those vehicles. Ugh. Mr. H. seemed to think
that the Cayenne was exactly
the same height as me, and being as tall as he is, he used his tried
and true method: he laid his arm on top of my head and then extended it
to the top of the car, proving that the Cayenne is as tall as I am.
Sha. Whatever. I will say this---that Cayenne is a nice automobile.
Roomy enough in the back that Mr. H.'s knees weren't hitting anything
and he was amazed at all the room he had. The husband, of course, was
checking out the cargo capacity in the far back. He thought it was more
than adequate should we win the Powerball and suddenly be able to
afford such an automobile.
Other highlights of the evening: razzing the Hummer salesguy about how
worthless H2's are. He agreed that if you were going to spend that much
money on a fuel guzzling vehicle, you should at least get a snorkle and
metal hooks where you could airlift your big daddy onto a C-130 cargo
plane. The Volkswagen Phaeton: that is one big Volkswagen. Wow. When
it's side by side with a Passat, the difference is noticeable, in fact,
it's about as long as two Passats. The thing is huge and it's
pricey---$80K. They wouldn't let anyone in that puppy, though, unless
you were a serious buyer. The husband got to peruse and feel up the
Jaguars. He likes Jags---particularly the XJ8's, which is the hot
little V-8 convertible. Mr. H. had fun with the Saturns, of which he is
a loyal owner, and he enjoyed hopping in and out of all sorts of
trucks. Even though he just bought his LS200 last year, he thinks his
next car will have some towing capacity. And I enjoyed the imports. I
drooled over the Audis and the Mercedes and BMW's. We also had fun with
that new Envoy at the GMC stand---the one with the back door that opens
two different ways (although, when you opened it to the side, it didn't
open nearly as wide as a regular side opener would), but the sunroof
was cool and it seemed to work well.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1135 words, total size 6 kb.

So, this is my reply to those A Small Victory posters I apparently
picked a fight with earlier. I'm saving space---for Michele at least.
The rest of you can ignore this one. Or read, if you can figure out
what the hell we're talking about. And since this was started
elsewhere, I'm suspending the Election Free Zone bullshit. I can't talk
about the Electoral College whilst ignoring the current campaigns. Just
wouldn't be effective.
It's good to be the boss at times. And away we go...
The reason the electoral college still is useful is that it forces
candidates to spend time in smaller states as well as the huge
population centers on the west coast and northeast. Without the EC, a
few states would determine who was president and who wasn't. Remember,
in the US the largest 10 states maker up a huge percentage of the
population (if I remember correctly, 40+%). Why on Earth would a
candidate even bother spending his limited finances to woo voters in
flyover country when he could bombard New York, California, Texas and
Florida, and then just pick up a few states here and there to round
things out. --Evil Otto.
To Evil Otto (love the name, btw): Don't the presidential candidates
already do that? Kerry's in California for a whole week. He's been in
and out of Florida. He's not going to go anywhere near Texas because he
knows it's a lost cause. Clinton made his first visit to the state I
grew up in---Nebraska---in the last week of his second term. It was the
50th state he'd visited. He'd visited every other state. Why? Not many
electoral votes in Nebraska, nor a lot of Democratic voters. Why, I ask
you, would it be any different if we abolished the Electoral College?
It might not be an INTENDED consequence, but something else the
Electoral College does is insulate the election from widespread fraud.
A purely popular election could be susceptible to big-city political
machines (For example, Philadelphia cast more votes in the 2000
Presidential election than the city had eligible voters.) In a close
election stuff like this could be the deciding factor, but thanks to
the electoral system, all it can do is impact one state. Plus, you
could argue the Electoral College might encourage people to vote in
smaller states - Bush's margin of victory were the Electoral votes of
Alaska and Montana, two states where the votes would be meaningless in
a popular system. --John Barret, Jr. I'll give you the point about
fraud, John. We certainly don't need anyone making nighttime visits to
the Cook County Morgue to resurrect a few votes. But it does hold up
the nation when we have situations like Florida 2000. As far as
encouraging residents in smaller states to vote---do you really think
that? When you have college students registering in the states where
they attend school, just so they can have a better shot at influencing
the outcome of the election, it's pretty apparent that one vote DOES
NOT equal one vote. A Texas presidential vote is much more weighty and
has more influence than a Nebraska presidential vote simply because
there are more electoral votes at stake. It just does. It's simply
because of population, which has nothing to do with electing the
president, other than the total number of votes counted. Yes, when
you're voting for a congressperson, it's very important that you take
into account what they can do for you---because they're your direct
representative in Washington (at least they're supposed to be). They
represent you in the national legislature. A presidential election is
an entirely different story. Is the President going to intervene with
the State Department to expedite your passport application? Do you call
up the President when you need some help with with some random
government bureaucracy? No. You call your congressperson. That's what
they're there for---local stuff. But the presidency is a national
election---what difference should where you live make when you're
voting for president ? It shouldn't. Well, for one thing, the US is made up of states, and is not a
blob of undifferentiated land. If, as Otto suggests, we do not wish to
have the President chosen directly and solely by California, Florida,
and New York, it is absolutely necessary that the other states have
something to "offer". (This is echoed by what Mr. Barrett said, as
well.)
And, furthermore, I don't see that more parties is a good idea in any
way. A system like that of most of Europe gives too much power and
influence to minor, extreme, "fringe" parties and their ideas; a
two-party system has a contrary effect, forcing both toward the center
of the idea/ideology bell-curve (if you will, and if we assume, as
seems to match the way things are, that there's a normal distribution
of ideas and political beliefs at the national level) in order to get
the required support.
Moderation, as a structural part of the very political system, is a
great good---Sigivald
Yes, the US is made up of states. I would much prefer---when it comes
to presidential elections---however that we be one big blob of
undifferentiated land. Like I said to Otto, the candidates already
don't come to most states---what would be different about that under a
system where the popular vote ruled? You think they'd take the "most
bang for the buck" approach, obviously, but I choose to respectcully
disagree with you. I think they would actually be forced out of
Electoral College havens and would have to spend time all over the
country---perhaps even in Hawaii or Alaska, God forbid. If, as Otto
said, 40+ percentage of the population lives in the states with the
most electoral votes, that means 60 percent of the population live elsewhere.
Florida, Texas and California already control the outcome of any
presidential election because of their population mass. You say states
should have something to offer. Why?
Why does joining up with your fellow state residents, voting as a mass,
and casting your Electoral College votes for one particular guy mean in
term of state politics? Currently a state governor can use the
slightest whiff of electoral votes as either a wedge or a
promise---depending upon whom they support. What if all states were
treated equally when it comes to presidential politics? Would that be a
good thing or a bad thing? I think it would be good. I would encourage
you to think outside of the quid pro quo for a moment. If we broke up
the hegemony of the Electoral College, it *might* be possible to break
up some of the pork that gets passed through the Congress. Think about
it: The President would effectively be able to lead. He could stop
being afraid of being blackmailed when it comes to Electoral College
votes. Then go further in ignoring the quid pro quo. How would this
change the way congresspeople act? Would they actually have to
represent the residents of their state and their districts, rather than
playing their part in the party system? The repercussions have the
potential of going far and wide. A vote should equal a vote. And in a
national election---the only one we have in this country---why is it
important that states play a part in the process? I don't think they
should. They just further the quid pro quo; the something for something
that rules the political agenda. I'm sick of that. I want it out of the
presidential election when it comes to states. We're electing the
leader of the entire country. Why should it matter where you live when
deciding this? To jump to your next point, what are we receiving in
return for "moderation, as a structural part of the political system"?
Gridlock. The two parties we have are so close together on the
political spectrum they could breathe for each other. I'm not a big fan
of the potential of a number of double digit political parties, either,
but this is irrelevant in a popular vote presidential election. We
already work on a plurality system: a majority is not needed to win the
presidency. Both times he ran, Clinton won with a plurality, not a
majority. Bush obviously didn't win a majority of votes. How would this
affect the a presidential race any differently than it does now? It
wouldn't. There wouldn't be any runoffs, nor are they needed. The
Electoral College confers a majority upon the winner of the popular
election by throwing an entire state's electoral votes to the winner.
Part of the College's purpose is to legitimize the popular election.
When, on election night, CNN announces who the next President of the
United States will be, why exactly do we need electors to "legitimize"
the election? Didn't Judy Woodruff just do that? Of course I'm being
facetious here, but doesn't the math legitimize the election? The one
vote + one vote+ one vote.... Ok, and that's enough for tonight. I'll
get to you, Dorkafork (I love your handle, by the way). I'm just too
tired to start talking about those Godawful BORING Federalist Papers
this evening (sorry, I hold them in great respect, I just hate reading
them. College. Political Science major. Enough said). If you guys have
anything further to tell me---and I'm sure you will---the email address
is on the right. I'm sorry there isn't a comments section on my humble,
freebie blog. I'm working on it. If you bother to email me, I'll be
sure to post your reply on the site so the five people and the one
chimpanzee who read this thing will be riveted with the Madisonian
levels of our discourse.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1629 words, total size 10 kb.

--- For the most part I haven't had too many problems with declaring
the Cake Eater Chronicles to be an ELECTION 2004 FREE ZONE.
It's actually been quite refreshing. Of course, the husband gets more
election commentary from me since I can't unload here, but for the most
part---to quote our favorite soon-to-be jailbird---it's a good thing.
(I find myself saying that phrase quite a lot lately. Wonder why?) Life
is much, much breezier without having to even think about the likes of
Dubya or Kerry. It's like when someone you live with quits smoking:
everything smells better. Anyway, I wasn't having a problem until I was
flipping through A Small Victory and found this article.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY! Michele's right: it's too easy. But oh, my sweet, sweet God is it ever tempting!

I feel like giving a Howard Dean yell---only in frustration, rather than in mistaken celebration.

