The husband complains every now and again about my magazine habit. Not about the fact that I read them, but about the fact that I save them. Now, I fully admit I'm weird this way. While some people would be content to keep a file full of articles they'd liked and had ripped out of magazines, that's not my m.o. I like to keep the entire magazine itself because it provides a frame of reference for the article. For instance, somewhere in the vast collection of junk that one could identify as my belongings, there is a Life magazine from July 1969. That was back when Life still published weekly and was huge---and this particular issue covered the first moon landing. Now, I hadn't even been born yet when this was published, but I found this particular issue, of course, to be very, very cool when I came across it in the Cake Eater folks' assorted clobber. Not only did you have cool moon landing photographs, but you had ads for portable radios. And for cigarettes and for brands of cheap whiskey that don't even exist any more. Pretty cool, no?

Yeah. Go ahead and call me Lileks if you must. I can take it.

But the husband isn't wild about this magazine habit. Because I like to keep a lot of magazines. For many different and varied reasons. And they have a tendency to pile up. This annoys him, and, of course, he wants me to throw them out. I refuse and say, "Gee, honey, you'll never know when they'll come in handy!" Like today. When dearest Jonathan mentioned an article on Sarah Silverman from the March 1999 GQ in this post, I was able to email and inform him that I had that issue of GQ lying around. I asked him if he would like me to scan the article for him. He responded in the affirmative and so I present the scanned copy of Michael MacCambridge's Sarah Silverman Has The Cleanest Breasts in America.

Which I never would have been able to post if I wasn't a packrat!

Take the jump if you're interested in actually reading the article. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 03:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 5 kb.

Since today's the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, I have yet another excuse to post this picture, taken by yours truly in a moment of daring in the crypt at St. Paul's in London, where you're not supposed to take pictures because it's a. either disrespectful to the people who are buried there or b. because flash photography will hurt the tombstones or something to that effect.

If you couldn't already tell, I'm pretty proud of this picture.

Anyhoo...

Of course, if you want to know what actually happened during the battle, go here for Robbo's account. The Big Hominid has chimed in as well.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Just in case you didn't know...

1. You can indict a ham sandwich in Travis County, Texas.

2. Tom DeLay's indictment is a "witchhunt"

3. Ronnie Earl, the Travis County District Attorney, is a partisan hack who tried to prosecute Kay Bailey Hutchinson in a similar witchhunt and had the case thrown out of court.

4. And, finally, KATHY'S 'EFFIN SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TOLD THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE FOX NEWS CAN'T COME UP WITH ANYTHING ELSE TO REPORT!

Posted by: Kathy at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:27 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Thursday, so that would signal to me that it's time for another riveting installment of the Demystifying Divas and the Marvelous Men's Club. Our topic this week is a good one that is guaranteed to produce much brouhaha, methinks. So, without further ado, here it is:I want to know about what a man is really thinking about three separate and distinct things. Did you get that, kids? We're shooting for them to tell the truth on three subjects where I would presume they're usually fibbing---or, at the very least, keeping their mouths shut so they don't get into trouble. It's time for fessin' up.

This, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, could be good fun, provided I actually get some answers.

And away we go...

1. Does it really offend you when a gay man shows an interest in you, or is a little part of you flattered at the attention, even if you're not interested in the offer and are exceedingly quick to say, "not that there's anything wrong with that!" ?

2. Even if they've settled down and have acquired the wife, the house and the mortgage, why do men feel the need to pretend, on occasion, as if they haven't committed themselves to all that? Women don't, for the most part, do that. Once we commit, we commit and that's that. Men, on the other hand, it seems to me, sometimes have second thoughts about all this committment and we're, as women, supposed to understand this notion and let them have their boy moments. You know the ones I'm talking about, right? The weekend trip to Vegas with the boys; the trip downtown to the titty bars; golf excursions where much flirting is done with the beer cart girl, etc. I can understand male bonding and all the rest, but do you really need to remind yourselves of all you're missing to be able to stay in a committed relationship? Because that's what it seems like to me. How, exactly, does that work? Does it actually help or does it actually make that mid-life crisis---replete with a red corvette and hair plugs--- inevitable?

