After over 10 years, I'm amazed every day; ...at your strength, at your intelligence, at your wit, at your integrity, at your beauty. I truly don't know how I got so lucky.
Happy Valentine's Day, My Bride.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at 07:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

It's currently raining.

In February.

In Minnesota.

I do believe this is the one of the signs that the world is about to end. I think it's somewhere in Revelations. Between the blood-red moon and everything in the seas dying.

You could look it up.

UPDATE: The rain turned into snow around sixish. The world, it seems, will not end after all. We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of the husband, a fellow World of Warcraft player, who explains the lingo: "When playing a game, it is said that we have "aggro" when a "mob" (mobile enemy) has turned aggressive and attacks."

Chuckle.

{You can find more Ctrl-Alt-Del here.}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

It's pretty obvious that I'm a Minnesota blogger. Locals will have been tipped off by the phrase "Cake Eater" in the title. Non-locals will have read my various scribblings about what it's like to live in the Twin Cities. People know where I live. Recently, however, some of my very nice fellow Minnesota bloggers have added me onto their blogrolls as a member of the "Minnesota Organization of Bloggers." This is a facetious titling to lump all of us who live around here into a barely coherent group. Short form: I moseyed to a bar in downtown and met a bunch of fellow bloggers who were nice enough to blogroll me. This pleases me and I'm proud to be one of the chosen few. (And I will be reciprocating shortly. I've just been lazy.)

Pleasure aside, though, because of said lumping into Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (aka The Journey to Keegan's), well, I got an interesting email yesterday. From a state level politician who's running for one of the biggie state level offices. I don't want to out the guy until he announces his intentions publicly, so he will remain nameless. I don't mean to diss his campaign manager, either, because he's just doing his job by getting the word out, but... I have to wonder what the hell were they thinking by sending me an email full of paragraphs like this one?

"{...}recognizes the key role that bloggers, and especially Minnesota bloggers, have begun to play on the forefront of the new media
revolution. As 'journalists', in both the original and traditional meanings of
the word, Minnesota bloggers are increasingly becoming opinion leaders
and sources for original information...wants to acknowledge that
vital role in public policy discussion by including bloggers as part of
'the media' as they release information.

While I think it's good that campaigns are bringing bloggers into the fold and I applaud their efforts, my main reaction is what the fuck are these people thinking? I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, when did The Cake Eater Chronicles turn into blog where the author actually gave a rat's ass about Minnesota politics?

I spend very little, if any, time writing about Minnesota politics. And anyone who actually read my blog would know this. There are many reasons I avoid it, but the main reason would be I abhor state-level politics. It bores me. I know other people love this sort of thing but I don't. Yet all is not lost. The beauty that is the blogosphere dictates that if something doesn't interest you, well you don't have to write about it because many, many other people will. But because it was a bulk email thrown out to many people, it's obvious I've been lumped into the CITIZEN JOURNALIST* blog category.

Bleh

Note to campaign managers everywhere: this is my personal op-ed page. I am not a CITIZEN JOURNALIST. I am a citizen op-ed writer. There's a difference. Good luck with everything. I wish you well, but save yourself time and effort in the long run and don't bother me.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 3 kb.

Taking a cue from John over at Texas Best Grok, the ever magnificent Sadie has posted a most interesting poll.

Which sci-fi babe (male) would you like to have rescue you from a soon-to-explode spaceship?

Or at least that's what I think she was talking about. I was too, er, uhm, distracted to see what her criteria actually was other than hunkiness.

My vote? Keanu. Definitely Keanu. He is fine. It's just my opinion and I might be seeing things, but, just from my observations, he looks like he's a really good kisser. If you're going to be saved, you must have a good kisser doing the rescuing. It's a must. No one wants to have a slobber monster rescue them from a near-death situation.

He can also talk to me all he wants, too. I'm one of the few people who doesn't think he's automatically stupid just because he sounds like one of the McKenzie brothers. Canuck accent does not equal stupidity.

