So, Sunday was my parents' 51st Wedding Anniversary.

And I forgot all about it.

Whooops! My bad.

It's not like we're big on celebrating anniversaries in our family. We have enough birthdays to keep track of that we don't need to be adding busy work to the mix. Neither have Mom and Dad ever been big on celebrating their anniversary with their children. It's their day: not ours. But still, after last year, I should have remembered. Although, maybe I'll get a pass because last year--their 50th---was a big deal and we celebrated accordingly. All eight of us either flew or drove into town, families in tow (and in my case, Mr. H. as the husband was otherwise engaged) and we threw a big ol' party for them. We had a great time and so did they, which was particularly satisfying after listening to them protest for months that they didn't want this shindig. So, perhaps I'll get a pass. I hope so. I have a feeling once Mom reads this, she'll call me and let me know...she always does.

So, anyway, Happy Belated Anniversary Mom and Dad!

Aren't they cute?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Instead of a Silly Germans story, you're getting a "Flamingly Idiotic Germans" story.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

{...}Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.{...}

{Empahsis mine}

While I generally believe that if you hand yourself over to social services, you well and truly should be at their mercy, that strings are always and forever attached, this is just absolutely outrageous and just plain wrong. Perhaps it might actually make women want to get off the welfare rolls, but threatening them with a loss of benefits if they don't start hooking---particularly if they're willing to work at other jobs---is barbaric. It just is. This is no different than someone who is out on the street and finds that this is the only way they can pay the bills. This is moral equivalence at its finest. Germany can't say a legal, tax-paying business isn't worthy of the best and brightest of its unemployed because---ahem---they refuse to distinguish brothels from other late-night businesses, such as bars. It's all about the hours of operations, don't you know? One late night job is the same as the next late-night job.

Germany's effort to be a place where freedom of choice is celebrated has limited the choices of some to refuse things they find morally repellant.

I hate prostitution. I really do. I believe it seriously damages the person who is forced into selling themselves. It tells them that all they have of value to offer society is their genitalia. How it degrades the act of sex is really beside the point here, but that's another serious problem I have with it. But mostly, I hate it because some people refuse to see the downside of prostitution. They close their eyes to it. They take the worldly view and say it's just consensual adults fooling around, and what's the harm in that---even if money is what is required for one parter to consent? Ironically enough, I find that attitude to be incredibly naive and lacking in sight. Also, I don't believe such an emotionally and physically damaging business should ever be allowed equal protection under the law. Think about it for a minute: if an employee is legally protected from ever having to work with asbestos or some other harmful object, why on earth should they be allowed to sell themselves? Sex can be just as life-threatening as working with asbestos: why should this be allowed? I know I don't have to worry about this happening any time soon, but it just flames me when people suggest this is the solution to the problem.

I fully realize that given my, er, adamant stance on this one, I will probably get zero replies, I would love to hear from all of you who believe that prostitution should be legalized on this. Because I know there are a goodly amount of you out there. Really and truly, I want to know what you think about this one, because this is precisely what could happen if such a thing were ever to pass muster here in the States. If you force brothels into paying taxes, they are granted rights in return, one of those rights being that they should be allowed to advertise for employees at unemployment centers, with all of the restrictions associated with such an advert. It could---conceivably---happen here. Does this change your view at all, knowing this could happen to someone you know and perhaps love?

{Hat tip:Villains Vanquished}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:46 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 944 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Hey, I'm still fuming over the gender-based discrimination implied in this deal. I mean, really, they looked up her data and decided she was female. Ooh, goody, walking vagina! I still contend that if they can't offer the job to a man...and fill the job with any man...then it is discriminatory and therefore they should not be entitled to the same benefits as other employers. For example, suppose they were interested in an IT professional to build their webporn site. In this instance gender makes no matter. Nor does it for doctors, engineers, or au pairs. However, when you are looking for a receptacle for slaking the lust of the public...it becomes a bit more murky. Now you need gender specificity. So, what you have is someone choosing a life of prostitution in order to feed themselves vs. the government forcing someone into a life of prostitution if they want to continue eating. Nice. they are scum.

Posted by: Phoenix at January 31, 2005 03:07 PM (l3ytA)

2 I'll have to disagree and say that prostitution should be decriminalized and given the same treatment under the law as other forms of consensual adult activities. The vast majority of harm is a consequence of government persecution creating a black market controlled by organized crime. When done legally it's no more dangerous then other commonly accepted activities. The job of the government is protecting people's rights,not dictating their lifestyle choices. Much like homo***uality,if you personally find it too dangerous,unpleasant or immoral, then the answer is simple-don't do it! P.S. according to articles posted at www.Feministing.com, the article you commented on was actually false. Does that change your opinion on legalization?

