--- I actually wrote the last post YESTERDAY. Blogger was having a
goof-up in the publishing department. You could "post" all you wanted,
but publishing? Well, that's a different story.
My work here is done. I now need to nap off the very yummy pork
tenderloin we had over at the sister in law's house. Sleeeeeeeeepy.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

--- More good news today. I made yet another blogroll and apparently
I'm a "celestial being." I like the sound of that! Woohoo!
Two in one week! My head is going to get really big here soon,
methinks.
Go and check out Miss Apropos when you get the chance. She said some very kind things about a post I made over at A Small Victory last week.

{Still Blushing, but doing the Happy Dance}

--- Ok, since not much was happening yesterday, the husband and I rented Revolutions
and had a film fest.
We watched all three films back to back and didn't wind up going to bed
until about one-thirty in the morning. I came to a number of
conclusions about this series---and we all know I have no shortage of
opinions regarding it, but to add to them, here we go.
1. You need to watch Reloaded and Revolutions back to
back for them to get the full-on Matrix frisson that we all got when we
watched the first one. The first one is a stand-alone. Numbers two and
three aren't. This was one of the few things the critics got right when
they reviewed Reloaded.
2. Monica Belluci really has some serious cleavage. (I still don't know how they squeezed her into that dress in Reloaded.
Methinks K-Y must have multiple uses.)
3. I still think the reason everyone was disappointed was because the
Wachowskis didn't spell the message out for their audience. And I do
believe there's proof of this: one of the Oracle's frequently repeated
lines was: "You just have to make up your own damn mind." I think this
is a hint to the audience from the brothers about what is or is not
right in regards to the conclusions their audience will inevitably draw
about the message of these films.
4. Keanu still has a really nice butt. 5. These movies got the shaft
from the Academy.
6. The attack on the dock was not too long. To my mind, it was
just the right length. 7. The "there are some things that will never
change," exchanges between Naiobi and Morpheus are tiring after the
first viewing.
8. These movies are not about a search for God. They are about faith.
The search for it; the finding of it; the acceptance of it; what it
requires of you; what sacrifices you will have to make, etc. All the
philosophical questions of the movie relate to this struggle. They
chose the Jesus archetype to tell the story, but that does not
necessarily mean that these movies are just one big Christian allegory,
and if you think they are, perhaps you should learn that organized
religion does not equal faith. When we were finished, I had the same
feeling in the wee hours of the morning as I did when we saw Revolutions
in the theater: I was satisfied. The story was complete---and more
importantly no one had wimped out in the telling of it. They pushed the
envelope. And I'm still having a hard time understanding why more
people just didn't get that this was an extraordinary achievement.
---Viewing recommendation for this coming week. Band of Brothers
is airing on The History Channel starting tomorrow and going for the
next ten days. If you haven't seen this miniseries, you need to sit
your butt down in front of the TV and watch it. Many people have sung
its praises, but I'll add my two cents to the cavalcade of praise:
this, I have to think, is the best description of what WWII was most
likely like for the American soliders that fought that war. If you're
not familiar with the story, it follows the trials and travails of the
men of Easy Company, a paratrooper company of 101st Airborne from
beginning to end. You meet them in training and you leave them in
post-war Austria. Easy Company was on the front lines of every major
European campaign, including D-Day up until the end of the war. They
took part in the failed Operation Marketgarden in Holland. They were
beseiged at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. They liberated a
concentration camp and were the first outfit into Bechetesgarden and
the Eagle's Nest. Their story is remarkable in that they were asked to
do much when it came to the war---they were always the first in and in
some cases, were the last to leave---and they almost always succeeded
in their tasks because they were so tight. Invariably there was a price
to be paid for their successes, and they did pay. Dearly, in some
cases.
Every episode begins with commentaries by the living members of Easy
Company, but they never said who was who. It's a very pleasant
realization at the end of the series when you can finally match up
characters in the series with the real individual. I'm not sure how
much The History Channel has sanitized this miniseries, but I'm
assuming they have. There was a reason---beyond the time limits---that
you would never see this on a regular network. They're gory and the
language is foul in some circumstances. But it's as close to real as
it's going to get without being there and it is so totally worth your
time to watch it. --- Ok, so I wrote this earlier today, but for some
reason it didn't publish---let's try that again!

Posted by: Kathy at 03:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 5 kb.

--- The Apprentice finale is tonight. Just wanted to make one
prediction:
Kwame will pay and will pay DEARLY for picking Omarosa.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Ah, Andrew. I'm disappointed in you.

BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY: It's worth saying here what we now know the
president got wrong - badly wrong. There were never enough troops to
occupy Iraq. The war-plan might have been brilliant, but the post-war
plan has obviously been a failure. We needed more force and we needed
more money sooner. The president has no excuses for not adjusting more
quickly to this fact: he was told beforehand; he was told afterward;
but he and the Defense Secretary were too pig-headed to change course.
I still favor the war; but I cannot excuse the lapses and failures of
the administration in the post-war. Yes, this was always going to be
very very hard. And yes, Iraq was slowly imploding under Saddam and
some version of what we are now witnessing was inevitable - and,
without the war, it would have happened without our stabilizing
presence. Yes, balancing keeping order and winning hearts and minds is
not an easy operation to pull off. But with the troop levels we
maintained - especially given the limited international support - we
made things far harder than they might have been, and our beleaguered
troops are dealing with the aftermath. We can still win this. We must
still win this. But the president is in part responsible for making it
even harder than it might have been.