And just for the record I never saw either of Bill and Ted's most excellent adventures.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Martini Boy on hockey season being officially over:

The last time the NHL failed to award Lord Stanley's Cup, it was due to a global flu epidemic that killed 20 million people. This time, millionaire owners and millionaire players can't agree on a few contractural issue.

Now my stomach is really upset.

Mine too.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

...why they call Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, "Red Ken."

LONDON (Reuters) - London's outspoken Mayor Ken Livingstone has refused to apologise for calling a Jewish newspaper reporter a war criminal and concentration camp guard, despite complaints from Britain's main Jewish group.

"Are you a German war criminal?" Livingstone was heard saying on a tape recording of the exchange with the Evening Standard journalist at a event to mark the 20th anniversary of former cabinet member Chris Smith announcing he is gay.

When the journalist said he was Jewish and was offended by the mayor's remarks, Livingstone replied: "Actually you are just like a concentration camp guard."{...}

But wait, there's more...

{...} A statement from the mayor's office blamed the paper for harassing guests and provoking the mayor. His office said the mayor would not comment further.{...}

Catch that one? Livingstone was the one who was harrassed and provoked. Not the reporter who was compared to a concentration camp guard.

Using Livingstone's own standards for acceptable rhetoric, I believe a comeback including the phrases, "Uncle Joe," "Purges" and "Wanker Mayor not having the necessary skills available to survive them," would have been appropriate under the circumstances.

UPDATE: The husband challenged me in the comments. Here is the transcript of the conversation. Further developments can be found here.

Livingstone is a wanker.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

...and is probably as jealous as hell. While Chuck is a distant relative (and I'm not all that sure that's even true. When they started poaching from the German Houses for future Kings and Queens of England, the family tree starts getting a wee bit fuzzy.) you have to think that Henry's as pissed off as all get out that this wimp is the one who finally gets things the way he wants them and doesn't have to take any guff over it. That and the fact Chuck actually produced some sons and secured the line has got to be causing some chapping.

Unlike some, I'm not a royalist. But I have to take issue with one thing Robbo said about the House of Windsor's purpose:

{...}But in a constitutional system where the Royals serve in a strictly ceremonial capacity, it's all the more important that they set an example, presenting an absolutely unimpeachable face to the public. {...}

That's just bull. Good behavior is one thing. While it should be commended when and where it is found, but it's entirely another to say that they have to present an "absolutely unimpeachable face to the public" when absolutely nothing is at risk if they don't.

They're glorfied ribbon cutters. Why does anyone care what they do/whom they sleep with, etc. It's not like the future of the country hangs on it. We've come a damn long way from the days when the English monarchy actually ruled the country---and the better part of the Earth. In terms of wielding power, it's not really that big of deal to be King anymore, is it? Poor William (and Chuck) are being asked to devote all of their time and effort to make the country feel good about itself and are getting not a whole lot, in terms of job satisfaction, in return. No wonder they goof off as often as they do. Who in their right mind would want, to be a prince nowadays? Other than Blackadder, that is?

If you want better behavior out of the Royals, well, far be it from me to suggest it, but actually give them a job where they have to work and their reputation means something and they just might surprise you. Elizabeth's kids are no better than, well, children. Nothing great is expected of them, so why shouldn't they goof off as much as possible? There's no "with great power comes great responsibility" going on with the modern English monarchy. They cut ribbons. They open hospitals. They don't formulate policies. They don't wage war. They don't do a damn thing other than provide good PR for the monarchy they would like to keep intact.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

1 There's no "with great power comes great responsibility" going on with the modern English monarchy. They cut ribbons. They open hospitals. They don't formulate policies. They don't wage war. They don't do a damn thing other than provide good PR for the monarchy they would like to keep intact. But that's exactly my point, except that I look on it as setting a national tone, not just drumming up PR and tourist dollars. Beyond a sense of historical legacy, that's their only reason left for existence. To me, that increases the responsibility to behave, because their behavior is all that they have left that is of any value to the nation. And if they can't stand up to the thankless task of maintaining such a position, they ought to abdicate. Really, I'd far rather see the Monarchy retired with dignity than dragged down to the standards of tabloid celebrity.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at February 10, 2005 04:53 PM (XBUdh)

2 Do any of the taxes that British citizens pay go to support the monarchy? That's perhaps the only reason I could see why the English would get their noses out of joint at any unseemly behavior. That aside...I think it's high time we establish something similar in the U.S. I would be quite good at living in a palace and slicing a few ribbons in half now and then.

