January 06, 2005
The rules are as follows: These are authors whose work grace my library shelves. I deleted the stuff I don't have and added my own, which are highlighted in bold.
1 Diana Gabaldon
2. Michael Ondaatje
3. Tom Clancy
4. Jane Austen
5. Arturo Perez-Reverte
6. JRR Tolkien (which, I am ashamed to say, is the husband's. I'm ashamed it's on our shelves along with a number of other Tolkein books. I've never read it. And I never will. And, yes, it's a looong story, which I will skip over.)
7. Iain Pears
8. D.H. Lawrence
9. Neal Stephenson
10. Miguel Cervantes
And, just for fun, I'll start a new meme: ten authors you are ashamed you own the work of, but really can't help yourself. These are the books you buy when you're in a bad mood and need some cheering up. These are the books you buy when you're stuck in a podunk airport during a snowstorm and it's either this or the National Enquirer for reading material.
Sure, it's all well and good to tell the world of the lofty works of literature you have on your shelves. It makes you look good. But the real question is, will you cop to the guilty pleasures or the reading material you bought in desperation? Hmmmm. We shall see.
Here's mine. For the record: we have two bookcases and one has a set of double doors on it. These are the authors who reside here, hidden from the rest of the world.
1. Maeve Binchy
2. Nora Roberts (Actually have quite a lot of her stuff. Have contributed quite a bit to her gross national product. Which is something like $60M. Sigh.)
3. Luanne Rice
4. Dan Brown
5. Victoria "I Dig Writing About Impoverished Victorian Virgins" Holt
6. Daniel Silva
7. Vince Flynn (Actually, I'm quite fond of this guy's work, and he's a local boy, but it's not great literature)
8. Robert Ludlum
9. John Le Carre (While the prose is brilliant, well, they're still spy novels)
10. Sidney Sheldon
Purge yourselves, children. Come clean.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:17 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.
Gawd. This kid always makes my ovaries twitch.
Posted by: Kathy at
03:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Watching contestants eat dead rats on NBC's gross-out stunt show "Fear Factor" so disgusted a Cleveland man that he has sued NBC for $2.5 million, saying he could not stomach what he saw.In a handwritten four-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Cleveland on Tuesday, paralegal Austin Aitken said, "To have the individuals on the show eat (yes) and drink dead rats was crazy and from a viewer's point of view made me throw-up as well an another in the house at the same time."
His suit added, "NBC is sending the wrong message to its TV watchers that cash can make or have people do just about anything beyond reasoning (sic) and in most cases against their will." {...}
Of course this is a bogus lawsuit and it's all about the money, because when this dude was contacted for a comment, he wouldn't say anything unless it was a "paid interview situation." But I applaud the sentiment, nonetheless.
He couldn't have found a more deserving target.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
Too bad it didn't take a chunk out of his ass in the meanwhile.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
I finished Right Ho, Jeeves last night.
My conclusions---which I all know you've been waiting for with bated breath---can be found after the jump. more...
Posted by: Kathy at
02:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1542 words, total size 9 kb.
January 05, 2005
1. Lost.
2. Alias. SYDNEY'S BACK, BITCH! (And it's about frickin' time, too.)
3. West Wing. Which will be taped, of course.
See ya tomorrow!
Posted by: Kathy at
06:14 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
The bastard deserves a lot worse than just being beaten up.
{hat tip: The Blog Child}
Posted by: Kathy at
03:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:46 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
The UN announced on Monday that it is hoping for three "days of tranquility" in Darfur. January 10-12 are the scheduled "days of tranquility."
Why, you ask, are they asking for these "days of tranquility" now? Particularly after all they haven't been able to achieve in Darfur? The least of which is a lasting cease-fire.
Well, the answer would be that they would like these "days of tranquility" to immunize children for polio, which appears to be making some progress in the refugee camps on working its way back from oblivion.
