I love it how certain folk in the UK berate the US about our "barbaric" use of the death penalty, when it's apparent they have their own issues dealing with so-called mob justice.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Bzzzzzzt.

He's none of those people. He was either this guy, this guy or this guy.

Marlowe's my personal favorite in this horse race, but that's just me.

{hat tip: Sully}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Jonathan points the way to the trailer for the new Ridley Scott movie, Kingdom of Heaven and makes some predictions:

{...}In the past, Scott has been fairly unflinching in his depiction of certain enemies of Western civilization (see Black Hawk Down and G.I. Jane). It will be very, very interesting to see how the Kingdom of Heaven handles the crusades and how the CAIR-style backlash is manufactured leading up to the film's release (expect Time and Newsweek cover stories in April). Also of interest will be the European reaction to the movie. What happens to European anti-Americanism when Europe is cast in the role of America?{...}

(If, like myself, you're overwhemed in this acronym laden world, CAIR is the Council on American Islamic Relations.)

Interesting, but I think Ridley will indeed get off Scot free. I predict he will be laughing all the way to the bank. Unlike Oliver Stone, who laid the blame for Alexander's recent failure at the feet of uninterested American Bush-votin' fundamentalist homophobes, Scott doesn't go into a movie blatantly pushing an agenda. He goes into it to tell a story. There may be controversial aspects to that story, but Scott handles them deftly as they come along: they're simply a part of the story to him, not the story in itself. Stone also goes into filmmaking to tell a story, but he carries with him an agenda. He prefers to perform morality plays, wherein his message is the morality preached. Scott doesn't do that. I don't doubt that Scott does have an agenda to promote regarding Western Civilization, but he doesn't slam you over the head with it. He gives his audience credit for having a brain and allows them to come to conclusions themselves. If anything, he's the braver of the two, because he's not afraid of the audience. If the audience fails to laud Stone we're all stupid, as the above links show. The difference between the two men and their styles of storytelling is obvious.

For instance, Gladiator, if it had been made by Oliver Stone instead of Ridley Scott, would have been all about the evils of slavery. Stone, I'm fairly certain, would hammer this point home, with every character conundrum and plot point revolving around it. Scott's version, however, was about a general being sold into slavery by his enemies, and having the character to not only survive the perils of forced servitude, but to rise above it and to vanquish his foes. Was slavery any less evil in Scott's film, even though he didn't flog the dead horse of slavery every chance he got?

Any publicity this film gets along the lines of Jonathan's predictions will only be invalidated when the movie is released, and (I predict confidently) is critically acclaimed. It'll be a big non-starter. Alexander's failure to reap any critical acclaim and box office gives me hope in for this film. As for the Europeans, well... If they thought Alexander was good, do we really need to be consulting them for their opinion about films and their relevance to the ongoing debate of how best to combat Islamofascism?

Related side note: could someone tell me what the fascination with Orlando Bloom is? Bleh. I'm just not getting this one. He does absolutely nothing for me. He looks like an eager puppy, rather than a brave man. If this movie fails it will be because of him, I'm pretty certain, and not because of the message.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:28 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

As an outflow of yesterdays' lingerie discussion, Feisty Christina has a question for the men out there.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:19 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy o' the Llamas, we have Michelle Malkin on cutting:

Have you heard of "cutting"? If you're a parent, you'd better read up. "Cutting" refers to self-mutilation -- using knives, razor blades or even safety pins to deliberately harm one's own body -- and it's spreading to a school near you.

Actresses Angelina Jolie and Christina Ricci did it. So did Courtney Love and the late Princess Diana. On the Internet, there are scores of websites (with titles such as "Blood Red," "Razor Blade Kisses" and "The Cutting World") featuring "famous self-injurers," photos of teenagers' self-inflicted wounds and descriptions of their techniques. The destructive practice has been depicted in films targeting young girls and teens (such as "Thirteen"). There is even a new genre of music -- "emo" -- associated with promoting the cutting culture.