3. What's the deal with duct tape and WD-40? Y'all wax exceedingly rhapsodic about these things---more so than is warranted, in my humble opinion. Yes, these two things are very handy to have around. I'm not denying that. Do cults need to be devoted to them? No. Hence, I would like to know why you think there should be cults devoted to the worship of duct tape and WD-40.

Okedokey, there are my three things. Now, run along and see what Silk, and Phoenix have to say. Madame Sadie is taking a wee bit of a break currently, so we shall fervently hope for her quick return. For the male perspective Phin, Stiggy, The Naked Villains, and Jamesy have chimed in. Nugget is our guest testosterone producer this week so run along and see what he has to say as well.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

Am I the only one who hated Fargo?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Jonathan we have this lovely column.

Here are some of the highlights:

Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more! Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair,{...}

t's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or is it?

{...}Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?

{...}Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell, gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.

No, no one says that. That would be mean.

By all means, go and read the whole thing. If for no other reason than that it's really enlightening, in a, "Wow, do you think this bozo is representative of the average San Franciscan?" sort of way.

I'll admit to bias on this one. I mean, it's not like I can really avoid it, eh? It's not like I chose to have seven other siblings, but considering I'm number eight, I should just shut up and thank my lucky stars that the folks decided to have one more while they were at it, eh? So, I am biased, but I can't be the only one who finds it just a wee bit ironic that this obviously lefty columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle has become judgmental about someone's sex life? Because when someone asks you if you have kids, they are, in essence, asking about your sex life. Children, after all, are the product of sex. Ergo, Mr. Morford is criticizing the Duggar's sex life. Which is ironic given the subject matter of Morford's recent columns. He's all about advertising the sexual diversity of San Fran. and that's fine with me. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran without all of that. Yet when your sex life doesn't include birth control, well, according to Morford, that's just wrong! And selfish! And it just means the world is coming to an end, I swear to fucking GOD, because it's an omen that the Midwestern Neo-Christers are going to take over!

Which is just dumb. Not just because the rhetoric is just fucking trite, but because it's illogical. If you're going to stand up and scream for the rights of leather daddies to do their thing, well, then you should advocate the right of a woman to have a sixteen kids and to still want more. If no one's getting hurt, where's the harm? It's pretty simple, eh? Live and let live. I thought that's what you wacky San Franciscans were all about.

Just one more thing. Arkansas is not in the Midwest. It's in the south. Perhaps one could make the assumption that people on the coasts should learn basic grade school American geography, but I wouldn't want to be too judgmental. That would be mean.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 886 words, total size 5 kb.

About the probabilities of Monopoly.

Just in case you're curious---the Reds give you the best bang for your buck.

Personally, I prefer the Greens, but to each their own. If nothing else, this gives credence to my theory that Park Place and Boardwalk are chump investments.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

This week's ball is hosted by Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum. Twirl on over and be enlightened.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Because the carafe on our old coffeemaker decided to break, last week the husband and I were forced to go out and buy a new coffeemaker. After much research, a bit of making fun of Marshall Field employees and dodging Mr. Coffee counterfeits at JC Penneys, we purchased this model from Le Boutique de Target for $49.50.

That is one sexy coffeemaker, no?

If you want to read what will undoubtedly be a longwinded review from someone who used to be in the coffee industry, take the jump. If you're not interested, well, gaze in wonder at the joy that is my kitchen counter. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1364 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I have a followup question that should not be interpreted as a challenge to your mastery of the coffee. 900W is a measure of electricity, not heat. Is it possible that different heating elements may be more or less efficient at getting heat out of electricity, just as different light bulb technologies can vary so greatly in the output of light vs. heat or other energy, per watt? Or maybe they just all use the same heating element technology?

Posted by: Jack at October 18, 2005 05:00 PM (cA2Wd)

2 To heck with that last guys question. ets get the important on outta the way first. Is the coffee damn good or what? It may be a "sexy coffemaker" but if it don't put out properly what good is it except something nice to look at and make your friends jealous?

