It seems I pissed someone off. And not even the person I was intending to.

But wait, there's more....I even got threats of physical violence, too!

wOOt!

I'VE HIT THE BIG TIME, BABY!

You see, I've been waiting almost two years for this to happen. I've toiled in obscurity for so damn long, just begging for someone to declare the desire to whack me on the shins with a seven iron! I prayed to God. I wondered when my time in the spotlight would come. I worked hard, hoping that it could, but gosh, I will admit, I was beginning to lose faith. I didn't think it could ever happen to me! I really didn't! Geez, I'm so surprised. It's like winning an Oscar or even a Golden Globe!

I feel like I should have a speech prepared. First, I'd like to thank the Academy...

Hot damn! I am so frickin' excited I can't hardly believe it!

And all this on a post that a. wasn't directed at Learned Foot and b. he didn't bother to read. Does it get better than that? Oh, it just might!

The phrase "ad hominem attacks" was used! Tee frickin' hee!

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, does it get any better than that? I don't think so.

Oh man! It's like Christmas came on my birthday or something! It's just too much to ask for!

Shit. I think I need to break out the whisky to celebrate this one.

UPDATE: Someone over at Kool Aid Report deleted my trackback! And after I went to all that trouble to manually ping them, too.

Classy stuff, that.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Hot Damn!

WASHINGTON - Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan, which supporters said were aimed at protecting local wineries and limiting underage drinkers from purchasing wine without showing proof of age. In all, 24 states have laws barring interstate shipments.

The court said the state bans are discriminatory and anticompetitive.

"States have broad power to regulate liquor," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers."

"If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms," he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The ruling means that legislatures in the 24 states barring out-of-state shipments will have to review their laws to make sure in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally. As a result, states could choose to allow wineries to sell to consumers directly, but could also bar all wineries from doing so.{...}

Hurrah for interstate commerce!

{Hat tip: Absinthe and Cookies}

Posted by: Kathy at 11:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Why am I not surprised at this outcome?

It'll be interesting to see what he's sentenced to.

Anyone want to wager that hard labor in Siberia's an option?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Feisty Christina has a new home! Right here at Moo Knew!

Woohoo!

Make sure you go over and welcome her to our little home!

Posted by: Kathy at 08:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Whoops. Dementee posted a reply to this post from the other day and I missed it. My bad.

My failings as a World Champion Web Surfer aside, let's get down to brass tacks. If you're interested, take the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 11:45 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 3138 words, total size 19 kb.

I have to say that I enjoyed this article immensely.

The other 364 days out of the year, politicians in Washington act like they've never heard the word "constituency," let alone have realized that they are, indeed, in hock to the voters of their respective districts for their jobs.

This one day, however, when their jobs are on the line because they didn't have enugh clout to keep their local bases off the base closing list, well, they're scrambling around like a half dozen eggs thrown into a pan of hot bacon grease.

I just love it. It's so enjoyable watching them squirm for a change.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not extraordinarily fussy with language. While I like playing with it as much as the next writer, more often than not I have a tendency to stick with plain language to drive my point home. So, really, I'm the least likely candidate to pick on someone's use of language, but, on Fox News Channel over the past couple of days there have been a few linguistic follies repeated ad nauseam that have driven me to the point of distraction.

Just to get them off my chest, and to entertain and enlighten you all, I shall list them out here.

1. "Shot Dead." As in, "So and so was shot dead on an L.A. freeway and it was broadcast on live television." I cannot tell you how much I hate these two words when they are thrown together. I will not quibble that "shot dead" is efficient language. Two words are used to get a message across, instead of five or ten or fifteen, which is handy when you have a word count to pay heed to and there are other things to focus on because their death is not the real story, but rather an unfortunate by-product. Yet, I cannot help but feel it's callous language. That its usage alone denies a victim of their dignity. I hate this phrase. It knocks someone's death down to two words. How cruel is that? Particularly when the rest of the story is nothing but hot air or bloated speculation meant to fill air-time, rather than to inform? The repeated usage of this phrase irks me to no end.

