--- Anybody speak Spanish?
Someone keeps typing the phrase "Zapatero bean morph" into Spanish
Google and it directs them here. Why, I have no idea, but it does.
What the hell does that mean?

Posted by: Kathy at 01:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Today's entry in the "Mental Slap to the Forehead" category. (Mr. H.---aka Mr. Actor's Unions Suck!---should enjoy this one.)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - As Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn film ``The
Interpreter'' on location in the United Nations, many ambassadors are
mad - because all the diplomats in the movie are impostors.
``It was my dream that I was going to be in a movie with Sydney Pollack
directing. He's one of my heroes in the movie industry,'' said Spain's
U.N. Ambassador, Inocencio Arias, who has appeared in many Spanish
films and said he had lined up a part as a prime minister.
``But then the day before the shooting they called and said the union
had some reservation, some qualms,'' Arias said. ``I wasn't even going
to charge any money. If they had to give me some money, I was going to
give it to research, or to AIDS.''

Woooheeee. And it gets better.

``It's a great shame we weren't allowed to have bit parts in this
movie because we're very familiar with the setting,'' said the prince.
``We're very familiar with the work of interpreters. God knows there've
been enough mishaps on occasion - not too frequently thank goodness but
with open mikes - and we feel well attuned to do that sort of thing.
``After all, this is the great stage and we are part of the theater here, the permanent theater.''

{emphasis mine}

God, you just have to love it when UN officials denigrate their own worth so openly and so honestly.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

--- I almost forgot to thank the husband for all of his wonderful work
installing the comments software. He totally went above and beyond the
call of duty and even made it pretty. Thanks, darling. You're a babe
and I completely appreciate the fashion in which you keep bailing me
out. Your efficacy rates for dealing with a completely incompetent wife
are off the charts. But I do have one question for you.
Are you sure you still want me to move over to Moveable Type? {Shudder}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

--- I have good news. I finally made it on a blogroll! Could fame,
fortune and a fat book contract not be too far behind? Ah, screw it.
Someone likes me! They really, really like me!

WOOHOO!

Go to Spathic
and peruse at your leisure. It's intelligent and clever. Which, I think
we all know, are not mutually exclusive categories in a writer(s).
Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to be a clever
idiot. Pfft. After all, if there's anyone who knows how to be a clever
idiot, it's me. I actually don't know "who" at Spathic likes my
writing. His/hers/their identities seem to be somewhat elusive. Not
like it matters. I'm grateful for the extra traffic. It's much
appreciated.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Who's strangling the cat?

Does she do "Stand By Your Man"?

One can only hope and pray and pray and then hope some more.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Ok, so I'm completely over the "I'm Rick James, bitch!" thing.

It's been done. Chappelle is funny, no doubts, but give it a rest already, would you?

Posted by: Kathy at 01:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Just another thought on the looming Saudi oil glut.

What might this do for Venezuela? Would it weaken or strengthen Chavez?

Hmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

--- I think I've chatted before about the Sunday newspaper ritual at
our house. But just in case you weren't reading this blog then, I'll
detail the process again. When I first met the husband, I did not
realize there were men out in this big, wide world of ours who did not
read the sports page first thing. I thought all men read the sports
page first simply because my brothers, my father and every other man I
knew did. I was pleasanly surprised to find that the husband did not.
He goes for the comic section, which I find damn sexy, let me tell you.
But...this creates a dilemma, because I, too, went for the comics
section first off. Every Sunday morning it was a race to see who would
get the comics first. Sometimes he would win. Sometimes I would. It was
a crapshoot with the odds being slightly in favor of the husband
because he generally rose before I did on the weekends. Now, the
process has changed a wee bit. He works. I stay at home. To prevent the
appearance of greediness, I chose to follow in the footsteps my mother
trod in before me: he pays for the paper, so he gets first shot at the
comics. I read the USA Weekend
section while he peruses the comics. He's a comic connoiseur---meaning
he takes forever and a damn day to read the frigging thing. And he reads it backwards, too. He starts on the back page with the kiddie games and Beakman and Jax, then moves on to Dennis the Menace and the like before---a half hour later---reaching For Better and For Worse on the front page. It's annoying, yes, but since it's the only
section of the paper that he reads, I try not to get too itchy and
settle down for prattle designed to be read only by the bleary eyed: USA Weekend.

This weekend the prattle revolved around The New Family Home.