Fer cryin' out loud.

It be time for a Fisking.

It's worth saying here what we now know the president got wrong -
badly wrong. There were never enough troops to occupy Iraq. The
war-plan might have been brilliant, but the post-war plan has obviously
been a failure. We needed more force and we needed more money sooner.
I hate to say this Andrew, because you are a brilliant man, but you are
neither a financial analyst nor a military analyst. You are a pundit,
my friend. $87 billion---and that's BILLION, with a big Carl Sagan
'B'--- dollars apparently isn't enough money and Bush didn't push for
it soon enough. Well, my little fiscal conservative, did it not ever
occur to you that perhaps he waited until he had a better handle on
what the true costs of an unpopular war would be before he went to the
Congress to get it authorized? That maybe, just maybe, he was trying to
keep the authorization process from becoming a attention seeking
whore-fest? How much money would you have had him ask for, being the
true fiscal conservative that you are? As far as putting boots on the
ground, well, are you a military analyst, Andrew? I don't think so.
Hannibal you ain't. Leave the decisions about the elephants to those in
the know. You are not in Iraq. You are in D.C. What you do know about
troop strength you know from reading other pundits and from listening
to press releases. Is it fair to ask the men and women that are there
currently to have to pick up more slack? No, it's not and I'm sorry for
it. But I do know that I would prefer to have experienced men and women
in the field, fighting the battles, than replacement soldiers who are
green and are liable to get themselves killed in the meantime. The president has no excuses for not adjusting more quickly to
this fact: he was told beforehand; he was told afterward; but he and
the Defense Secretary were too pig-headed to change course.
Too pigheaded? It seems to me that just like the 9/11 commission,
perhaps hindsight is playing with your brilliant mind. The phrase If only
comes to mind. If only we'd done this differently. If only we'd done
that differently. Pffft. We hadn't invaded and then occupied a country
for a longer period than a few months since WWII. And we all know what
kind of a pain in the ass the German occupation was for the parties
involved. Things have changed since WWII. Might it have occurred to you
that switching course might have given our enemies exactly what they
wanted? Again, neither of us are military analysts. We should leave it
up to those in the know to decide what should have been done and when.
Yes there are lessons to be learned, Andrew. It hasn't gone off
swimmingly, but look at what has been achieved. There are schools and
roads and infrastructure and a Constitution.
Would any of that have happened as quickly if we hadn't invaded? Nope.
Patience, man. I have a feeling the occupation of Iran and Syria will
go much better when we invade them. (And that was a joke---maybe)
I still favor the war; but I cannot excuse the lapses and failures
of the administration in the post-war. Yes, this was always going to be
very very hard. And yes, Iraq was slowly imploding under Saddam and
some version of what we are now witnessing was inevitable - and,
without the war, it would have happened without our stabilizing
presence. Yes, balancing keeping order and winning hearts and minds is
not an easy operation to pull off.

You made my point for me, it seems.

But with the troop levels we maintained - especially given the
limited international support - we made things far harder than they
might have been, and our beleaguered troops are dealing with the
aftermath. We can still win this. We must still win this. But the
president is in part responsible for making it even harder than it
might have been.

Ahhhhh, you want the French in there after all, don't you? AIEEEEEE! What about the Germans? How about the UN? Because it's partly the President's fault because he didn't bring more support to the table in the first place!
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. The President did not "in part" make it harder
for the US Military. You want know who did? The list is pretty freaking
long. Let's see. There's The UN. They made it harder because they
forced us to enforce their resolutions. They wouldn't do it. They
wanted more time for Blixie's Boys and Girls---even though it was on
Saddam to disarm in the first place. They were just there to verify
that he actually had done it. Then there's the French. They refused to
get on board---and the reasons why they didn't get on board aren't all
that altruistic, if you take my meaning. And Germany, after all, just
follows what the French do, as do the Russians. These countries and
international organizations wouldn't get off their fat asses to do
something about Iraq. We did. We knew this is what the level of
multilateral support we'd garnered would mean. I do believe the
President and Tony Blair said more than a few times the road would be a
difficult one, but one that must be traversed nonetheless. Don't tell
me you didn't know, too?
Yet you want these same countries. These same naysayers to come in and
help out. Well, forgive me, but I don't want their help. That's right. I don't want their help.
They had the balls to say we shouldn't go in. That we were violating
international law. That we were bad because we were doing this. They
have called for "regime change" here in the United States. Through the
EU and the UN they are actively trying to influence our election
because they don't like President Bush. And you want help from them?
What the hell? Figure it out. They don't like us. They don't like this
President. Why on Earth would he go to them for support? Such an action
would be, in essence, saying they were right all along. That we need
them to bail us out. Well, I don't think we do need them to bail us out
because we don't need to bailed out in the first place. We'll get the
job done. It may not be as pretty as you would have liked it to be,
like a remodel that didn't quite live up to your expectations, but it
will get done. Suck it up. Trust the people in charge. They know what
they're doing. And realize it's always darkest before the dawn.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1373 words, total size 8 kb.

