Kofi's got a new plan for the UN.

It includes getting countries to live up to their financial commitments to developing nations, expanding the Security Council from 15 seats to 24 and how he wants a new Commission on Human Rights to replace the old one because---in Kofi's words---"{its} capacity to perform its tasks has been undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism.”

I could go forward and backward over this and say how much of it isn't new or won't work, but why waste my breath? We all know this. What I do find interesting in all of this b.s. is that Kofi proposed an actual definition of terrorism.

The report backs the definition of terrorism – an issue so divisive agreement on it has long eluded the world community – as any action “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Hmmmph. Kofi, of course, doesn't say what he would do with that definition or how the UN would be forced to act if the definition were invoked by a UN member, but that he commissioned a fleet of lawyers (God only knows what their price per hour was) to actually try and define terrorism is interesting. It brings to mind another UN-sponsored definition.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

They weaseled out of that one easily enough in regard to Rwanda in 1994. Never mind the 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus that were murdered by the fanatic Hutus; it wasn't genocide as far as the UN was concerned, hence they weren't forced to act, as the Charter demands. Neither did this genocide definition stop what is still happening in Darfur. How easily could the UN weasel out of the terrorism definition, or use it to their own ends? I can see a few loopholes, but I'm not a lawyer. How could it come back to bite member states---like, say, the U.S.---in the behind?

I know there are a few lawyers in the audience. Give it your best shot.

{Cross posted at The Llamabutchers}

UPDATE: Peter Fonda offers up his two and a half cents worth on Kofi's proposed reforms.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

And so here we are. It's Friday. You've sent questions. And it's time for me to get around to answering them.

From Ed:

What makes a Diva jealous in a good way. What makes a Diva jealous in a bad way. Is there a difference?

OOOOOOOH. We've got a good one, right off the bat!

Answers to this and all your very important questions after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 09:50 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 965 words, total size 6 kb.

Being an Uber Geek is not an easy thing for the husband. He is the IT guy for plenty of people: my parents, his parents, our friends and a number of small to mid-sized corporations. One of his jobs as Uber Geek is to hook these people up with software, as such he is a Microsquash Partner, because he gets good deals. He also gets loads of marketing tchotchkes from Microsquash. Some of this stuff is cool---a free USB memory key, beta versions of Office, etc.---but most of it is pure, unadulterated crap. T-shirts. Oxford shirts. Little foam rubber cars that have Windows XP Pro plastered all over them. Pens. Paper. You name one cheapola marketing tchotchke that you have on your desk currently from some company you have to deal with, and Microsquash has sent us a version of it.

These packs of tchotchkes just show up at the house. Today, for some unknown reason, DHL dropped a box from Microsquash off at the back of the house. The Cake Eater neighbor pulled his Passat into the garage tonight and just narrowly missed the box. He brought it up as I was fixing dinner and I handed it off to the husband, wondering what they'd sent him this time---particularly because the box was intended to cause a frisson.

I mean, it's not every day you get a package that declares, "Partners in Paradise: Maui may only be a deployment away." I thought, hey, here's our chance to go to Hawaii on Microsquash's dime. They're finally going to play free and loose with the payola! Excellent!

So, the husband opens it up...

And it's more crapola, of course. No free software. No free USB memory cards. Instead, it's leis. They sent him leis.

Ron freakin' Popeil should have been standing there, announcing to the world, "But, wait! There's more!" Because there was, indeed, more.

My devoted Cake Eater Readers, I have the pleasure of showing you just how Bill Gates chooses to spend that $40 some odd billion he has lying around on the people who recommend software for him.

Bill sent the husband a...

What the hell?

So now I have a freakin' pineapple in the fridge. Thanks, Bill!

Fortunately for me, Feisty Christina has some ideas for what I can do with it.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

My beer is getting around.

According to Russ: "I let your beer outside to play with the neighbor's beer, and when I came back outside, this is what I found. ISSUES! Your beer has issues."

Never mind the fireworks. My beer is fraternizing with---dare I say it?---Hawkeyes!

I feel a case of the vapors coming on.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Robbo's second entry into his Fear and Loathing in Disney World is up.

It's titled The Mouse's Lair.