In Britain, health care researchers estimate that one in 10 teenagers engages in addictive self injury. According to psychiatrist Gary Litovitz, medical director of Dominion Hospital in Falls Church, Va., the growing trend here in America has alarmed school guidance counselors around the country.{...}

Go read the whole thing.

While Malkin is quick to lay the blame of this alarming practice at the feet on Hollywood, I, just like Robbo, think she's way off the mark. The girl referred to in the piece is a child of divorce and is no doubt seeking attention. Cutting is just the hip way to do this.

When I was that age, well, sleeping around or getting obnoxiously drunk on a regular basis was the way to garner the attention of one's parents. And yes, at age fourteen, people in my eighth grade class were sleeping around and getting loaded regularly. This was in in 1985. The phrase "bl0w j0b" had entered into my lexicon when I was twelve, two years earlier.

And I went to Catholic school.

Yet, since those are commonly accepted activities for teenagers nowadays and there is no stigma attached to them, well, the kids have to look elsewhere for outrageous things to do to make mommy and daddy pay attention. I never drank in high school or slept around: my parents would have killed me if I had done either. Never mind the peer pressure, or the fact I knew I wasn't ready for either activity, the main reason I never did those things was because I didn't want to have to sit and be yelled at by my father for days. And, wow, can my father ever bellow. You don't want to sit through it. Trust me on this one. That was enough to keep me in line.

What's surprising to me about this article is that Malkin took the cheap and easy way out. She pulls out her old battle ax once again and blames Hollywood for this new and disturbing trend. Well, ok, but it seems to me that she missed the greater opportunity to make some points about how society encourages parents to handle teenage rebellion today.

Teenagers are going to rebel. That's just a fact of life. I did it. I'm sure you did, too. There is a point in every adolescent's life where whatever yoke a teenager is burdened with, whether it be light or heavy, becomes a bit much to take. It seems to me they will find things to rebel against, no matter what. This is the time when a teenager is preparing themselves to enter the adult world. Rebelling against authority is part of the game. It is an age where you're figuring out your capabilities as a human being; where you test your limits. If you have no limits to test against, you're going to find new things to do, like cutting.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about when I claim those limits have been removed. In an effort to lessen the damage of teenagedom, some parents try to make those years safe for their kids, like they were trying to childproof the cabinet under the kitchen sink. They're going to drink, lets buy the beer so they don't have to proposition someone at the 7-11. Let them drink at the house, so they're not out on the roads. They're going to have sex, let's get them set up for birth-control. Let's tell them about HIV/AIDS and STD's, so they'll use a condom. Let's let them use their bedrooms, so they're not doing it in the backseat of a car. And so on and so forth. The "they're going to do it anyway" reasoning has led to activities like cutting, in my humble, non-kid-owning opinion. When you're a teenager and you feel the need to rebel, and your parents take away the commonly accepted ways of showing that rebellion, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the kids are going to find other ways to rebel.

Now, like I said above, I don't have kids. I could be way the hell off the mark here. This is just what I've observed with friends and family. I'm not saying that trying to keep your kids safe is a bad thing. It's a scary world out there and I can understand the desire to protect and defend. But I believe there is a point where plain old fashioned parental disapproval has to come into the equation if you want your children to become productive adults. After all, if your parents tell you that you can't go to a party without parental supervision and they're going to keep you in the house that night as a result, if you're a teenager you're going to stew about that, aren't you? You'll be pissed and frustrated, and you might think of all the things that you can't do because you're a teenager...and you can't wait until you grow up and move out of the house so you can do what you want to do. Right? That was my common complaint when I was a kid. I couldn't wait until I got out of there so I could start living my life. I wanted to grow up. I wanted to make my own decisions. I wanted to be an adult. My parents lived up to their end of the bargain. They disapproved and they showed it. I whined and complained, but I also grew up, too. Given the extended adolescence of some young adults today, you have to think that if only their parents had said 'no' once in a while, they'd be much more productive adults.