Posted by: Anon at February 03, 2005 11:27 AM (C4Xq6)

3 I really don't know about the validity of the article anymore. It probably is wrong. I should have kept up with it, but I didn't. Bad blogger The overall point, however, remains the same: this could conceivably happen if a country was to legalize prostitution. I take your points, anon. Usually I am one of those "get the government out of the bedroom" type of people. I don't believe it's anybody's business what happens in someone's bedroom, whether it be homos*xuality, BDSM, whatever...if everyone's on the same page, it's fine with me. I'm definitely not going to ask, and I definitely don't want to someone to tell. Yet, wouldn't you agree, that when money enters into the equation, it's a different story altogether? The acceptance of payment substitutes for informed consent, and I don't believe that's good enough. Because what if someone really does need to feed themselves, or to pay the rent, and this isn't something they'd like to do, but can find no other way to raise the cash? In the world of prostitution, well, it's all right to sell yourself; your genitals can make you money, why the hell not do it? After all, you're going to do it anyway, why not get paid for it? There's something inherently wrong with that. It's coercive. It's not the same as saying you have a strong body and can haul things. It's not the same as saying you have strong legs and are able to pedal a bike and can deliver packages. It's not the same thing as saying you can deftly work a needle and thread. People who use their bodies in such a way don't lose much. Sure their legs and backs and eyes might hurt at the end of the day, but they've also earned an honest dollar, and they can still look themselves in the mirror. The simple fact is that the cost is not as high with those jobs as it is with prostitution. Besides the risk of STDs, there's also the fact that a goodly amount of violence takes place in prostitution---even the legal sort of prostitution. They always have bouncers in brothels. Why? Because there is a very good chance the prostitutes will be abused by the customers. Personally, I believe the risk of emotional harm can potentially outweigh all of these issues. S*x is already a thorny enough issue for most people without money entering into the equation. Prostitution harms us all. It degrades self-worth and it degrades s*x in general. Like pr0n, prostitution makes s*x into something cheap and sleazy. Where prostitution is concerned, it's only about the satisfying of the baser human needs, it's only about what makes you happy in the pants. Your brain doesn't come into it. And that not only degrades s*x, but it degrades humanity, as well. So, I suppose that's a longwinded way of saying, no, I don't believe it should ever be legalized. While there is a valid argument to be made about bringing it above board, there's always going to be something someone wants s*xually that will be outside the realm of the law. Are we now going to have children working in brothels? While, I don't think that's going to ever be legalized, still...once you take the approach that because there is a market to serve, that you're not going to make any moral judgments about what people do as long as its consensual, the slippery slope appears. Where does it stop?

Posted by: Kathy at February 03, 2005 12:26 PM (sQLe5)

4 How about mistresses -- in the old form of a "kept woman." It's quite legal, and it's a girl (or guy -- see also Breakfast at Tiffany's) giving 5exual favors in exchange for financial or in-kind remuneration. How is that morally different from prostitution? Is it that it's not regulatable? Higher-end prostitutes will pick and choose which people to have as clients, so the take-anyone-who-pays doesn't always work there. On the veracity -- checked with a friend in Germany (nothing like going to the source), and she says that while she's quite certain that nothing like that has happened, and that there are some level of safeguards in place to ensure that it won't, it's still theoretically possible, based on local regulations. So.... fake, but accurate.

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 03, 2005 06:37 PM (B2T6R)

5 The poverty argument is simply a strawman. A person can consent to s*x regardless of how much money they have. Wealthier people,like beautiful people,simply have more options. Everyone has the option of saying "NO". A prostitute doesn't sell herself,she sells a service. What's the difference? Agency. Engaging in any given activity is entirely a matter of her choice. A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time. Just as a massage therapist uses her skill to bring physical pleasure to her client,so to does a prostitute. While far more intimate,there isn't any ethical difference between the two. The exchange is as honest and legitimate as any other service for money interaction. Social stigma is the basis for why prostitution is considered degrading. There's nothing objectively different about prostitution that would distinguish it ethically from other forms of casual s*x. All s*x is about satisfying basic human desires-none of it has an intellectual component. Why do you consider being "happy in the pants" objectionable? Doesn't that essentially condemn all s*x,and not just prostitution? As far as the slippery slope is concerned,it stops when the people involved haven't given informed consent, free of force or fraud.

Posted by: Anon at February 04, 2005 02:19 AM (C4Xq6)