Posted by: Cathy at February 10, 2005 05:00 PM (ZNAq7)

3 Robbo: I guess I didn't get it across what I was trying to say very well. I edited a big chunk, meaning to rewrite it and I didn't because I got distracted. My bad Anyhoo...yes, they should behave well. We agree there. But as far as their good behavior being the only reason they have their jobs as far as setting the tone for the nation? Well, no, I don't think so. I don't think that's their motivation at all and if so, it's a very poor raison d'etre. I think the monarchy is only around because it's a tradition---plain and simple. While it grates at the nerves to admit this (particularly when we're subjected to stories about Chuck telling Camilla that he wants to be reincarnated as her tampon. UGH!) I believe they're being held to a standard that never existed in reality. How many royals actually have behaved well over the ages? Very few. Victoria springs to mind, but that's about it. For the most part, that lot was a pack of degenerates. We're talking lovers galore, syphilitic princes, the entire Restoration...today's royals aren't doing anything differently than their ancestors did. The only difference is that we know about it. In the past there was court gossip. Today, we have the tabloids. My question (s) to you is this: how many people in Britain actually follow the supposed good example set by the Windsors? How many care at all? Charles will be the spiritual leader of the Church of England when he becomes King----and he will do this having been divorced and remarried outside of the Church. Does it seem like many people in England today are ticked off about that? I don't think so. A representative from the Church will be at the wedding to bless it, which just goes to show that even the Church doesn't care all that much. Tony Blair said he was "delighted" Chucky and Cammy were getting hitched. If this were the big deal that you say it is, shouldn't he be worried about this potential threat to the legitimacy of the monarchy, let alone the potential threat to legitimacy of the Church of England? It seems a moot point to me.

Posted by: Kathy at February 11, 2005 12:27 AM (sQLe5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Or at least they love the Powerline guys. The rest of us can go hang, apparently.

The local NBC affiliate, Kare 11, did a piece on blogging last night.

Nothing really new here, other than I think that the Powerline guys have hired a PR person.

They're everywhere.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

As the traffic has gone up a bit lately and we've got a few new people commenting, I would like to revisit my comments policy. I laid it all out on the old blogspot home, but failed to bring it along with me when I moved. My bad.

Since the archives are goofed up on the old blog, and there are numerous entries about this, I'm going to cut and paste, ok? That work for everyone? Ok, good. Here we go.

First:

Anyway, let me just outline the Comments Policy quickly so you can get back to surfing pr0n.

1. Abusive comments will be deleted---just as soon as I figure out how to do that. What qualifies as abusive? Well, if you tell another commenter (or me) that they should go and do certain things with a donkey, your post will be deleted. It's really quite simple. See #2 for guidelines on how not to have your comments deleted.

2. My mother reads my blog and the woman has no shortage of opinions, so you might be hearing from her. Like mother, like daughter. However, since my mom is reading this thing, and knowing that she believes in the "it's takes a village" concept, know that she will smack you down if you get out of line. And I'll let her. She's my mother---she owns me. I have no choice in this regard. So, it would seem that the best rule of thumb for commenting here would be---ahem---if you wouldn't want your mother reading what you wrote, don't post it for my mom to read.

And second:

While we're on the subject of comments, it seems Blogger wants you to log in if you leave one. Which we all know is so conducive to cooperation. (I wouldn't log in to leave a comment---are you kidding? Way too much work.) But it does give you the handy-dandy option of posting anonymously! (Note to the Blogger People: WOW! Way to invite the trolls in, kids!) If you choose the option to post anonymously to save yourself the time and hassle of logging in, that's fine with me...AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE A HANDLE IN THE TEXT SECTION. That's all I ask. I'm not asking for an email address or a weblink. Just leave a name to go with the opinion. That's not a whole hell of a lot in the scheme of things, so please do it.