2. Filibustering. As in, "Senate Democrats are filibustering Republican judicial nominees." I did a doubletake on this one last night. It was so blatantly wrong that it stuck out like a sore thumb. This, to put it mildly, is inaccurate language. This is lazy language. If you took this literally, you would be well within your rights to believe Teddy Kennedy is out there on the Senate floor right now, a coffee cup full of scotch at the ready, reading the collected works of William Shakespeare into the Senate record. He's not. Neither is Hilary Clinton warming up her vocal chords by singing scales at a piano bar in Georgetown. They're not filibustering anything. Yet. The Democrats have threatened to filibuster Republican judical nominees; they have not, however, followed through. There is a difference. The threat of the filibuster is not the same thing as the actual filibuster itself. Yet, as far as the media is concerned, it is. Hence the liberal usage of the word "filibustering" to describe something that hasn't happened yet. In the process of using this lazy language they are misleading people. They skip over procedural steps that the public should be informed about; they are creating a foregone conclusion where there is none.

Since the Republican leadership is threatening to get rid of the filibuster altogether, it might behoove this news channel (and all the other ones) to describe the filibuster correctly, so as not to mislead their audience on this very important bit of news.

Ok, I feel better now. Throw your own lingustic pet peeves into the comments section. You'll feel better, too. I promise.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

That's how the line goes, right? I can't remember my Hamlet this morning, but the sentiment fits.

What the hell does this mean? How can the Cake Eater Chronicles be #445 in the Ecosystem?

Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute.

Just in case you're thinking I believe this blog should be higher, think again. I believe it should be lower in the rankings. A few weeks ago I was in the seven hundreds. Now I'm in the mid-400's? Something's really wrong.

All I can think is that the Ecosystem must have been consuming large quantities of beer (hey, maybe it's been hanging out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?) is drunk and is about to let loose with one heck of a belch.

UPDATE: Title fixed.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:26 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to say it anyway.

You can't drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08 in Minnesota.

But if you're a cop, apparently you can be out there policing---with a loaded sidearm---with a BAC of .20---more than twice the legal limit.

Which of course doesn't count the fact that Sgt. Vick got into his car and was in the process of driving home when he was murdered.

According to this paper:

Two thirds of drivers in alcohol related fatal accidents have a BAC of .14 or higher. The average BAC involved in fatal accidents is .17

Think about that one for a minute, eh?

I'm sure Sgt. Vick was a good guy and a good cop, and he most certainly didn't deserve what happned to him. I'm not trying to smear the guy. Really, I'm not. He was out doing his job, which meant he was working undercover. In bars. Where you have to drink to fit in. I think he probably had one too many and that's that.

While I am concerned about the fact that I'm pretty damn sure the St.Paul police, had he lived, would have done nothing more than slapped him on the wrist for this behavior---that he would have in no way, shape or form, ever been prosecuted for this behavior, unlike the general population---this isn't really what interests me. What I find curious are Sgt. Vick's defenders.

His defenders say "he made a mistake" and his life and death shouldn't be judged by that one mistake. The Mayor of St. Paul said it was important that no one should "revictimize the family." If Sgt. Vick simply "made a mistake" and no one should be "revictimizing" his family for said mistake, why are people jumping to his defense left and right, instead of saying, "yeah, it happens" and moving along? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we treat those who have had too much to drink in this day and age? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we look at alcohol in this country nowadays?

Being drunk every once and a while never used to be anything to be ashamed about. Maybe you forgot to eat before you went out. Maybe you just had one too many. It never used to signal that you were a problem person because you tied one on and never was the reputation you worked hard over a lifetime to establish on the line because of a night of drinking. Not so anymore, it seems. As far as society is concerned, if you have a BAC as high as Sgt. Vick's, you're a bad person. Unless, of course, you happen to be Sgt. Vick. Then you're not a bad person. You just made a mistake. That by releasing this information, and then commenting on it, we're all speaking ill of the dead.

Ummm, I don't think so. I think this controversy points directly toward the fact that in this country we are moving toward a new age of prohibition. One where excessive regulation will act in place of a new Eighteenth Amendment. Outlawing alcohol outright didn't make the problems associated with those who drink---drunk driving, fighting, excessive screwing---disappear, so now the conventional wisdom is to not only make buying and consuming alcohol a nanny-state, regulatory nightmare, but it's to also shame people into line. The bar goes lower and lower every year in regards to what is acceptable behavior where alcohol is concerned. If something doesn't happen sometime soon, pretty soon you'll have a wine box in the fridge that will have a breathalyzer attached to it and it won't dispense any more wine if you blow above the legal limit.