Malkin missed the bigger picture here. She laid it all on Christina Ricci's shoulders, because, I have to think, they were a convenient place to put her angst. If anything, good ol' Wednesday Addams has proved my point about teenagers finding new ways to test themselves. Her comments go a long ways toward showing exactly what the problem is.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:10 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1145 words, total size 7 kb.

It's Mickey's over in St. Paul!

In case you're wondering just what Mickey's is and what it looks like, well, go here! Great place for after-concert bacon and eggs. If I remember correctly, they sell beer, too.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Smallholder's got a problem.

Hmmmm.

I would have to go with the Maximum Leader's solution:

{...}In the style of your Maximum Leader: Shoot it. Drag it out and shoot it. Allow its body to bloat in the sun as an example to all other uppity racoons lest they get ideas.

In the style of Winston Churchill: Shoot it. But don't waste time. Just walk right up and shoot the bloody thing. Of course, don't be rude either. When killing a racoon it costs one nothing to be polite.

In the style of the Joseph Stalin: Shoot it. Walk up and POW! One round in the back of the head. Note to self: invoice the racoon's family for the bullet.{...}

Yep. The Max Leader is on to something, even if the Ny-Quil is keeping him from realizing it. The best solution here is for Smallholder to pretend he's someone else and then shoot it that way. In fact, Smallholder could adopt the Cake Eater animus toward racoons and it just might serve him well in getting through this gruesome task.

Raccoons are the bane of my existence in the summertime. The trash goes out on Sunday night for Monday morning pickup, even though the raccoons are quite capable of pulling the lids off all the cans, even when they're buckled down by the can handles. Wily little fuckers. Well, you say, why don't you just take the trash out on Monday morning, so you don't have to be woken by the little fuckers when they trip the motion-sensor light right under your bedroom window? Well, the trash is the one thing our downstairs neighbors take care of around here. They take it out Sunday night, and lest I discourage them from getting more involved (i.e. taking over some of the snow shoveling) I'm not going to say a damned thing.

Most of the time, the nasty Cake Eater neighbor leaves his cans wide open and they go munching in there. When they do come over here, however, they leave an unholy mess! Aieee. Garbage---nasty, nasty garbage---everywhere. Which, of course, we have to clean up. Bleh. My sister, who has her own raccoon problem, says that pouring liquid ammonia into the trash cans works quite well as a repellent. I haven't tried this yet, but I probably will.

In the meantime, however, Smallholder can feel free to access my angst and shoot the varmint.

Happy shooting!

Posted by: Kathy at 03:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 2 kb.

Heheheheheheh.

Better you than me, Robbo.

Rent a laptop.

Puhleeeze?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

...is finding someone else who is similarly obsessed with a particular topic.

Courtesy of Ilyka, I found that Ith at Absinthe and Cookies is also a big House fan! She's even got an email list. Wooooh. Impressive.

So, this is a good thing. More people chatting about this show means it won't disappear any time in the near future. Das ist gut. I'm afraid, however, that I still need to keep chatting about House. I'm sorry if this bores you to tears, but I'm terrified that the only reason it's doing well right now is because it's on right after American Idol. I'm afraid that when Idol disappears, its ratings will go back into the toity and that will be the end of that. I don't want to be able to see how that's possible, but unfortunately I can. There's been plenty o' quality television over the years that's done very, very well for a time in a good slot, and then has subsequently disappeared into the ether, like a spaceship on the X-Files, because its lead-in disappeared as well. It's times like this when I really, really wish Nielsen would give me one of those boxes so I can fuck with their heads about what is and isn't good tee-vee.

It's worrying.

Hugh Laurie should have this job for as long as he wants it. And if I have anything to say about it, that will be for a long, long, loooong time.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

What the hell does heteronormative mean?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

So, after the success of our leg shaving posts Fiesty, Silk, Sadie and myself decided to make every other Tuesday girly day in the blogosphere. We're calling it "Demystifying Divas." We've picked a topic for today, which will make itself known very shortly. You have to suffer through it. Enjoy!