Posted by: The Wizard at October 18, 2005 05:31 PM (ThVPw)

3 I'll tackle this one. A heating element is very simple technology. Basically it's metal with a current put through it. The resistance of the metal to the current creates heat. The only thing in a coffee maker that shuts off the heat are simple, solid-state temperature sensors. The tube that heats the water in your coffee maker is passed around the same heating element that is in the base plate. Hence, extra wattage = faster brewing as the water is boiled more quickly and has less time to spend passing over the fresh ground coffee in the basket. Extra wattage = faster cycles between when the warming plate heats and when the temperature sensors turn it off. When the heating element cycles faster due to the extra wattage, the temperature curve over time has a tendency to be larger. In other words, even though the the sensor shuts the heating element off, the temperature is still going up for a short time and the extra wattage makes that be more-so. Also, this makes for shorter cycles which equal a higher average temperature for the heating plate. Ok, that was an overly windy explanation of that. I hope it made sense to someone.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at October 18, 2005 05:45 PM (BfdxI)

4 I think I was mostly aware of that, but it's good to see it spelled out. But, with "Basically it's metal with a current put through it. The resistance of the metal to the current creates heat," my previous mystery lives on, therein. Is it the same metal / same resistance in all of them? What if they're not built the same size and shape? how much of the heat could escape from the sides of the coffee maker through points other than the hot plate (I imagine they all have that one taken care of, or it would be a fire hazard, but perhaps to varying degrees)? I am starting to wish I hadn't asked though, and I am ready to accept that all hot plate mechanisms wattage:heat ratios are the same

Posted by: Jack at October 18, 2005 07:00 PM (cA2Wd)

5 Jack, you pose a good question and one to which I don't have the answer. I'm pretty sure most of them are made with aluminum and to some standards for fire prevention, as you mentioned. It is interesting to note that when we were shopping for the coffeemakers the other day, I noticed that regardless of the badge on the front of the machine, most of the electrical portions are made by Sunbeam. There's some pictures of the aluminum connections on this page and a more detailed description of the heating element in a basic coffeemaker here. Of course, I suppose we could carry the discussion here, but that might be going too far.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at October 18, 2005 07:54 PM (kZ6IS)

6 Dudes. Who says blogs ain't edjumakashunal?

Posted by: Margi at October 19, 2005 01:32 AM (nwEQH)

7 it's very sleek; i like it.

Posted by: amelie at October 19, 2005 01:46 AM (J0CVQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers: Blockbuster online rentals or Netflix?

UPDATE: The husband has been screwing around with this Ning thing for the past week or so (he got in on the beta somehow) and is enamored with it. Hence, he built me an app for this specific question. Go and check it out, but for the love of God, don't register to vote. I won't even do that.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:28 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I have no experience with the Blockbuster version. But Netflix is fantastic.

Posted by: Doug at October 17, 2005 11:41 PM (7P5xE)

2 I scrapped Netflix twice (I'm currently without due to Impending Baby Budget Cuts) but I love it. I've had no experience with Blockbuster online -- but they have enough of my money with late fees, so I wouldn't use them, anyay. Heh.

Posted by: Margi at October 18, 2005 02:05 AM (nwEQH)

3 Blockbuster. You also get coupons for candy and in-store rentals every month. Much much better!

Posted by: Stigmata at October 18, 2005 02:23 AM (qIElm)

4 Oh go ahead and register. These guys are VERY trustworthy. Besides, there are a bunch of cool apps on the playground at Ning so far. If you get spam from Ning, feel free to forward it all to me.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at October 18, 2005 10:47 AM (BfdxI)

5 What, there are people still out there who *haven't* registered for Ning? I'm netflix all the way, btw.

Posted by: Christpher Schmidt at October 18, 2005 01:21 PM (TbSgW)

6 Blockbuster isn't really an option where we live. We love Netflix so far.

Posted by: Sandy at October 18, 2005 01:35 PM (hFk9v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ahem.

A bunch of football players decided to have a party wherein they got drunk, laid and treated everyone below them on the social strata like crap.

And this is different from high school, how?

Seriously. John Hughes could make a decent movie from this one.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

FUCK!

Let us hope Sadie returns soon. Go over and drop hints to that effect in her comments, my devoted Cake Eater Readers.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

That's a member of the language police!

{...}Mary Magilton, 54, suffered cuts and bruises after being hit by the car which mounted the pavement while she was chatting with friends in Oldham and then drove off, newspapers reported on Friday.

She reported the incident but was ticked off by a police officer when she said the driver of the car was a "fat" woman.

"I was given a frosty look and told I couldn't say that. I could have said lardy, porky or podgy. But I wouldn't dare use those words," the Daily Mirror quoted her as saying.