A small sampling to whet your appetite:

{...}Speaking of feeding, we got to the Lodge around lunchtime. It boasts two restaurants and a bar, none of which was open. “Oh,” it was explained with false chirpiness, “everyone is either out in the park or asleep at this time of day. But the snack bar is open!” (This was the first direct example I came across of Disney’s ruling philosophy regarding the accomodation of its guests: “Do It Our Way Or Screw You.” That example was to be repeated many times over the course of our visit. The concept of “Customer Satisfaction” at the House of Mouse is a mile wide and an inch deep.) Anyhoo, the snack bar proved to be a nasty cafeteria-style enclave down in the basement that wouldn’t have passed muster in the average Student Union. Not that the average student could have afforded it, however. When you get to Disney, it’s frightening how fast you start automatically thinking of prices in $50 increments.{...}

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

The people have spoken!

It was close, but this toon has won. By a whopping two votes. I will, however, take it where I can get it.

Thanks to all who participated. I appreciate it.

Super Sekrit Message to my sister: after much scrutiny and many moments of doubt, I'm sticking with my story. She's not a redhead.

Neither am I for that matter. You and the husband both need to get your eyes checked.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Fausta has also posted an interesting Day by Day conspiracy theory.

Methinks perhaps there's something to this one.

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, there's always been trouble in Northern Ireland, but this is trouble of a different sort. The IRA is in trouble with Catholics who might have supported them in the past over the murder of Robert McCartney, a Belfast Catholic who got mouthy with some Provos in a pub and was murdered for his trouble.

His sisters and his fiancee want justice. As was common in the past, the IRA offered to "take care" of matters for the ladies, preferring to keep it on an internal level rather than having the courts interfere. What's surprising is that the ladies refused and have taken the recent shitstorm over the IRA's refusal to disarm/dropping out of the peace process/alleged massive robbery of a Belfast bank to a whole new level.

Fausta has an excellent roundup on the story. Go read.

How this will play out, I have no idea. It should be interesting to watch, though.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week when I was guesting over at the Butchers Shop, I made a new friend with these posts. When I told Russ to have a beer for me at Kelly's, being the good guy he is, he obliged.

I didn't expect the beer to actually, you know, make the rounds of the greater Kansas City and Winterset, Iowa metropolitan areas. But it did. My beer, apparently, was a bit of a floozy, and an underage floozy at that, being no older than three months! Getting into cars with men it didn't know, going back to hotel rooms, taunting Oklahoma spirit displays at the Embassy Suites, crossing state lines, making friends with snacks that are bad for you, etc.

Bad, bad beer. You're going to get a reputation!

Generally, when a beer's reputation is on the line, it's because of rumors. Unfortunately, there are no rumors this time around. There's proof. I present to you, my devoted Cake Eater readers, The Flooziness of the Beer.

Can you say "jailbait?"

BOOMER SOONER, BOOMER SOONER, BOOMER SOONER! If there are any other words in the Oklahoma fight song than "Boomer Sooner" my beer doesn't know them. Plus, my beer was drunk at the time, so she really can't be expected to know it anyway.

My beer crosses state lines with snacks in tow. My beer apparently did her best to look over eighteen. Russ isn't in jail right now, so she must have done a bang up job.

This is where my beer apparently told Russ to stop the car. She got out and did her best impersonation-of Meryl Streep-impersonating-an-Italian-woman in front of the bridge, while saying, And in that moment, everything I knew to be true about myself up until then was gone. I was acting like another woman, yet I was more myself than ever before. Or some such bullshit. It could have been, Clint, you're a bastard for foisting a movie made from that piece-of-excrement-masquerading-as-a-novel on all of us..

Of course, she would have dropped the Meryl Streep impersonation if she had said that. Because she's my beer, and she knows I have certain expectations for behavior.

Of course a trip to Winterset wouldn't be complete without going to see The Duke's birthplace. I can only imagine what my beer, being the floozy that she is, did here. Really, I don't want to know.

According to Russ, my beer really is a nice beer, with lots of hops flavor, and she "does NOT have an annoying fake British accent like that damn Travelocity gnome." Which is good to know, because I have no idea why my beer would have an English accent, being a flower of the midwest. My beer, reportedly, is heading to the Spring Game in Ames next month and might make her floozy-ish way elsewhere in the meantime.

We shall see what we shall see.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 4 kb.

Just in case you can't be bothered to scroll down the page to this post, Doug has replied.