6 The poverty argument is simply a strawman. A person can consent to s*x regardless of how much money they have. Wealthier people,like beautiful people,simply have more options. Everyone has the option of saying "NO". Yeah, everyone has the option of saying 'no.' But saying 'no' is a luxury some simply cannot afford. Whether they're hooking for money, for a visa, to keep their families safe (as is the case with many Eastern European women), to make sure they live to see the sunrise, or simply to eat, many people don't have the option of saying 'no.' Why is it the default position of those who support legalized prostitution that everyone who hooks for a living: a. knows precisely what they're doing b. has no issues with what they're doing c. sees it simply as a way to make a living d. simply provides a much-needed service? It's like you assume there is no bad side to prostitution. You say "the poverty argument is a strawman." No, it's not. There are more poor hookers in the world than there are fancy prostitutes who sell their services for thousands a night. That's a simple fact. Why assume that because there are fancy hookers out there and they do well by themselves, the rest of the s*x trade is just like it? And should be judged accordingly, particularly when it's blatantly obvious that it's not the case? Choice is a luxury most poor prostitutes simply cannot afford. A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time. Wanna make a bet on that one? I have to ask: are you a man? While I don't want to threaten your anonymity, it would seem to me that you are. If so, you wouldn't know what it's like to be a woman and to know that most men are simply bigger than you and, if they wanted to, could force you into doing many things during s*x you would not like to do simply because of their size and strength. I'm not saying all prostitution is rape, or even that all s*x is rape, but your statement is a broad generalization and is not true in actuality, whether it be consensual, non-moneyed s*x, or prostitution. Just as a massage therapist uses her skill to bring physical pleasure to her client,so to does a prostitute. While far more intimate,there isn't any ethical difference between the two. The exchange is as honest and legitimate as any other service for money interaction. That's kind of funny. I never go to a massage therapist to "receive pleasure." It feels good, don't get me wrong, but any pleasure I might receive is a side benefit: I generally go to get my back straightened out While I would agree that both can be honest and ethical exchanges, which transaction is less likely to cause physical and emotional harm to the service provider? While I'm not discounting that there are, undoubtedly, many prostitutes who have absolutely no problems with their customers, that everything is just as you said, who is more likely to be attacked? Who is more likely to have harm done to them? Who is more likely to have some sort of hangup with what they're doing? It's not the massage therapist and I don't think legalization would change this. Social stigma is the basis for why prostitution is considered degrading. While I'm not going to argue with you about social stigma just yet, I would simply ask whether you consider all stigmas to wrong and if they are, should they be pitched in a 21st Century way? Were the morals of our forefathers completely wrong, or is there perhaps a reason, outside of religion, that certain behavior was encouraged and other discouraged? I'm curious as to what you'll say. There's nothing objectively different about prostitution that would distinguish it ethically from other forms of casual s*x. All s*x is about satisfying basic human desires-none of it has an intellectual component. Why do you consider being "happy in the pants" objectionable? Doesn't that essentially condemn all s*x,and not just prostitution? S*x doesn't have an intellectual component? Of course it does. To get turned on, your brain has to be involved. Male or female genitalia just doesn't swell up on it's own. The eyes see things, the nose smells things, the mouth tastes things---these are all processed by the brain, which then sends out the appropriate signals to your body. That's what's going on in the subconscious. But then there's the conscious part of the equation: human beings think about s*x. They know what they like. They know what they don't like. They fantasize. They put their thoughts into motion. I would argue that human beings use their brains more during s*x than during their commute home from work if they're doing it right. Whether conscious or unconscious, all s*x starts with the brain: in either case, if the brain's not into it, well, there isn't going to be any action in the hot town tonight I would have to say that conscious s*x is much, much better than s*x that's simply motivated by the desires of the subconscious. I don't find "being happy in the pants" at all objectionable. I just know I'm much happier in the pants when my brain hasn't just been shut off by hormones. Can you get conscious s*x from someone you barely know, or someone whom you've paid? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. I know which type of s*x is ultimately more fulfilling to me as a human being and I simply don't think you can find that with a prostitute, because it involves taking the kind of risks one wouldn't take with someone they're paying. If you just knock s*x down to the basic need department and treat it as such, you're missing all the good stuff.

Posted by: Kathy at February 04, 2005 02:09 PM (sQLe5)

7 They do have the option of saying no-it's simply that saying yes is a better choice for that person. The "poverty argument" is flawed because if the person is truly in dire poverty,starving homeless or whatnot, then forcibly preventing them from saying "yes" simply condemns them to a life that they feel is worse then prostitution. I don't want to generalize for all supporters of legalization,so I'll only give my personal opinion on the following questions. A.-is part of informed consent. B.-it's possible some or most have issues,but isn't relevant from a legal standpoint. C. I doubt very many do it as a hobby. D. Everything has a bad side,including prostitution. That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of those who choose to do it. It's akin to saying that we should oulaw s*x and dating because date rape,heartbreak, and divorce exist. Weighing the pro's and con's of any choice in life is best left to the one who'll experience the consequences of it. Only around 1/3 of prostitutes are of the stereotypical "street hooker" type. The vast majority are working in illegal "massage parlours",brothels,and escort services. As such,their job choice isn't qualitatively different then any other form of work. "Choice is a luxury most poor prostitutes simply cannot afford." Which is a very good reason why it shouldn't be a crime. It simply means that person will be engaging in a dangerous criminal activity,rather then a safe legal one. If you truly want to help poor people,then the best way to do so is by protecting their rights, and increasing their options and opportunities through education,counseling,drug rehab,healthcare or other similar assistance programs. Prohibiting what they choose to do simply infringes on their freedom, increases the danger,promotes organized crime and diverts resources from more useful areas. "A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time." "Wanna make a bet on that one?" Yes, I would. If she hasn't given consent then it isn't prostitution,it's s*xual assault. "who is more likely to be attacked? Who is more likely to have harm done to them? Who is more likely to have some sort of hangup with what they're doing? It's not the massage therapist and I don't think legalization would change this" On this question the statistics are overwhelming clear-legal prostitution is many times safer then doing so illegally. If the government gave equal protection to s*x workers then there is no reason why they would have any significantly increased risk of attack compared to a massage therapist. If someone has an emotional problem with doing that form of work,then they should say " no thanks" and find some other way of making money. "While I'm not going to argue with you about social stigma just yet, I would simply ask whether you consider all stigmas to wrong and if they are, should they be pitched in a 21st Century way? Were the morals of our forefathers completely wrong, or is there perhaps a reason, outside of religion, that certain behavior was encouraged and other discouraged?" I would say that,yes,historically all stigmas regarding s*xual behavior are baseless and irrational. Be it casual s*x,homos*xuality,"alternative" forms of s*x,interracial s*x,the virgin/whore dichotomy,misogynistic slut/stud double standard,etc.etc. None of these stigmas or prohibitions have ever been rationally substantiated. It's possible to disagree with or discourage a behaviour using reason and discourse without criminalizing or stigmatizing it. In a free society if you disagree with how someone chooses to live their life,you voice that disagreement by writing an op-ed piece,not with government force. "S*x doesn't have an intellectual component? Of course it does. To get turned on, your brain has to be involved. Male or female genitalia just doesn't swell up on it's own. The eyes see things, the nose smells things, the mouth tastes things---these are all processed by the brain, which then sends out the appropriate signals to your body." Exactly. That's all the act of s*x is-a stimulation/sensory experience. There isn't any significant high-level abstract thinking occuring. This holds true for everyone, whether or not money is involved. While certain reasons or means for having s*x may be best for you personally,that standard doesn't hold true for everyone. Each person has a variety of different needs and desires in life, and what works well for one person won't be suitable for another. When peoples rights are protected then each person can choose for themself what actually best suits their needs,not the lifestyle that others would force upon them.That's why free societies work so well.