Ok, what the hell.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!
The Cake Eater Chronicles: I'm all about making promises that aren't
worth a damn. Learn this now and count yourselves lucky that this is
one time I actually managed to make good. We'll see how I do when
October rolls around. I think I'll manage quite nicely over the summer
provided we don't get wi-fi and I can surf/blog from the lawn.
--- Side commentary: I don't know why everyone isnt reading A Small Victory on
a daily basis. This is consistently one of the most amusing and
right-on blogs that it's been my pleasure to come across. Michele, like
myself, has been blessed with what most people would refer to as a sick
sense of humor. It's nice to know you're not the only axe murderer out
there. So, if you like my stuff, go and read hers---it's better than
mine. It was nice knowing you and I hope you find your way back here
when hosting matters crashes and her site is down. {/so long, farewell,
aufweidershen, goodnight}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

---Proud moment #1 for this blog actually having a physical effect on
one of its readers!
For some odd reason (probably weight loss related) my father is fasting
for a few days. Then again, it could be something Catholic. Or both.
You never know with my father---he can multitask with the best of them.
Anyhoo---I believe I mentioned that my mother now has her very own
laptop. Yep. And it's wireless. She can surf from the dining room
table, which she chose to do while she was eating her supper this
evening. Unfortunately for her, she made the mistake of choosing to
read my blog whilst eating said supper. She got this far: to actually, you know, reexamine the issues
periodically, rather than eating up the rhetoric that the candidates
spew daily, like a frat boy on a perpetual binge spews chunks every
night after the bars close. And it made her lose her appetite.

WOOHOO!

I am visceral! Hear me roar!

--- Wow.

"I endorse killing criminals on your farmland, I endorse it," said
Jorge Simoni, mayor of the municipality of Villarino
in southern Argentina. "The life of the guy who gets up at 5 a.m. to
produce, to work, comes first," he said in a television interview aired
on Thursday. "There will be a thousand reasons why people go out and
steal, but I don't excuse them."

This guy gets the award for Telling It Like It Is.

I doubt Michele
thought she'd start off such a worldwide phenomenon when she started
her endorsement process.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

--- Could it just be possible that the revolution has begun?


GO AND READ THIS. IT'S REQUIRED.


Inshallah.


Hat tip to the almighty Allah.
On second thought, since he is a deity, perhaps I should bow down and
pay homage. I dunno. What is an acceptable homage these days? I can't
blow myself up. Not only would the husband be pissed off at me, I have
to think that there aren't enough male virgins in heaven for me to
deflower. A girl's gotta have a healthy sexual life in the afterlife,
no?

Posted by: Kathy at 08:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

---Spring, baby!
It got up to sixty-five frigging degrees here today. Yes, I know you
people down south are laughing. Whatever. I live in the northernmost
state in the contiguous 48. We're so north we're practically Canada.
Except for the socialized medicine and all. The husband and I walked
around today in jeans and t-shirts. There were people in shorts roaming
around. Judging strictly by the number of people out and about,
everyone seemed to have realized today was the time to come out of
hibernation. Quite lovely. The husband also got to smoke a cigar
today---he's way happy. The window are still open in the Cake Eater
Apartment. It's nice. My tulips have the right idea, don't you think?
I'll
be honest: I can barely remember what bulbs I still have. The dreaded
squirrels have really done a number on me. I planted thirty+ daffodil
bulbs a few years ago---I think I have three or four left. Those fat
little rodents like eating bulbs. So, it's a pleasure to be reminded of
what they haven't gnawed on when spring comes around. I didn't look to
see what was popping in The Gardener's yard, but---providing its not
snowing---I'll give it a looksee tomorrow. Ahhh---they do so look lame,
don't they?

But they make me happy. And that's all that really matters, isn't it?

Posted by: Kathy at 07:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

---Oh, oh, oh!
IN WHICH KATHY UNLEASHES HER FLAMING SWORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE GREAT STATE OF MINNESOTA!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

``I've got problems with it,'' he said. ``I have a concern as to how
do I reconcile these injuries with an incident in the bar. ... They had
two tickets issued to them 10 hours later for misdemeanors. No bail. No
bond. No nothing.''
So, it seems that according to Mike Hatch, the only people who
shouldn't have to sit in jail for hours on end, waiting for a judge to
show up to arraign them are his daughters.
They, of course, should be let go the minute they're arrested, because
they're sweet little things who couldn't possibly have done any damage
to either the police officers or themselves---not to mention the cop
car one of them kicked out the window of. You have absolutely NO idea
how it works, do you, Hatch? None whatsoever. You're the head honcho.
The chief legal officer of the State of Minnesota and you have NO CLUE
as to how the system works in actuality, do you? I'm sure if either you
or Amy Klobuchar ever had your asses thrown into the clink, you'd be
completely surprised at how long it takes to charge someone.
Particularly overnight. When the judges are safe and secure in their
beds and have no intention of dealing with two girls who are DRUNK off
their asses, whose father happens to be the AG of Minnesota and who
would undoubtedly sue the City of Chicago for arraigning them while
they were in a "diminished capacity," let alone the average bum who
swills Night Train and has wound up in the pokey as well.
Let me see if I can refresh your memory on this, eh? This is something
you should have learned in law school.
1. You people--you know, the legal people---have FORTY-EIGHT HOURS to
charge someone. This means while the prosecutors are running around,
deciding first if the crime occurred in their jursidiction, and second,
if they're going to charge someone with a crime, the alleged criminal
can---AND WILL---cool their heels in numerous jails for two whole
frigging days---from the time of arrest, mind you, which might actually
be HOURS later from the time they were actually picked up--- before you
and your beloved prosecutors ever get around to setting bail. 2. Your
daughters were DRUNK. Drunk, you hear. As in "stinking." The Chicago
Police, given your daughters' behavior (kicking, biting, strugging and
then kicking out a cop car window) were completely justified in letting
them sober up before they talked to them. Again---it has to do with
"diminshed capacity." Your daughters, being the clever little
priveleged things they are, probably invoked their 5th Amendment rights
as well. They had no inclination to talk to your daughters while they
were drunk. They knew you'd come after them if they did. 3. The
credibility of the arresting officers. This is the Chicago Police
Department, after all. Take your lumps with some pride, would you,
Hatch? They don't get their knickers in a twist over just anything. It
takes serious stuff to get them riled. Once, I walked with a hundred
thousand other people down Washington Avenue after the Taste of
Chicago, and all they did was lean on their cop cars and shoot the shit
with their fellow officers. They're the most laid back cops you'll ever
meet. Stupid at times, yes--- but laid back most of the time. If your
daughters were causing fits that a Chicago bouncer (again, laid back,
but serious) would call in the cops, well, chances are they deserved to
get thrown out and then arrested. 4. Collecting of evidence. You should
be pleased your daughters didn't wind up in the emergency room right
away. The ER staff would have taken a blood test and would have
determined just how intoxicated they were. Then the city would have had
evidence to back up a charge of "public drunkeness." (And if one of
them has a broken wrist---never mind that she probably earned it---they
would have caught it by now.)
Get a clue, would you? RECOGNIZE the fact they got off lightly. Most
cops would have beaten them up (is the Minneapolis Police Department
ringing a bell?) for damaging City property. You should know: it
happens all the time---extra bruise here, extra bump there---and none
of the injuries are any different than those they'd already sustained
when they resisted arrest. The cops could have also made sure they got
stuffed into the worst cell possible, whilst holding up the process for
as long as they could get away with. You should be happy you didn't
have to become familiar with a Chicago bail-bondsman. And there's no
serious financial loss involved getting your girls out of the pokey.
You didn't have to pay a dime to get them out of jail. I'm sure your
wife would have LOVED a trip to the bail-bonds office in the middle of
the night, in downtown Chicago. As far as the actual charges---they
were issued tickets for misdemeanors. Christ. That can be wiped from a
record without a sweat being broken. Help them get over this; help them
put it behind them; make damn sure it doesn't happen again. But if you
get up behind the podium one more time and say "you have a problem with
it," I'm coming over to St. Paul and I'm going to sit in your office
and whine, and whine and whine until you listen to what I have to say
and THEN I will unleash a wet trout and SMACK you with it.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

--- We had to go downtown on Saturday, which meant a sidetrip to the
shoe department at Needless Markup. Of course, we only went there after
we'd warmed up at Saks. Needless, needless to say, has the better shoe
department of the two. Why? you ask. They have Manolos. And Gucci's.
And Pradas. And all those pretty, pretty, pretty shoes that I SOOOO
love, but would probably never wear if a. I were in a position to spend
$495 on a pair of shoes and b. I didn't dislike high heels. These are cute and actually somewhat practical, for four inch sandals. These are hot. The husband liked these
because of the ankle wrap-around things (thinks they're sexy), but he'd
gag at these colors. They had them in black at the store. But the piece
de resistance. Oh, be still my beating heart. I WANT THESE SHOES! I WOULD WEAR THEM! I SWEAR! AND NO, I'M NOT HOLDING A SET OF CROSSED FINGERS BEHIND MY BACK!
Ooooooooooohhhhh. {/Homer Simpson Drooling} I'm not crazy about the
logo on the back of the heel, but honestly, who looks at the back of a
woman's heel other than a guy with a foot fetish? The only shoes I
decided were really worth considering at Saks were these Isaac mules,
but I wouldn't ever buy them because they're so impractical. They're
cute, though, and very pretty and I think they would look fabulous on
my feet should some unknown benefactor out there in internet land
decide to buy them for me. (They're only $270---WAY cheaper than the
Prada heels! It's a bargain, I'm tellin' ya!.) Ahhhh, spring
must be just around the corner. I want new shoes. I also want a new
handbag, too, but that can wait for a time because none that I saw on
Saturday jumped out and screamed BUY ME!.

--- And now for something completely non-shoe related.

Interesting. The bombings didn't swing the Spanish elections yesterday.