{...}"What I am asking is during the (vaccination) campaign ... to have days of tranquility and that means no action whatsoever," Jan Pronk, the U.N. special envoy to Sudan, told reporters. "That means that all forces should stay in the camps, in their barracks."{...}Pronk said he would discuss the issue with the government and southern rebel movements, as well as with the Darfur rebel groups such as the main groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
{...}The WHO said that polio was on the rise in Sudan and an epidemic was feared, with one official saying the number of cases has risen to 105 since the disease re-emerged in mid-2004.
Guido Sabatinelli, WHO representative in Sudan, said that ideally any fighting would halt for two days before the vaccination campaign began and continue two days after, but said the key was to ensure there were no incidents during the 3 days.
He said the campaign would administer oral vaccinations to children under five with household-to-household visits. He said three days would be enough to reach children under five.
So, let me see if I've got this straight: the UN has no hesitations about asking for "three days of tranquility" to vaccinate refugee children for polio, but somehow they cannot be bothered to stop these parties from killing the children and their families in the first place?
Explain that one to me, would ya?
See Also: The Butchers
disclaimer after the jump more...
Posted by: Kathy at
01:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.
We already are scheduled for two showings today.
If they think I'm going to leave the house while people walk through, they're kidding themselves.
In fact, I believe I'm going to try and hinder the showings. Would that be bad of me? I don't know. One little thing I can do to spoil it is to turn on the dishwasher while people are walking through. We have this problem wherein once you turn it on, the pipes in the wall rattle loudly. This really isn't all that surprising: it's just one more problem with the place that needs fixing, but it's bound to be expensive. No one's touched the plumbing in that wall for years, and there's no access panel to get at it, either. The husband informs me you can hear the rattling all the way down in the basement, too.
As much as I'm not fond of our current landlord, I have this feeling I should try and warn potential buyers off. Just in case some poor schlub decides this place is a good deal and is unaware of just how much works needs to be done.
Neither am I fond of this real estate agent. He's a big ball of cheese. "Hey, How ya doin'?" He seems more suited to be selling used cars than houses. And he's already tried to test our good will. According to the terms of our lease, if the landlord wants access to our apartment, they have to give us twenty-four hours notice. Well, the guy's secretary called us yesterday to schedule a showing at 10 this morning and she called at 9:50 a.m. While pushing it, that's fine and legal and I have no problems with it. The agent himself, though, called to schedule a showing for this afternoon well past the twenty-four hour cutoff. The husband politely informed him, "twenty-four hours means twenty-four hours." I know the guy will try to push it again, and we have plans to coordinate with the downstairs neighbors to block any and all attempts---across the board---that violate the 24-hour rule.
Oh, and did I mention that the downstairs neighbors are FREAKED OUT about this? Not good. Apparently, Tweedledumb just left a message on their voice mail. He didn't talk to them directly to explain the situation and he really didn't take into account that because they're not American and have no experience with home sales here, they didn't know what this meant. The husband had to calm them down because they were afraid they were going to have to pack it up and move right away. Sigh.
So, there's my ethical dilemma for the day. Should I mess with them? Any ideas, kids?
UPDATE: I should have anticipated that real estate agents themselves would be the first ones to walk through this property.
A guy just walked through, seemed surprised to see me in the kitchen and then started grilling me about the property. First question out of his mouth: "How long have you lived here?" "Five years," I replied. His eyes lit up like a tree at Christmas.
Then he proceeded to ask questions about all the problems the house has and I answered them. I don't know whether I turned him off, but he wasn't too interested in looking around after our chat, so who knows?
I sincerely hope I'm not going to get in trouble with GWH and Tweedledumb.
UPDATE II: Just looked out at the front lawn, and there is a big yellow line that was spray painted across the icy front yard. The husband and I think this is right where our nicely tree root-corrupted sewer line is.
If they think they can replace a sewer line in January, they're nuts. And if they think they're going to do it while we're still living here, they're nuts. I'm not going without water and indoor plumbing for weeks on end.
Not gonna happen.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:58 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 4 kb.
January 04, 2005
If you're interested yet haven't tuned in because you don't like coming in late on a series, well, know they're rerunning the pilot tonight. 9E/8C on your local Fox station. Neither is there going to be a new episode until that awful American Idol starts up at the end of the month and can provide a solid lead-in (although, I have to wonder how many people are going to watch both shows, American Idol fans being who they invariably are.), so you have the opportunity to catch up.