Posted by: Anon at February 05, 2005 08:00 AM (C4Xq6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I might have mentioned in the past that a good friend of mine is a professional translator. She's one of those disgustingly clever trilingual people and has put those skills of hers to good use. While she's an online friend and I've never had the privilege and pleasure of meeting her in person (she lives in France), she's an astoundingly generous person. Simply because I asked, she enthusiastically translated more than a few bits and bobs from the manuscript into French. She's also answered many questions about French culture and society for me and is an all-around good egg. I love her to pieces and she's asked a favor, and while I would like to help her out, I find myself at something of a disadvantage.

To wit:

A friend who works with a French editor just called me, they are planning a new collection and he was told to find books by North American authors (recent enough to not have been translated yet, and not too famous). The general field is "man in politics and society, with family or sentimental background" and he was told to look for something along the lines of Philip Roth and Jonathan Franzen, with strong viewpoints and a good style.

Now, I generally don't read this sort of stuff. While I do like some literary fiction, more often than not I opt for the popular stuff. Anything that I might read along these lines will be well-known, hence disqualified.

So, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, if you will please throw some suggestions out there that fit her friend's broad criteria. I don't think I have to point out to you that this is a great opportunity to help out an author whose work you loved, but whose achievements have been heretofore unrecognized. If you're a blogger and have written a post or two about this hypothetical author, attach links to those posts in your comments.

Both my friend and myself thank you in advance for any help you can give us.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

{if size is your thing, click for larger}

The husband forwarded this to me. In the email he asked: are you sure Andy Rooney doesn't read Mac Hall?

I really don't think so, but it might just be time to pull out the tinfoil hats.

{...}One of the interesting things about all this is that people who live where there's a lot of bad weather, ice and snow, seem to get more done than people who live where it's sunny and warm all day.

Hawaii is a great state for a vacation -- really lovely. But I donÂ’t think people who live in Hawaii do as much work as the people do who live in Alaska, Maine or North Dakota.

Hmmmm.

{Mac Hall can be found here every few days. Bookmark and enjoy.}

Posted by: Kathy at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh.

Let me state this clearly so you can get it the first time round:

STARBUCK IS NOT A CHICK!

I don't care if she slurps beer with her feet up on the table, smokes cigars, performs the obligatory fake crotch scratch in an effort to give herself machismo props. I don't care if this is some politically correct ploy to bring more females into the cast. Starbuck is not a chick. Starbuck always has been and always will be...

Got it?

Good.

And herein ends my one and only lecture on this topic.

{For being a party pooper, I extend my most sincere apologies to the very talented Barry T. Smith at inktank.com )

UPDATE: Dirk Agrees With Me!

(Many thanks to Pat for passing that along!)

Posted by: Kathy at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Seventy-two percent of eligible voters in Iraq turned out to vote. Election officials have backtracked a bit from that percentage, saying it's more likely around sixty percent. Of course, there's also no way to independently verify any of this because the international observers who usually monitor such things were---ahem---too chickenshit to show up (they were afraid they'd be kidnapped). Still, though, it's awe-inducing.

Mohammed and Omar say it best:

{...}The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.

I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.{...}

Go read the whole thing.

While this victory did not come without costs, I, for one, am more than willing to pay the price demanded. It was our pleasure, my friends, to be able to share our liberty with you.

I am so happy for you!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

As I mentioned last week, Little Llama #4 is getting ready to make his grand entrance into the world. (and yes, it's definitely a "he")

Steve-o's in dire straits and needs your help. Mrs. Llamabutcher goes in on Monday to deliver the baby and they're still without a name. Steve's stuck on "Elvis Agamemnon."

Please go over and save the poor kid from this fate.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Really and truly, claims Noodles, there are nice, non-hackers who live in Hopkins.