So, as you might be able to deduce, I first had Haloscan comments, then switched over to Blogger's variant. But now I have the primo commenting system: Movable Type's commenting system rocks. It's non-intrusive and while I realize our benevolent dictator has had some issues in recent days with DOS attacks on trackbacks and comments, it's still the best thing around. It's the most user-friendly system out there. While these posts don't cover everything, they should give you a clear understanding of what I do and do not like when it comes to what gets posted on my space. No to anonymity (unless I say it's ok on certain posts.) and respect for the sensibilities of others. That's not too much to ask, really.

Sooooo, I can understand about spoofing your email address to prevent spam because nasty bots do spider this site occasionally. No issues with that. Yet, I don't really see why anyone would have issues coming up with some sort of unique, recognizable handle to use when they post a comment. For the edification of someone who posted a comment this morning: a pronoun is not a handle. While I love the fact that people come here and want to discuss things and would never do anything to prevent that, I would simply ask that if you're going to comment, leave a handle by which I---and my readers---will be able to identify you. That's it. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask.

Any ?'s--email me and I'll try and explain it. I'm just trying to be fair. I don't want to delete comments, but I have a serious thing about anonymous comments. Accountability in words is a big thing for me. If you're afraid to post your name---or even a handle you've come up with that, you believe, serves the purpose of anonymity---the general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't be posting. While I like to respect privacy, your anonymity is not fair to my readers or to me, and in the future, now that the policy is laid out, I WILL start hitting the delete button. Even if they're worthwhile, respectful comments, they will go. I've been reading other people's blogs long enough to know this is where the road to Troll Town starts, and quite frankly, I just don't want to go there. I haven't had to delete anyone's comments so far, and I want it to stay that way.

I thank you all in advance for your consideration.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

...40 is when life starts to get really fun.

Go on over and wish Margi a very happy birthday!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 BRING ON THE FUN, BABY! Thankya thankya thankya. And tell your Wonderful Hubby that his instructions were DA BOMB. I am posting this from Firefox [shocked look! gasping!]. I'm going to have to drag MY WH kicking and screaming to the light of the Firefox, however. He can be a little resistant to change. Unlike me. [snorting and laughing] Love love loveeee, m

Posted by: Margi at February 10, 2005 03:27 PM (zalxZ)

2 I was wondering how that all turned out. I'm so glad it worked! YAY! Happy B-day babe!

Posted by: Kathy at February 10, 2005 03:51 PM (sQLe5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Courtesy o' Fraters Libertas: Senator Mark Dayton, the dillettante of the Senate, has had the good sense not to run for re-election next year

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said today that he will not run for re-election in 2006.

Dayton made the announcement this afternoon in a telephone conference call with reporters.

"I do not believe that I am the best candidate to lead the DFL Party to victory next year,'' Dayton said.

The senator made a brief statement and took no questions.

He called it ''a tremendous honor to serve Minnesota in the past four years.Â’Â’ He said he wanted to keep the seat in Democratic hands and said he cannot do the necessary fundraising to run an effective campaign.{...}

Dayton didn't have enough coin to run for reelection. After blowing $12m of his own money getting elected, he is 'po. And because he never had to actually fundraise the first time around, he's got no clue as to how to do it this time. Of course Wellstone died, so he lost his moral compass. And then, to top it off, he bugged out of the Capitol building last fall because it was "too dangerous." The puss.

As far as a replacement? Mike Hatch, the AG, is probably so excited about this turn of events he's undoubtedly peeing his pants right now. I wouldn't put it past Mike Ciresi to run, either. Time will tell as to whom the DFL'ers pick to run, but, in my humble opinion, their stable is not only poorly kept, but scantily occupied as well. After all, they picked Mondale to take over Wellstone's campaign after he died, and look how well that went for them.