Way back in the day, when I was in college, the gents that surrounded me (Iowa State had a 3-1 male/female ratio) would live for the day when the Victoria's Secret catalogs were delivered. I didn't get it. To me the catalog was full of a bunch of chicks with come-hither stares who not only needed to put some clothes on, but who also needed cheescake, STAT! But for the guys, well, it was heaven. Yet they would never explain to me what, precisely, was so sexy about a bunch of chicks modeling bras and panties when they were of the age that they could buy a Playboy at QuikTrip and not have to worry about their mothers finding it when they looked for laundry.

It made no sense. If you're at McDonalds and the full meal deal is available, and you're hungry, well, go for it. Don't restrict yourself to the salad because you think your diet counselor might be looking. But, like I said, they never explained it. They just smiled and walked away quickly.

I had to wait until I hooked up with the husband to get any sort of rational explanation as to why the Victoria's Secret catalog held any appeal other than that it was free. There is a reason it's known as The Poor Man's Playboy, after all. And he explained. It was about the mystery that lingerie presented. Imagination was needed, he said. Bras have hooks. What's the quickest way to get those undone? What's the skin feel like under the lace? etc. Playboy, said he, left very little to the imagination. The Victoria's Secret catalog, however, was all about mystery. You can imagine taking the underthings off, he said, whereas with a centerfold, well, the work's already been done. The whistle's been blown. It's quittin' time.

Hmmmm.

"So," I said, "it's all about the mystery?"
"Yep. That and the thought that someone would wear that for us," he replied.

AHA! The light dawned. And the heavenly hosts sang "Alleluia!"

Which is why, to this very day, I say it's pure and utter horseshit whenever a woman says she wears lingerie for herself. Pffft. I think not. You're wearing it for the person who gets to see you in your underpants and that, my friend, is that.

I'm sure some women will object to this. That's fine. If you enjoy wearing uncomfortable underwear that you alone will see, that's your business, but don't try to tell me the reason you're wearing it is for you, because it makes you feel sexy. It's not. If you're single, you're wearing it in the hopes that you'll hook up and you don't want to be caught wearing the comfy, white cotton, granny panties with the hole in the backside in case you do. If you're partnered up, it's obvious that you're trying to keep your mate happy. Any other reasoning is pure and utter denial of the truth of the situation, which is, no woman would voluntarily wear lingerie because it's goddamned uncomfortable!

Lace itches like a bad case of poison ivy. Merry Widows suck all the life out of you---literally. Not to mention how hard they are to put on, with their myriad hooks. Garters are a pain in the ass because they keep getting all twisted up, never mind how hard it is to find stockings that actually work with the stupid things. Spaghetti straps on "neato" nightgowns have a way of getting twisted up to the point where, when you awake in the morning, you very well might be able to amputate an arm if you pull really hard. Thongs, are, well, thongs. And if you want comfort silk teddies are nice, but they don't provide much support if you've got more going on in the breast region than just an 'A' cup. Same goes for camisoles. I'm not going to touch on the topic of tap pants and what that means for when it's that time of the month. {Insert the sound of men screaming as they click away from the page here} Lingerie is a pain. Why anyone would voluntarily choose to put themselves through that pain for themselves is, quite honestly, beyond me. If I was the only one who had to look at myself in my underwear, well, it'd be holy panties and bras all the way.

But I'm not the only one who has to look at me in my underwear.

I'm married. And he likes this sort of thing. So, I have nice girly jammies. I have nice bras and even a few pairs of patterned panties, even though it's against my religion to wear such things. There's even a g-string or two in my underwear lineup. (And actually, these aren't that bad, on the whole, but that's another story for another day) But I draw the line at Merry Widows, bustiers (even if they do lift and separate), lace panties and all that other crap that Victoria's Secret sells. I've found my comfort zone and there isn't a Merry Widow to be found anywhere in the vicinity. It must be simple, unadorned and lace free. I'm not selling anyone short with these requirements.

There is, indeed, mystery to be found in cotton.