Yeah, right, buddy. If that's your story, you stick with it. Mmmmhmmm.

We really do believe it.

Because Hopkins is such a crackden. It's one suburb in here the Cities that's just plain loaded with nefarious types.

Just kidding

Posted by: Kathy at 12:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Rob may see the best "Half-Day Attraction in Orlando" when he looks at these pictures. He may remember that he had a very nice and interesting time hanging out with his sister.

That's nice.

All I see, however, are shoes. Lots and lots of shoes.

I am sooooo bad.

*

Posted by: Kathy at 11:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Arturo's been spouting off again: Fausta, as usual, has the scoop.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Way back in the day, when I managed a Caribou, I would sneak outside for the occasional smoke break. Some of my customers cottoned onto the fact I was a smoker and tried to give me the whole "tsk-tsk" routine. It's so bad for you. You should really quit. Why do you need to do this anyway? You have to go outside in the freezing cold to fire up---isn't that a clue that perhaps you're doing something that's crazy? and so on and so forth.

If you're a smoker, you, too, undoubtedly have gotten these schpiels thrown at you. It's generally fine with me when someone does this. As long as they're not getting righteous about it, I choose to believe it simply means they're concerned for my well being. I know, most likely, their motivation for their speeches had nothing to do with my health, but rather their desire not to have to smell the smoke, but I can take that. They chose not to voice that concern. They chose to voice their concern about me. There's a difference.

What was funny, though, was when someone would get righteous with me and said cigarettes should be illegal. This presented a bit of a leap: these people morphed from concerned customer to activist. I told these people, hey, go right ahead and make them illegal...and just you wait. Once the government and the health advocacy groups don't have smokers to beat up on, they'll start aiming for other people. They'll go after the obsese, because of course they don't need to shove all that unhealthy food down their gullets. They'll go after people who eat too much refined sugar, because that causes Type 2 diabetes. What about red meat? Doesn't that lead to heart disease? Why, heck, they might just go after people who drink too much caffeine! Of course, I would generally say this to them right as I was handing them their coffee.

Talk about having all the tools at the ready to drive home a point. It was beautiful. The looks on their faces were priceless. They either scoffed or they looked abjectly horrified. The scoffers couldn't make the leap of the imagination. The horrifieds could make the leap, but they were far and few between. Privacy rights weren't all that big a deal five years ago.

Well, as it turns out, I was right.

Four workers in the United States have lost their jobs after refusing to take a test to see if they were smokers. They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.

The firm says the ban is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights.

If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent.

Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.

The four workers who refused to take the test left their jobs voluntarily, although a lawyer for Weyco confirmed the company was preparing to dismiss them.

The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue. {...}

You got that? If you're a Weyco employee and you smoke at home, you can be fired. They're all about leading by example.

When you read that little bit up there about them coming after you, you thought that was just BS, right?

Well, it's not.

{...}According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said. {...}

Whether this new litmus test will make it through the courts is up in the air. The privacy rights of the individual have been so eroded over the years, I can't make an accurate guess as to what the courts will do as a result. But you might want to pay attention---whether you're a smoker or a non-smoker---because anything you might do that could be considered unhealthy by someone could be banned. Furthermore, eating a can of Sour Cream and Onion Pringles in your off-hours, if Mr. Weyers has his way, could potentially get you fired.

You could conceivably lose your job because you think you have rights you don't have. Why don't you have those rights? Well, because of all those public health precedents set by the anti-smoking lawsuits.

Well done, people! Good job. Enjoy your fat-free, caffeine-free, salt-free, sugar-free and smoke-free world! I hope you love it!

UPDATE: Might have been a little premature with my claims of sacking due to Pringle consumption. According to the Opinion Journal:

{...}The company can tell fat employees to slim down, but it can't try to save money on health care by firing them. According to a Weyco press release cited by WRAL.com yesterday: "Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS."

Point taken.

How long, honestly, do you think obese workers will be protected? Particularly once people do studies correlating lost work time with obesity? Of course, then Congress will get into the act. Hmmm. You think that protection will last? Particularly since they have the public health precedents set up by anti-smoking lawsuits?

Slip, slip, slip goes the slope.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 6 kb.

Sadie tagged me.

Apparently I'm pretty good with these meme thingys. I must deliver wit on tap now, eh? Oh, the PRESSURE to be a wise ass! God, it's positively crushing me. I don't know how I'll ever survive!

Anyway...

Random Ten

Miles Davis, Sketches of Spain

Yo-Yo Ma, Bach's Unaccompanied Cello Concertos

Ten Thousand Maniacs, In My Tribe

Concrete Blonde, Live in Brazil (Would be better if I didn't have to listen to Johnette Napolitano whine about how much she hates President Bush, but still, very very decent and a must have for any Concrete Blonde fan.)

Jack Johnson, Brushfire Fairytales

Guns n' Roses, Appetite for Destruction (We don't need no stinkin' Use Your Illusion bullshit here at the Cake Eater Pad. Ever since Axl's balls dropped, their music has been shit. Although, I have a feeling the husband would disagree.)

U2, The Joshua Tree. Best. U2. Album. Ever. (And that's sayin' something.)