--- So here's the conundrum of the day. Mom, you're not allowed to read this.
I got a birth announcement in the mail today. A very nice little shot
of a cute chapeaued wee bugger who was born to a sorority sister of
mine on St. Patrick's Day. Appropriately enough, his parents decided to
use the name of that particular saint as one of his monikers. It's
always nice to know what's going on in old friends' lives. I haven't
chatted with this particular sorority sister since her wedding in the
autumn of 2002. She was actually my little sister in the house, and to
a certain extent I feel bad I haven't spent as much time with her as I
could, particularly since she moved to the Twin Cities in 2001. We've
had lunch, but she annoys me and the "little sister" designation will
only get you so far with me if you're an annoying individual. Little
sisters in my house were not like pledge daughters---you chose your
kid, your kid chose you. When you got a little sister, well, your job
was to welcome her in, show her the ropes, introduce her to people and
that was pretty much that. You handed her over to her pledge mom a few
weeks into the school year---who was someone she had chosen to hang out
with. And this is what happened with my little sister. However, I did
honestly like her. We were on our way to becoming pretty close friends
until she tried to lecture me about this certain guy I was seeing at
the time. She knew him well, but according to her, I didn't and I
should "Beware. He's a pig-dog." (Why she kept using that phrase I
don't know. She kept repeating it, like it was the best description she
had for this guy. Wierd. "Jackass" would have worked just as well.) Her
warning came a wee bit too late. It's the kind of thing that happens at
college. Girls fighting over guys. It's stupid in retrospect, but it
happens, and hard feelings result and last for quite some time,
surprisingly. The guy in question was pretty popular in my circle and
was relatively attractive and we'd been on and off again for six months
or so. Maybe I should correct that. "On and Off" seems to imply that we
had some sort of "serious relationship." We didn't. We were both busy
people. We had classes to attend and extracurricular activities to work
on. We never made the time to have a relationship. He had his friends.
I had mine and while our social circles overlapped, we weren't always
constantly in each others pockets. But I genuinely liked the guy. I
really did. I wouldn't have much minded putting things off to make time
for him, but he didn't want that and that was fine with me because the
relationship always and forever seemed to be stuck in "if only" land. If only we had more time. If only I hadn't already made plans. If only I didn't have this paper due tomorrow.
We got along just fine, but there wasn't a good deal of depth, if you
get what I'm saying. Every time I thought it was done, he'd do
something nice and romantic and I'd be hooked again. In retrospect, it
seems as if he couldn't make up his mind about me--whether I was worth
the extra effort of actual dating. And I made things nice and easy for
him by letting him in whenever he wanted in. Ah, if we could only go
back and do things differently, knowing what we know now, eh? This
event marks the ending of my relationship with this guy. It got nasty
and my little sister played a big part in shaping my feelings of the
entire event. Of course, the story is replete with the whole he
said/she said angle. After an eventful---or not so, you be the
judge---evening this guy was saying some not very flattering things
about me and word had spread. I'd already been tipped off by some other
friends, who, of course, believed my version of events, rather than
his. Everyone who knew me knew he was full of shit, but the little
sister thought the story was true and refused to take my word for it.
She thought I was trying to keep my virtue intact (ha! like I had any!)
by denying his version of events. The truth of the matter was that the
guy suffered from a medical problem called "whiskey dick." Yep. That's
right. He couldn't get it up. This was embarrasing to him and to salve
his wounded pride he made up a story about me being particularly
demanding. I'm not going to go into details about the story, but it's
pretty funny now. In the here and now, most men would flat-out LOVE the
things he told everyone I'd asked for. Back then, though, "my sexual
demands" were apparently out of line and he had to tell everyone that
he was the one who rejected me and why. Now, we all know male pride is
a fragile thing---like a particularly rare and delicate piece of glass:
it shatters easily and isn't easily replaced. Look at it from his
perspective: you finally manage to get a particular special someone to
come home with you, hence it doesn't look really great when the object
of your affection---someone whom you've ranted, raved and fretted over
for months on end---leaves in a huff ten minutes later. Particularly
after you begged and pleaded with her to come back to your house in
front of said roommates. I believe it's called "saving face." Roommates
have a tendency to be nosy---particularly when they're close friends.
His roommates were there when he asked me back to his house. They were
there when I left. They knew there was a story there and they wanted
the details. The guy was more than happy to give them the details. They
listened and sympathized, decided I was a slut and then spread the word
to everyone on campus. One of whom happened to be Jen, who fell for it
hook-line-and sinker. But because I decided to let it slide; to not
shoot my mouth off like he had, to her mind my version of the events
wasn't necessary, because she knew what really happened that night.
What really mattered to her was that I stayed away from him in the
future---like I was some kind of idiot who couldn't figure that out for
myself. I remember the conversation well. "Kathy, you don't have to do this with me."
"I'm not doing a damn thing, Jen."
"Kathy, don't cover up! You don't have to do that with me!"
"I know I don't have to, which is why I'm not! I was there. You weren't."
"Kathy, you don't have to do this with me! {insert vigorous hand flapping here} He's a pig-dog."
"Umm, yeah, I know. Which is why I won't have anything to do with him now. Why are you taking his word for it?"
"Kathy, you don't have to do this with me!"
"Am I suddenly a liar?"
"You don't have to do this with me. I know what happened!
UGH!
After about a half hour's worth of this bullshit, I finally cut her off
and kicked her out of my room. Her concern about what was being said
about me was touching, as was her worries that I wouldn't stay away
from him in the future. That was nice, but the fact that she refused to
believe my version of the event pretty much soured the friendship for
me and I kept my distance from her for the short amount of time I had
left at school. After all, if one of your friends decides to believe
hearsay about you, rather than your version of events, well, there's
not a whole lot of trust and respect going on there. What's the point
of keeping going under those circumstances? I knew her, but not that
well, it seems and she really didn't know me. So, keeping this scenario
in mind, I'm leery of her. She's stubborn and she's easily waylaid by
things "she's heard." But when she moved here I tried to put those
things in the past. We've had lunch. She's tried to recruit me many
times for sorority alumni stuff. I went to her wedding. I sent her a
very nice wedding present, for which she never sent a thank you note.
Now, she's had a kid and the proper and correct thing to do when one
receives a birth announcement is to send a wee gift and a nice note. I
do this every time I get one of these. No matter who it is or what sort
of relationship I have with them. It's the polite thing to do. But I
don't want to. Particularly not after I spent $70 bucks on a wedding
present for which I didn't receive a thank you note. I'm thinking on
this one. I'm not sure what to do. Do I send a note? A present? To send
something to this person who I don't know if I like strictly for the
sake of appearances when it's obvious that she doesn't really care. I
don't know. It's probably a waste of money. Oh, and just a side
note---the guy did apologize for what he'd done a few months after the
fact. He didn't think it would become the big deal it did and he was
sorry for it. Particularly when he finally realized I hadn't shot my
mouth off about him when I could have easily made his life a living
hell. It was very apparent that people would have believed my version
of events over his. His story was was a little too fantastical; mine
was based in reality. People would have believed me. I found out much,
much later---from Jen, no less, who is still in contact with him---that
for him, I was "the one that got away." Interesting, huh? I still don't
know what to make of that---or if I should even believe it knowing the
guy.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1713 words, total size 9 kb.