You have a home. You have a family. But do you have a family home?
The answer isn't quite as simple as it seems. A house can either steer
members of a family into their separate worlds or bring them closer
together, something that seems ever more important in today's
overscheduled life. Recognizing this, a loose collection of authors,
architects and stylists is promoting designs and furnishings that can
truly turn a dwelling into a "family home."

Ok, here comes the new agey tripe. I can feel it coming.

The idea is to create rooms flexible enough to meet different needs,
encourage interaction and allow families to share space and activities
with a minimum of hassle. Call the "family home" a quiet revolt against
impracticality, a triumph of need over appearances. Call it a
recognition that if home is where the heart is, then a home should
gather together those closest to your heart. "A family home is a place
where every individual can feel relaxed, and that will mold itself to
everyone's needs over the years -- from baby and parents to teenagers,"
says Judith Wilson, the author of "Family Living: Creating the Perfect
Family Home."

Well, that's not so bad, I thought. It's actually a rather admirable goal...

That goal wins a hearty endorsement from experts who track family
life. Ellen Galinsky, director of the Families and Work Institute in
New York, conducted a study in 1999 of how children looked at their
world. "When you asked kids and parents what kids would remember from
childhood, parents guessed it was the big extravaganza -- the big trip
or whatever," Galinsky says. "But kids talked about the everyday family
traditions. That was what really mattered to them." A home that lets
family members coexist in the same spaces fosters the kind of everyday
togetherness kids consider so important, Galinsky says. It also can go
a long way toward protecting the sanity of their parents, who find they
spend less time keeping up appearances and more time on the things that
matter.

Hmmmm.

What makes a home a family home? Those who have studied the question
offer some underlying concepts to keep in mind: A family home is built
around the idea that rooms and furnishings should be practical. But
that doesn't mean you have to ignore style. Children can get as big a
kick as parents do out of that whimsical love seat or those brightly
colored walls or funky (yet sturdy) lamps

Practicality and style. I'm on the verge of liking this. This is interesting. I continue reading.

It means not letting style trump day-to-day usefulness. A
museum-exhibit living room that puts no one at ease doesn't make a lot
of sense in a family home. A formal dining table that does little but
collect dust for weeks on end might be replaced by a desk and a smaller
table that works well for family game night. Above all, a family home
focuses on informal, comfortable gathering places. A simple idea, but
not always easy to accept. "People fear not looking sophisticated,"
says Jane Gitlin, an architect and co-author of Taunton's "Family Home
Idea Book." "You have to get over that."

Ok, you've lost me people. Right here. This is where you lost me. I
just have to get over the idea of having a house that I can call mine
because it's better for the children the husband and I will one day
produce if we decorate said house in bright colors and have crappy
furniture that they can destroy because that's what kids do. Our house
should be a place where we will never have to tell our kids 'no.'
This is where you turned our potential castle into a house meant solely
for their education, entertainment and enlightenment. You suckered me
with the new agey crap after all. BASTARDS!

But of course, just to see how far these nutjobs will go, I read further.

How can you design a family room to accommodate everything from a
teenage party to a cozy night together after the kids have gone to bed?
Answer: You can't. But flexible spaces and furnishings can help.
Fold-up tables and extra chairs that can be pulled out when needed, a
sideboard that serves as a craft table, couches that can be rolled from
one part of the room to another -- all these things can make your house
a family home. An open floor plan helps, as does space that does double
or triple duty -- for instance, a guest room that serves as a computer
or hobby room.

No kid of mine is using MY Henredon
sideboard for a craft table, let me tell you. And why the hell do you
need wheels on your couches? To move them, would be the obvious answer,
but let me just pose this one question in reply: isn't that why God
gave parents the slave labor of their children in the first place? So
they can move stuff around and you don't have to throw your back out in
the meantime? Besides, I don't want my kids moving furniture unless
they ask me first: put wheels on it and you're taking yourself right
out of the process.
Flexibility is especially important in the kitchen, the heart and
soul of the modern home, because it's as likely to be used for
homework, TV viewing, bill paying and after-work conversation as it is
for cooking. Even in a small kitchen, provide several seating choices
if possible: a table, a bar with stools, a small desk.

Providing your kitchen is as big as the engine room on the Titanic.

A good kitchen also needs a "message center," a place near the phone
where family members can leave notes or otherwise communicate as they
come and go.

Yeah, it's called a refridgerator, you eedjits.

