I saw this yesterday, but didn't have the chance to comment because the blog was down. Make sure to follow the link to Jeff's commenter, Sarah.

Leaving aside my wondering what this rebuke would have sounded like if it came from this guy's mouth (new season starts September 13th! WooT!), I will admit to being of two minds on this one. I sympathize with the doctor. He was just telling the truth, and there's certainly no shame in that. However, I also emphathize with the obese woman: in an effort to get her to change her wicked ways, the doctor apparently laid out the worst case scenario and, in the process, insulted her. While I can understand why he did it, it doesn't change the fact that, to a certain extent, obesity is the result of a personal choice. (I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that everyone who is morbidly obese in this country is the victim of a thyroid problem. Sorry, but that's just not going to fly.) This woman is making a personal choice to be fat. And I defend that choice. If she wants to do something about it, fine, but if she doesn't, she shouldn't be insulted by her doctor in an effort to scare her into doing something. It's her choice. But, when it comes right down to it, in America, you are not allowed personal choice when that choice is deemed bad for you by the powers that be.

How do I know this? Well, I'm newly minted ex-smoker, and I can tell you from experience that there was no end the many doctors and dentists I visit wouldn't go to in an effort to get me to quit. There were lectures from my gynecologist, telling me that I was increasing my chances for cervical cancer, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, heart disease and, of course, lung cancer. I'm not even going to go into the dire threats exhorted that I shouldn't even THINK about getting pregnant while I was smoking. The stupid pap smear and breast exam took less time than all the lecturing did. I was told by the same gynecologist that I had to exercise twice as much as a normal person would to keep healthy. Walking five miles a day, apparently, wasn't enough if you're a smoker. I should have been running ten miles a day. I've been told by my opthamologist that I'll be an excellent candidate for cataract surgery in forty some odd years. Clever, no? Then we have the dental hygienist: she, quite literally, bitched aloud about the fact she had to spend more time cleaning the back of my teeth than she would a non-smoker.

The husband has had to deal with the same sort of thing from the same dental hygienist. You see, the poor husband has had SO many bad experiences with dentists and orthodontists that he hates going as much as I do. The man, quite literally, had braces and one of those medieval spreader thingys attached to the roof of his mouth for much of his adolescence. The minute he got all that crap off, his teeth started working their way back to their original spots. (They didn't pull any extra teeth before he had his braces put on.) It did absolutely no good whatsoever, so he has good reason to doubt it when a dentist tells him something. Our dentist, who is good and who we like, nonetheless would like the husband to have his fully grown-in wisdom teeth removed. Why? Because he has too many teeth, a small jaw, and the hygienists can't get all the way back to clean them properly. Did you get that? They want him to undergo an oral surgery procedure that would cost us about two grand (we don't have dental insurance---and even if we did, it probably wouldn't be covered.) because it would make their lives easier. They've never suggested an alternative to surgery. They've never told him, hey, get some Plax or Listerine to keep that cleaned out. They did give him a special little toothbrush and he's used it faithfully, but it apparently doesn't work well enough for their tastes, because they keep on harping about it every time he goes in there. It wouldn't do the husband any good, either, as far as how his teeth look. There's not much benefit for him to have his wisdom teeth removed. Yet, consistently, they harp on about it, even though the husband has, quite bluntly, told them it's not going to happen. They've even come in to hassle me about having his wisdom teeth removed when I've been in the office at the same time. I assume they were working under the assumption that I would start guilting him into it, which isn't going to happen.

Therein lies the main issue, I believe: if you refuse to do things your health care providers would have you do, you're making more work for them, aren't you? They have to keep treating you over and over again for the same thing. They would prefer to stop the problem at the source. I could understand where it would be frustrating to have to treat people who, you deemed in all your infinite wisdom, were being stupid about their health. Furthermore, to have to treat the same things over and over again, well, that would just get boring, wouldn't it? Problem is if you lived your life according to all the studies that are released every day of the week, well, your life wouldn't be very much fun, would it? Not to mention when that information is contradictory. I would assume that every disease is preventable, and with the right amount of information scientists will ultimately come to the conclusion that you'll never get sick if you never bother being born.