--- And without further ado, here is Mr. H's commentary about the bus drivers' strike here in the Twin Cities.
- Okay, Mr. H. Here. I’m a little overdue on my “rant” about the
bus-strike here in Minneapolis. Sorry about that. Do I want this strike
to be over? Yes. Will I ride the bus again? More than likely. I moved
into a new place in the middle of January. I rode the bus to and from
work everyday. It made my life easier, I didn̢۪t have to deal with
traffic and parking, and it saved me money. It saved me a lot of money.
When the strike started, I was keeping track of how much it cost me. I
was keeping track of how much MORE money I was spending (Parking, gas,
etc) because I couldn̢۪t take the bus. I stopped keeping track when
the amount hit $150. That was back in mid to late March. It̢۪s the
middle of April, and I don̢۪t even want to know now. I do however feel
it when I am trying to make a decision about going out or buying
something. We here at work have been carpooling. So that has kept the
cost down, but it has its downsides. I̢۪m an independent person by
nature; I don̢۪t like being dependent on someone else. I especially
don̢۪t like waiting. I get up in the morning, do my thing, and when
I’m ready to leave, I want to leave. Now, I have to wait – wait for
the person who meets me at my house every morning. I “can” be a
morning person, but I get really crabby when I̢۪m standing around
waiting for someone in the morning. I hate wasting time. Then it̢۪s
the same thing in the afternoon, but now we add one to two other
people. Waiting again. This thing has gone on for so long now I̢۪ve
almost forgotten about it. I̢۪ve kind of gotten used to the
Carpooling. I don̢۪t like it, but what does that matter? Other than
seeing “LOT FULL” signs at almost every parking lot downtown and
seeing the picket line when I go to visit my friend who lives near
MTC̢۪s main building, it has vacated my everyday consciousness. Now
– trying not to think of MY money and MY time, I don’t like this
strike. I don̢۪t like it at all. I have a hard time feeling sorry for
a group of people whose starting salary is higher than mine (not much,
but still more). I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who has a
right to yell at people, honk their horn, be downright nasty and still
have a job. There are some really friendly drivers but the bulk of them
are rude. Now, I don̢۪t want their job. I don̢۪t want to deal with
the people they have to deal with, but really, don̢۪t take it out on
everyone. If I smile at you and say hello – respond. Your job is
technically a customer service job, but because you work for a union
AND the government, you think that you can be a prick and nothing will
happen. I plan to make good use of that comment line when you get up
and running. They were offered a raise---albeit a small 1%---but it was
a raise. We aren̢۪t getting one here. We are all thankful we still
have our jobs. Their health insurance premiums are going up – well,
so did mine, so did my co-workers, so did my parents. It̢۪s part of
life, expenses go up. What I have a problem with is unions in general.
I don’t like them, and I grew up in a union home – my father
retired at 50 – I know they have some good points. I do however,
believe the union’s time has come, and gone – I think it’s been
gone for a long, long, time. There are employment regulations right
now, there is a minimum wage, there are employment laws, age limits,
etc. What are they there for now? I̢۪ll tell you they are there for
the easy money. Does a union care about its individual members? NO. Do
they care about their families? No. Do they care about your benefits?
No. Do they care about your wage? YES – BUT do you know why? Do you?
It’s simple – they want your dues, and the more your wages are, the
more your dues are. That̢۪s what they want, so the Union guys can earn
a salary for working for “you”. Ha – they work for themselves. It
makes me sick really. I deal with a Union at work. The Union
“representing” Actors. Do they care about their actors? No. Do they
care about the financial state of the theater? No. Do they get their
undies in a bunch when I miscalculate their pension/health and dues
payments? Oh yes. If it doesn̢۪t have anything to do with money coming
in to them, they don̢۪t care. There are a few plusses to this thing
though: It̢۪s amazing to me how clean downtown has been without the
busses. I never would have expected that. The people walking on the
streets have places to go, things to do and actually know how to use a
trashcan and an ashtray. The panhandlers actually seem to have almost
disappeared. I have been hit up for “spare change” (if I had any
spare change, I̢۪d consider myself rich, I̢۪m only a couple hundred
dollars away for asking for change myself) three times since the strike
started. On any given day, that would be the amount of times I̢۪d get
hit up walking from the bus stop, to the coffee shop and then to work.
I guess without the busses running they can̢۪t come downtown. I am
even finding that traffic is better WITHOUT the busses. Traffic down
Hennepin Avenue almost flows. When I drive into the office, or driving
home, it takes me 5-10 minutes LESS than it used to. It will be
interesting to see what it is like to drive around the city once the
busses are back running. When we have to deal with them cutting us off,
stopping a complete lane of traffic, pushing their way through red
lights, and just sitting on the side of the road, holding up traffic
and being rude. I guess we’ll have to see what happens today – when
they meet again. At this point in time, the drivers should be hurting
enough to come back to work. If they or their Union don̢۪t want to
come back to work, hire someone else. There are plenty of people who
need jobs – and don’t forget – this is a “customer service”
position. Keep the shitty attitude for the airlines.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1145 words, total size 7 kb.