It makes sense to surrender a kid-height cabinet to homework and art
supplies. "FamilyFun Home," a book by Deanna F. Cook and the experts at
"FamilyFun" magazine, suggests setting up a snack station, a space in a
lower cabinet where the kids can serve themselves. (Feel free to set
rules such as "no eating within an hour of dinner.")
Now, I can understand the cabinet for art supplies, but food? No way in
hell. I'm no expert in the field or anything, but I do believe "DIY
snacking" is one of the contributing factors with all of the fat kids
we've got going in this country today. This says nothing of the fact
that by putting the food down low you're going to a. have messes galore
which your kids will clean up poorly, if they bother to clean things up
at all and b. you will have rodents. Mice. Rats. You know, those nasty
little things that do manage to come into houses---even in this overly
neat day and age---and forage for food. Any idiot knows that this why
cabinets were invented and was why they were put in places where mice
couldn't get to them easily---as in, up high. Dolts.

White carpets and linen furniture look great in glossy magazine
spreads. They look less great with ground-up crackers on them, but
that's the reality of life with children. Dark or patterned fabrics
hide more stains. Durable materials or easily laundered furniture
covers are part of the bargain in the family home.
First off, any idiot who has white carpet in their home and thinks
their children won't track mud all over it will not meet Kathy's #1
Rule for Reproduction: if
you can't teach a dog to sit, shut up, or come, you aren't allowed to
use your reproductive system. You will only bring more stupid people
into the world. Save us the trouble later on and just take the pill, ok? It's logical. Second, why anyone buys a pair of linen pants, let alone a linen couch is beyond me. Linen wrinkles. It does. You can't iron a couch, and why would you want to? Third: dark or patterned fabrics hide more stains. Talk about stating the obvious.

Nimrods. And it gets even better.

To create a room in which everyone feels at home, you need to see it
through your kids' eyes. Kids love to cocoon themselves, so casual
throws on the corner of a couch or love seat can give them a chance to
do that. "Think about flooring as your children would," says "Family
Living" author Wilson. "Children spend an incredible amount of time on
the floor. Think about the way things feel. Children are very tactile
creatures." In other words, that chrome-and-leather chair might look
great, but it could be cold and uninviting to the pajama-party gang.
If a kid wants to cocoon themselves, they can make a fort with couch
cushions. I see no reason why I should have to design my house around
the way my future children see the place. It will be MY house, not
theirs. They'll just live there for 18 years and if they're still there
at that age, they'll pay rent. Anyone with kids will sometimes feel as if home is a garbage dump.
The secret to making a house livable for adults is storage. However
much you think you need, you'll need more. Children's toys multiply in
the dark, and kids' momentary passions -- model planes, dinosaurs,
Barbie dolls -- can seize control of your home in mere days. The
answer: closets, cabinets, shelves, plastic bins. Lots of plastic bins.

Ever heard of---gasp!---throwing out the toys your kids don't play
with? Or giving them to the Goodwill or the Salvation Army? If you need
to "store" your children's toys, it's pretty apparent that they've got
too bloody many of them, not to mention that you're spoiling them
rotten by never saying "no" when they whine.
Store stuff as close as possible to where it's actually used. Give
kids storage space in every room where they have stuff. Then expect
them to put it away -- OK, put most of it away -- at the end of the
day. The broken toes you save may be your own

{SLAP TO THE FOREHEAD} Give kids storage space in every room where they have stuff??? I don't think so. Then it becomes their house and not yours. And for God's sake, make them pick up their own crap.