My wingman has yet to start weeping in his Boddington's. In fact, he seems to have received a nice offer already.

Hold thy head up high, Gary. You did your job so well you scared a candidate out of the race! You'll sort it out and we will anxiously await new content wherever you decide to hang your hat.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

The past couple of days, as you might have sussed due to a dearth of posts, I've had errands to run. Now, since we here in the Cake Eater household are automobile-less for the time being, this means, on occasion, riding the bus to get places we cannot walk to. On Monday, I had to hop the bus to the library. Yesterday, I had to go down to the area around Southdale. I have to tell ya, I've had it with the sidewalks, or rather the lack thereof, in either place.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about if you've ever ridden the bus to the suburbs of your fair city: sidewalks made for drivers, not walkers. Any sidewalks that might be around are added strictly as an afterhtought so drivers do not have to risk life and limb walking through an unwieldy parking lot, rather than for walkers/mass transport riders who don't have cars. After being dropped off at the central hub that is the mall, these mass transport users/walkers find themselves walking across great swathes of parking lot to get where they need to go, because the fastest way from Point A to Point B is, indeed, a straight line. At other times, they find themselves having to walk through and then practically halfway around a mall because some landscape designer/urban planner/mall designer dude thought the parking lot would look better from the air if they designed the parking lot in a circle. They find themselves having to dodge traffic because there are no crosswalks and when there are crosswalks, well, the drivers are so surprised to see someone actually walking they forget how to brake. They find themselves, as in my case, hopping off the bus at the library and having to walk from the bus stop and all the way around this huge wrought iron fence and into the parking lot, where the cars enter, because no one thought that it would be necessary to include a break in the fence, let alone lay down seven feet of sidewalk, for someone who had----GASP---taken the bus to the library.

And I'm not even going to get into how the few sidewalks that are meant for pedestrians disappear when it snows because that's where the plows put the snow they clear from the roads.

I am sick and tired of hearing from the Met Council how fabulous the Twin Cities' public transportation system is. I am sick of having to pay increased taxes for the mucho fabulouso 11.5 mile long light rail line that doesn't serve anyone other than the Mall of Gomorrah, the airport and the east side of Minneapolis. I am sick and tired of listening to the bus drivers whine about their pay and benefits. I am sick of service cutbacks and schedule rearrangements. But mostly, I am sick and fucking tired of being told what a great alternative mass transit is compared to driving a car and then having to walk extra because of modern transportation logistics and sidewalks that are designed for drivers rather than walkers! If I have to go downtown or to uptown, I have no issues with riding the bus. Why? Not only is it quicker than driving, but also mainly because there are plenty of sidewalks to accomodate pedestrian traffic. In the suburbs, however, I have yet to see that they even think of pedestrians when they design sidewalks. This is why no one in their right mind wants to ride the bus out in the hinterlands. And this is what the Met Council fails to appreciate. This is what everyone fails to appreciate.

Honestly. Designers don't even think about the fact that people will take the bus places in the suburbs. It does not cross their minds. Case in point: the Edina Branch of the Hennepin County Library. This building is less than two-years old, its former location having been appropriated for the new City Hall/Cop Shop. They put in a bus stop right across the street from the library. Did they perhaps think that someone would take the bus to the library? No, hence no sidewalk through the massive wrought iron fence. This is bureaucratic blindness at its finest. Oh, we have to make sure people have acccess to the library, so we'll make sure the bus stops there, but most people drive and the biggest complaint we had at the old location was that there wasn't enough parking, so we'll must make sure to add more parking! And honestly, that's as far as their thought processes go.