When he updates further, as promised, I will link to it.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

So, my fellow divas and I have been chatting. We have decided about some stuff that we're keeping under wraps until it's ready to go. But there is one upcoming event I felt I should tell you all about since it's happening in, er, TWO DAYS! We've decided that---even though it appears we're probably a bit hopped up on the power of estrogen---we're going to start a weekly advice column, running every Friday. We're calling it, ahem, Divas Sez

Yeah. I know. You can stop laughing any time you feel would be appropriate. Now would probably be a good time. Lest we kick your ass. There are four of us and one of you...who do you honestly think is going to win that battle, eh? Particularly if we're all wearing heels. Be rational about it.

Anyway, since we round robin the topic picking, we've decided to do the same with just who is going to answer the questions. This week, it has been decided, it will be little ol' me who answers your deepest wonderings about the fairer sex. Should be good fun, no?

Anyone* can ask a question about anything, really. We may just not answer it. It all depends. We will, however, try to restrain ourselves from mocking any email we receive---provided we can help ourselves. We will respect anyonymity if the author of a letter requests it, but this should not be seen as a request for trolls to put their two cents in. If you have a question you need answered by a smart, beautiful woman, throw it in an email and send it to divassez@gmail.com and one of us will do our absolute best to try and answer it.

Get them to me by 12am CST Friday. (GMT-6).

*Except for Skippy. (Who runs what is really a NSFW blog, so don't click if you're offended by pr0n.) I'm sorry, dude, but you are banned from asking questions. We can't help you. We think that, perhaps, you're actually beyond help, but that's just us. We adore you, nonetheless. I'm sure that Loveline would love to have your questions. I have to think you and Adam Carolla were separated at birth. I'm sure he'd adore talking to you.

Besides, you can always revel in the fact you were banned from the get-go. You have street cred.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm pretty sure Robbo has one of these. Somewhere.

After this post, he needs to pull it out, polish it up and wear it with pride!

Posted by: Kathy at 10:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

It get's tiresome repeating onself, but one feels obliged to do it when someone's being an idiot.

ROME (Reuters) - A top Catholic cardinal has blasted "The Da Vinci Code" as a "gross and absurd" distortion of history and said Catholic bookstores should take the bestseller off their shelves because it is full of "cheap lies."

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in an interview with the Milan newspaper Il Giornale, became the highest ranking Italian Churchman to speak out against the book, an international blockbuster that has sold millions of copies.

"(It) aims to discredit the Church and its history through gross and absurd manipulations," Bertone, the archbishop of the northern Italian city of Genoa and a close friend of Pope John Paul told the paper in its Monday edition. {...}

Let me repeat this for the umpteenth time: The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken for fact. If you believe it portrays Christiantity poorly, well, that's your right, but to actively campaign against a work of fiction? That's just silly. And it makes you look silly, too.

Dan Brown played with the facts to create fiction. He asked what if? and went from there. He created an international bestseller that, two years after publication, the dear Cardinal claims is a threat to the Church.

Well, perhaps, dear red-beanied one, you should have gotten on the ball sooner, if it's such a threat.

Far be it from me, a practicing Catholic, to suggest that the lesson the Church should be taking from this book is that there are many people who find its message regarding femininity appealing. That maybe there should be more to being a woman in the Church than just following in the chaste footsteps of the Virgin Mary. Not that the Virgin isn't a good role model, it's just that, in this day and age, traipsing after the males and adoring them gets to be a wee bit boring.

But, again, what would I know? It's not like I have a say in it.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

If you're having problems with your TPS reports and need a little pick-me-up, go here and enjoy.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

And then Doug had to go and ruin it by calling me a "moron."

Before I go to bed I thought IÂ’d straighten something out. Those of you who support gay-marriage but are otherwise conservative. YouÂ’re morons.

Whoops! That was inflammatory. Hate to be inflammatory toward those who go along with the same movement that casts defenders of marriage being a man and woman thing as intolerant hate-mongers. No sir. Such folks are like delicate orchids who must be preserved from harsh rhetorical conditions. Moronic orchids to be specific.{...}

An auspicious start. Despite being the moronic, delicate little orchid that I am, I won't take it personally. Orchids are tougher than you think. I've met Doug, albeit briefly, and I know he's actually a nice guy. I'll just assume he means "moron" in a nice way. At least if i'm a "moronic orchid," I'll smell nice, no?