Even in the family home, everyone sometimes needs a retreat.
Bedrooms often provide a place for this, as do bathrooms, especially
ones with a big, comfortable tub. But Gitlin suggests also looking at
unused nooks. A stairway landing can be made into a quiet spot with the
addition of a built-in desk, or with an overstuffed chair and a reading
lamp. A dormer, an attic or even a walk-in closet can be transformed
into a getaway zone. A good retreat, whether for children or parents,
can give us a chance to recharge our batteries and find our better
selves at those moments when we feel overwhelmed. And that's critical
because, as Gitlin says, "a family home is a place that supports and
nurtures the family life we want to create."
Ok, so let me see if I've got this straight. You're telling me that
this supposed family home of the future is a place where everyone feels
at home in every single room. That there is no space within this
supposed home that no one person in the family will feel as if they
don't have some ownership. But
then you say that people need retreats. They need privacy; they need
their own space.
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!
Make up your goddamn minds, would you? Which is it? If I'm going to
hand over my home to my potential children with the notion that this
sort of family-friendly design will bring our family closer together,
they'd better not spend their entire time hanging out in their damn
rooms. What's the point then? So annoying. Oh so very annoying. I don't
even have kids and I'm annoyed. I can only imagine how annoyed actual
parents are about this article. People save up for homes. They work
hard. They make sure they pay their bills on time so their credit is
good. They save money for a downpayment. When they finally find their
own slice of heaven in a good neighborhood, with good schools and lots
of kids on the block, they run to a mortgage broker and fill out gobs
of paperwork and hold their breaths...waiting for approval, knowing
that if they charged one thing too many last month and carried the
balance, they could be refused. It's nerve wracking. And when they get
approved, their offer is accepted, they have to wait for the
closing---which might be held up for any number of reasons. It's the
old dog-jumping-through-the-hoop scenario. I find it scary in the
extreme. But when I find a house that I want and that fits our
requirements, we will go through it as well and I'll be sucking down
Maalox like it's water until we move in. I know I will be. But most
people get their little slice of heaven. They get a lawn that needs to
be mowed. They live, serene in their surroundings, immersing themself
in DIY projects until the itch to reproduce becomes too strong to
ignore. They scratch, and scratch and scratch and they get a wee one
nine months later. Life is good. This is when I have to think that it
becomes patently apparent that the wee one is going to take over their
life for the next eighteen years, so it's time to think of
sanity-saving options. One of those would be having a designated play
area. Another would be having a bedroom and barring the wee one entry,
so you can work on the itch that numero due is going to start forcing
you to scratch as soon as you can work up the energy to do so. Fast
forward a couple of years. You're going to want adults to come over to
your house. You're going to want to have someplace for them to sit
that's not stiff and crinkly from where wee one numero uno shat their
pants and/or puked and you failed in the stain removal department.
You're going to want to be able to walk through your living room
without tripping over some toy. The primary colors that you thought
would be so entertaining for the wee one when you painted the living
room are making you nostalgic for your first apartment---the one that
was painted in management approved eggshell. That spare room in the
basement where you've been keeping all the boxes looks like a really
good place to shove your kids and their mayhem causing ways right about
now. You'll be able to keep all the toys down there; the kids will
occupy themselves and you'll have your living room back and will be
able to enjoy snatches---albeit brief---of adult conversation whilst
keeping an ear open for sounds of mayhem coming from the nether regions
of your house. There is nothing wrong with having places for your
children in your house. It's only when you give your house over to
short people who don't pay the mortgage that I would doubt your sanity.
What message are you sending to your kids if you would do some of the
things suggested? You rule the homestead? You don't have to do what we say because I will cater to your every whim?
Far be it from me to suggest such a thing, but...damn. There is a line
after all. Adults on one side. Children on the other. That's the way
God intended it. Don't mess with the Man's rules.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2959 words, total size 17 kb.

--- Yep. The House of Saud is going to break with OPEC before the summer is over.

There was no ``quid pro quo,'' Prince Bandar bin Sultan told
reporters after a meeting with national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice about the latest terrorist strike in Saudi Arabia.
``The president has asked a few times that we should be helping to make
sure that oil prices don't go too high that would curb the world
economy recovery,'' Bandar added.

Here's the clincher.

Bandar said the Saudi efforts are ``not for the benefit of the
president's political needs. I think reasonable prices particularly
lower oil prices between $22 and $28 is good for the American people,
for the American economy, for the world economy and of course for the Saudi economy.''
{Emphasis added by moi.} Glug, glug, glug go the gas tanks as the
Saudis turn up the production nozzles and glut the market, making a
profit on the oil, but also making a pretty penny on selling short
their oil options (I think that's how that works---don't quote me on
that.). At $22 bucks a barrel, well, hello $.99 a gallon!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

--- So, we have some delightful Hollywood ridiculousness for you this
evening. The Day After Tomorrow

You can view the trailer here
So, it seems as if one massive worldwide storm hits. Pandemonium
ensues. The world is saved by a weather geek whose predictions no one
heeded! All is well in the end. "We will survive. We will go on." And
so on and so forth. Why does this big storm hit the our home sweet
home?
Why, global warming, of course. Climate change. Duh.