While this is a pain and a half for me, what about other people who ride the bus? The elderly shouldn't have to walk for ages through a non-crosswalked street or climb a snowbank to get to the safety of the sidewalk. And then you have the handicapped. Because no one ever looked at the situation outside of a driver's perspective someone who takes the bus and who is in a wheelchair would have to dodge traffic to get to either end of this library parking lot where they could enter. They wouldn't even have the option of getting onto the sidewalk because cars park on the street, and that's only if there isn't a snowbank the size of Pike's Peak blocking the sidewalk. While there are special buses for the handicapped that do drop them at the door, the regular street buses are enabled for handicapped riders, too. How is someone who is handicapped to handle this? They'd better have a motorized wheelchair, because the library is at the top of a hill, too, and if they had to manually push their way to safety it would take some time. The City of Edina, in an inspired act of idiocy, has just make wheelchair riders more vulnerable to being hit by a car because they didn't think!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 986 words, total size 6 kb.

MSNBC's officially scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. That'll get your ratings out of the ninth level of hell.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Neal Stephenson in Reason.

I realize the guy just churned out three, thousand-page books, but as I have officially hit junkie status where his work is concerned, I have only one thing to say to the man: "WRITE, MAN! WRITE!" Don't waste your time email chatting with Reason. Put some characters on a page and tell me a story!

(By the way, I did finish Cryptonomicon. It rocks. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. Very funny, very geeky, and very interesting simultaneously. Besides, in one of the funniest passages in the book, Randy (his character) explains how to eat Cap'n Crunch without ripping apart the roof of your mouth. He does this in a very scientific way as well, so while I have yet to try it, it seems to me like it would work. How can you not adore a writer like that?)

Posted by: Kathy at 01:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Boy, it must really suck to work for the Weekly Standard.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

There comes a time in every young girl's life when the pressure of her peers becomes too much to handle. Yet before this momentous failing of will power can occur, for a brief period of time, she manages holds out. She thinks, No, I won't cave. She has many reasons for not caving. First, she would like to think that it's not really all that important to fit in. She knows this. She's seen examples of other people not caving, sticking up for what they believe in, and she knows if she's really adamant and brave, she will survive the heckles of her peers. Second, and more importantly, she knows her mother will kill her if she caves. After all, Mom said not to do this. Mom said that when and if she ever felt the urge to do this, she was to come to Mom and Mom would help. Mom meant well. Mom was just trying to spare her agony and pain, after all. That's what moms do. But it was a little weird, what her mom was asking her to do, or at least that's how she felt anyway, so one day, nigh in that twelfth year of life, when the pressure became too much, when she'd taken one too many comments about how animal-like she looked....

...she caved and shaved her legs. Without her mother's help and advice.

And sliced herself to ribbons.

See, there is a reason to listen to Mom, after all. It saves you pints of blood over the long run.

It seems many, many people have been chiming in about shaving over the past week or so. Not surprisingly, though, they've all been men. Now, I have a husband. I know what a pain in the face shaving can be for him. However, the majority of his problems with this chore have gone the way of the Dodo ever since he bought a Mach 3 razor and started washing his face WITH SOAP AND CLEAN WATER once he was done shaving. (If you have problems with ingrown hairs, gents, this little tip will save you from breaking out. I read about it in a magazine. The husband doesn't slice himself up nearly as badly as he used to. Besides, think about it: you're dragging that razor through hair, shaving cream and you're simply rinsing it off with water, or, even worse, you're dipping it into a big puddle of bacteria-laden water and then transferring it onto your face. No wonder your pores get infected!) I also understand how ungodly expensive razors can be, as I'm generally the one who purchases them for the husband. I understand just about everything associated with men scraping their faces: what I don't understand is why they whine about it so freakin' much.

Waaaaaaaaah. Suck it up, dudes. You've got it easy.

Think I'm being sarcastic about this one? Think I don't have any empirical evidence to back up my case? Hmmm? Well, I do. Let's do the math.

Now, I'm not the tallest person known to man. I'm 5'6". While I will grudgingly admit I do not have a set of legs that would make Tina Turner shriek loudly in a fit of jealousy, I don't think they're half bad. They're just not as long as they could be because the Gene Fairy decided to bless me with a long torso instead. So, if I'm remembering my grade school math properly, The formula to figure the surface area of a parallelogram (which is the closest geometric shape when we're talking about legs) is A=1/2H(B1 + B2). We will do this in inches, because I'm American and homey don't play the metric system. Also, given this is the internet, I'm sure you'll all understand if I don't show you the math.