Billy Joel, The Stranger. (I've had this album on vinyl. I've owned it on tape. I've owned it on CD. And now it's digitized. And yes, I do know every word on Scene from an Italian Restaurant.)

Joan Osborne, Righteous Love.

David Gray, White Ladder. (I just really love this guy.)

1. What is the total amount of music files on your computer?
6.15 GB. And, yes, I meant to put Gigs there. (Only 441.2 MB, Sadie? C'mon and play with the big dogs.)

2. The last CD you bought is:

The last CD I bought? Or the last CD I, er, appropriated?

Well, we'lll throw both out there for the heck of it. I want the RIAA breathing down my neck so I can coutersue and, eventually, hang their collective ass on my trophy wall.

Anyhoo...
Bought: Jamiroquai, Synkronized
Appropriated: U2, How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb

3. What is the song you last listened to before this message?

Erm. I almost hate to admit this, but the husband dowloaded a bunch of Monty Python bits and bobs, and well, it's Every Sperm is Sacred from The Meaning of Life.

We have the Lumberjack song, too. And the Philosopher's Drinking song, as well.

4. Five songs you often listen to or that mean a lot to you.

Dave Matthews Band, Say Goodbye. There was a time when I could identify with it. Now it just makes me wistful.

Bobby Darin, I'm Beginning To See The Light. Bobby was cool before Kevin Spacey made him cool.

Sarah McLachlan, Possession. Passion bottled.

Simon and Garfunkel, Kathy's Song. First, I'm fond of this song because no one ever writes songs for the Kathys of the world. Second, it really is a quietly beautiful piece of music.

U2, Where The Streets Have No Name. This song is pure rock and roll perfection. I could write a treatise about it.

5. Who are you gonna pass this stick to (five persons and why)?

Well, first and foremost, would be Robbo, because he's forever getting me into meme-trouble. And anyway, I'm sure he's just dying to be invited to participate. His case of the plague notwithstanding.

Next up is Fausta because I wanna see into her CD cabinet.

The blogchild will also have to participate. Because I'm her mommy and I said so.

Adrianne is up next. I want to see if there are any Bollywood soundtracks within her selections.

Finally, we have Margi. Because every opportunity we can give her to have the last word on any subject is well worth the time and effort it took to arrange it.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

Yep.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

For the first time since I began wearing glasses at age eight, the opthamologist has told me that I do not need a new pair. My prescription has changed very little, he said, and not enough to warrant a new pair unless I want them.

Wow.

So that's what that feels like. Cool.

Although I'm frickin' blind right now because my pupils are the size of dinner plates. Arggh. The light! The light! Someone turn off the blasted light!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Pffft.

That's as good a descriptor of my day as you're gonna get.

WARNING: RANT AHEAD. Duck and run if you feel the need.

The husband has vacated the premises. He has meetings this morning and a Microsquash seminar to attend this afternoon, so he'll be gone all day long. This is normally when I am the most productive. Not so today.

First, the husband missed his bus because he was putzing around. I never understand this: we literally live right across the fucking street from the bus stop yet HE CONSISTENTLY MISSES THE BUS because he's too busy with this, that or the other to get out there on time. I can deal with this, but it's becoming something of an annoyance, because it keeps happening over and over again. Anyway, he then calls me and asks me if can I go to the metro transit website and reroute him to see if he can make it over to St. Paul on time? I kept doing it wrong because I wasn't awake yet and he got impatient, I got impatient, I yipped at him. He kept his cool, but I could tell he was annoyed with me. Snipping at your spouse is not a great way to start your day. Trust me on this one. I still feel badly about it.

Then, not five minutes later, I get a call from the real estate people: there's been an offer on the house. The people who had put in the offer hadn't been able to see our apartment on their first shot through the house, could they please come through between noon and one today? Grrrrr.

This is just becoming one big annoyance. The real estate people keep testing our goodwill and it's pissing me off. By the terms of our lease---which are in accordance with Minnesota State Law---we are supposed to have 24 hours notice before our landlord can access our apartment. As the husband and I have to keep explaining to the little receptionist who keeps calling to schedule showings, TWENTY-FOUR HOURS MEANS TWENTY-FOUR HOURS! It does not mean schedule a ten-thirty a.m. showing for Tuesday at six-thirty p.m. Monday night, then call the tenants and ask them if that's ok. Argggh. We've been firm, but they keep doing this. That they have to coordinate with the people downstairs doesn't help either because they don't think they can say 'no'.

Add that to the fact we have not yet received our new lease from the Great White Hunter landlord, and there's been an offer. Just marvelous, eh?

Next up on the list o' whines: I have my opthamologist appointment at one. I don't have an issue with this. This is fine. It needs to happen. But I hate having my eyes dilated. I'm not a big fan of eye drops in the first place, but these sting. Then you have the fun of trying to get home without seeing too much because of all the damn light! Aieeeee.

After that, I have to try and get a hold of the husband's probation officer. He wants to talk to me to confirm that the husband isn't drinking. Great. I just adore being put in this position. It's not like the husband is drinking. He hasn't had a drink for going on two years. He doesn't want one, either. But it's not like the State of Minnesota believes any of that given his record, so where do they go for confirmation of the husband's claims?