/plug
Posted by: Kathy at
03:38 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
Will he be as wild a rover without being seldom sober?
Hmmmmm.
This should be interesting.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:00 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
Did the woman point and grotesquely mimic distinct jarhead behavior? Is that what tipped Chely off?
Or is there a possibility that Chely cut this unknown chick off and that's what prompted the middle finger to be thrown?
Hmmmm.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:36 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
{...}It's so easy to be cynical. Mega stars stumping for a cause just gives my cynicism that bitter twinge. I get a bad taste in my mouth every time a group of celebrities (or psuedo celebrities) get together to try to get you, their fans, to donate to a cause. I think, instead of spending time getting all these people together, renting a studio, writing a song, recording the song, putting the album in stores, waiting for the constant airplay to kick in and, in essence, begging their public to send money to whatever they are singing about - why don't they all just reach into their pockets and donate a cool million each? Sondra did it. Leonardo did it. It seems a hell of lot more sensible, logistically and monetarily, to just cut a check and get the money where it's going. But, no. Rather than donate out of their own bank accounts, they'd rather reach out to you - you who buys their albums and t-shirts, you who probably has $24 in your bank account at the moment and no gas in your car - to put the dollars in the coffer because, hey, they are donating their time, man. They are donating their talents. And that should be enough. Right?Any moment now Bruce Springsteen will hold a press conference, with Bono on one side and Sting on the other. They'll announce a huge show at some vast stadium, maybe two stadiums - one in the U.S. and one in the U.K. Bob Geldof will come out of obscurity to smile for the cameras and remind people that he was at the forefront of the pop-star-as-philanthropist movement. Tickets will be $50 and up. There will be t-shirts, water and food for sale at the show, as well as frisbees and beach balls imprinted with the TsunamiAid logo, which will be copyrighted and trademarked and perhaps drawn by a famous artists. The shows will be simulcast on Pay-per-View. The second the concert is over and the now broke fans have gone home, the DVD and CD will be for sale. Millions and millions of dollars will be raised. By the fans of these stars. Yet the stars will get the credit for raising the money.
We don't need overripe pop stars to get us to donate. How much has Amazon raised already? How much in private donations have been given? How many people have already volunteered to go over and help with the recovery efforts? We did this all without the benefit of some guy with a hit record telling us to.{...}
Posted by: Kathy at
12:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 2 kb.
You can read them here and here. My response to his bleg to the blogosphere can be found here.
I've been banging on the same drum since I was sixteen and started watching Crossfire but hell, I'll bang it again: what a tremendous ass Kinsley is! Not only does he just not get it about Social Security, he also manages to diss the exact same group of people he went to for research material:
Just so I don't sound too naive: I am familiar with the blog phenomenon, and I worked at a Web site for eight years. Some of my best friends are bloggers. Still, it's different when you purposely drop an idea into this bubbling cauldron and watch the reaction. What floored me was not just the volume and speed of the feedback but its seriousness and sophistication. Sure, there were some simpletons and some name-calling nasties echoing rote-learned propaganda. But we get those in letters to the editor. What we don't get, nearly as much, is smart and sincere intellectual engagement -- mostly from people who are not intellectuals by profession -- with obscure and tedious, but important, issues.{...}
Oh, I'm sure he didn't think that bit up there about bloggers not being "professional intellectuals" was a slam. I'm sure he thought he was being complimentary after having rolled those beady eyes of his at the mere thought of having to weed through a full inbox. He meant it as a compliment, I'm certain. A little MSM pat on the head. Good little blogger. Niiii-ce blogger. Remember the Milkbone I slipped you and don't bite me.
Chomp.