Anyway...

I do have two legs, so doubling that means I'm shaving---approximately---1,023 square inches every damn day of my life. Because I have dark hair. So I have to shave every day.

Are you men shaving 1,023 square inches every time you scrape your face with a razor? I didn't think so.

Add into this joy the fact that, while I'm in the shower, I cannot wear my glasses. Hence, I am shaving while blind. I must use my sense of touch by passing my left hand along my leg after the razor to ascertain where the razor has been successful and where it has not. This gets tricky when maneuvering my three-bladed Venus around the various bumpy joint surfaces of my knees and ankles. And, believe you me, there is no place you can run a razor across a face that will ever issue as much blood as when you slice through the skin covering your Achilles tendon. It, quite simply, gushes blood. There's a vein there. I've cut it often enough over my twenty-two years of shaving to know.

And of course, none of this counts for the other areas we women shave and men do not. Because that's a whole 'nother story entirely.

I'm sure my partners in crime would agree with me when I say to you, o' men o' the world, "Shhhhh."

Posted by: Kathy at 10:33 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 879 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Heh. How on Earth did you calculate that? I never learned that in school!

Posted by: sadie at February 08, 2005 12:14 PM (4CLu3)

2 After about 20 years of shaving and having finally reached a point in my life where dresses are not a daily requirement, I have eliminated at least half of the approximately 1,023 sq. inches of shaved hair by not shaving. I figure when it's 10 degrees ouside and I'm wearing pants, why bother. I'll leave the shaving to my blond daughter who shaves right before a soccer game and then puts on shinguards and soccer socks that come up to the knee. I don't understand!!! So, I get rid of part of the shaving and think life is great. Then comes that other part that Mom forgot to tell me. That after you reach a certain age, your face starts growing hair, lots of it. Aaaaagh! So, I agree, Suck it up, dudes. You've got it easy. By the way Kathy, speaking of being blind, How are your eyes? Kitty

Posted by: K. Mason at February 08, 2005 12:45 PM (THsAz)

3 Sadie: the husband helped. I was ready to do just plain old Area and he nixed it. He said I must do the surface area for a parallelogram and then laughed at me while I looked up the formula on the internet Baaaaad blogger. Kitty: the eyes are better. Went to see the ophthamologist and he told me the problem was because I wasn't producing enough tears to keep my eyes in good shape. He told me to purchase a humidifier and gave me some drops. Combined with my newly erogomically placed computer, everything's been fine since then. Thanks for asking!

Posted by: Kathy at February 08, 2005 01:06 PM (sQLe5)

4 No, I told you to do the area of a trapezoid. To get the area of a trapezoid, we manipulate the formula for the area of a paralellogram. You did use the right end formula however. Damn, I'm an annoying, know-it-all bastard, aren't I. ;p That, and I'm grateful my wife shaves when and where she does

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at February 08, 2005 02:19 PM (sQLe5)

5 Truely awesome post. I suddenly have the urge to try and calculate too /

Posted by: silk at February 08, 2005 02:43 PM (Dv7SR)

6 .. I am truly humbled..

Posted by: Eric at February 08, 2005 05:01 PM (YlwMq)

7 Lady, not only are you a RIOT, you're damned smart, you actually put it in terms a man can understand and accept: MATH. You rock!

Posted by: Christina at February 08, 2005 08:58 PM (zJsUT)

8 Why use a parallelogram or trapezoid? Why not the surface area of a cylinder?

Posted by: Anon at February 10, 2005 05:33 AM (C4Xq6)

9 Nevermind that last comment,I wasn't thinking straight. MRN is right,a trapezoid makes more sense.

Posted by: Anon at February 10, 2005 07:32 AM (C4Xq6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, not really.

LONDON - Pubs, clubs and other drinking venues in England and Wales can apply to stay open 24 hours a day under new laws that come into effect Monday.