A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said the description recorded on the police log of the incident did include the word "fat."

"I don't think she was severely reprimanded," the spokeswoman said, adding GMP had a policy to ensure officers used "appropriate language" that would not cause offence. {...}

Honestly. What is going on over there? First, Piglet's under fire and now a victim in an auto assault cannot describe her attacker as "fat."

Posted by: Kathy at 12:42 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will think up.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

But I really can't quite resist.

You see, I have this photo of the Cake Eater Mom from when I was a little girl. It was taken in our dining room at our old house while she was working on some sewing project back in the day before she went pro and converted the basement into sewing central. Whomever took this particular photograph caught her completely by surprise. I'm assuming the photographer was Dad, but you never know: we had a surplus of people hanging about in those days.

Now, Mom hates this picture. I know for a fact that she despises this picture. She, I'm sure, thought this picture had disappeared into the ether somewhere. That it had been destroyed or lost or whatever. I sure she thought she was safe from this picture ever being seen again.

Well, not so.

The reason I'm posting a thirty-some-odd-year-old photo of my mother is because it's her birthday today!

Don't you wish you had a child like me?

{Insert evil chuckle here}

UPDATE: Hey Mom, did you know you share a birthday with Maggie Thatcher? Cooo-el.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

And with that illustrious title it should, indeed, be obvious that we have arrived at yet another Thursday and it's time for the Demystifying Divas and the Marvelous Men's Club to tackle yet another hard hitting topic. This week's entry is a three-parter: Do men always have good sex? What about women---do they have good sex? Who/what determines if the sex was, indeed, good?

As you can see, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, I have my work cut out for me.

As to the first question, do men always have good sex, I will refer you to the extensive research I conducted so I would be able to answer this question for you. Yes. That's right. I'm all about the demystifying. So I went and asked my usual source---the husband---and here's what he had to say. Ahem.

Sex is like pizza. When it's good, it's really good. When it's bad, well, it's still pretty good.

Deep, no?

This brings us to our second question: do women have good sex? Well, of course they do. Like, duh. It's just different for women. Men have good sex each and every time because they climax each and every time. Most women do not climax each and every time they have intercourse. We have different physiologies and I don't see where we're doing anyone any favors by pretending otherwise. One is a Fiat Panda and the other is a Volvo Estate Car. That is just the nature of the beast. And anyone who tries to tell you differently is ignoring the facts of life. Women are different from men, and THANK GOD for it. Vive la difference, I believe is what the cheese eating surrender monkeys call it, but we'll keep the French bashing to a minimum today. Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, the differences between men and women. I believe we should glorify those differences. Furthermore, I think we should just learn to accept that things are different. To do otherwise is to miss a lot of the really good stuff that happens, with or without a climax in attendance.

Which, then brings us to our third question: who/what determines if the sex was, indeed, good? Tricky, no? I believe the difference is in how you measure what "good sex" is. Because men and women are going to have different bench marks as to what, precisely, is good sex. If one wanted to search for a ridiculous metaphor to describe this phenomenon without gettting too down and dirty, one could say that men used the metric system to measure good sex. It's a logical choice for men---who are overly fond of logic---to use: the metric system is a base ten system; there aren't any inconvenient conversions that need to be made; it's a safe, solid system that is used by the majority of the world's population to describe things. Why the heck shouldn't men use the metric system? By Golly, everyone should use it! is, I believe, what they would think.

Women, on the other hand, in this world of ridiculous metaphors, would use the English system of measurements. We like inches, feet, yards, and other obscure measurements that have come down through the ages. We like the tales that are told about these measurements. We enjoy all of the arcane historical data that comes with them. And we don't really understand, it seems, why other people would want it any other way.

The key to succcess in the sack is for each partner to learn the other's conversion charts. It's quite simple.

Now, if any of that makes ANY sense at all to you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, well, you're two steps ahead of me. So I will now say "SHOOO!"in a big booming voice and direct you to Silk and Phoenix for their take on the matter at hand. Chrissy, in a curious change of pace, is posting on last week's topic. For the testosterone-laden take, run along and see what Phin, Stiggy, The Naked Villains, Jamesy and That 1 Guy have to say.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:06 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Being a guy, let me just say I've had bad sex. Why guys won't admit that is beyond me.