Or so says the new Spanish PM:
U.S. authorities said Monday they believe al-Qaida had a role inthe
Madrid attacks. Police also were investigating a possible link between
the bombings in Spain and attacks in Casablanca last year, focusing on
a Moroccan arrested in Spain over the weekend.
Yet Zapatero was keen to dismiss suggestions that the bombings swung
the elections. ``People wanted change in Spain because there was a
government that had done things badly,'' he said.
I find this so interesting. What is he trying to say here? That, no,
the worst bombing in our country's history---and we've had a few, so
we're almost old hat at this---did not play a part in my party's
victory at the polls. I don't want anyone to think this because:
a. I don't want to be the perceived benefactor of Al-Qaeda's attempt to
manipulate the Spanish elections. or b. Terrorism doesn't exist,
therefore I could not possibly be the perceived benefactor of
Al-Qaeda's electoral manipulations. The war was a sham. One man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Bush lied! People died!
etc. or c. I want to be more like the French, so I'll spin it that way.
I'm leaning towards a, and think that's probably the correct reason
here, but b and c both have the acceptable leftist spin to them. He is
a socialist, after all. The definition of that word can't have changed
too much over the years. As you might have guessed, I don't exactly get
what the Spanish people are thinking, let alone Zapatero. What exactly
is not clear about the message Al-Qaeda sent on Thursday? They, in
essence, said to the people of Spain, WE WANT TO KILL YOU! WE WILL
TRY TO KILL YOU EVERY CHANCE WE GET. AND WE REALLY DON'T GIVE A RAT'S
ASS HOW MANY PEOPLE WE DO MANAGE TO KILL IN THE MEANTIME. YOU DESERVE
TO DIE!

What, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, is not clear in that message?

I know. Seems simple, doesn't it? As does the reaction most people would have.
Someone wants to kill me, hence I will give them no quarter when they
attempt such a thing. I will kill them before they have the opportunity
to do it. Now, that's a pretty simple message, too. But that's not
what the Spanish people think, or else they wouldn't have voted the way
that they did. They saw it as We did something to bring the nutjobs out of the closet; we must change course.
I'm not fried that people voted; that they took part in their
democracy---that's good that they did. BUT, they voted to appease the
terrorists---the people who would honestly prefer that EVERY SINGLE
SPANISH CITIZEN BE DEAD AND BURIED---with their votes. They voted to
stop offending the wrong-doers lest they come back and kill more
people. Wow. And they think this is the solution to the problem. That
Al-Qaeda will suddenly say, Ooops.
Sorry. Don't want to kill you anymore. You did what we wanted. Thanks.
We appreciate it. We're sorry for your loss and the trouble we caused
for all your poor commuters by blowing up those trains. SHA! Like
that's going to happen. In case you hadn't heard, one of the chinks in
Al-Qaeda's platform is that they want Andalusia back. And they would
like it back without the current population, thank you ever so much.
So, it seems as if Spain has two options: are all the Spainards going
to move? Or are they going to fight back? Neither, it seems. They're
going to appease the terrorists. They think that's the way to go. Don't want to bring trouble upon myself, I'll change my ways, duck my head and hopefully they won't notice me anymore.
I tried this tactic in grade school. Didn't work. Still was bullied. To
further the analogy, since a soveriegn country has its own
individuality, is run by people, and there are still bullies in the
world who want to beat you up and take your lunch money, when are they
going to learn the lesson I learned in the seventh grade? Because I
sincerely hope they don't have to go through seven years of bombings
and murders before they get the message that appeasement just doesn't
work. People just shouldn't have to die so that politicians can have a
learning curve. --- Ok, the husband has fired up a cigar in the office.
{GACK} I'm outta here. Poor man. Spring needs to come soon so he can
take a walk and smoke those things. Oh, and don't forget---EAT MEAT FOR DINNER TONIGHT! It's the
2nd Annual Eat An Animal for PETA day. Celebrate appropriately and open
a nice bottle of wine to add to the festive mood.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1133 words, total size 8 kb.

--- Ok, next ten CD's.

21. Corey Stevens and Texas Flood, Blue Drops of Rain:
A SRV wannabe. I'm not sure, but I think he's the only guy out there
who is actually a Stevie Ray Vaughan impersonator---sort of like Elvis
wannabe's, but he's not stuck in the Fat Elvis stage and performs
wearing only that getup, playing only those songs. It's more like SRV was his idol and he was picking up where SRV left off.

That said, this disc sounds exactly like SRV, and after we'd finished grieving for the man, it was just a wee bit creepy.

22. Suicidal Tendencies, Lights...Camera...Revolution:
Needless to say, this was the husband's. I've heard of this band, but
I've never listened to them so I have no idea what they're about. I can
make a guess, though, that they probably play hard rock replete with a
lot of guitar solos and heavy drum riffs. Just call me Sherlock, my
dear Watson!
23. Van Halen, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge: This is one of the Van Halen discs that are colloquially referred to as Van Hagar.
I'm no Van Halen fan, but the husband is: his sister bought him this
disc--- and it was a gift gone awry. He's a Van Halen fan mainly
because of David Lee Roth. He loves Diamond Dave. Just adores that
guy---and after listening to some of the older discs, Women and Children First and Fair Warning---I
can see where he's got a point about Sammy. But the husband will tell
you his main issue was not with Sammy, but with the Van Halen
brothers---Alex and Eddie, and Eddie's ex (or soon to be ex---who can
keep up with the divorces these days, eh?) wife, Valerie Bertinelli.
The husband is of the opinion that Eddie became a spineless wimp (read
pussy whipped) when he married Valerie and she gave him that godawful
synthesizer which was put to very prominent use on 1984. He
doesn't have as much of a beef with Alex because he's just following in
Eddie's footsteps---but he thinks Alex should step up for what matters.
The husband praised God when it was a announced that Eddie and Valerie
were splitting up: he thought that Eddie would once again realize he
had a pair---you know, provided Valerie gave them back to him in the
divorce settlement. I told him not to get his hopes up. I have no
opinion on the whole thing. I really don't. I have no stake in this
debate. The only thing I knew about Valerie Bertinelli was that she was
on One Day at a Time for years and that she was in direct competition with Rachel Ward (The Thorn Birds, Against All Odds-Rachel
Ward)for my brother David's potential adoration. I think its funny,
though. Eddie's a good guitar player, but hell...it's not like he
matters enough to me to get all worked up about it. It's interesting
only for its curiosity factor. And how it's polarized people. I refer
you to the movie Airheads
as Exhibit A. CHAZZ was Brendan Fraser ;MOORE was Harold Ramis;MILO was
Michael McKean; REX was Steve Buscemi; IAN was Joe Mantegna
CHAZZ (to Moore):
Let me ask you a question. Which side did you take in the big Van Halen
/ David Lee Roth split?
MOORE: Uh...what do you mean?
Chris Moore fidgets nervously.
MILO: What kind of question is that?
CHAZZ: Which way did you go, man? Roth or Halen?
MOORE: Van Halen?
IAN: He's a cop.
Chazz tosses Chris Moore's wallet to the ground.
CHAZZ: Later, bacon.
REX: Oink oink!
MOORE: Come on, come on! That's strictly a judgment call, those guys
sold a lot of records after Dave left the group. Give me another one.
They confer for a second.
CHAZZ: Okay, who'd win in a wrestling Match, Lemmy or God?
MOORE: Lemmy-No... God!
REX: Wrong, dick-head, it was a trick Question. Lemmy is God.
MOORE: Chazz, you got it all wrong...
CHAZZ loses his cool) Get the fuck out of here, cop!
My mother is now shaking her head, wondering what *that* was all about.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Lemmy, the husband informs me, is
the butt ugly lead guitarist for Motorhead. Pfft. Whatever.
24. The Wallflowers, Bringing Down the Horse: One good song. The rest was whiny self-absorbed crap. The apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree there, eh, kids?

25. Scorpions, The Best of Rockers and Ballads: WOOHOO! Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the wi
witch is dead. Ding dong the wicked witch is dead... I. HATE. THIS. BAND.
But my hate is two-fold: they're one of those bands that I can not only
hate on principle, but because of their lack of quality. It's a win-win
situation for me. I'm told a lot of people really like The Scorpions. I
just can't see it. Am blind to the ways of this band and how anyone can
think that this is good music. So, musically speaking, they're not only
hacks, they're just bad.
When "Rock Me Like A Hurricane" was on regular rotation on MTV, I just
wanted to gag. It sounded out of tune. The lead singer sounds like he's
strangling a cat whenever he opens his mouth. How the record company
and myriad people around the world miss this whenever they're actually
on the radio, just speaks volumes about where society is heading. (Hello puppy---what's your name? Cerberus? Which of the three heads do I pet? Nice doggie!)
The Scorpions were the early-80's Britney Spears. But they're also
arrogant little jerks, too. Just by watching the videos you could tell
they thought they were the shit---and they weren't. They sucked. I am
thrilled that this disc has gone the way of the dodo. I can't stand
this band!
26. Jon Secada, Jon Secada: Ok, this was one of those college
purchases. I'll admit it: I was a slave to pop music in my youth. I
loved "Just Another Day." I thought it was really good, hence I bought
the disc. Well, the rest of the disc was a dissapointment, but hell---I
could listen to "Just Another Day," whenever I damn well wanted to.
Life was good. Then I got tired of it and moved on. Sayonara.
27. Duncan Sheik, Duncan Sheik: Don't quite know what I was
thinking here. I'm assuming I was blinded by yet another guy wielding
an acoustic guitar instead of a light saber. I'm a sucker for guys who
back haunting lyrics to an acoustic guitar. And Duncan, well...he was
pretty and he wrote one good song, Barely Breathing, which I
liked a lot and led me to purchase the disc. Not a good idea.
I remember watching the MTV Music News a little while after this disc
was released and watching Kurt Loder announce that Duncan had signed up
with a modeling agency "to bring music and fashion together." Kurt was
dryly amused by the fact he got to be the mouthpiece for this press
release. This event marks on the timeline exactly *when* I stopped
watching MTV.
28. Winger, Winger: Woohoo. Should I just join the Lollipop League instead of singing the song again? Ah, screw it...it feels good. Ding Dong, the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the witch is dead...
29. Peaceful Ocean Surf: Cheapo gave me a quarter for this disc. It's
45 minutes of nothing but surf sounds, and by that I don't mean Dick
Dale starts playing his guitar. I mean waves crashing, seagulls
squawking---you know, beach sounds. The hsuband's sister gave him this
one to help him calm down and get to sleep. Didn't work. 30.
Barenakedladies, Stunt: I've decided that while I like to
listen to this band and their songs on the radio, I just didn't need a
whole album of their cleverness. They're good fun, but I just didn't
listen to it. Someone, perhaps, will have some fun with them. 31.
Audioslave, Cochise: Not a bad disc on the whole. Really,
it's not. And to prove it I will qualify and say that the husband still
has a copy of it---and listens to it frequently. We're bad. I'd made a
copy of it for a friend a while back and it had turned out to be a
happy accident that I had done so: it meant that when the husband lost
his copy of the original (that's a story for another day!) it was saved
on Gandalf and I could fry another copy of it. The husband got the
original back, but still has the copy I made for him---hence he decided
we could sell the original. Which was a good thing, because we made
four bucks on it! And that's all she wrote, kids. Funny how thirty-one
discs=almost forty in my book, eh? Heheheheh. I really need to learn
how to count one of these days. I will be back either later today or
tomorrow with stories and pictures from the auto show. We attended with
Mr. H. last night and had a really good time sniffing the mingled
scents of leather and new car smell. MMMMMMMMM.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1532 words, total size 9 kb.