Now, just to be clear, I'll probably go and see it because I like big disaster movies. No, I didn't like Earthquake! No groovy CGI in those mid-70's disaster flicks. But this is directed by Roland Emmerich, who directed Independence Day
and I liked that movie. The man is good with projects that have serious
scope. That said, the husband and I will probably laugh our asses of
through all of the really good propaganda parts. Because, you know it's
gonna have some seriously good propaganda if their website is any
indication. While I can't link to said propaganda because it's all
stupid popups with really annyoing music, go to the profile of Director
Roland Emmerich and there should be a wee box at the bottom that says
"Weather Gone Wild." Click on that and it will come up with a few
sections, titled "The Present," "Future Predictions" and "What you Can
Do"
The Present: They talk about the heat wave in Europe last year---they
claim 20,000 people died. They talk about how last year was the year
that the most tornadoes ever were recorded---and how that record isn't
going to stand for long! Deadly floods are on the rise, with most of
the deaths from Cyclones coming from---gasp---inland flooding! Future
Predictions: 1.25 million species of plants and animals will be extinct
by 2050 as a result of global warming.
The Ice Cap of Mt. Kilimanjaro---already 75% gone---will be entirely
gone in two decades as a result of global warming.
"Say Goodbye to the Colorado Ski Season" Alpine meadow in the Rocky
Mountains will likely disappear as a result of global warming.
The Oriole will be extinct in most people's lifetimes due to declining
habitats brought on by global warming.
Montana's Glacier National Park will be devastated as global warming
melts its most prized feature.
Malaria and Dengue Fever will spread due to increased temperatures that
will help these water borne illnesses spread. And it's due to global
warming!
Venice will soon be viewed solely by gondola as rising water levels
threaten it and other cities, like New York, Buenos Aires and Tokyo.
It ends with a lovely little page. GLOBAL WAKE UP CALL. THERE'S MORE TRUTH THAN HYPE!

Ok, my question is: sez who? The movie makers? Sha. Right. Like they're the best and most accurate source out there. Whaddya
mean Salome didn't behead John the Baptist? You mean she only had it
done? She didn't do it herself? Oh, shit. Well, we can work around
that. What if John struck down the guy she sent to kill him? Yeah. And
then she's forced to do it herself. Wow. More drama there. We should go
with that! From whom did they get their facts and can I really
consider them the best people to be blowing the horn on this when their
solution to the problem is to send me to this site? Where,for a whopping $504,
I can become "carbon neutral." Yes, by spending $504 they will plant
thirty trees to balance out my average North American excretion of 22
tons of CO2. Hence, I will balance out. Now, if I lived in Asia or India, I would only have to balance out 1.46 tons of CO2, hence it only costs $29.87. UK? 11 tons of CO2 at $252.13. Eastern Europe? 7.34 tons at $168.09. Middle East---surely
their CO2 levels are huge with all that cheap gas, right? Nope. 5.14
tons o' CO2 and a piddly $117.66 will rid them of any guilt they might
have over polluting the atmosphere and causing a rise in greenhouse
gases. Now, I don't know where they got their numbers and I really
don't care. It's not like I feel guilty over emitting CO2. I breathe. I
emit CO2 whether I want to or not. But I'm a pretty enviro-friendly
person on the whole, so why should I feel guilty in the first place? I
don't own a refinery. I rarely drive. I recycle. I turn off lights the
husband has left burning. I use mass transport. I've done more than my
fair share. I doubt I emit 22 tons of CO2 in a year, but it's not like
that matters. I'm still not going to pay good money to plant trees to
offset my very existence on this planet because Hollywood tells me I
should be worried about this problem. They can pucker up and kiss my
lily white ass. I do have a suggestion for Future Forests and the
makers of The Day After Tomorrow, however. If they really want to cut down on CO2 emissions: quit breathing. Yep. No more hot air from Hollywood. That should stop the problem right there and then.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.

--- I'm depressed.

No Silly German stories for over a week.

What? Has everyone suddenly wised up in Germany? Have they all made a pledge to not act stupid anymore?

What the hell is going on here?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Lileks is apparently making up for last week's lack o' bloggy goodness with a vengeance.

I wish I could have one of Lileks' off-days. It would be one of my better ones.

But this explains why there wasn't anything in the paper today about GDub's visit.