So, I still wear this stuff for him, and he lives with my choices, because I can go back to holy cotton panties and live more easily with the repercussions---if you get my meaning---than he could.

UPDATE: The other Divas bent on Demystifying posted while I was sleeping. You can find what my partners in crime had to say on the topic here here and here. Hmmm. They seem to disagree with my premise. Hmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:12 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 1007 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Yes, one must ALWAYS be comfortable in underwear. ALWAYS. Did I forget to mention 'ALWAYS'? (Good post, Kathy...damn I shoulda gotten angrier too;-) Ah well. Next time!)

Posted by: sadie at February 22, 2005 07:11 AM (4CLu3)

2 Iowa State... Been back to Ames lately? I knew a girl who worked at the duds and suds...and SHE found my stash of poor-man's-playboys while she visited me in Lincoln. signed, FOL (friend of Llamas)

Posted by: Vic Barry (former regional rock star) at February 22, 2005 07:30 AM (RUVmW)

3 .. "lift and separate"... *whew*...

Posted by: Eric at February 22, 2005 07:34 AM (YlwMq)

4 Lingerie is personal...the point is how it makes YOU feel... Love it!

Posted by: Christina at February 22, 2005 07:49 AM (zJsUT)

5 Vic: no, I haven't been back to Ames in years. I drive by on I-35 on the journey to visit my family in Omaha, but as far as stopping? Naaaah. I suppose one of these days the husband and I will get nostalgic and will go campaniling for the hell of it or something like that, but it hasn't happened yet. Duds and Suds...ahhhh. How funny is that! (Btw, did actually play with a band, if so, which one, or are you fibbing about the "former regional rock star" business? And you can fess up if you are. No one's going to hurt you )

Posted by: Kathy at February 22, 2005 09:47 AM (sQLe5)

6 Damn kathy you just totally cracked me up. I love it!

Posted by: Silk at February 22, 2005 10:40 AM (W2z8L)

7 Hey Kathy, That's what's so great about our little group of Divas. We don't have to agree because we are each "unique" and gifted women. Love ya, lady!

Posted by: Christina at February 22, 2005 11:11 AM (zJsUT)

8 Shucks, she called us gifted! Of course she is right...

Posted by: silk at February 22, 2005 12:29 PM (W2z8L)

9 Kathy, I really DID play in a few bands in high school (Onawa, Iowa) and college (Lincoln.) Placid Quake, and Fishpants were the best known, though not by many. We never played Ames, but we played the raunch bowl on 72nd in Omaha! And I was bassist for 10-08 out of Omaha for a week before my mother quashed that idea. 10-08 later opened for Trimph at the Civic Auditorium. What a thrill that would have been... Mostly for beer money. I didn't drink much. Didn't make that much money. Wouldn't really call myself a star, except for this high tech narcicism we call the internet.

Posted by: Vic Barry (former regional rock star) at February 22, 2005 03:22 PM (RUVmW)

10 Fishpants sounds somewhat familiar, but I'm afraid I'm not aware of the other two. That's cool that you played the Ranch Bowl! You hit the big time! Anyone who's anyone has played the raunch bowl! Even Keanu Reeves played the Ranch Bowl. You should feel proud

Posted by: Kathy at February 22, 2005 09:30 PM (Tosbv)

11 Okay, I'll join in!! I like sexy undies, teddies and lacy things in the summer. Winter, me I like something a little warmer!! I'll never forget what one woman told me about Victoria's Secret. A man walked in and made a remark about there wasn't anything in this store for him. Her answer to that,,,"honey, everything in here is for men!" A truer statement has never been made!

Posted by: Michele at February 22, 2005 10:07 PM (4s+3F)

12 Thank heavens someone else hates that kind of uncomfortable stuff, too! I'll take a wife-beater and a thong under jeans anyday!

Posted by: Ali at February 24, 2005 11:49 AM (8S4Cc)

13 I always believe one should be there sexy best. The guys always love a sexy woman - and woman like it too - even if they sometimes are a bit J------ Barbie J

Posted by: Barbie J at February 24, 2005 06:22 PM (2Gn0V)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Christ, women!