--- So, it's official: the new Spanish Prime Minister is deluded.

{A side note:I guess we know who one of Kerry's "international leader" supporters is}

In the hourlong interview Wednesday on Onda Cero radio, Zapaterosaid
that ``fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't
the way to defeat terrorism.
``Terrorism is combatted by the state of law. ... That's what I think
Europe and the international community have to debate,'' he said.

Oh, terrorism is best combatted by the state of law??? This guy is not an appeaser. He's deluded.

When you get the terrorists---you know, the people who blow up
innocent citizens indisicriminately--- to abide by the rule of law,
give me a call. When Spain is attacked again---and they will be,
just like every other country will be. God forbid, but odds are it will
happen---they will cry, "Why us? We did what they wanted! We got out of
Iraq!" Then they will wonder why they appeased the terrorists with
their votes. I just don't get these people. I really don't get them.
The old saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me." Why does it have to get to the "Fool me twice..." portion?
Because it will
get there. You know it will. How will France and its cabal deal with
this problem then? Will they still delude themselves into thinking that
appeasement is the only option to deal with terrorism? How many people
have to die before they take the tack that the best defense is a good
offense? About the only thing from that article that gave me hope was
this: About 5,000 pro-Aznar demonstrators gathered outside
theconservative Popular Party's headquarters in downtown Madrid,
deriding Zapatero as ``the president of al-Qaida.'' They dispersed
about 30 minutes after the party's defeated candidate, Mariano Rajoy,
appeared and applauded at a balcony.
Good for them. --- Hitch, of course, puts it down brilliantly and
should be hired by Zapatero to write his speeches---in fact, he even
suggests it. Zapatero should really think about employing him. I might
actually listen to the guy from now on if Hitch were feeding him his
speeches. Go and read this. It's required.

Many Spaniards were among those killed recently in Morocco, where a
jihadist bomb attack on an ancient Moorish synagogue took place in
broad daylight. The attack was on Morocco itself, which was neutral in
the recent Iraq war. It seems a bit late to demand that the Moroccan
government change sides and support Saddam Hussein in that conflict,
and I suspect that the Spanish Communist and socialist leadership would
feel a little sheepish in making this suggestion. Nor is it obvious to
me that the local Moroccan jihadists would stop bombing if this
concession were made. Still, such a concession would be consistent with
the above syllogism, as presumably would be a demand that Morocco cease
to tempt fate by allowing synagogues on its soil in the first place.
The Turkish government, too, should be condemned for allowing its Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan to visit the shattered synagogue in Istanbul
after the latest mass murder (thus becoming, incidentally, the first
Turkish prime minister ever to do so). Erdogan is also the first prime
minister ever to be elected on an Islamist ticket. Clearly, he was
asking for trouble and has not yet understood al-Qaida's conditions for
being allowed to lead a quiet life. Not that he hadn't tried—he
prevented the U.S. Army from approaching Baghdad through what is now
known as the Sunni Triangle. He just hasn't tried hard enough.
It cannot be very long now before some slaughter occurs on the streets
of London or Rome or Warsaw, as punishment for British and Italian and
Polish membership of the anti-Saddam coalition. But perhaps there is
still time to avoid the wrath to come. If British and Italian and
Polish troops make haste to leave the Iraqis to their own "devices" (of
the sort that exploded outside the mosques of Karbala and Najaf last
month), their civilian cousins may still hope to escape the stern
disapproval of the holy warriors. Don't ask why the holy warriors blow
up mosques by the way—it's none of your goddam crusader-Jew business.

(Hat tip: Vodkapundit)
--- Yesterday, when I went off on the bus drivers, I invited Mr. H., a
daily Metro Transit rider, to chime in about the strike. He agreed with
alacrity, as he's pretty peeved about this whole deal. When he sends it
to me, I'll post it, so keep your eyes open.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.

--- Ooooh. Tom and Penlope broke up.
Shocker. And Scientology didn't play any part in it. Phew. I'm sure L.
Ron is so relieved his nasty, decomposed bones took a break for a few
minutes and stopped spinning in the casket. (Or did he get
cremated and is currently floating around in space, sitting in the
primo seats, waiting for the aliens to come down and start up the whole
"Battlefield Earth" scenario? I can never keep these cults straight.)
An interesting (and effing funny) breakup scenario here. (Mom---you're not allowed to read this!)

Shocker. Like we all didn't know. Now we just need for Ricky Martin to come out of the closet.

--- Tulip Update.



Do you feel like Mary-Mary Quite Contrary yet?

--- We had ducks in the yard yesterday. Don't believe me?

As
you can see there was a mama duck and a papa duck. The husband thinks
they might have been scoping out real estate for the whole baby duck
nesting procedure. Ugh. Memo to the ducks: DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING DOWN
HERE. THE CAKE EATER FLOWER BEDS ARE NEITHER A DUCKY BROTHEL NOR A
DUCKY MATERNITY WARD! GO OVER TO LAKE HARRIET. TEN BLOCKS EAST OF HERE.
YOU CAN'T MISS IT. YOU'LL GET A MORE POSITIVE RECEPTION THERE.
Yuck. --- It's entirely too nice here today to even think about
blogging further. We're going for a walk. The husband is currently
cleaning off ML's computer and he needs to take a break because he's a.
frustrated and b. the antivirus software needs time to run. She has a
virus, it seems and needed help sorting it out. I'm thinking ML's kids
are going to get a lecture about authorizing websites to put entire file folders worth of spyware on her laptop. Tisn't going to be pretty.

Ciao bella and have a wonderful weekend. I'm ghandi.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

--- The husband rarely gets his knickers in a twist over proposed
legislation. He'll get them in a twist about everything else, but
proposed legislation? Naaaaah. He knows the success ratio of most of
the really outrageous bills. But HR3261 (the GAO doesn't have the bill
up on its site, but go here and
enter in "HR3261" and it should pop up) has him concerned enough that
he sent out a mass emailing, asking people to write their
congresspeople to vote it down when it gets to the floor. He was tipped
off by this article in Wired News.

Art Brodsky, spokesman for public advocacy group Public Knowledge,
says the bill would let anyone drop a fact into a database or a
collection of materials and claim monopoly rights to it. This would
contradict the core principle of the Copyright Act, which states that
mere information and ideas cannot be protected works. Under the terms
of the broadly written bill, a public-health website could be deemed in
violation of the law for gathering a list of the latest health
headlines and providing links to them on its home page. Google would be
in violation for trolling media databases and providing stories on its
news page. An encyclopedia site not only could own the historical facts
contained in its online entries, but could do so long after the
copyright on authorship of the written entries had expired. Unlike
copyright, which expires 70 years after the death of a work's author,
the Misappropriation Act doesn't designate an expiration date. "The law
of unintended consequences in this case has the potential to be huge,"
Brodsky said.

The law of unintended consequences indeed. Although, I doubt that Reed Elsevier cares
about unintended consequences---any unintended consequence of this bill
would be a good thing for them. (Ever tried to get into Lexis/Nexis or
Westlaw without coughing up the dough? Forget it. It won't happen.
They've got a Gilgamesh-sized lock on those databases.)
KEEP THE INFORMATION FREE FLOWING!Relatively interesting aside,
though: this bill has the potential to wreak havoc within the
blogosphere should it make it into law. I'm wondering why none of the
big dog bloggers have written anything about it. They'll devote endless
word counts to the doomed FMA, but this bill is sneaking under the
radar and they're ignoring it? Rather sad, don't you think?
Particularly for a medium that is supposed to be on the cutting edge of
every issue?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

--- Silly, silly Nebraskans!
The husband sent me this link. He always enjoys a chance to poke fun at
my home state and takes full advantage of it. And I get this grief from
a guy who grew up next to the Amana Colonies. Sha. Like he should talk.
I find myself consistently reminding him that not a whole heck of a lot
goes on in the vast region between Lincoln and the Colorado border. Just look at Lexington on the map.

There is a reason, you know, why most people in Nebraska live in either Omaha or Lincoln.

--- Vodkapundit has some interesting things to say about Putin's cabinet reshuffle today.

If you ask me, the cabinet sounds pretty damn good. Let me explain.