I don't think Sergeant Vick was a bad guy because he had a BAC of .20, even if I don't think he should have been out policing with that much liquor in his system. But how many people do think Sgt. Vick was a bad guy simply because he had that much liquor in his system? That's the question that matters. How many have made assumptions precisely about what type of person he was strictly because of his BAC level? After all, if no one had made this assumption, he wouldn't need any defenders, would he? It would all be taken in stride.

Think about that for a minute and then try and tell me this country hasn't gotten out of line with its attitude toward alcohol.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 4 kb.

Puffy has finally completed his research into Tuesday's topic and has posted.

Don't go and read it unless you have one of two things handy: a. a shower capable of pumping out gallon after gallon of cold water or b. a partner in crime who can help.

Dang!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

1 *bows* I try, I try

Posted by: Puffy at May 13, 2005 03:56 PM (ddzYA)

2 you succeed!

Posted by: Kathy at May 13, 2005 10:33 PM (cTptB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You know, I always had this idea that France, and Paris in particular, appreciated art. After all, they've got the Louvre. Impressionism, the Grunge Movement of the late 19th Century, started there as a backlash to the overstylized manuevers of the Romantic period and the Salon that appreciated them. Van Gogh whacked off his ear in Provence. Picasso did some of his best work in France. I could go on, but I think you're getting what I'm saying: France, and again Paris in particular, has always been associated with art and the appreciation thereof in the minds of many people.

Not so anymore. Courtesy of Fausta, we have this lovely tidbit:

The French art world is reeling after this week's announcement by the billionaire businessman Francois Pinault that he is pulling the plug on what was to be a major new gallery of contemporary art in Paris.

The 69-year-old tycoon, who is a close friend of President Jacques Chirac, was planning to put on display his 2,500-strong collection of late 20th century works in a futuristic museum to be built on an island in the river Seine.

But on Monday Pinault said that he was so fed up with planning delays and other bureaucratic obstacles that he had decided to stop the whole project.

Instead, his collection - including pieces by Miro, Jackson Pollock and Jeff Koons as well as British artists Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin - will be housed in the magnificent 18th century Palazzo Grassi on the Grand Canal in Venice, which Pinault bought last month.{...}

Gallery-owner Emmanuel Perrotin said that "once again it holds up to ridicule the sluggishness of the whole French system".

"Here was someone who wanted to build a museum as big as the Pompidou centre... Seen from abroad, Paris keeps its image as a small town in the provinces."

Francois Pinault has been buying modern art for more than 30 years
Even the left-leaning Le Monde newspaper agreed: "The fiasco has sent a clear message, discouraging anyone tempted by a similar adventure.

"It underlines the supreme difficulty of launching an initiative in the field of the arts outside the path of public aid. This situation is untenable. The state cannot do everything.{...}

Fausta shows her shrewdness yet again when she says:

"I have the distinct impression that the Boulogne-Billancourt bureaucrats assumed that the Pinault project was "a done deal"(*) and that Pinault wouldn't dare locate the collection anywhere but in France.

Clearly, they were wrong."

What have we here? A France that was so unenthusiastic about the fact a private entrepreneur wanted to set up an art gallery that would be good for the economy that the entrepreneur in question became completely frustrated and set up shop in Venice. I'm not a business world junkie, by any stretch of the imagination, but even I know who Pinault is and he has a reputation as a shark. The article mentioned that he owned Gucci, and this should tell you something very important. Gucci was the subject of a hostile takeover by LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy), another French luxury goods maker a few years back. Bernard Arnault, the head of LVMH, tried for a very long period of time to get Gucci under the LVMH umbrella and ultimately failed. Pinault was the man who benefitted from Arnault's battle: he was patient and let Arnault do all the heavy lifting, then swooped in as a white knight on Gucci's behalf and snaked the company out from under his competitors nose. This shows that the man is canny and has plenty of patience. That he lost patience with the French government in all its local and national flavors should tell you something is not quite right here.