I may not be employed by a Beltway think tank or by some Ivy League university, but that does not mean I do not consider myself to be an intellectual. As much as I hate to refer to the dictionary, I find myself needing backup. The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition defines intellectual as: "a person possessing a highly developed intellect." I'm sure we can split a few hairs about what "highly developed" means but if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty, well, that pretty much defines anyone who reads on a regular basis, doesn't it? Someone who thinks deep thoughts. Who has curiosity. Who wants to figure out how it works and thinks that, after coming up with something new, they can add something to the discussion and who then might put the fingers to the keyboard and pump something cohesive out. Is this person not an intellectual? We live in a free society which provides for an open exchange of ideas. Anyone with the chops and the know-how can take part. Despite his call for opinions, despite his implied pledge to that open society with a free flow of ideas, ironically (or not)Kinsley, it appears, would have it otherwise. Never mind the inconvenient fact that we the people actually have a stake in this very important discussion. That's the least of it according to the Gospel of Mike.
Yet, while I would like to think that anyone who is curious about the world can consider themselves to be an intellectual, this apparently is not the case. You need to have credentials. You need degrees hanging on the wall. After all, the very word "profession" implies that this is what you do to earn your daily bread. A professional intellectual would be one who paid his bills by thinking deep thoughts, because we all know nothing is worth anything unless you get paid for it. That's the standard we Capitalists have developed, so we'll stick with that. Hmmmm. Let's see. Can we find an example to prove Kinsley---and the rest of the world---wrong? To allow for deep thoughts to be thunk by anyone other than Los Angeles Times opinion page editors and members of the ivory tower? Aha! I've got it! Einstein! Albert Einstein was a patent clerk when he developed his Theory of Relativity. But Einstein didn't make enough to earn his daily bread by working on this Theory of Relativity, so he went to work at that infamous Swiss Patent Office. Does that mean Einstein---the man who explained what Newton could not---wasn't an intellectual?
If you use Kinsley's standards the answer would be "no." Einstein wouldn't have qualified. Accordingly, bloggers can come up with "intellectual engagement" but we're not "professional" intellectuals. In other words, bloggers are only good for a brief battle or two, like a reservist, but we'd best leave the fighting to the serious soldiers, like Kinsley. We might get ourselves killed otherwise.
Screw that.
Kinsley's cushy, protected, little paradigm is shifting. The vast wonder of the Internet is giving voice to millions of previously unheard people. That's got to be a be a little nervewracking if you're used to having to only bat back Robert Novak for the consumption of the average basic cable audience. I would bet anything that while he enjoyed the responses he received and---admittedly---was surprised at them, he still refuses to think that anyone could grasp the argument better than he could. That despite our responses, Kinsley probably thinks the blogosphere consists only of pajama-clad diletantes. Not surprisingly, this close-mindedness to what bloggers---let alone the common man or woman who hasn't set up a blog---are capable of is also why Kinsley refuses to see any argument other than his own regarding Social Security.
The man is, quite simply, a brick wall against which anything that's not of his own creation smashes.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.
January 03, 2005
...how do you wear a dress like that and not realize your tit is hanging out for all and sundry to see? Particularly when she can somehow manage the feat I always have issues with: hanging on to a stole. Yet, despite her stole-clenching abilities she's---somehow---COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS that her BOOB is hanging out? One would think it would have felt a bit drafty at the very least.
What the hell?
Posted by: Kathy at
07:54 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
{...}you'll find some very rich countries who are doing next to nothing.Take, for instance, Saudi Arabia ($10 million), Kuwait ($2 million), and Iran ($627,000). This, for their Muslim brothers and sisters? These are countries for whom wealth flows from the very earth which killed so many. The Saudi princes do not work or create. They shop and harvest. And yet here they stand again--they and the rest of the Middle East--sitting on their hands and expecting the rest of the world to take care of their Islamic brothers. How much is Islamic solidarity worth for Iran? About 16,000 barrels of oil.
That's fine, so far as it goes. It's their choice. But remember it the next time you hear a bin Laden tape blaming the West for the destruction of civilization. Remember it the next time you hear an Islamist imam castigating the Jews and infidels for defiling their lands. Remember it the next time you hear an al Jazeera story about how infidels are disrespecting Islam. Remember it the next time you hear how Islamic "solidarity" with other oppressed Muslims is what keeps this or that country from fully joining in on the war on terror.{...}
I can't tell you all the times the husband commented on how poorly Pakistani and Filipino guest workers were treated by their Kuwaiti hosts. They weren't spat upon, but they were definitely looked upon with disdain. It's the same with the Egyptians. The Indonesians are near the bottom of this Islamic totem pole, hence it's not surprising to me that Saudi, Kuwait and Iran aren't ponying up.