If Russia is ever going to become a fully modern nation -- and let's hope like hell it does -- it's going to need two things:

1) More real economic freedom.
2) A strong hand to keep everything from blowing up before freedom sinks in.
Now, I can see where he's coming from on this. Russians, traditionally,
favor strongmen when it comes to their government. They just do. Don't
throw me any of that politically correct hokum about how things have
changed in this respect now that they have the chance to choose their
governmental representative. Phooey. I don't believe it. And any
Russian scholar will tell you this is the truth. We in the west may
think Ivan the Terrible was actually, you know, terrible,
but there is a significant part of their society today who respects the
authority the man wielded---five hundred years later. Putin is widely
believed to overwhelm the polls on Sunday---why? Because he's a
strongman. He's got terrific public support because of what he's done
with the Chechen terrorists that keep blowing up stuff and people in
Moscow. While bombings are still occurring, they think they've got the
right man in place to deal with the problem because he's strong.
This is Russia's first taste of democracy. They have no practical
experience with actually having a say in how their government is run,
so it was no surprise to me that they stumbled so frequently in the
first few years after the coup. Nor was it a great surprise to me that
the mafia stepped up and took over the running of things. Nor that the
oligarchs have the power they have. It would have seemed like a
godsend, I have to think, to most people when Yeltsin resigned and
Putin stepped up. Control would soon be regained over the wild west
that Russia had become. So, like I said, I can see where Stephen's
coming from on this one. It does sound like a good, power consolidating
deal that will further Russia along toward its democratic---free
market---goals. But I'm still leery, and for exactly the same reasons
Mr. Citron gives for furthering his argument. And don't let the KGB bogeyman scare you. Back in the bad old
days, it was Leonid Brezhnev's KBG {sic} who tried to put Mikhail
Gorbachev in power. They failed on the first attempt -- and we got the
brief gerontocracy of Konstantin Chernyenko. After he died, the KGB
finally got their man as General Secretary.
Ah, actually no. Yes it was true: Brezhnev wanted Gorbachev in power.
But Brezhnev failed in that goal. Russia wound up with Andropov as
Brezhnev's successor mainly because too many of Brezhnev's cronies had
died before he could get the pieces in place. The hard liners
apppointed Andropov. Make no mistake about it: Andropov was
Brezhnev's KGB---part of the KGB originally reformed by Khruschev after
Stalin bit the big one. He'd moved up to become a controlling member of
the Politburo in the waning days of Good Ol' Eyebrows chairmanship;
politics had taken center stage in his life, but he knew how to be
harsh when he needed to be. Fortunately for all of us however, he
cacked. Then they got Chernyenko---an old Krushchev ally, if I'm
remembering correctly---who was elected Chairman, once again, by the
hard liners. Then, he cacked and then we got Gorby.
Gorbachev may have been crafty enough to get himself into the top spot
eventually, but he was thwarted twice in the meantime.
Putin was a part of Gorby's KGB, but would have been trained in the
harsh ways of Andropov, who---if I'm doing the math correctly---would
have been still been the head honcho at 2 Dzerzhinsky Square when young
Vladmir came into the ranks. The point that I'm struggling to make is
that no one should think that because Gorby was this lovable
birthmark-sporting guy who brought Russia closer to the West, that
Putin has forgotten the lessons of his forefathers. Particularly not
forefathers who had to fight for their careers and did so by means of
arresting their competitors and all that implied in terms of repeated
torture, Siberian labor camps and firing squads. Ah, the good old days.
It bears keeping in mind that we know next to nothing about what Putin really
did for the KGB. All we know is that he was stationed in East Germany.
I've read reports that say he worked the propaganda angle of things. Or
that he monitored East German compliance of all things communist. Now,
knowing what we know of Putin and how smart he is, does it sound like
either of these jobs are ones the talent scouts at the KGB would have
set him up in? Not to me. Putin is crafty, and he didn't learn how to
be crafty by making sure people didn't want to climb over the wall in
the first place. Putin is more the type who would have been involved
with the direct intervention---and punishment---of people trying to
climb over the wall. Tin foil hat territory, I know, but still...the
lack of information leads one to think that there's more going on there
than has been disclosed.
So, we don't know a lot about Putin's KGB days. We don't know a lot
about Putin other than what he wants us to know. With that in mind, it
seems like highly specious logic to assume a cabinet reshuffle by
Putin---one that consolidates his power before an election and puts his
people in place---is a good
thing simply because some of the appointments are from the KGB and
ultimately because of the KGB's reputation for bringing things into
line. Control over this fledgling democracy is a good thing, but it's
an awfully fine line Putin's walking right now. No one would dare
thwart his ambitions, but no one's really going to object, either, if
he steps over the line in to autocratic rule, if he hasn't already.
Russians do like a strongman after all.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1135 words, total size 7 kb.

--- It's really quiet around here. I know what you're thinking: the
husband has finally left the building. Nope. While he did go out for a
time this morning, what I'm referring to it the lack of noise caused by
the bus drivers strike. We live on a bus route. Buses whizz by from
about five in the morning until midnight. I've gotten used to their
rumblings. We've lived here for so long that I barely notice it
anymore, but when the buses don't run it's pretty freaky. Let me guess.
Your eyes just went wide with amazement that public employees are on
strike here in the People's Republic of Minnesota, right? You were sure
that such a thing could never
happen here, right? That peace and prosperity rule the third most taxed
state in the nation. All that money had to be creating a place where
fuzzy bunnies roam the landscape and everyone loves one another.
{/sarcasm}
Yep. That's right. The Metro Transit bus drivers are walking the picket
line and have been for almost two weeks. This is throwing most people
who rely upon public transportation, like Mr. H., into a tailspin. The
budgets of these average citizens are being thrown completely out of
whack because of the strike: they now have to find parking in downtown,
which costs a fortune and is scarce, and they're paying outrageous
prices for gas, which is also off the charts. And all so that the bus
drivers can make more money and save on health care costs. Money is
switching pockets, in other words, and the gas stations and taxi
companies are LOVING this strike. The reason the drivers are striking
is because of health care costs and retirement benes. The usual
concerns. The Met Council---the organization that handles all the
coordination of public transportation between all the various cities in
the Twin Citites metro area---says it can't afford what the union wants and isn't going to pass along the costs to the riders. The bus drivers union says the Met Council can afford what
the union wants and this is just a political ploy.
I don't know about you, but just from the quality of the arguments
presented and how they're presented, I'm much more likely to believe
the Met Council (of which I'm no big fan---light rail, anyone?) than a
union which has a politicial manifesto posted on its website instead of
an actual argument:
...the real problem comes from the top, Governor Pawlenty. Peter
Bell and Mike Setzer are just puppets and have no authority to act.
One of the major reasons we are in this position is that transit needs
dedicated funding, say on the gas tax for the metropolitan area, or a area sales tax.
Every year we have to go back to the legislature for funding. Funding
is unpredictable. You cannot plan without an adequate funding stream. Just before Pawlenty was elected they were talking about doubling our system in ten years, New Governor, everything has changed.
{emphasis added by moi}
This whole thing is cheesing me. It should come as no great surprise
that I dislike unions. But let me tell you why I dislike them: I just
don't think they're necessary anymore. They wield great power, and
while this is why they were formed in the first place---when the
working man and woman actually needed an advocate to speak for
them---it is not necessary now. The workers have the power. They know
this and they wield it whenever possible. The formation of unions in
the Industrial Revolution was a necessary to equalize the balance of
power. The average, uneducated worker, at one point in history, needed
someone to tell them that, hey, they actually had power to wield; that
their labor was a tool to get their bosses to take their demands
seriously. The things we take for granted nowadays---like a forty-hour
work week, paid vacation, health insurance---these all came about
because unions demanded them for their members and got them. It makes
you wonder, however, about the unions' effectiveness and the overall
need for them when bus drivers---who, here in the cities, top wage is
$21.80 an hour---are arguing over a 1% salary increase and health
insurance costs. Where, exactly, is the righteous cause of worker's
rights in haggling over those piddly details? That they're willing to
strike; to throw the lives of the average citizen into an uproar over
saving a few bucks on their premiums? It's important to keep in mind
that these union members pay union dues---money to support the union's
administration and strike fund. If I were a union member, I know I
would be thinking that I wasn't exactly getting a good return on
investment if this
is what the union calls a strike for. One of the things that
consistently surprises me about the unions nowadays is that while they
claim to be international, I don't exactly see the Teamsters setting up
shop in Mexico or Central America. Now, I'm picking on the Teamsters
because they claim to be one of the largest, most powerful unions out there.
(Well, that and because Jimmy Hoffa---the REAL Jimmy Hoffa---put a
contract out on the husband's uncle's life back in the day and I feel
like dishing up some payback on his behalf.) Just taking a peek at
their organizational chart confirms this: any bureaucracy that has that
many arms probably wields some power. And according to Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.
they have the ear of the most powerful people in Washington. The
Teamsters also claim to be international, but this isn't really true.
They're like the the Des Moines International Airport. Des
Moines can boast an international airport because they have one flight
to Canada on a daily basis: the fact that that the Teamsters are in
Canada counts as international. Don't believe me? Just look at their membership demographics:

Teamsters members are also spread out geographically. The largest
concentrations of Teamsters are in the regions in the Central and
Eastern states. Teamster Membership by Region:


For all their whining about how the international outsourcing of labor
has affected their ranks, jeez, you would have figured they'd have
diversified into other markets. Nope. Apparently, the disenfranchised
laborers in Mexico and Central America don't make enough money to
justify any potential actions made on their behalf by the Teamsters to
better their working conditions. Not enough union dues would be paid
into the coffers to justify such an action: their P/E ratio would be
affected. Can't have that. I know this is sounding like an anti-labor
rant. I'm sure some labor people are going to be pissed off at me for
trampling on the rights of all the average working man and woman. Fine.
Go ahead. I'm tired of this nonsense. We live in a free market society.
Yep. The free market:
words that strike fear into the heart of the average union member,
because there's no fairness in the free market. Everything is at
will---employment, benefits---you name it, nothing is guaranteed. That
means if they're hired in the first place, they could be fired for no
reason whatsoever---including the inability of the company to pay for
their services. And that's exactly what a person offers a company when
they go to work for them: their services. What union members generally
forget is that they *can* take their services elsewhere, if they so
choose, or they can choose to work for a company that is offering them
a fair wage, and if that company isn't offering a fair wage, again, they can go elsewhere. There is choice involved---on both sides of the equation.