Posted by: Contagion at October 13, 2005 12:21 PM (Q5WxB)

2 Heh. I think The Husband is being politic rather than scientific. It's a very nice gesture, tho. From what I've read so far, the Air Minister over at Naked Villiany pegs the unvarnished male answer.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at October 13, 2005 12:41 PM (IkTb7)

3 You're married to Woody Allen?

Posted by: Sadie at October 13, 2005 01:25 PM (7SNDe)

4 I think the minimum for good sex is that your lover is enjoying it too.

Posted by: Uncle Ben at October 13, 2005 09:39 PM (/I1/i)

5 It takes a big effort from both people. You also have to work on it. If everything is done correct and both of you take your time and try the damnest to fulfill each of you, then you have GREAT sex, Cat

Posted by: catfish at October 14, 2005 08:24 AM (8iAyF)

6 Catfish, that sounds like making something that should be an enjoyment an awful lot of work. Yes, the pizza line is easy and always available, but to be honest, if the sex ever actually IS bad for a guy, then it's quite obvious that someone has the wrong expectations of what the relationship, or the act, is supposed to be. Drop all expectations and the sex will be what it is: an act of love, an act of pleasure, or an indicator that something's not compatible. (By the way, the acts of love and of pleasure referred to above are NOT mutually exclusive. A physical act of love transcends and includes the act of pleasure. have a good weekend trying that one out. )

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at October 14, 2005 12:14 PM (6r15q)

7 My worst "Bad Sex" was with a new girlfriend. I had to fantasize about my old girlfriend to complete the act. Here is your answer. When "Bad Sex' is truly bad... you don't want to have sex with that person ever again. For a guy to do that... it has to be pretty pretty bad.

Posted by: Troll at October 14, 2005 03:42 PM (3f15R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Because then we will know who will play James Bond now that Pierce has hung it up.

Sony Pictures Entertainment, the Hollywood studio backing new Bond film "Casino Royale,"said on Wednesday that the actor who will portray the suave secret agent with a license to kill would be named at a news conference in London on October 14.

No further details were disclosed, and the mystery remains over who will star in the film franchise that has grossed nearly $4 billion at global box offices since the first Bond flick, "Dr. No," hit the silver screen in 1962.

Reports in London have identified English actor
Daniel Craig, who recently starred in the gangster film, "Layer Cake," as the new Bond, but that could not be confirmed.{...}

Daniel Craig, eh?

Curious. We shall see if shagging Sienna on the side was a good career move.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep.

Day Three without any form of nicotine running through my bloodstream.

And I still feel like I'm high. Any time my brain would like to get back to working at its regular pace, I'll be happy to have it kick in. Until then, I'm reduced to wandering around the house, trying to connect two thoughts and failing most times. I'm sick of this crap.

I want to be able to post without having to update about six or seven times to get my point across.

Also, to add insult to injury, I broke out again. And it's a bad breakout. Like, I haven't had skin this grotty since I was in high school.

I'm pretty damn sure it's a reaction to the lessening of the amount of nicotine in my bloodstream. There's nothing else to explain it. I haven't changed my diet. I don't bloom out in zits during that time of the month because, ahem, I'm not fifteen anymore (Thank God for small favors). I learned my lesson on the Life Savers, hence there's no candy in the house. This is the only thing that could be causing all these effing zits! They pop up, quite literally, it the time it takes to wash my face. I'm quite serious. Yesterday, I washed my face. There was no zit above my lip. I rinse my face off and---WHAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM---a white head had appeared. And, no, I'm not allergic to the soap. This is fucking ridiculous. I haven't counted all the zits on my face because, quite frankly, there are too many of them to count!

Quitting smoking has very little to recommend it.

Really.

I'm just calling it the way I see it and as far as I can tell, compared to how happy I was sucking on my coffin nails, well, the life of a non-smoker really does suck.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Born to Run sucks. It is loaded with cheesy innuendo, hence it is not great poetry, nor is it even the best song in Springsteen's catalogue, let alone the best rock song ever. However, if you're doomed to sticking with the Springsteen catalogue, Thunder Road, is great poetry. It wins. Hands down. It kicks Born to Run's ass every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I wouldn't say Thunder Road was the greatest rock song ever, either. But it's pretty damn good.

Lyrics can be found after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.