Courtesy of the husband: Blog Crusaders Needed.

BEIJING: China is targeting blogs -- diary-style personal pages for
Internet users -- in its latest attempt to censor the increasing
popularity of the Internet in the country, according to a rights group.
Two sites hosting blogs for thousands of people -- who express their
views about news, themselves or anything they want -- have been shut
down by the government, the Paris-based media rights group Reporters
Without Borders said One of the blogs, "BlogBus.com," hosted more than
15,000 blogs that have now been made inaccessible, the group said in a
statement.
The site was shut down on March 11 for allowing a letter to be posted
that was critical of the government.
This is basically the equivalent of the US government shutting down
Blogger for one inflammatory Bush Bashing post. In fact, Blogger and
TypePad are blocked in China. The crackdown on blogs coincides with the opening of the 60th
session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, at which China
has a seat without respecting its international commitments, the
international press freedom organisation said.
It also comes days after China's legislature approved an amendment to
its constitution to say for the first time that the state respects and
protects human rights.
Ugh. I have an odd sort of appreciation for the PRC's ability to smile
cheesily while it's obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that
they're lying, but this is beyond the pale. It's another attempt at
cracking down. It's just one more way for them to control the content
and to crush dissent. We bloggers can talk until the cows come home
about free speech. It's easy for us to take our rights for granted.
When we disagree with someone, we roll out Voltaire and quote, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. We BlogIran. We support average Iraqis who
are telling us a story that the mainstream media has patently ignored.
But we don't do much about China, do we? There's not much we can
do about China, it seems, to let them know we support their cause. They
control the internet there. They close off access to sites they don't
want people visiting. They cut off thousands of bloggers because of one
post.
I did a little research and I found Adopt a Blog.
It should be called Guerilla Blogging. This is for all of those
bloggers who have their own hosting and domain name and perhaps a
little extra space to share with a blogger who's been blocked by the
PRC so that they can keep writing. They can write about the fact that
their dog has fleas for all I care. Blatant political dissent isn't a
necessary content requirement. But those those of us who take our
freedom of speech for granted should care that people aren't allowed to
write that their dog has fleas in the first place.
I would do this in a heartbeat if I weren't on Blogger. When I move
this site, I will help out. In the meantime, the best I can do is to
get the word out.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

--- No shit, Sherlock.

"I'm covered with loser dust ... DREW (BARRYMORE) won't call me back. I can't even get an autographed 'Charmed' poster
for my daughter." -- embattled rocker COURTNEY LOVE, in the May issue of Blender magazine.
Could the fact that you're covered with loser dust, Courtney, be a
result of the fact that you are a loser? Take as much time as you need
to think about it Courtney. We all know your brain isn't up to snuff.
Take your time and think it through.
Let me be helpful and outline the scenario for you.
A. You're a druggie. You seem to think this is cool, but people your
age generally have figured out by now that drugs are bad, mmmkay? B.
You've been arrested more in the past year than most people get pulled
over in their lifetimes. You don't have a problem with this. You think
it shows off your edgy side. Well, from one who knows what it's like
when the law comes into your life, know this: normal people don't like
being around criminals---accused or convicted---no matter what the
crime. They just don't. It's one of those things you have to suck it up
and deal with. Abnormal behavior is cool for about fifteen minutes,
then people just don't want to deal with it. Sorry, but that's just the
way it is.
C. You are well over twenty-one and yet you continue on with a. and b.
Adults don't like hanging out with teenagers. Your moment of rebellion
should have ended years ago, but you're on the road to middle age and
you still act like you're eighteen. D. YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER. HER FATHER OFFED HIMSELF AND YOU ARE HER
ONLY PARENT. BE A PARENT AND ACT LIKE ONE FOR YOUR DAUGHTER'S SAKE OR
SHE WILL BE MORE SCREWED UP THAN YOU AND HER FATHER COMBINED.
You are a loser, Courtney. There's really no getting around that. But
what's really sad about the situation is that you don't even realize
the reasons why you're so low on the social totem pole when it's
obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse.
Duh.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