Unions want to limit that choice and that, I think, is what I find most reprehensible in their behavior. Their attitude is stick
with us, we'll take care of you, but we need you to pay your union dues
and you don't get anything if you quit after a time. By their very
nature, unions take the concept of choice out of the hands of the
workers, and honestly, how is that a better situation than when
employers took advantage of workers? The beast has simply switched
masters: instead of the employers holding the choke chain, it's now the
unions that wield the power to yank the leash. I've seen it happen.
When I managed the coffee shop, it was located within a grocery store.
Do you have any idea how many kids that stocked and bagged came over to
me looking for another job? Not because they minded bagging groceries, but they did
mind having union dues automatically deducted from their
paychecks---even though they had never been invited to join the union
in the first place? This is completely legal here in Minnesota: we're
not a "Right to Work" state: if there's a union that manages the labor
of a certain community of workers---like grocery store employees---you have
to join said union to get the job. It had gotten to a point where there
was no choice involved for the grocery store employees because they
were never asked in the first place if they wanted to refuse the union
membership along with the job. It was a surprise to every kid that
worked at that grocery store when they got their first paycheck and saw
that a goodly portion of it had been deducted in union dues. This, of
course, is at a grocery chain that regularly schedules people who
wanted forty hours a week---and the benefits that came with full time
employment---for a thirty nine point five hours every week. And
these are people who paid---and undoubtedly still pay---union dues.
Where, exactly, is the union? What are they doing to stop this
travesty? This dirty and lowly act on behalf of the grocery stores?
Aren't they supposed to take care of this sort of flagrant violation? I
thought they were supposed to stick up for workers rights?
Nope. They didn't do a damn thing about it. When I started managing at
that store, this was the main complaint of the checkers that worked
there. While I don't work at that store anymore, I do still shop at
another branch of their chain. Guess what I heard one of the checkers
at this
location bitching about the other day? Same story, different day. It
was, and still is, my supposition that the union didn't want to bite
the hand that fed it all those automatic deductions from people it had
never offered the choice to join up in the first place. After all, that
would be a lot of work. You'd actually have to inform new employees of
what was going on---meetings cost money---and that's a goodly amount of
effort expended to inform a kid who bags groceries---a high turnover
demographic---of something that probably wouldn't affect them for too
long anyway because they'd quit. It's sneaky and insidious behavior, if
you ask me. But it's also lazy---in the extreme. The union had worked
everything to its advantage. If you want a job doing this, you have to
belong to the union. They were covered legally, but things didn't start
out that way---people got lazy over the years where it worked its way
to an automatic deduction from someone's paycheck: someone who didn't
know they had the option to not join. What exactly are the bus drivers
going to get from this strike? It's pretty apparent that the Met
Council and the governnor aren't going to cave to their demands. The
longer the strike goes on, the less power the union has. People who
took the bus before the strike are making other arrangements, and those
arrangements are becoming a part of their lives. People are getting
used to the situation, and while they will undoubtedly be happy when it
comes to a close, how many people do you think might have actually
found a better solution to their commuting worries in the meantime? I'm
sure quite a few will have been reminded just how much of a pain taking
the bus actually is compared to driving or carpooling themselves to
their jobs. They will be reminded of the fact that bus drivers are not
nice people. They're always crabby, in my opinion. Yes, they have to
deal with a lot, but when it costs what it does to ride the bus, you'd
think that they'd have some customer service skills. Apparently,
however, that isn't one of the requirements for them to keep their
jobs, because, you know, there's probably some deal on the books that
was negotiated by the unions once upon a time that ensures they keep
their jobs even if they've got a serious bunch in their knickers. I
digress, but people will also notice how long it takes to get into
their jobs when they take the bus because of all the stops. Some people
might actually be getting the chance to sleep in. There are all sorts
of factors here, but none of them mean good things for the bus drivers.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2179 words, total size 13 kb.

--- I would not want to pay Catherine Zeta Jones' legal bills. That is one litigious chick.

And this isn't the only thing she's ever called her lawyers to get stopped. The Smoking Gun has quite a file on her. Go here and peruse at your leisure. I personally enjoy the letter she
had her lawyers send to the media to stop associating her name with the
Atkins Diet. Apparently, her name is too valuable to be associated with
something that comes with health risks. {Snort}
It's obvious that this woman is very interested in branding herself,
like laundry soap. She's taken a page out of the Donald Trump book and
is following it to the letter. If you want to use her image or her
name, you have to pay for the privelege or you'll hear from her
innumerable lawyers. And she's not even that good of an actress. She's
not bad, but she's no Meryl Streep. Everything about this woman screams
"GOLDDIGGER" to me. It's like she belongs in a Barbara Taylor Bradford
novel---where the heroine creates a master plan about how to achieve
fame and fortune to escape the horrific circumstances of her youth and
lets nothing stand in the way of success! She sacrifices, she sticks to
the plan, she marries very well and she succeeds---and then she meets
the man of her dreams and her perfect life---the one she's sacrificed
everything she stands for--- is thrown into jeopardy because she's met
her one true love, even though she's married to another....
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Her life is a
frigging romance novel---and a bad one at that. Ugh. I keep waiting for
Catherine to dump Michael Douglas. Because you know it's going to
happen. I watch him with interest at all those public events they show
up to. He was besotted with her in the early years of their
relationship---now he looks like he's less than thrilled to be
there---and more importantly---less than thrilled that he's with her.
He did the "I adore my wife" business so well in the early stages that
now it's obvious something isn't quite right between the two of them.
He looks bored with the whole situation; like it was fun to have this
beautiful woman on his arm at one time, so the obvious publicity
reasoning for them to be together didn't matter so much, but now that
it's blatantly obvious...weeeeeeel. I dunno. It's curious, though.
Really, really curious. --- That's enough celebrity gossip for one day.
It's time to hit the next ten CD's that we dumped yesterday.
11. Tori Amos Boys for Pele: Mr. H. has an opinion on this. I quote: "
I am not pouting - but come on - Tori and Sheryl - my god girl, what
were you thinking!!! Now, I know how you feel about Sheryl, but Tori -
that is the album Talulah's name came from. How could you? No, I
totally understand, that was one of those "wierd" albums she did. I
have always had a softspot for the Harpsichord, so I really like that
one...but all that aside, it's one of two albums she has done that are
an acquired taste. You have to really love her to love them. So, I'm forgiven...until I got to the bottom of his daily email. "...Now
that I think of it more, I really, really do like that album, and you
are on my "Bad Music Decisions" list... I mean you also had 2 copies of
a Dave Matthew's CD - I don't own ANYTHING of his....
Oh, well. Such is life. I'm constantly disappointing friends and
family---why should today be any different than the other 364 days of
the year? I just didn't like this disc---he's right: it IS an acquired
taste. And it is one of her WIERD albums---really friggin' wierd. I've
decided that I like Tori more on a song by song basis, but an album of
her stuff is just too much wierdness for me. Oh, and just in case you
were curious, "Tallulah" is Mr. H's car---a black Saturn LS200. Mr. H.
names his cars---just like we do. His last Saturn was named "Jezebel."
12. Basia, London, Warsaw, New York: Right now you're going who the hell is Basia?
I can only refer you to the Amazon page for this album because there
isn't much information out there about her on the web. She's Polish and
she's got a really good voice. I'm Polish and I won't even attempt to
spell out, let alone pronounce her last name.
My sister originally introduced me to her with her Time and Tide disc---which I have and kept. It's bouncy 80's pop, but the song Time and Tide is one of the best songs I've ever heard---its well written and orchestrated and the result is outstanding. I bought London, Warsaw, New York but it never took hold.

I wonder where she is now.

13. The Black Crowes The Southern Harmony and Musical Compilation:
Amazingly enough, this is the only disc the husband and I had in common
when we combined our CD collections. I gave one disc away years ago,
and now the only copy we had is GHANDI. The Crowes got "deep" on this
album---and it was really only good as background music for those
evenings when you wanted to sit down with a bottle of Southern Comfort
and mourn about the losses in your life. Somewhat depressing after Shake Your Money Maker.

14. Garth Brooks, No Fences:
This is mine---obviously. The husband spent his formative years as a
headbanger in the middle of Iowa. It therefore follows the course of
logic that he hates country music. I will fully admit I was once
infatuated with country music. This CD represents my entire infatuation
with that particular genre. I went to college in Iowa. I was a little
sister at a fraternity that recruited farm boys. It's no small wonder
that I was introduced to a lot of country music in the process. But
this was the only country CD I ever bought. And just to piss off the
husband, I will further admit I LIKED IT, TOO.
This was a fun CD. "I've got Friends in Low Places," was a great
drinking song. Lots of fun. "Unanswered Prayers," was also particularly
beautiful. I'm glad, at one point in time, I helped Garth along. He
seems as if he's a nice guy. It bothered the husband tremendously that
I had this CD in my collection. It's made him chafe for the entire
duration of our marriage that there was one country music CD in our
joint collection: I think he was afraid anyone perusing the collection
would mistakenly think it was his, but I don't think he liked the fact
he might be tainted by the association, either. And while it secretly
gave me pleasure to tweak him by simply holding onto it for years, it's
gone now because I haven't listened to it in years because it's
scratched to hell and skips like a mofo---which I had forgotten about
until after I left Cheapo yesterday. Whoops.
15. Bullet Boys. If there was an actual name to this CD, I had no idea.
It's the husband's and it came with him. He's never listened to it that
I can remember---so off it went!
16 and 17. Melissa Etheridge, Never Enough and Yes, I Am:
If you think that Mr. H was ticked off about me dumping Tori and
Sheryl---just wait until he hears that I dumped two of Melissa's discs.
I'll be dead by sundown. It was nice knowing all of you. I should
qualify and say that I'm a big fan of Melissa's earlier work. I love
the Red Album (that's what we call it---it's her self-titled debut
album if you should ever go looking for it) and "Bring Me Some Water"
is one of the best songs EVER. I also adored Brave and Crazy. But these two? Never Enough
was very melancholy, for the most part. It didn't have Melissa's usual
spunky attitude, which I love. Curiously enough, Melissa had too much spunkiness on Yes, I Am
and it just turned me off. Don't know why---it just did. It's chi was
goofed---out of balance--- ultimately and it just didn't ring right to
me. 18. En Vogue Funky Divas: Where did these chicks go? Are they
still out there and I just haven't heard about it? I dunno. I loved
their vocal stylings---way back in the early 90's. I still have a
fondness for them today. "Never Gonna Get It" is great, but I think I
outgrew them.
19. Everything But the Girl, Walking Wounded: Another Columbia House freebie, but it was a goof. It didn't have the one song I wanted---"Missing You"--- on it. Ghandi.