There is no such thing as a homogenous Islam. Which is one reason why we're not waist-deep in trouble where Bin-Laden is concerned. While Jonathan makes a good point in asking us to remember this lack of charitable cohesion the next time a call for Islamic Solidarity is shouted from the muzzein of Al-Jazeera, I have a feeling that our memories aren't the ones which will be called into play. Our remembrances will be the least of it. The majority of Indonesian Muslims, however, will remember keenly, and with great clarity, how little solidarity there actually is between Islamic Brothers.
After all, they've already got an axe against Wahhabism and have been grinding it for quite some time.
In the January, 2004 issue of Vanity Fair (unavailable online), Christopher Hitchens reported on the potential of Indonesia to become overrun with Islamic fundamentalists of the type who buy Osama's line of bull.
{...}At another meeting, three scholars from the Center for the Study of Islam and Society, headquartered at the Islamic State University in Jakarta, patiently explained their "inclusive" theology. All surveys showed, they told me, that most Indonesian Muslims are quite dutiful and observant. They fast and they pary and they keep the Ramadan rules and try to go on the hajj. "I am often attacked by extremists and hijackers of Islam," said Fu'ad Jabali, a fellow at the center, "because I studied in Montreal and London and had Jewish and Christian colleagues. But I can speak Arabic and quote the Koran---usually better than they can---and so I usually win the argument."Nobody likes to make too much of it, because Indonesians are almost frighteningly polite and courteous, but a very distinct anti-Arab theme was one that I came to notice more and more. Rather like the Bosnians I met a few years ago, the local Muslims don't care to be lectured and browbeaten by bigots from the Arabian Peninsula, a place where hypocrisy is rampant. "They come to the poor districts here," said Jamhari Makruf, director of the center, "and say that they will build a mosque as long as they are allowed to appoint the imam. And then they try to impose Wahhabi indoctrination." It's an open secret that most of the Bali bombers went to the same religious school, or madrassa (the local name for madrassas is pesantren), a school founded by Abu Bakar Bashir, in point of fact, In pesantren like these, the main education on offer---aside from anti-american and anti-Semitic paranoia---is the mind-dulling, rote memorization of the Koran, in Arabic. And it's also well understood that there are pesantren paid for by Saudi petrodollars. "There is a saying here," I was told by Bambang Harymurti, editor in chief of Tempo. "If you see a snake and an Arab, take care of the Arab first." To this perhaps rather unattractive motto, he added, "The main problem for the United States is finding an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia."{...}
I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia has purposefully lowballed their relief donation in favor of contributing a larger sum later, which will be designated for the rebuilding of mosques and schools for their struggling Islamic brothers. The Saudis will come in when the rebuilding starts and will offer up mosques and schools, but, like before, there will be strings attached, all in the furtherance of Wahhabism. You know, Inshallah and all that.
It occurs to me that this, indeed, would be the time for all of those moderate Muslims to pony up some significant financial support. You know who I'm talking about, right? Those Muslims we hear nary a peep from when a westerner is beheaded in Iraq, but who still rant and rave about U.S. support for Israel and who, the minute they fear retaliation for something their extremist breathren did, scream, "Islam is a religion of peace!" You know, those guys and gals. It's time for them to step up to the plate. For the most part, Indonesia has rejected Wahhabism. So far. What better way to make sure it doesn't gain a foothold in the aftermath of the largest natural disaster ever to strike Indonesia than to allow the Indonesians to practice their own brand of Islam, using their own imams and their own teachers? Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do? To put the money where their (proverbial) moderate mouths are?
Posted by: Kathy at
06:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1017 words, total size 6 kb.
Seriously.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:02 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
59 queries taking 0.1332 seconds, 196 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.