Today’s editorial page had a little squib: “National
Turn-off-the-Television week comes around every year. But as the
Hennepin County Board prepared to pass a resolution to make the county
a TV-free zone last week, Commissioner Mike Opat objected ‘My 3 year
old is a big Timberwolves fan and he needs to know what Kevin Garnett
is doing,̢۪ Opat pleaded. The resolution̢۪s author, Commissioner Gail
Dorfman, renented with a special dispensation for the NBA playoffs.
‘The Timberwolves are quality television,’ she conceded.”
My tax dollars at work. So why, exactly is the Hennepin County Board of
Panjandrums spending its time on resolutions concerning my television
usage? Is it now the official policy of the county that Tvs should be
off, and am I now doubleplus ungood because I refuse to go along with
this idiocy?
I smell an 'X-Files''-ish conspiracy going on. Yeah. Mmm-hmmm, she
mutters, while nodding knowingly.
The Board of Commissioners passes a resolution---sponsored by a
Democrat---to endorse "National Turn Off The TV Week," and it's covered
in the editorial section of the very same newspaper that failed to report the Prez is coming to town. They're going for complete media-blackout, I tell ya! But they
will control the media blackout. They're preemptively taking themselves
out of the picture because they *know* the Prez has the authority and
is just sneaky enough to do it before they can. They don't want to be
silenced by a man they hate, so they'll silence themselves!
Because you know what happens when the Prez declares a media blackout,
right? You don't? Good gravy, man!
FEMA comes in and takes over. Yep. FEMA. The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
You think 'disaster relief' when you hear that acronym. I think
organization that's fully funded and is now a part of the Department of
Homeland Security! They have power...and they're not afraid to wield
it. Before you know it, the Prez will have declared Martial Law over
the Cities! The so-called Hennepin County Commissioners won't be able
to commission squat. They'll be locked away as enemy combatants at
Guantanamo Bay. As will the editorial board of the Strib. You still
don't think FEMA can do this? Well, wise up, pal! FEMA can and will
do just about anything. FEMA will call in the National Guard, tanks
will roam the highways. Soldiers will police the streets. Are you ready
for that? They'll start asking you who had a Gore sign in their yard
during the last election. They'll encourage you to inform on your
neighbors. Even the kiddies over at Lake Harriet will be discouraged
from feeding those "socialist, no-good, never worked a day in their
lives" ducks, which of course, says nothing of the attitude they'll
take toward Mr. Little Guy.
He'll lose his beachfront property at Harriet because he had the
temerity to tell Pohlad---a big campaign contributor---to fuck off and
buy his own stadium and will have to hide over by the Lake of the
Isles, where the guerilla insurgency is bound to start. Wrack and ruin,
I tell you. That's what FEMA's really all about: not solving it, but
creating it. It's probably just best we follow our brave editorial
leaders at the Strib and The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
when they tell us they'll be imposing a media blackout on the Prez's
visit. It's just best all around. We don't want to tempt fate, do we?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

--- And here's today entry in the "No shit, Sherlock" category.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Airport security remains lax despite billions of
dollars and thousands of federal employees added since the Sept. 11
attacks, lawmakers were told Thursday.
A pair of government investigations submitted to the House aviation
subcommittee found dangerous objects still get past
security checkpoints. And they said neither government nor privately
employed screeners performed their jobs well.
But we've spend billions of dollars right? They made me miss my plane
to Hawaii because I'd forgotten my toenail clippers were in my carryon
and I was subjected to a cavity search by a big guy named Bubba who
didn't use enough lube! We should be safe!
Nope. Wanna guess why?
The inspector general's report, as well as the GAO study, portrayed
the TSA as an unresponsive inflexible bureaucracy. For example, it does
not allow its own airport security directors or private contractors to
fill vacancies as soon as they arise, causing staff shortages. Instead,
the TSA sets up temporary assessment centers to process applicants.

Let me guess? Union rules right?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Is this what ransom demands have come to these days?