20. Great White, Twice Shy:
This is another one of the husband's. WOO-DAMN-HOO. If having Garth
Brooks on the CD shelf embarrassed the husband, Great White (and the
damn Motley Crue collection that he refuses to part with) was an
embarrassment to me. The other night when I was sorting the CD's for
disposal, I tried to get rid of Skid Row as well, but it didn't happen.
That we got rid of this disc made his refusal to part with Skid Row
easier to deal with.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1572 words, total size 10 kb.

--- Oooh, the Oscars were last night. Didn't do the party this
year---the husband has a big presentation today and didn't want to
stress him out by hosting a party the night before said big
presentation. Mr. H. came over instead and we noshed on fried chicken
while we watched Joan Rivers be an uneducated, uninformed nimrod on the
preshow. But enough about that---let's get on with the clothes!
The husband thought Angelina
looked stunning. He said that the dress, when she walked out to
present, was a stunner. I'll agree. I think she looked great---all
except for the frigging tatoos. Now, she obviously spent thousands of
dollars to look great for the show. Between the facials, massages, her
hair and makeup people---the dress and the shoes were probably
freebies, but skin upkeep costs money---and in the end it's worth the
money---she looks spectacular. Until you get to the tattos. Now, in my
mind, she transformed from a classy chick to a biker bar
waitress/Cinderella all dressed up for the ball at which she wouldn't
normally be found anywhere near. Just a personal preference, I know,
but tatoos are TACKY! What the hell is she going to do when she's
sixty-five and her arms are sagging? The obvious answer would be that
she'll take a trip to the plastic surgeon and have it taken care of,
but still...why get one in the first place? Contrary to popular
opinion, skin isn't dead---it lives, it breathes---you spend thousands
of dollars taking care of it, why would you damage it so that you can
make some statement about body art??? Her tattos ruined the whole
effect she was shooting for. I'm sure most people see it as a kitschy
mix of old and new, but for me---ugh. Anyway...moving on. Renee
seems to be progressing in her post-Bridget weight loss regimen. It's
been kind of funny watching her at all of these award shows---every
week she seems a little bit slimmer. I don't know what was going on
with the back of this dress. I'll troll for a picture of it---wacky.
There seemed to be a lot of the "big, poofy, fabric concoction on the
butt-syndrome" going on last night. Renee was one of the victims of
this syndrome, which as my mother will tell you, never helps anyone's
derriere look smaller.
I can't find a picture of Nicole Kidman that isn't attached to some
freaking slideshow. Will work on that. I cannot, for the life of me,
figure out how her dress stayed up. I'm assuming there must have been a
ton of boning in that thing, but it didn't look like it? Hmmmm. Anyway,
she still needs to wear COLOR! The gray Chanel number was much nicer
than that thing she had on at the Golden Globes, but still... you're
too pale, girly. Wear some red. Would someone please tell Diane Keaton
that the Annie Hall look has been dead and buried for years and that
she's the only one who didn't get the memo? And good for Jamie Lee
Curtis for letting her gray show. Woohoo!
Honestly, I think Charlize was the best looking woman there last night.
She looked great.

The men:

Djimon is one FINE looking man. Hot flash. Johnny---when will he ever learn? (Though it is amazing how, for him at least, shaving takes fifteen years off.) Jude, Jude, Jude.
To badly paraphrase Mr. H.---Greasy.
As far as the actual show, well where was the "unexpected" stuff the
producers kept promising? It was a typical Oscar show. Billy was funny.
A little too naked in parts, but funny. Here were some of my favorite
things:
1. Michael Moore getting squashed by one of those elephant-like
creatures from The Return of the King
battle scene in the opening presentation. After saying "Bad Hobbits!"
and roundly chastising them for going to war. Heheheh. Good to know he
*can* have a sense of humor about himself on occasion. 2. Jack handing
his sunglasses off to Billy---that was cool. Jack is cool. I think I'm
finally getting what everyone's been talking about all these years in
regards to Jack Nicholson.
3. The music performances were actually good this year. I
especially enjoyed how they didn't drag them out, either. Master stroke
of genuis---thank you whomever was behind that. Someone finally figured
out what was the most tiring thing about watching the Oscars. 4. When
Billy Crystal claimed to be a mind reader: Sean Penn: "This is a nice place. I don't think I've ever been thrown out of here."
Renée Zellweger: "Hmmm...Mrs. Billy Crystal."
Julie Andrews: "God, this starburst nipple brooch is killing me."
Sean Connery: "Pussy Galore. I just got it! That's vulgar."
Julia Roberts: "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, just hate me because I'm rich."
Oprah: "Don't talk about rich, girlfriend."
Charlize Theron: "Mrs. Billy Crystal."
The Sean Connery bit was fantastic! {chuckle}
5. Blake Edwards and his runaway wheelchair. 6. Will Ferrell and Jack
Black's duet, putting lyrics to the music meant to push people off the
stage.
The best bit of the whole show, according to me, was Adrien Brody.
{snort} Whipping out the Binanca like he did...classic timing. It also
shows he's probably the only one in the world who had a sense of humor
about that whole kissing episode last year. I thought that was the best
part of the show last year. I really did---and was shocked to see how
many people thought it was harrassment. Pffft. I really hoped whomever
won this year would kiss him---and Charlize did. Good for her for
having a sense of humor. Anyway---when you have good stuff, there is
always stuff that invariably sucks---here's my list.
1. The Lord of the Rings sweep. I'm glad they finally won---that's
great and everything, but it really made for a boring experience. You
would have thought that the Academy members would have figured out
that---duh---there were three of these things and #2 and #3 weren't
likely to blow if #1 didn't---you could have spread the awards out over
the preceding three years. No one would have blamed you. 2. The
speeches were boring. Nobody got crazy and forgot to thank their lawyer
or their agent. Or their spouse. 3. For all the hullabaloo regarding
it, the five second delay never needed to be there. Stupid.
4. Bill Murray didn't win Best Actor for Lost in Translation. I was hoping for an upset, alas, it never happened.
5. The thing was TOO FRIGGING LONG!

And the award for the best commercial of the night? The Oscar goes to Tiger.

The only problem? I now have that song in my head and it won't go away.

And the husband dowloaded it. Great.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1129 words, total size 7 kb.

--- Oh. My. God.

"(Lionel Richie) and I had an extraordinary extravagant lifestyle," Diane Richie, a former dancer, says in the
declaration. "(We) regularly spent in excess of $300,000 a month. We could comfortably afford to spend unlimited sums of
money on everything and anything we chose. I had no limit on what I could spend."

$300K a FRIGGING month???
Methinks this chick is living in Delusionville, Pop. 1. Two
possibilities: Lionel really is making that much money on royalties
from all those light rock songs and they can afford such a lifestyle.
(Hey, just because you don't listen to the light rock radio station in
your town doesn't mean nobody else does---there apparently still seems
to be a market for Dancing on the Cieling. Not to mention that perennial classic Endless Love. Gag.) Or Lionel is in debt up to his eyeballs and he will be filing for bankruptcy shortly.

I couldn't even begin to imagine how you would spend $300,000 in a month. Perhaps I'm not imaginative enough, but crikeys, that seems like a lot of money for even the most extravagant of lifestyles.

There's a place where people who spend money like that usually end up--the poorhouse.

No small wonder Nicole Richie is as screwed up as she is.

--- We have SILLY GERMANS today!
Talk about "cradle to grave" government services, eh?
--- It's slurpy here today---again. Lo! Minnesota---the land where it
snows copiously in March! We had a couple of really nice days this last
weekend---days where it got well over forty degrees---and a goodly
amount of snow melted. Then, to help the melting process out, it rained
on Sunday night and that got rid of a few inches as well, leaving a lot
of mud, but very little snow. This week has been dry and uneventful,
fortunately, until last night. I didn't think inclement weather would
be happening, but I didn't know enough to make the call---haven't been
watching the weather. So, around one this morning, I'm having the final
smoky treat of the evening before retiring to bed, I look out the front
window and it's snowing. Woohoo, says she, with little to no excitement
at the prospect.
And it was really coming down, too. So, fast forward eight hours and I
wake up and I'm freaking out because I'm not hearing any traffic on
streets. Did it really snow so badly that there's absolutely no traffic? Wow. There's always traffic.
So I rise, I look out, there's traffic, it's just muffled because of
all the goopy white stuff that is now covering the ground. About two or
three inches of goopy white stuff. Sigh. You see, it was my turn to
snowblow. The husband and I have a nice little division of labor going
on in the snow removal department. He takes a turn, then I take a
turn---thus ensuring that neither one of us gets completely sick of
snowblowing and just gives up, thinking that it'll melt soon enough
anyway. Then, like an ongoing chess game, come November and that first
snowfall, one of us will inevitably say, "But I did it last time! It's YOUR
turn!. If, indeed, this is the last snowfall of the season, I'm taken
care of next autumn. I'm tricky that way. But, I was also leery of
handling this task this late in the season. The snowblower probably
won't like this snow, I reasoned. We don't get much of the waterlogged
variety of snow---we always get the fluffy white sugar snow that
sparkles in the moonlight and looks pretty in pictures for about a day.
The logic follows that the snowblower, which stalls repeatedly when
blowing the fluffy stuff, will stall even more with the heavy stuff. Turns out, however, that my little Toro is a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian. It likes the heavy white snow.
It cut through it like a hot knife through butter. So, I ask you, my
devoted readers: what the hell is that all about? The husband said it
was something to do with the engine actually using its capacity,
but---pfft---like that's
the answer to the problem---there's gotta be something else, like God
acting in mysterious ways, to explain this curious phenomena. Hmmph.
I'm stumped.
--- Another side effect of the heavy white goop: our satellite is out.
Wow. That's never happened before. I have to say, I love my DirecTv.
It's fabulous. Not only is it cheaper than cable, but you also get BBC
America, along with any number of other interesting channels. And it never goes out. Did I mention that already? It never goes out.
I've had to deal with it being out for a few moments because of a
thunderstorm, but the rest of the time?---never a problem. It's great.
Plus there's always the added bonus of not having to deal with idiotic
cable guys. But we have sticky white snow clinging to the satellite,
goofing up the signal. The dish has to be clear to receive the
signal---according to the husband, the dish is clear, but the
microphone-looking thing on the end of it is not
clear. ("Is that little thing supposed to be white?" he asked a little
while ago. "No, dear. It's supposed to be black." "Oh. Well, we're
screwed then.") Sigh. And it's not like I can call DirecTv to have
someone come out and fix it. That's the deal with DirecTV: they assume
I'm not an idiot and can solve some of these problems myself, and
because of that they charge me less. It's a pretty good deal, on the
whole. Except for when I need an extension ladder to get to my roof to
clear off the satellite. Then the deal pretty much sucks. Snow is
currently falling off the trees and roofs at a pretty regular
clip---one can only hope it will fall off my satellite as well, or it's
going to be a REALLY boring night at the Cake Eater Household. The
husband was going insane without his CNN this morning, so one can only
hope it will be up and running before it's time for Anderson Cooper.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 6 kb.