Me.

Apparently the fact he's enrolled in a fully licensed and state approved aftercare program isn't good enough for them.

I have to call this guy and be interrogated. And it's not like I've got a choice, either, because if I don't call this guy and subject myself to interrogation, they'll become suspicious of the husband and will insist on greater supervision. While this phone call will last for exactly two minutes, it still bugs me. Undoubtedly I'm blowing it out of proportion, but it's just one more brick added to a huge stack of bricks and it annoys me. The whole thing makes me feel like I'm being used. They put me between the rock and the hard place, because of course I want the husband to be done with all of this, yet I don't have a choice about my cooperation. The husband will pay if I don't cooperate. They're taking advantage of my need to be done with all of this. And I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT.

I'm a firm believer, because I've lived it, that the State will use any means to get drunk drivers to end their wicked ways, and if that means making life difficult for the drunk driver's spouse, they'll do it. Think about it: when a drunk driver loses their license, who winds up driving them around? Their spouse, mostly. When a drunk driver is fined up the wazoo, whose finances are hurt just as badly as the drunk drivers? The spouses. I could go on, but I think you get the gist: they don't give a damn about the havoc they wreak on people who had nothing to do with the original offense. They're just collateral damage, and honestly, if they'd just had the good sense to take the keys away, they wouldn't be going through this in the first place. It's their own damn fault. Well, I was in Montana for this last one: explain to me how, being a thousand miles away, I was supposed to keep the husband, a licensed and insured driver, from getting behind the wheel?

Sorry. I get a little bitter about this shit.

Ah, anyway, I have to go and get my eyes dilated and be subjected to a round of "better one? better two? better one? better two?"

Posted by: Kathy at 12:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 972 words, total size 5 kb.

The husband, the resident German speaker, translates Arbeit Macht Frei as "Work Will Set You Free." He also says the literal translation would be "Work Makes Free." On the whole, these are fairly harmless words. One conceivably could use this phrase in reference to the myriad metaphysical woes we run through on a daily basis. Find Solace in Your Work has been said to many a person suffering through a personal loss. And it's true: there is solace to be found in work. Freedom, even. You can find freedom from your troubles in work because the work distracts you. These words are harmless. Annoyingly true---like all good cliches inevitably are---yet harmless.

Until the location of this gate loads them with a sense of efficient barbarism that can and should make your skin crawl.

This is an early photograph of the gates of Auschwitz.

Taken into this contex, the innocuous words, work will set you free, should make you wonder about the sadism of words.

Can you even begin to imagine what it was like to see those words? To finally know your fate after so many years of not knowing? So many years of having your rights, as a citizen of a supposed civilized society, be taken from you, one by one, until there were no more rights left. So many years of being treated as a pariah. So many years of wondering what it could possibly come to. Can you begin to imagine the idea that these words were intentionally placed to give hope? To lull Jews into a sense of false security so they wouldn't make life difficult for their murderers?

I wonder how many Jews saw those words and, while not completely free of fear, breathed a very small sigh of relief, not realizing they were simply empty words. How many said, Oh, it's just a work camp. The rumors weren't true after all. It's a question that will never be answered, because those who asked it, mostly, aren't around to answer it.

Today is the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

We talk a good game about never letting something like this ever happen again. We educate. We make movies. Books are published. Scholars dissect the history of those ages. We remember days like today. Yet, on the whole, we have failed. Genocides are an every day occurance, it seems. From Bosnia to Rwanda to Darfur, genocide is a thing that, unlike smallpox, hasn't been innoculated into eradication. We have yet to figure this one out. We have yet to figure out why people are driven by such hatred and envy to wipe their fellow human beings from the face of the earth for no other sin than being who they are.

I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with our imaginations and our failure to use them.

We, for the most part, refuse to walk a mile in the shoes of the suffering. We see them on the news, we say "how horrible!" then we go right back to doing whatever it was we were working on before we were interrupted. We might write a check to a relief organization. We might call our elected representatives to ask them to do something, but we don't really hold their feet to the fire about it, either. We lack a passion for the sanctity of life---unless it's our lives that are on the line. If it happens on the other side of the world, well, there really wasn't much we could do, was there?

The phrase, "the world closed their eyes" is often thrown about when it comes time for reckoning, but I think that's partially wrong. People not only close their eyes, they also shut down their minds. They don't want to think about this sort of thing. They don't want to be reminded that it could happen to them. They don't want to know about the suffering other than what they hear on the news, nicely segmented into two minute slots, because all sorts of uncomfortable thoughts might arise. They don't want to walk a mile in someone's else's shoes: they don't want to even slip their big toe into the wingtip.

Yet, there is a morbid fascination, isn't there, about genocides and how people suffered. The Holocaust in particular. People want to understand why six million people were slaughtered. Six million is a mind-boggling number, but it's also round and impressive in its largesse. They want to know why it happened, to see if there isn't a lesson to be learned about how to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. They watch the History Channel. They rent Schindler's List and weep when they see the little girl in the red coat obliviously meander her way through the Warsaw ghetto. They know what her fate is. They are moved by this imagery and thanks to accuracy in filmmaking no detail is missed, either. When the film is over, they might wonder about it all, but they don't really have to imagine it, either, because it's all there: all the gory details are aid out in black and white. They can turn off their TV's and go to bed, slightly disturbed by the movie, but knowing they're safe in their world. They might even be thankful that something like that couldn't ever happen to them.