Let me give you a clue.

{Kathy puts a cigarette in her mouth, fires zippo, lights the smoky treat, inhales deeply, then begins}

If you want revenge for a cheating boyfriend/husband/pet monkey, cutting off their naughty bits by means of a Ginsu is not the best way to go about making them pay. The Ginsu may slice and dice and even cut through a tin can, but it is not the best tool for the job. You may put him through a great deal of pain, but it will be temporary pain. He will eventually heal, and in best man fashion, he will do his absolute darndest to put the matter behind him. Because he will be able to put the matter behind him. Because they---ahem---always seem to find a way to reattach the offending item.

If you hadn't noticed, the vascular surgeons of the world are getting pretty darned good at hooking the wee beasties back up. I'm sure if you looked it up, there are any number of medical journals which have published many o' a study that detail the best way to do this. While there have been any number of these sorts of cases over the years, gender reassignment surgery has helped surgeons make huge leaps in this department. They've learned a lot, obviously. After all this guy's whatsit made its way through the sewer system and was reattached! They're freakin' miracle workers!

And if you're wondering if it would work, may I present to you, Exhibit A: John Wayne Bobbit. He works in the pr0n industry. One needs to have working parts for that sort of a job. This doesn't work. He won't reform his wicked ways, he'll just get a new and improved whatsitcalled (which, of course, he'll be enamored with) and---provided he doesn't bleed to death in the process---your ass will land in the pokey for two to five. What's the freakin' point of all that? Do you actually think he'll mind his manners in the future? Ha! I think not. First off, he won't have a damn thing to do with you, and second, well, I told you he'd be enamored of his new and improved whatsit. He will be raring to go and try it out. You will, in fact, have made him worse in this department and not better. So, I ask you again, what's the freakin' point?

It's time to think outside of the box, ladies. It's time to be proactive so the red haze of fury will never descend upon you at a bad time. If you're interested, read on after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 4 kb.

As if gamers needed anything else to feed their obsessive compulsive behavior.

Heh.

(You can find Ctrl-Alt-Del Here every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Well, that bit about it being available every day and twice on Sundays really isn't true, but it should be. And I didn't lie about where you could find it, either. How's that for truthfulness?)

Posted by: Kathy at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeff Goldstein needs cold, hard cash or he won't put up any more Martha Stewart photoshops.

Go. Give.

Because we wouldn't want to have to suffer through our boring lives without wondering how Martha's getting along in prison.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Given these recent developments, I'm so prescient.

Sure it's all about beer and trivia now, but they're milling about and organizing. There are weekly meetings that serve a roughly sketched, "figuring it out as we go along" initiation purpose. There's even a blogroll so we know who is a member and who ain't.

Yes, kids. I think we all know where this is headed.

The MOB will soon be applying for a charter and requesting entry into the Panhellenic Council. It is, in short, turning into a Fraternity or a Sorority.

What's next? A reworking of the initiation ritual to something where we all have to bow down and pay homage to Lileks, Hewitt, NARN and the Powerline guys? Will ritualistic chanting be involved? Will we all be uttering shortly, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" What else will be required? Candle passings? Serenades? Will we be ordering sweatshirts with 'MOB' scrawled across them? Will we be participating in Greek Week and the compulsory bed races? Will we be forced to whip out our trusty cordless screwdrivers to construct a homecoming lawn display? Will float building two weeks before finals be mandatory? Will we now have to perform intricate Rush dances on the front lawn of the MOB house? Or---holy of holies-- will the ghastly phrase, "Fire UP!" be repeatedly squeaked out by perky blondes for motivational purposes?

Heaven forfend!

Soon, I am pretty damn sure, I'll be drafted into licking envelopes. This is how it always starts.

Join up for the fun and tongue numbness will shortly follow.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:27 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

For my fellow Minnesota residents who received an anti-trust settlement offer from Microsquash last fall: it has to be postmarked tomorrow or you lose out on all that cashola!