Many of the marchers said they were not giving in to blackmail but
were only calling for peace. Several hundred people who brought up the
rear carried banners calling for the government of Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi to withdraw Italian forces and cheered what they
called the victory of Iraqi guerrillas holding the city of Fallujah
against an onslaught of U.S. Marines. In an ultimatum issued Monday,
the kidnappers said that unless Italians marched in Rome within five
days, the three captives would be killed.
"..not giving into blackmail, but were only calling for peace."
Mmmhmmm.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure guys who run around shooting off AK-47's,
desecrating bodies and then setting them aflame for the sheer and utter
joy of it and who take their orders from an Imam understand your nuanced
approach to meeting their demands. I'm sure they understand your
conundrum quite nicely and are sympathetic to your needs. They won't
shoot those guns off now, will they? Now that you've given them exactly
what they wanted? How could they? That would be going against their
word!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Go and read this Jackson Diehl
piece in the Washington Post. (hat tip: Vodkaboy)
Just a random thought: it's rarely a good thing for anyone when Sharon
thinks he's got everyone by the short and curlies. Israelis included.
Bad things happen. They do. Just look at the man's track record.
Arrogance is not a position that helps his thought processes.
As far as the proposed deal? Eeugh. Revolting.
I've said before that I think that damn wall is a bad idea. I can
understand why Israelis feel they need it. If I thought that building a
wall around our borders would keep out the nutjobs that want to kill
us, I would want one surrounding our territory, too. But the rule of
"where there's a will, there's a way," reigns supreme and there's no
avoiding it. It's like locking your car. You want to protect your
possessions, but chances are if the thief is clever, they'll find a way
around your security system. It's the way of the world. There is no
foolproof security system; the only thing you can do is to make it so
difficult that people won't wan't to bother cracking your defense, like
encryption. Codes are so huge, so unwieldy, that it takes a good long
time to break them. But they can be broken.
Human beings are perverse in this way: we like a challenge. This is
what I see happening with the suicide bombers the Israelis are trying
to keep out with the wall: it's going to take some time, but they'll
get around it.
Sharon likes his wall, however, because not only is it keeping him in
office by limiting the suicide bombings---this, of course, is despite
the fact his son has been indicted and there are rumors that he's not
far from the dock either---but it also gives him a lot of territory.
It's a boundary. A boundary that he set up in the first place. If the
US helps to broker a deal with the wall demarcating the portions of the
West Bank that Israel will receive in a settlement it will be a bad
thing for US interests. We already can't get a fair shake in the Middle
East. We're firmly on Israel's side, and that's fine, but we do have
other interests in the region as well. Other Arab interests. If one of
the reasons to broker this deal would be to stop the circle of violence
in Israel because that affects how we're seen elsewhere in the Middle
East, how, precisely, would giving Israel everything it wants be a good
thing? Explain that one to me, will ya, because it just doesn't
compute. If part of the reasoning to get this deal done is that it will
help the success rate of the US's initiatives in the Middle East, how
does giving Sharon everything
he wants just to get it done help us in the long run? It doesn't. It
makes us even more the bad guy. Sure the violence will stop, but for
how long? And how will it resurface and in what form? As far as the
success of this plan? I think this was a leak intended to gauge
support. We'll see how well it flies in real time, though, if it ever
comes to pass.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 3 kb.

--- I am now off to bed.
I have successfully achieved two things today.
1. I made the husband cave to a demand
2. I avoided cleaning
A pretty good Saturday, all in all, but I don't know that I'm going to
keep up with the posts-up-the-wahoo thing. My life is boring. I don't
know that I should expect you all to read about how boring it is.
But at least I'm not catblogging. Thank heavens for small favors, eh?

Cake Eater position on cats: they're evil. EEEEEE-VIL, as in the D-EVIL made me do it.
I don't mind them all that much actually, but they make the husband's
sinus cavities produce copious amounts of snot and force him to use
industrial grade pharmaceuticals. Just don't need 'em.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

--- One of these days it would be nice if a resolution actually resolved something.

GENEVA, April 23 -- The U.N. Commission on Human Rights
overwhelmingly adopted a resolution Friday expressing concern about the
scale of reported abuses in Sudan's Darfur region and agreed to appoint
its own investigator.
whoop-de-freaking-doo.
Let's be logical about this just for one moment. 1. The legally
recognized Sudanese government is on the killing. Why would Bashir want
anyone to come and monitor for human rights abuses when he's the one
committing them? 2. Sudan is a bitch to enter, exit or traverse. Bashir
wants it that way. a. there's a snowball's chance in hell of Bashir
actually granting a UN official an entry visa into Sudan b. if an entry
visa does happen to be granted, well, don't expect to leave Khartoum.
c. Darfur is hell and gone from Khartoum, and just from a quick peek at
the Michelin map of Sudan that I have hanging on my wall, there are
only four main roads that lead into Darfur. And that's it. Roads, I
might mention, that are strictly in government held territory, where
the army roams around with actual goddamn Kalashnikovs, just hoping to
shoot someone, you know, since there's not as much action in the South
anymore. Are you actually trying to tell me that you wouldn't soil your
UN blue undies, Mr. Inspector, if by some strange twist of fate you
actually did manage to make it to Darfur? 3. This whole exercise in
logic is moot because Bashir doesn't want you talking to people who
might say unflattering things about him and his army. And no one will
say anything unflattering about him and his army because, if they had a
choice about it, they'd prefer to live, thank you ever so much.
The UN and the UNHCR: a modern comedy of errors. Unfortunately, their
blindness to the impracticalities of their ways mean people die. It's
not very funny, is it? I do wonder though. How many people have had to
die or were maimed, raped, tortured and abused simply because the UN
passed a resolution and didn't do anything to actually resolve the
issue? Do you think that for all the statisticians they employ at the
UN, the WHO, the UNHCR, UNICEF and the like, that someone has actually
tallied it up?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

--- Aha. I always wondered what this was.