Currently, many British drinkers imbibe as much as they can as quickly as they can before pubs shut at 11 p.m. Then heavy drinkers all stumble into the streets at the same time, often leading to fights and other drunken misbehavior. The government says the new laws will help curb the problem because people will drink in a more relaxed manner and leave at different times.

Although establishments can apply for the extended licenses starting Monday, the new hours won't come into effect in England and Wales until November. Scotland is conducting its own review of licensing laws.{...}

It's about time.

Drinking in England is an adventure. Arrive at the pub at nine, drink the better part of a bottle of wine in a two hours, walk home with half a glass of wine in your hand. Which is odd. You can't buy liquor in a bar after 11, but you can buy it before last call and then then walk home with it because there aren't any open-container laws. Never mind about the glassware: while I was visiting, my friend Mel simply told the barkeep she'd bring the glasses back and he said that was ok.

This is a good thing, because while I haven't checked this out, this means Tube hours of operation will probably expand to accomodate said drinkers. Taxi drivers might get a little less fussy about picking up drinkers if it means a late night fare. (Currently, if they even suspect you might have imbibed, they won't pick you up.) But most of all it means the day and age of slamming down drinks before closing time will have ended!

Yay for my liver!

When I visited London in 2000, Mel took me out to the pub for a night of drinking with her friends. They were really nice people and they wanted to make me, the visitor to their fair city, feel welcome. There were eight of us at the table. Every single person bought a round for the entire table in my honor. It was apparent, as the drinks just kept on coming, they would have thought it rude of me to refuse. When in Rome, I thought with a sigh and started pounding, ever aware that the damn bar would close soon.

I have yet to repeat that hangover because, five years later, it still stands out clearly in my mind as a cautionary tale that deserves attention.

Closing time in England, as it currently stands, is simply too early. While I'm not sure going to a twenty-four hour system was the best way to go, it will at least allieviate the idea that some hold about having to slam as much as they can before the pub closes. Taking away the rush factor might, indeed, help.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends...

Janis may have been a hippy, but she had good taste in cars. She didn't take any guff over her choices, either.

One wonders what she would have thought about this move by Mercedes?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't it amazing how taking .7% off domestic spending qualifies as "sweeping cuts" ?

Damnit.

I've been waiting four years for the Prez to get his act in gear on cutting spending and this is the best he could do?

Lame.

I told the husband when Bush was elected in 2000 that, as I saw it, because of how contentious the election was, the Prez wasn't going to be able to get much done as far as cutting spending. Tax cuts? Sure. They're always golden. Cutting spending, however? Nope. He just didn't have the oomph to get it through. But, I told the husband, just you wait. This guy, I'm sure, will turn into a budgetary slasher and burner if he gets reelected.

And this is what we've got. Cuts in education, medicare, defense programs, even missile defense looks like it's up on the chopping block. Some of these are good cuts to make. There is a lot of room for improvement, fiscally speaking, within the chosen areas, yet these are also cuts that are going to make conservative members of Congress very, very happy. Meaning the Prez is pandering to certain factions within the party. I hardly need to write this, but these cuts are also going to be highly contentious. Cuts in Education? Cuts in early literacy programs? The Democrats are going to have a freakin' media field day with all of this. This budget fight, to put it mildly, is going to be ugly.

He could have avoided this massive headache if he'd just vetoed one bill where a lot of pork was attached. One simple veto would have sent the message to Congress that they'd better watch what they were doing. The President fired no such warning shot.

But, and I have to admit, this would be the shortsighted view of things.

I'm going to make a large leap of the imagination and assume there's a method behind this madness. Call it Rovian if you want. If the Prez doesn't get what he wants on this one, well, doesn't that set him up to veto the next pork laden bill that hits his desk, without him facing too many party-related ramifications?

I dunno. Let your imagination wander from there. I have very little faith that this Prez will live up to my slash and burn picture of him, but there's still a possibility that it could happen. Slight though it may be.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 2 kb.