And the only reason I know this is because the husband just filled ours out.

Go forth and bask in the righteousness of the well-informed.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

I THINK NOT!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Sadie, in response to an idiotic call for Brit Hume's resignation, points us to where the real problem at Fox News resides.

To go one step further in blogswarming the apparent plastic surgery addiction at Fox News, I humbly present to you, my devoted Cake Eater readers, this:

Dearest Shep needs to cut back on the old Botox injections. I still find myself watching his broadcast, waiting for a random forehead line to pop up. Alas, it never happens. In fact, he doesn't seem to have a whole lot of facial expression, does he? Sure he can do stuff with his voice, but when it comes to expressing with his facial muscles, well....

I have this image of him being shot up every day, right before Studio B, when he's getting his makeup done. Does Fox keep a plastic surgeon on retainer?

Hmmmm. I smell an Area 51 conspiracy.

I'm assuming all my fellow CITIZEN JOURNALISTS will jump on this one now that I've proved there is a plastic surgery conspiracy occurring at Fox News.

Go forth and act all Mulderish in pursuit of the truth. And if you wind up singing the theme song to Shaft during your investigation, I want the video.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:54 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

...an avatar for their blog that screams, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way"?

No, seriously.

I'm thinking the upper right hand corner of this pig is a little boring. What with all that blank space, there's room for something new and visually interesting.

UPDATE: And, no, I don't want Marie Antoinette up there.

UPDATE 2: She should be luscious and wearing glasses.

And be a brunette.

Because I am luscious, wear glasses and am a brunette.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:41 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Heh heh. Would you like some assistance with that, Kathy?

Posted by: sadie at February 19, 2005 03:39 AM (4CLu3)

2 Check your email in the morning;-)

Posted by: Sadie at February 19, 2005 03:43 AM (4CLu3)

3 Hey, Lady, I just dropped you an email, too! Enjoy. Thanks!

Posted by: Christina at February 19, 2005 06:49 AM (zJsUT)

4 Because I am luscious, wear glasses and am a brunette. I'm listening.

Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer at February 19, 2005 01:34 PM (R4gIs)

5 Oh, hell....I tried to post a suitable comment, but it's late and everything I come up with seems designed specifically to get me into a world of hurt.....

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at February 19, 2005 10:49 PM (ywZa8)

6 I want that too.... mmmmmmm sexyblog

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 20, 2005 09:27 PM (0OALK)

7 My pinup toon is from Rion Vernon. He's a got others, including one that was leggy and just a little too racy—from my husband's POV—for me to use. Furthermore, he's very open about allowing bloggers (at least the not-yet-profitable ones) to use his images in their blog designs (provided credit is given, of course). I don't remember any in glasses, but it's very possible there were some.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2005 06:23 PM (RjyQ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Over at the Fraters, St. Paul discusses the various privileges of union membership and makes some excellent points.

As far as the benefits of union membership, well, as far as I can see, there really don't seem to be any. But don't tell the unions that. You might just put Jimmy Hoffa Jr in his grave prematurely. And let's face it, if there's anyone who's probably really afraid of dying, it's him. It would be cruel to taunt him about such a thing. Really. (Don't think it'll stop me, though.) But I digress. Anything they might have been able to take credit for in the past is now legislated. What purpose do they serve nowadays, other than arguing about health insurance prices? I don't really see the need for them to be fighting THE MAN all the damn time. At least not here in the States.

On a related note, I would still like to know why the Teamsters can call itself an international organization if it only operates in the United States and Canada.

What? Don't workers in developing countries deserve to be represented by Jimmy Hoffa Jr. in their fight against THE MAN? I mean, if it's all about fighting THE MAN, you'd think they'd want to go someplace where they'd actually have to, you know, fight.

Or isn't five percent of a $14/week Mexican/Indonesian/Malaysian paycheck enough to sustain their activities?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

/sarcasm

Posted by: Kathy at 12:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.