--- "Mental Meaderings Between Sleeps" is what this blog should be
called.
Because I did wind up starting "Pattern Recognition" last night, and I
didn't get to bed until three. Hence, I now need a nap. (I'm liking the
heroine of this book. The Michelin Man gives her panic attacks, which
she fends off by repeating the phrase, "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." What's not to like?)

Anyhoo, to keep you occupied, I have this amusing bit from the Sunday Strib (registration required, but honestly, this one is sooo worth it.)

Britney, you are no Pussy Galore.
A recent "Extra" TV report revealed that Britney Spears has had the
gall to approach Barbara Broccoli, a producer of Bond films, with a
view to becoming the next Bond Girl. (Broccoli is working on the 21st
installment of the film franchise, slated for a November 2005 release.)
The smackdown starts in the next paragraph. Enjoy.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

--- And speaking of shoes...

Delish. Delightful. Oh, so NOT politically correct, but I want them anyway. Who needs more alligators around anyway? They eat people.

But most of all, I still want these.

AND I WANT THEM BADLY.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

---Here are the correct answers to the big brain fart posted below.

Sigh.

Am such an idiot.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

--- I made another blogroll today. Woohoo. Monsieur Goldstein at Protein Wisdom added me onto his list o' vintage blogs.

Have no idea why he put me on there. And I'm not going to ask lest I annoy him and he delinks me.

I will simply say this: thanks, dude. I appreciate it.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Well, Tom's heart is in the right place.

An organization co-founded by actor Tom Cruise has raised $1.2
million to expand a treatment program for rescue
workers exposed to potentially hazardous materials after the collapse
of the World Trade Center.
The New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project said it has treated
more than 200 workers who say they were suffering effects from
breathing the air filled with smoke, dust and debris after the Sept.
11, 2001, destruction of the trade center.
The money raised by Cruise and others would expand the project to treat
twice as many people, said Keith Miller, the project's director. The
treatment is provided at no cost.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, eh? That's nice that Tom's getting
behind the 9/11 workers. Wonderful. But there's something in the title
"New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project," that's causing the
hairs on the back of my neck to rise.
And here it is: The project's program consists of a medically monitored regimen of
exercise, sauna sweat-out, vitamins and minerals to help rescue workers
cleanse their bodies of toxic residues. It was developed by L. Ron
Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a
member.
It's faith based healing, in other words. A faith based initiative.
Because his group will probably, you know, try to convert a few people
to Scientology whilst all this detox is going on. Can't wait to hear
Hillary lambast Tom about this one. /sarcasm

Posted by: Kathy at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

--- Disaster averted.

The husband recognized that the situation was only going to go downhill and handed the goods over.

And I only had to threaten to open the can of bitchcraft.

Heh.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

--- I missed this one yesterday. Sharia in Canada (hat tip: Sully)

Almad and thousands of other Muslims, taking advantage of a
provision of the law in the province of Ontario, can now decide some
civil disputes under sharia, including family disagreements and
inheritance, business and divorce issues, using tribunals that include
imams, Muslim elders and lawyers. While it is less than full
implementation of sharia, local leaders consider it a significant step.
Muslim promoters of sharia arbitration said that no cases had been
decided but that the process is set. Islamic leaders created an Islamic
Court of Civil Justice last fall and that organization, in turn, has
chosen arbitrators, who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian
civil law, according to organizers and participants.

NO! NO! NO! NO! This is just so wrong on so many levels. And this would be one of them:

Although advocates of the sharia process stressed that participation
in the tribunal process would be voluntary, some critics expressed
concern that many Muslims would be labeled disobedient if they refused
participation in such sharia-based arbitrations.
"If I am a woman of faith, and the community of people who see
themselves as leaders say that if I do not follow the sharia court
here, the Islamic Institute, then I will be tantamount to blasphemy and
apostasy," Hogben said in a debate shown on Canadian television. "And
you know that in some countries, apostasy means death sentence."