Because absolutely nothing was left to the imagination, these people who sleep soundly after having watched a film like that, have never had to wonder about the possibility of such a thing ever happening to them. They are removed from it. Their hearts might have been engaged for a few hours, but their minds will go back to wondering about when the mortgage payment is due rather quickly.

Imagination is a funny thing. It can produce flights of fancy just as easily as it can nightmares. Yet the one thing that's universal to imagination is that we experience things first hand when we imagine. We wonder what we would do differently. How we would have handled it. Imagination forces the first-person experience upon those who will never have to suffer through the actual event. Yet, thanks to education, the world knows. We've seen. The work done educating the world about the Holocaust, by all rights, should have been enough to prevent a thousand genocides. Yet it hasn't. It is not the fault of the educators, but rather it is ours. We fail them every time a genocide comes along because we shut down our minds. In failing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, we are just as apathetic as those who knowingly allow a genocide to occur. Our sympathy and erudition do nothing to stop the guys with the guns.

Imagine it. Today of all days. You can take some time to let your mind wander about it. Those who weren't liberated sixty years ago today, but who instead died a nameless death, ask it of you.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1165 words, total size 7 kb.

The caption reads:

Man, this is the BEST BIRTHDAY EVER! 40 doesn't suck quite so badly when you're snuggled up in Patricia "Hottie" Heaton's lap! And look at all the loot she brought for me! Wall to wall presents! Not like anything will compare to the present dear Patricia gave me with her presence, but I'll take what I can get. The interesting thing about this photo, surprisingly, isn't the photo itself. Right after it was taken, she leaned down and, into my fabulous ear, whispered...

Happy 40th Birthday Robbo!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Mmmmmmm....Conservative Hottie! Orgle, orgle, indeed.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at January 26, 2005 01:52 PM (XBUdh)

2 Don't say I've never done anything for you

Posted by: Kathy at January 26, 2005 02:17 PM (sQLe5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's some interesting stuff for you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers.

Because I love you. And if I don't keep you up on this stuff, well, who will? Because we all know that if you're surfing here, you're probably not surfing here

First up, courtesy of Mr. JVL, here's one interesting view of how our media might evolve. If you've ever wondered what Google's master plan is, well, I think this might give you a clue to their strategy. It certainly gave me one. {Insert warnings about grains of salt, etc. here}

Then we have this lovely little blogging tool from the Enlightened Cynic (aka the husband).

To try and be concise about it, if you're a blogger and you hate linking to NY Times stories because of registration woes or because the permalink will be dead three weeks after the original publication---and then they'll try to charge you for access---know that these guys have found a way to circumvent this noosey-nonsense. In essence, they have hacked the NY Times' RSS feed and have provided their own link generator.

I have a feeling this is a result of hackers/tech savvy bloggers taking umbrage at Arthur Sulzberger, Jr's incredulity over consumers---gasp!---expectation of free content. I don't know about the ethics of all this, but I will say this much: if I can access old NY Times articles at the library on microfiche, well, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to access their old articles online for free.

I don't know how long this link generator will work, but I'd be interested in hearing what people think about the big picture that this move represents. I believe that this is just one more example of the information revolt and how we're moving toward 24/7/365 free content. For any security feature that's introduced, the hackers will generate an answer. The question will be, when will the Times et. al., get this and come to a different way of tackling the problem? This tit for tat bullshit gets a bit annoying.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Ummm, remember the snowmen in Calvin and Hobbes?

Let's just say they provided some inspiration for some bored, snowbound people. (scroll down to see the pics)

Sweet.

{Hat tip: Michele}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

The crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly" is on a roll when it comes to dissecting things like grammatical goofs in the Applebee's theme song and The Pottery Barn Rule.

Need a sampling?

Accordingly, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” found ourselves deeply distressed by the name of this new military law. We pined to give other American establishments the opportunity to have a clever law named after them. This, surely, would help jump-start the economy just like President Bush’s temporary-cum-permanent tax cuts did.

Without further ado, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are therefore pleased as petulant pigs to present:

The Official “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Variations on the “Pottery Barn Rule”:

1. The Pier-1 Imports Rule: “You Sit on It, You Break It, Since It’s Inevitably Made of Wicker.”

2. The Sharper Image Rule: “You Break It, You Pretend You Didn’t, and Then You Blame the Next Guy Who Fiddles with It.”

3. The Body Shop Rule: “You Break It, and Then You Use It for Animal Testing.”

4. The Benetton Rule: “You Break It, and Then You Caterwaul against the Death Penalty.”

5. The Marshalls Rule: “You Break It, You Buy It, But at Least It Was Cheap.”

6. The Brookstone Rule: [See The Sharper Image Rule. ItÂ’s the same.]

7. The Abercrombie & Fitch Rule: “You Break It, You Buy It, and Then You Glory in Homoerotic Kiddie Porn Advertisiing.”

8. The Orange Julius Rule: “You Go Bankrupt.”

Snicker.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.