For all their moaning and whining about the assault on French culture, it doesn't even seem as if the French appreciate it enough these days.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

This is just a friendly, Friday-ish reminder from me that when you think you're life is shit, and you're weeping and wailing about it, and in general feeling sorry for yourself about nothing serious, well, just remember there is somebody out there who's life definitely is shit.

As the wise man once said, "Perspective matters."

The new landlord moved into the Cake Eater Pad on May 1st, and we're pretty happy with the guy. So far, so good. He's a little loud when watching the NBA playoffs, but that's forgivable. I get a little loud when I watch the news. It's all good. The only issue I have with him is that he keeps putting off calling the plumber to see what needs to be done about my dishwasher that has been on the fritz since last fall. No worries, though. He'll get to it eventually; he's not ignoring me out of spite or cheapness like the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb would have done. He's young, too. As in his middle-twenties. Neither is he married. Hence, he has a roommate, who is yet another really nice, unmarried young man in his mid-twenties.

Well, the husband was chatting with the roommate last night and during the course of the conversation the husband learned that the roommate is going into the hospital today for surgery. He told the husband because he wanted to let us know that no one was going to be around this weekend, as the landlord is out of town on business. You see, the reason for the surgery is that he has testicular cancer and he has to have something (I think you can probably guess what) removed. The husband didn't give me many details about the conversation, because I think he was a bit stunned and didn't ask. The offer of "if you need anything at all, please let us know," was proffered, but I don't know that the guy feels comfortable enough with us to take us up on it. And that's fine: we've only known him for thirteen days.

I just saw him walking to his car to go to the hospital. His girlfriend was with him and he looked determined. He was carrying his suitcase, swinging it mildly, like he knew he wasn't going to be able to do that when he came home, so he was going to get in as much of that activity while he could. He was walking with a distinct purpose, like the time had finally arrived for him to go off to war, and there was no need to dither about like a sentimental fool. It was inevitable. The thought, "let's get it over with" was written all over his young face. His girlfriend looked resigned, maybe even a little tired, and her lips were puckered with worry. She was dressed comfortably in a polar fleece, basketball pants and cross-trainers for what will undoubtedly be a long day of sitting around a hospital, waiting for doctors to come and tell her what the scoop is.

Life, at this particular point in time, is sucking pretty badly for these two people. But it's obvious that they've acquired helmets and have put them on, to protect their noggins from whatever might come flying at them in the next few days.

I suppose this should serve as a friendly reminder that no matter what you're going through, it could always be worse. Sometimes we need a reminder every now and again of this fact. If you're feeling sorry for yourself this morning, and are weeping and wailing about your own problems, well, take a lesson from these two people: get your own helmet and batter through your own problems, because, after all, it could be worse.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

Well then.

Apparently you all don't think I'm the fount of wisdom I make myself out to be because no one---not one single, solitary person---sent a question to the divas sez mailbox for me to answer.

Hmmmph.

I was going to go and snatch a bunch of questions from Carolyn Hax's column, and answer them in my own way, but I just figured it's not worth my time to try and entertain and enlighten a bunch of people who just don't give a damn.

You'll excuse me, but I need to go and milk my martyr complex for what it's worth.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:41 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Spank me, Kathy. I've been a bad blogger and even a worse diva this week. I didn't get around to plugging. Then, after Sadie's worked so hard on my new site and promptly went over there and screwed something up. Apparently, I have a diva death wish... Can I offer some whole milk over ice with Kahlua? ; )

Posted by: Chrissy at May 13, 2005 11:39 AM (zJsUT)

2 No, but you can offer some cream over Kahula. Half and Half, I mean. Don't sweat it: you've had other things going on.

Posted by: Kathy at May 13, 2005 12:16 PM (cTptB)

3 Cream it is!! Thanks, hun. ; )

Posted by: Christina at May 13, 2005 12:19 PM (zJsUT)

4 Crap on a stick.

Posted by: sadie at May 13, 2005 04:44 PM (zZMHN)

5 Whoops. Now that I think of it...apologies to the Mother of Kathy for my potty mouth.

Posted by: sadie at May 13, 2005 05:04 PM (zZMHN)

6 I can never think of a question. Maybe because I'm a spinster and the last date I was on was a few decades back?

Posted by: Ith at May 13, 2005 06:38 PM (ZZOLQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Man, you really gotta wonder about the Smithsonian's standards nowadays.