Never mind all of this nonsense about my ability to respect the views of those who believe differently than I do. It's apparently not relevant. I'm a moron because, simply by holding the views that I do, well, I've apparently, lumped myself in with those who would hate the defenders of traditional marriage. This position, of course, is about as nuanced as wanting to ban all defense systems because, perhaps, just perhaps, the proposed missile defense system is currently out of reach of our capabilities.

But I'm sure Doug will give me a fair hearing, right? He is a nice guy. He's all about debate and all of that fun stuff that comes part and parcel with blogging, right?

Well...

{...}Whoops! Look, letÂ’s get through this together. You come forward and explain why every generation that came before you who agreed gay marriage was an oxymoron were stupid, and IÂ’ll Â… well IÂ’ll still call you a moron, but it will draw you out in the open as the egotist you are.{...}

There's not a lot of wiggle room in Doug's statement, is there? I should come forward, state my case as to why every generation that came before me was stupid for not allowing same-sex marriage and then he tells me that it doesn't matter if I make a rational case, because he won't listen. In his opinion, I'll still be a moron---and an egotistical moron to boot! Never mind that I might have different arguments to present in favor of allowing gay marriage. Never mind that I don't really think the generations who came before me were "stupid" in what they believed. Never mind that I can do this respectfully and allow that others believe differently. I'm only allowed to argue that point, and then it shall be declared "MOOT!" in a big, booming Jesse Jackson-ish voice.

Doug's the debate master---he who shall be obeyed.

{...]Folks, not supporting gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to oppress gays or anyone else. It doesn’t mean you hate anyone. All it means is you recognize that there is a reason that every previous generation rejected it – a reason a better than the narcissistic one that presumes every previous generation consisted of benighted bigots, unlike the “flower of morality” that our generation represents.{...}

Surprisingly, Doug, while having no problems with calling me a egotistical moron, wants us to believe that everyone who thinks gay marriage is a bad idea isn't a bigot, or wants to oppress gays. Hmmmm. If you want me to believe that, Doug, it seems to me that tolerance should swing both ways, eh?

But, in fact, I already do believe that. Quite the shocker, I know. Woooh. Hold onto your diapies, babies, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! I don't believe that previous generations were bigoted beyond reason, or that our generation is any better in this respect. But it's not like I'll ever get a chance to explain any of this. Because I'm an egotistical moron who's not worthy of being listened to.

{...}But marriage is about luuuuv. And gay people luuuuuuv each other too, right? Please.{...}

Um, actually gays and lesbians love each other, too. But that's not all marriage is about. It's about finding lifelong companionship---someone to go through the good and bad times with---and it's also about, perhaps, having children and raising a family. I fail to see where those activities are restricted (or should be) to heterosexuals only.

{...}When did public morality get reduced to the level of a seventh grade girl? Marriage is a hell of a lot more than teen-style puppy-love. So what is this marital “love” we’re talking about? Why has it become something that has become cross-culturally, and cross-generationally revered? Why is it something even anti-democratic societies have considered crucial to their civilzations’ sustainability back into ancient days?{...}

In reply, I would ask when did public morality become the equivalent of a fourth grade boy who doesn't pick you for his team because you're different?

{...}We live in a generation that has been raised to think of the very pillars of our society in terms no different than our luxuries.

Marriage? That old thing?! I wish it came in blue. And so now it does.{...}

So, marriage is a pillar of society. Ok, I'll buy that. No problemo. But, if we're talking about "defending" marriage, well, there should be a threat, involved, right? Logic dictates that you don't defend something if there isn't a threat to it. Doug believes that gays and lesbians are a threat to marriage; that it should be defined as being the union between a man and a woman. I can understand that. Marriage, after all, has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't it stay the same?

This is all well and good until you take a good hard look at marriage as it exists today---only being available to heterosexuals. And, my friend, I am sad to say this, but marriage is in trouble already, and gays and lesbians are not the ones who are threatening it. They're not responsible for marriage's downfall. It's the stupid heterosexuals who have no respect for the institution itself that are ruining marriage. You know the people I'm talking about right? The people you know who've gotten married and are split up by the next year---and who are allowed to chalk it up as "a mistake." Or the ones who run off to Vegas, get hitched on a whim, and then have it annulled in the morning? Or the ones who get married not because they want a marriage, but rather a wedding? I'm sure you've known a few of these people, as have I. They're everywhere and damned hard to miss.