Not to mention this:

Syed Mumtaz Ali , the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims,
began circulating the idea for the court two years ago. In a statement
on his organization's Web site, he said that the tribunals
would allow Muslims to practice freedom of religion. "Muslim minorities
living in non-Muslim countries like Canada are like wandering
Bedouins," he wrote. "Although they are free to live according to the
Divine Law to practice their faith unhindered in their homes" and
mosques, he said, "they have practically no say in the making of the
laws of the land and governmental institutions do not cater to their
needs." Ali said the creation of the Islamic Court of Civil Justice
would allow this "without violating any Canadian Law." Ali told the
Canadian Law Times that sharia tribunals were important for practicing
Muslims in Canada. He said that Muslims would no longer have an excuse
not to follow sharia because it would no longer be impractical in
Canada. "The concession given by sharia is no longer available to us
because the impracticality has been removed," Ali said. He has written
that Muslims who choose not to be governed by sharia "for reasons of
convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime." Ali said in a
telephone interview that no tribunal cases have been heard yet. He
would not elaborate.
{emphasis mine}
In other words, God's law trumps man's law and man's law has made
allowances for this in the name of sacrificing common sense to the God
of Multicultural Diversity. I despise Sharia. It's politically
incorrect to say this, but I don't really give a rat's ass. Like
anything, Sharia has its good points, but they do not overwhelm the bad
in a significant enough way to make it a system worthy of reform, let
alone actual use. It's medieval. It's completely neglects that the Age
of Reason ever happened; it negates that Western cultural values have
any worth and what makes this so enraging is that it's a democratic, Western country
that is allowing for the practice of this backwards legal system. Oh,
but it's only for family disputes, the advocates say. It's only for
property disputes. It's only for divorce. It's only for inheritance
disputes. In general I have the tendency to go worst case scenario, so
maybe this is a bit over the top, but what if a girl decides she
doesn't want to be genitally mutilated, but her dad decides that's just
what's needed to keep her knickers on? Which system holds the trump
card? What if a wife wants to divorce her husband because he's beating
the crap out of her? Which system holds the trump card? What if a woman
is the sole inheritor to a property---while this is completely legal
under Canadian law, if she's Muslim, that property will go to her
husband. Ah, but they do have a Canadian legal remedy, particularly for criminal cases..
Ok, so what if a woman is raped. By a Muslim man. The Canadian legal
system takes care of the man, but what happens to the woman? Is she to
be forced to go before the Sharia court if her husband wants to divorce
her on the grounds that she's been adulterous? What if she isn't
married, but is a young girl instead. What if her father decides to
disinherit her because she's been impure? How does the Sharia court
rule then? These are the exact areas of Sharia where discrimination
occurs. Justice in Sharia isn't blind. She looks to see if you have
tits or a cock before she passes her judgments. The scales are
overwhelmingly balanced in favor of Muslim men, not Muslim women. If
pious women feel they have to go before this court otherwise they're
going to hell, how are their rights, under Canadian law, being
protected? I'm just not seeing it.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 5 kb.

--- The Rochambeau's on.

Go here to
give money to Spirit of America for videocameras, dvd players and other
techie equipment so that Iraqis don't have to be subjected to the likes
of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya for all of their news. I'm all about
choice---I like having ten pairs of black shoes. Give so that Iraqis
can do the same when it comes to watching the news. And here's a nifty
graphic that will get you nowhere if you click on it because I have
absolutely NO idea how to make it a live linkie and the husband is busy
crunching numbers. Enjoy my inadequacy.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

--- It's laundry day at the Cake Eater Apartment. Woohoo, is what
you're saying. I know it is. Laundry is boring stuff. I apologize, but
honesty, other than running up and down three flights of stairs
repeatedly, I like doing laundry. Why, you ask, do I like this tedious
activity?
Well, mainly because I like the smell of the stuff I use to clean our
clothes. It's going to sound wierd, but the smell of these products
makes me happy. It's stupid, I know. But I really do get a kick out of
smelling laundry soap---the actual soap and
what it effect it has on the clothes when they come out of the dryer. I
also like fabric softener, too. I should declare right here and right
now that I'm a Downy Girl. I do like how Bounce smells, but I don't
like that prolonged usage of fabric sheets causes socks to
disentegrate. I personally think Fresh Start was the best smelling
laundry detergent EVER, but they no longer make it. Gain isn't bad, but
they don't sell it in bulk at Costco. I still remember what Dash
smelled like back before they made it into a lemon scented business and
then discontinued it entirely. My mom used Dash for years; now she's
relegated to using Tide, like the rest of us. Bounce has always smelled
the same---they just turned the smell up to eleven in recent years. But
there's another reason I like doing laundry.
There's just something about cleaning clothes that makes me feel like
I'm accomplishing something. At the beginning, you have piles of dirty
clothes. At the end, the hampers are empty, everything is folded, put
away and it smells good. I accomplish something with this task. And in
my life, where a goodly amount of effort is extended for minimal
accomplishment, it feels good that I have at least one task where I
know I'm the gold standard and there is a result. Writing, right now,
for me, is not about results. Those will come---one day. I know this.
But laundry, well, that takes a day, life is sorted, and there is a
measurable result at the end of it. It's so weird, I know, but I take
pleasure in this. It's not like cleaning for me. I hate cleaning. I
used to clean other people's domiciles, hotel rooms and condos for a
living. Ever since I gave up cleaning other people's toilets and
dealing with the hairballs they left in the bottom of the drain,
cleaning holds very little satisfaction for me. (You clean up a hotel
room after people have used it as a sex shack or a kegger house and
you'll know what I'm talking about.) For me, cleaning has morphed into
an activity you do for other people. I could live in a sty and I'd be
ok with it for a good long while. I don't need to clean for me; I do
need to clean when someone is coming over, though. I used to find some
satisfaction in cleaning, but no more. Now I want someone to clean up
after me. But laundry is an entirely different story. I could never
have someone other than myself or the husband wash my skivvies. Just
couldn't do it, mainly because I don't want someone commenting on said
skivvies, but because it's my task. And because I like sniffing laundry
soap. Someone book me an appointment at the pyschiatrist toute suite.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 3 kb.