It seems they'll let just anyone speak in authoritative tones nowadays.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Dennis Miller is going off the air!

Waaaaaaaaaah!

I'm bummed. As is Jonathan, who was actually a guest a few times.

I liked Dennis' show, not simply because I'm a Miller Junkie and have been since I was in high school when he did the news on SNL (Tina Fey? Who the hell is that?), but rather because he made a conscientious effort to have guests who would not turn into a pack of screaming mimis. That was one thing you never had to deal with on his show---people screaming at and over each other to the point where no one got heard. I know that quality apparently makes for great tee vee, but it's not appealing to some of us. I enjoy a good catfight as much as the next person, but political news shows nowadays, like Hardball are a waste of time, in my humble opinion. I have no idea how someone can sit through an hour of that crap. No one listens, people flog books relentlessly, they spout the most inane opinions. Ugh. Who needs it? Dennis, while still the biggest wise-ass known to mankind, nonetheless respected reason and civil discourse. What exactly does it say about television viewers nowadays that a show where people were actually allowed to state an argument that--ahem---could be heard wasn't watched?

Fare thee well, Dennis. Good luck and if you ever get another talk show and need a guest who can crack wise, I am so there.

Provided I don't get that deer-caught-in-the-headlights thing going on.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Oy vey. He's wondering if WWII was really worth it because the vile governmental system that was Communism wasn't destroyed at the same time Fascism was.

Some fascinating, out-of-this-frickin'-world money quotes would include:

{...}As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings. {...}

But wait. In true Ron Popeil fashion, there's more:

{...}Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war? {...}

{...}True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?{...}

This, to put it mildly, is one of the biggest chunks of bullshit that Bucky's ever produced and that's saying quite a bit, given how much bullshit Bucky produces on a daily basis just by opening his big fat mouth to order a coffee at the local deli.

I honestly don't know where to start. The blatant revisionist history? The overall wrongness of his conclusions? The fact his Lindbergh-esque isolationist bias is showing? Good God, my mind is a jumble.

Thankfully this is not a problem, because Martini Boy has done an excellent job of fisking this puppy. Go and read.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Something is really, really wrong with the internet right now.

It seems like some dot com addresses are down. That's bad when its yahoo dot com that you're trying to reach. Some dot org's are down, too. This is really weird.

I don't know what got hacked or who hacked it--- and of course, this is presuming the problem was caused by hackers---but wow. I haven't seen anything like this in a while. The husband is wondering if a big patch of DNS servers are down somewhere.

I dunno, but whatever it was, it's really screwing the pooch.

UPDATE: Google's down. I can get to Blogspot blogs, but I can't get to their parent company's site. What the heck is going on here?

What's weird is that my site is still up and running, while I can't get to other moo knew sites. WTF?

UPDATE DEUX: But I have to say, WOW, what's left of the internet is really freakin' speedy. It's taking no time at all to post this stuff. A few seconds, at most. Which doesn't usually happen.

UPDATE THREE: Do you think a few people are now realizing how addicted to the Internet they really are right about now? Heheheheh.

UPDATE FOUR: And we're back up and running.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, the fact that The Huffington Post is a one-stop-shop for all your mockery needs wasn't good enough for some people. They had to go one step further.

Heh.

(Make sure to check out the blogroll. You'll get a chuckle.)

(Hat Tip: Hog On Ice)

Posted by: Kathy at 10:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Moo Knew has been having some issues today. Hell if I know what the problem was, but it was acting suspiciously like that red headed stepchild of the blogosphere that is Blogspot. It even double posted once. Hmmph. That's a first.

Anyway, now that it's working again, well, I don't really feel like writing a damn thing, but rather have decided to take a bubble bath.

Pfft. I'm fickle that way. Sue me.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, is this scaring the heck out of anyone else? I need to know that I'm not alone here, folks. Back me up.

Makes one wonder if one should pay their taxes if this is the best the goverment can come up with.

{ducking and running}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.