As far as marriage being "a luxury," well, you're right there. It is a luxury, but this is America, dude. The place where luxuries are necessities, and marriage is afforded to everyone who's heterosexual---no matter how silly they are. And that genie isn't going back into the bottle any time soon, ya dig? As such, why shouldn't marriage be awarded to gays and lesbians? Why shouldn't they be allowed to run off to Vegas on a whim and then get divorced the next morning? After all, you're not about oppressing gays and lesbians, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as heterosexuals?

{...}“Conservative” supporters of gay-marriage like to portray themselves as tolerant and principled. I find them anything but. Their tolerance extends exclusively to the current zeitgeist, much like affirmative-action hiring. Their principles are inarticulate and shifty on this matter. They’re simply followers. People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.”

Sorry. ItÂ’s just ignorant. And destructive to boot.{...}

My principles as a conservative supporter of gay marriage are anything but shifty. I've had a long time to think about this, being someone who was against gay marriage to begin with. Ah, yes. I used to be just like you, Doug. I was against same-sex marriage. For a very long time. Then I changed my mind, and as such I've had time to hone my arguments. Given that, I don't believe my arguments are inarticulate. Neither am I just a "follower" as this post shows.

As far as your last point: People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.” I've been married for ten years, Doug. I've been with the husband for thirteen. I'm married to a recovering alcoholic, and was told by many, many people during that span of time that I should have left him because of his disease and the behavior it provoked. Yet, I stuck around. Why? Because I believe in the institution of marriage. I believe in the vows I took on the day we got married. I believe in the until death do us part business that so many ignore nowadays. So don't you dare tell me I haven't "bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society," and that I'm masking my ignorance in an opportunity to be tolerant and progressive. I know more about what marriage entails than most heterosexuals do, given the divorce rate. If I want marriage to be available to gays and lesbians, it's because of my experience, Doug. I know what it's like to be married for ten years. It's not a parade or a bouquet of roses. Marriage is hard, hard work. Given the state that it is currently in, we need more people to promote the true value of marriage. And if a gay or lesbian couple can do that, their sexual orientation then becomes irrelevant.

But that's just my "ignorant," "moronic," "egotistical," opinion that you will declare to be moot, so honestly, what does it matter?

UPDATE: Doug responds and agrees that I kicked his ass. Which is always nice.

I'm all about the gratification, baby.

Anyhoo, he promises to come up with a more cogent argument soon. Which I look forward to reading, because I'm sure he's got something worthwhile to say. Will update further when he gets around to it.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1715 words, total size 11 kb.

1 It was really more of a rant than an argument. I was in a mood. Butt-kicking cheerfully accepted. But... I still disagree with your overall conclusion - though we do have some areas of agreement as well. I'll try to write something a bit more temparate later to explain why.

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2005 01:52 PM (2tOpJ)

2 Holy shit! Nice work. You go girl! --- ML

Posted by: ML in MN at March 16, 2005 02:57 PM (v4PNp)

3 "I fail to see where those activities are restricted (or should be) to heterosexuals only." Kathy, a quick question to your above excerpt. What if three people want to get married? Should those activities be restricted to no more than two? If so, why? If not, why not?

Posted by: Kerry at March 18, 2005 05:40 AM (V0hYn)

4 Kerry: are you trying to set me up here? I've seen this one before. Forgive me if I choose not to fall for it.

Posted by: Kathy at March 18, 2005 11:04 AM (Tosbv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Title shamelessly pilfered from this post by Michele, which is the funniest thing you will read all day, hands down.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Robbo has started to detail his adventures from last week. The first installment is titled: Slouching Toward Kissimmee.

Go and read. He's getting warmed up.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Some self-professed conservative/expert film critic (read that as "wannabe") has tried to take on Jonathan regarding the Star Wars movies---and goofed a bunch of stuff in the process.

The fact that the dude is an arrogant fool is secondary:

{...}Allow me to expand on this for a moment. Very often when conservatives opine on film, their pronouncements fall into one of two categories:

1. Evaluating films exclusively on the basis of their ideological content, or ideological implications. (Jonathan Last’s exceptionally silly article praising the ‘Empire’ is a typical example of this.)

2. Repeating opinions theyÂ’ve heard from mainstream film critics, for the purpose of trying to sound smart or otherwise film-savvy.