And now you know, too.

That's why you love this site, right? Because I never fear to edumacate y'all.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Apparently I have a life span of sixty-six years.

Interesting. My life is apparently half gone because of my chosen profession.

Kaufman has also studied poets and mental illness. "What I found was pretty consistent with the death finding
actually, female poets were much more likely to suffer from mental illness (e.g., be hospitalized, commit suicide, attempt
suicide) than any other kind of writer and more likely than other eminent women," he said.
"I've dubbed this the 'Sylvia Plath Effect."'

Sylvia Plath was a poet and novelist who killed herself in 1963 at the age of 30.

So, if female poets are subject to the Sylvia Plath effect, why can't female novelists be subject to the Agatha Christie effect?

Or do you, as a writer, only get to live to a ripe old age of eighty-five if you write mysteries?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Woolgathering. Feel free to skip on by, if you so choose.
I'm really glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.I
have absolutely no idea how to tackle this one, but I do realize it's
important that someone---namely the court---suss this one out. Habeas
Corpus has been suspended. Citizens of this country---no matter how
nasty they might be---have been categorized as enemy combatants, but
instead of being tried for treason, they sit in jail cells, waiting for
the end of the war. And they belong there. In the Sunday paper, I was
treated to this article about
Jose Padilla. Jose does not sound like a very nice guy to me. He's
already murdered. He's familiar with firearms. He apparently has a
problem with law enforcement. That's his criminal side, but his
personal side is no different. He's an opportunist. He marries for not
for what he can give, but for what he can get. He mooches off his
mother, family members, his mosque. He lives in Egypt for a good long
time, hooks up with another woman before he divorces his neglected
wife, then decides to take a trip home. He deplanes in Chicago---and
because Abu Zubaydah ratted him out, he's captured and now sits in
jail. Classifed as an enemy combatant, despite the fact he's a citizen
of this country. Yaser Hamdi is also a citizen. Born here while his dad
was working in Louisiana. But he was raised in the Kingdom. He was
captured in Afghanistan by Allied troops and has been sitting in a brig
in South Carolina for the past two years. Neither of these men are
great people. You could call them any number of names, of which
"traitor" would be the most obvious choice. Yet, you have to ask, why,
if they're citizens, aren't they being allowed their Constitutionally
protected right to a speedy trial? But the government hasn't done that.
It's kept them locked up, without access to counsel for a time, and
it's said that if they were to have access to the legal system it would
be detrimental to the war on terror. The government, of course, has a
point. We are at war. The Executive branch does have to make hard
calls---this being one of them. I don't presume to know better than the
people in charge what is and isn't necessary when it comes to gathering
intelligence by means of interrogation. I just don't know, but neither
am I going to automatically assume that because there isn't any
regulation that, of course this means that there is
a car battery, a bucket of water and a pair of jumper cables involved.
There is middle ground. If, for instance, Hamdi had committed treason
against his home country, Saudi Arabia, he'd be dead by now. Beheaded.
They still do things old school in the Kingdom. I'd like to think the
US is a little more evolved that that. All these men are being deprived
of is their freedom. What they would choose to do with that freedom is
the issue under debate. I don't know how to resolve this one. It's a
damn good thing I'm not Solomon, because I sure as hell don't feel very
wise about this issue. They're citizens of this country: no matter what
they did, they deserve access to a speedy trial. If by their
citizenship, they have betrayed the country to which they are
traditionally supposed to be aligned, treason should be rather easy to
prove. Send them off to trial, find them guilty or not, but let the
system do the work it was intended to do. That's the way the founding
fathers set the gig up in the first place. But I also think that we need to make sacrifices, and our
liberty is one of the areas where sacrifices will need to be made for
the greater good. I don't think this has ever been more apparent than
now, with this war. But many people refuse to see this. They refuse to
acknowledge that we are, indeed, at war and that has a greater capacity
to harm our country than these two bozos ever will. These men
surrendered their liberty the minute they started playing for the other
side. Why should they get access to a fair trial, if it's in the best
interest for all of us that they stay exactly where they are
until the end of the war? I don't know and I'm no further in coming to
a better understanding of this issue than I was when I started
pondering deeply on this whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 777 words, total size 5 kb.