--- Ok, so the DirecTV guy didn't show up until 7:30 last night. At
which point it was dark and snowing.
Great. Fortunately, the man did manage to get up on the roof and fix
the problem. The only problem according to him was getting back on the
ladder afterwards. It was dicey there, apparently. But he survived. And
we got $20 off the price of a service call because the guy was so
frigging late getting to us. But it was all done in time for me to
watch the last episode of Wire in the Blood on BBC America.

I'm bummed this series is ending for the time being. It's really
good. It's intelligent, well written, beautifully filmed (the
production values are first rate!) but most of all it's
believable---even though it appears as if Bradfield is the epicenter of
all serial killer related activity in England. There are job-related
politics. The two main characters, even though they are obviously for
each other, don't fall into bed with each other. It's great. It's got
an "X-Files" feel to it---but without all the conspiracy theory.
Note to Robson: MAKE MORE OF THESE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
The excellence of this show also proves one thing I've been saying ever
since we got the DirecTV at the Cake Eater Apartment: if you don't have
BBC America on your cable system, you're missing the good stuff.
--- So, I'm thinking about upgrading this site. But I can't seem to
decide if staying with Blogger and just paying for the upgrades is the
way to go or if I should just pay for the domain name and move over to
the TypePad software. There are all sorts of things to consider:
1. Cost---it's been completely free so far. Am unsure as to whether or
not I want to pay for people to keep up with their current habit of not
reading this thing.
2. I think TypePad might be within my current
all-things-computer-related-skill set. But I'm not sure. I could find a
way to futz it up. 3. I'd actually have to register for a domain name.
Which is more money out of pocket for something that isn't making me any money to begin with.
4. Then I'd have to figure out a way to transfer the archives of this site. Not to mention what I'd actually do
with this site if I moved.
But if I switched, I could support more graphics, which is something I
think this site is sorely missing. It's very boring---graphically
speaking. Even paid Blogger doesn't give you a lot of options in this
department. Currently when I want to put up a picture I have to get the
husband to put it on his server, he sends me a link and then I post
it---and it usually screws up the template. I think TypePad might be
the solution to this problem: not only would it empower me to become
better with this sort of stuff and to stop relying upon the husband so
much, but it would also make the site more mine
because I'm the one who would be responsible for it. You should know
that he titled all the links to the side because he's the one who can
code in HTML. It would also be easier for me to do PR for this site to
increase readership. It's just been my observation, but the only
Free-Blogger Blogs that are paid attention to on a regular basis are
the guys and gals on the ground in Iraq. No one takes you seriously if
you don't chip out the coin for a real site, in other words. Not to
mention it's impossible to link to one article I've written with
Blogger. They just don't have the option to link to one article: it's
not something they support at all---even on the paid variants. Even
Sully has this problem and he's the most well known blogger to use the
Blogger software. I don't know. I'm thinking about it. We'll have to
see what happens and what the budget can take. It won't happen for a
time, if it happens at all. I'm mulling it over.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 4 kb.

--- ah, I do so love the smell of napalm in the morning. And there
surely is a goodly amount of napalm blowing throught the blogosphere
this morning. I found a picture last night on A Small Victory that
has twisted me into an uncaring, unseeing, seething mass of fury.
Still. This morning. Even though almost twelve hours has passed since I
saw it. I'm not the only one who's written something about it either. Lileks had a few choice words about it this morning, as well.

This picture is the proverbial napalm that has engendered all of this verbiage.



There's been a lot of debate about whether or not this photo is legit. Reportedly it's from one of Little Green Football's regular posters. They were taken at the San Francisco rally on Saturday. (For more of this guy's work you can go here) I can understand where some of the more charitable posters at A Small Victory would
think that no one could be that crass, hence it was undoubtedly
photoshopped. I don't think so. I think it's for real. I'm fucking
furious. Livid. Absolutely livid. To think that someone could
conceivably hate the president and his "cronies" enough that they would
think it was all right to say that the world was better off without the
World Trade Center is fine. Good for them. They're entitled to their
free speech after all. Just because I don't like what someone has to
say doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. But don't fucking
tell me that this guy is correct
in his assertions. Don't. Ever. Tell. Me. That. This is the anti-war
movement, my friends. No charge is too over-the-top or too revolting to
get their point across. They're against freedom that is brought about
by a man they hate. They hate
President Bush. Fine. I don't really care about that. But what is so
flaming hypocritical about their arguments---all of them---is that you
know if it had been Clinton that had liberated Iraq, none of this would
matter. They would think that a preemptive invasion of a country was
fine. They thought so about Kosovo in 1999, didn't they? That was
genocide. We'd sat on our hands during the early-90's when the Serbs
were slaughtering their neighbors left and right. Bush I let all of those poor people die...something had to be done to right that wrong. So, we went in without a UN mandate and that was just fine in 1999. Because they trusted
Bill Clinton. They don't trust GWB, so it's not all right to do this
for Iraq. It's just that simple. It's all about oil with GWB. He wants
the oil, so he invaded the country. Now, I wasn't really wild about the
notion of invading Iraq without a UN mandate, either. However, it was
pretty clear that anyone who was holding up the show in this department
wasn't objecting out of altruistic reasoning, but to protect deals
they'd inked with Saddam. They had their capitalist pig reasoning, too.
Ultimately it came down to a very simple concept: you can either talk
it to death or you can do something about it. We did something about
it, rather than sitting on our hands and worrying about whether the
President of Oblivionland was going to wage a diplomatic protest at the
UN. There comes a point in everyone's life where they have to do what
they have to do, and damn the consequences: nation states are no
different in this regard. We did what we had to do: and millions of
Iraqis are free today as a result. But the anti-war protesters don't
give a damn about that. It's completely irrelevant.
They give a damn that it wasn't their guy who did the
liberating---hence the motives behind the liberation are suspect, in
their eyes, so the War on Terrorism, the War in Iraq and everything GWB
has ever done during his presidency is EVIL, you hear? EVIL. This means
that nearly three thousand people deserved to die because it happened
during the presidency of an EVIL man. This also includes the liberation
of millions of people and the start of democracy in a country where the
concept of FREEDOM was a concept to be dreamed about. Where freedom was
something only other people could enjoy. Where freedom was a wistful
yearning, only thought about at night, under the covers, or whispered
about with friends you trusted not to turn you over to the secret
police, lest Saddam and his cronies tied your arms to the back of two pickup trucks and then instructed the drivers to put the pedal to the metal.

What the fuck?

And that's all I can really say about that. What the fuck?
It's vulgar, but it fits. Who are these people trying to convince with
their posters? With their devotion to actually marching throught the
streets of a city where no one is going to stop them from saying what
they're saying? It's preaching to the choir. And it's a chickenshit
thing to do. It's COWARDLY. Yep. That's right. It's lily-livered. It's
safe. After all, who would listen to them in Oklahoma? They're just
inbred idiots down there! They're not nearly as sophisticated as we are
here on our beloved peninsula, where everything that matters resides!
We're just better than they are. More enlightened. They're living in
the dark ages out in the midwest. They really need to get a life!. If they are so righteous about their opinions, so sure that they're right
they need to get out and spread the word, don't you think? I'd love to
seem them come to my house. I'll go out and buy a Louisville Slugger
just to make the occasion special.
Pretty soon it's going to be really easy to start lumping all of the
anti-war people together. They all marched together the other day,
didn't they? There are so many reasons why we shouldn't have gone to
war. I can understand that and I'll even listen to the more rational
reasons and accept that those people have a point. But when you see
something like this---something so vile that it just makes your stomach
turn---why the hell shouldn't I take far left's tack, and lump them all
together? Because you know that's what they've done with everyone who's
the slightest bit conservative. If you perhaps voted Republican because
you wanted less government, you're evil. You put the wrong guy in power! Because of you we have a president who eats babies for breakfast!
Never mind that you might be socially liberal, but you voted for the
lesser of two evils in the election in 2000. They have no time for
policy differentiations on the right---so why should I allow for policy
differentiations with the left? Why shouldn't I think they're all
communists who are against freedom and capitalism? Why shouldn't I?
Give me one fucking good reason why I shouldn't think they're all evil
when that's exactly what they think of me?

You know, some days it's really hard to live up to Voltaire.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1196 words, total size 7 kb.