These two tendencies have put us in the situation weÂ’re in, largely because conservatives have been too lazy or disinterested to look at film (or popular culture) any other way. And so basically it has become embarassing , actually cringe-inducing to read my fellow conservatives write on film - essentially because it is all too obvious that they really donÂ’t know what theyÂ’re talking about, no more than I know the difference between the Hagel-plan or the Bush-plan to overhaul Social Security. {...}

So, basically, unless you're this guy, you're not allowed to write about movies. Because he knows what he's talking about and you don't.

Jonathan, I beseech thee: please open up the can of bitchcraft on this one. Please. Don't be classy---just this once.

UPDATE: Jonathan has decided to remain classy in his rebukes. Yet, his remarks are the equivalent of slapping someone across the face with a leather glove before a duel. A zinger, in other words. Classy and designed to provoke. We shall see what libertas comes up with in his defense.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

The Demystifying Divas are nothing if not ambitious. We tackle the hard topics, so you don't have to! (Well, except for when we get overwhelmed by life and take a week off, but hey...we're DIVAS, we're allowed that sort of behavior. Just call us the Maria Callas Four!) Today's topic again---because I adore repeating myself---is what women want.

In the movie Singles, Janet, played by Bridget Fonda, has a chat with Campbell Scott's Steve, wherein she lists out all the things she used to want in a man, but she's gotten older and has narrowed it down to just one thing:

I just want someone to say "Bless You" when I sneeze.

I think it's honestly that simple. It's not about what you want, because no guy is ever going to live up to that. It's about what you can't live without. I can't live without multiple "bless you's" because I'm one of those people who sneezes three times at a shot. If the husband wasn't constantly saying "God Bless You" or "Geseundheit" the Catholic school girl in me would worry that I'm destined for hell because no one cared enough to say "Bless you" after I sneezed three hundred times in one day, which can happen if I have a bad cold. The husband understands this. He understands me.

But until you get to the point where you realize this, that anything other than the least common denominator is gravy a delightful surprise, you have to wean yourself from all the silly ideas you had when you were younger. When I was about sixteen my perfect idea of a man was someone who was successful, drove a 1964 1/2 red Mustang convertible (with the white leather interior), played electric guitar like Stevie Ray Vaughan and rode a white stallion on alternating weekends, using an English saddle, of course. On the other weekends, he would be off, saving the world from the evil clutches of SPECTRE, because he was, indeed, 007---he just wouldn't be able to tell me about it, because then he'd have to kill me and he wouldn't want that---which leads into the whole Han Solo-ish conflicted hero syndrome I've loved since I saw Star Wars at age seven. He would also have dark hair, was about 6'2", with eyes of blue and was ripped enough that he could be a model in the Soloflex ads (you remember those, don't ya?). He would also be able to kiss me in such a way that I would morph into a puddle of uncomprehending lust.

That one, fortunately, went out the window when I was about eighteen, hit college and realized just what men were about. The high standards I had set for my ideal mate, it became quite clear, would need to be readjusted. So, after much frustration, I rather cleverly decided the coin needed to be flipped and thought about what I could not live without. The list is as follows:

• A man who puts the seat down and doesn't splatter all over the place

And that's about it, kids. Because ultimately I decided I could not live without a decent man, and it was my observation, during my very own "Janet" moment, that all decent men put the seat down when they were done. It says quite a bit, that little act of courtesy. Particularly at two-thirty in the morning and you don't want to turn the bathroom light on.

The other Divas have their own takes on what a woman wants. Go and read, my children, and be enlightened.

UPDATE: The Wizard after saying some very nice things about the Divas (thank you, sir) points the way to this chuckle-inducer regarding King Arthur's quest to come up with an answer to the same question.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

A while back I posted about acquiring an avatar for the upper right hand corner of the blog.

The lovely ladies whose blogs I linked sent me over to Rion Vernon at Pinup Toons. There was, indeed, one pinup girl that was a brunette and wore glasses, but alas, she's wearing orange, which is not my favorite color in the world. It would also clash with the banner. And I've seen her on someone else's blog, too, so she's out.

The main problem here is one of choice. And I'm having a hard time choosing. So you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, are going to pick for me.

This one

This one or

This one

Throw your choice in the comments. No other selections from Rion's vast galleries will be allowed. This is it baby. The one with the most votes wins and will make its way to the upper right hand corner in the coming days.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:39 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.