--- Well said.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Was just looking at the calendar and saw that Passover starts
today.
I like the story of Passover. It's one of those few dramatic stories in
the bible that actually made me pay attention in Old Testament class in
high school (the TWO times I had to take it---and no, I wasn't a dolt.
The Catholic school I attended switched around the religious education
requirements so that my class wound up taking it twice---once freshman
year and once senior year.) Let's face it: the OT lacks drama. Not much
happens in the OT. God created the world in six days and on the
seventh, he kicked back and had a beer. He decided, however, on day
eight that he needed some people so he created Adam, and then Eve. By
the end of that week, Eve was tempted into eating the apple and the
concept of original sin was created and God put the boot to their asses
and kicked them out of the Garden of Eden. Then you have the whole Cain
and Abel debacle; Isaac and Abraham; you learn about the Tower of Babel
and the Flood; then you finally get to the good stuff in Exodus. Upon
further thought, let me correct my previous statement: there's plenty
of drama in the OT; the writers just aren't good enough to make it
exciting when you actually have to read it. The stories are filled with
lots of "begats" as in so and so begat so and so who begat so and so.
There's very little dialogue, unless its with God and then it's a third
person account of what the individual chatting with the Big Man said
the Big Man said---hearsay, in other words. The story arcs are
lacking--- big time. Resolution of certain big events takes place in a
paragraph. It's just my opinion, but whomever wrote most of the
Torah---the first five books of the Bible---needed to attend a writing
seminar. But I love Exodus. It's great. It's jampacked with action and
adventure. Slavery in Egypt. A chosen one who had been raised by the
enemy. Plagues. Payback galore with the death of Pharoah's first born
son. Flight. Revenge. Jealousy. Sacrifice. Has this story got it all or
what? No wonder they made a movie out of it. Obviously I'm not Jewish,
but I have some Passover experience. A long time ago, the husband and I
cooked a Seder for an elderly Jewish friend and her family in Des
Moines. I've cooked Kosher, in other words. After hearing about the
traditions of the Seder for years during Holy Thursday mass, it was
interesting to finally see what one was like in real life. Lots of
wine. Lots of reading of the story of Passover. And lots of food.
Despite the fact I'm a "shiksa---a nice shiksa, but a shiksa
nonetheless" I apparently make a mean potato latke. (FYI for
gentiles---a latke is basically a hashbrown patty.) It was a grand
occasion for them, and it was special for me to be a part of it.
There's nothing really like this in all of the celebrations we have for
Christianity, and that's a shame. We don't pull out the Bible and start
reading sections of it while we say prayers and then make toasts with
the wine. Jews bring their religion into their houses and make their
homes an integral part of the practice of their traditions and beliefs.
We Christians don't do that. We're not required to. We keep our
religion low-key and in our churches, for the most part and I think
we're lacking something because of it.
Anyway---Happy Passover. --- Courtesy of the Cake Eater Mother we have
the Crane Cam! (You'll need Real One Player to view)

The cranes are Nebraska's version of the swallows coming to Capistrano. Go here to
learn more about it. Keep checking back to see the cranes. It's
impressive. They sleep on the river, as it protects them from other
beasts who would like nothng better than to eat them. The best times to
see them are in the morning and in the evening right around sunset. ---
Well, I guess her daughter can stop sending checks, eh?

Just goes to show, once again, anything other than a maximum bet on a slot machine is for suckers.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 4 kb.

--- And speaking of media bias.
I followed the links to the article in the Boston Globe and whaddya
know---it seems someone has been paying attention to the numbers put
out by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that I linked to last week.

There's lots of doubts about the motives of journalists," adds
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and
the Press.
Kohut regularly polls people about the media, and the responses aren't
flattering. In a survey released last summer, 66 percent of the
respondents said news organizations tended to be biased when covering
political and social issues; only 26 percent thought they dealt fairly
with all sides. Seventy percent said news outlets were often influenced
by powerful people and organizations, while 23 percent considered the
media independent of such influences. Less than half those surveyed
thought news organizations were "moral," though only 32 percent were
willing to label the media as "immoral." Still, when that question was
asked in 1985, only 13 percent opted for the "immoral" characterization.
My questions remain:
a. What are the 1985 numbers and why hasn't anyone published a link to
them so we can compare and contrast the numbers? b. Why hasn't someone
checked to see why there was only a 14 point jump over seventeen years
in regards to the amount of bias? There seems to be plenty of
evaluation regarding journalists ethics, but there's no comparison in
this article about the bias numbers.
c. So, according to this, In a survey released last summer, 66
percent of the respondents said news organizations tended to be biased
when covering political and social issues I was right in saying that the numbers regarding bias were off, but we'll never know how
much they're off by because everyone seems to be comparing apples to
oranges when they talk about this study and the others that are cited.
d. Damnit! Why hasn't Instapundit linked me already on this one????
{obligatory blogging related whining for the day--sorry}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.