I have to say, as one who's been where the fat lady is, I still find this all terribly amusing. I suppose that's bad of me, but it's kind of nice to be proven correct. Years ago, when I managed the coffee shop, my customers would, when they found out I smoked, tell me that they wished I would quit. That smoking was very bad for me. Some of them would leave it at that, and I would thank them for their concern, but there were others who would go further in their pontifications and would say that smoking should be banned entirely because it was a public health menace. That everyone had to pay for smokers behavior, whether it be through health insurance costs or their belief they could catch cancer through secondhand smoke, hence the majority opinion should rule. Ok, I said to them, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But, I added as I handed them their cup of joe, don't be surprised when they come after you for drinking coffee. Because we all know caffeine is bad for you. It leads to all sorts of health problems, and when they don't have the smokers to beat into submission anymore, well, they'll need a new target. It's the same, I said, if you're obese. Or if you drink adult beverages. Or if you do any number of things that the people in charge think are bad for you. Public health crusades, I told them, aren't so much about the specific actions individuals choose to make: that's irrelevant. Public health crusades are more about removing your ability to make choices the crusaders disagree with. They want to tell you how to live your life. Those choices could extend to any sort of behavior that causes health problems; smoking was simply the tip of the iceberg. Some of them could wrap their minds around this concept and it frightened them. Some of them couldn't see what the hell I was talking about because they believed the hype.

So, I will admit, I find this amusing. They came for me, a smoker, and people said nothing. Now they're going to come for them and they find it alarming. And insulting. Imagine if it was a smoker who had filed the complaint. Would anyone care? I can tell you from experience that they wouldn't give a rat's ass if a smoker was insulted by the lengths their doctor would go to to get them to quit. Believe me, I've heard worse than what this woman heard from her doctor. But no one cares about the smokers. Soon people won't care about obesity, either. Then they won't care about the caffeine drinkers. It will keep going on and on until life is just one big joyless, choice-free experience.

Have a great time in that world, kids. I'll be in the Republic of Kathyland by that point in time, drinking the wine and eating the brie the rest of the world has outlawed.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1503 words, total size 8 kb.

Just in case you didn't know, the Minnesota State Fair starts today.

{Insert massive full body shudder here}

Just in case you were wondering, no, I'm not going. For many reasons.

The husband would, quite literally, rather die than spend any time at a fair. He played football in high school and in situations where he gets crowded by lumbering idiots who refuse to get out of the way, well, let's just say the urge to put his shoulders down and to push through whatever and whomever is blocking his way becomes overwhelming. Really and truly I'm doing everyone a favor by keeping him at home. You should be thanking me.

I, on the other hand, don't mind the crowds so much, but I can't stand food on a stick. I don't ride rides, either, as they generally make me nauseous. I have no use for ag exhibits, either, I'm afraid. But the main reason I won't go to the fair is because in all my years of living in the midwest, where fairs are common things, I have yet to actually go to a fair. Well, let me correct that. I've been to St. Margaret Mary's Parish fair in Omaha, because that was my church/school and it was expected, but, as far as fairs go I don't believe that counts. I've lived in three states: Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota, and I've never been to a fair. In the midwest they call people like me "freaks of nature." I've never been to a county fair. I've never been to a state fair. I've got a perfect record and I plan on keeping it that way, thank you ever so bloody much.

So, ya'll have a good time at the fair. Don't eat a corndog for me. I wouldn't want you to do that to yourself.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:44 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Now, don't get me wrong. It's not "the lumbering idiots who won't get out of [my] way." It's the lumbering idiots wandering around in a fog. Some sort of miasma of the intellectually challenged you often see in grocery stores, airports, malls and amusement parks as well as at the fair. They fail to grasp some simple facts: Limited space, large numbers of people, clearly established traffic patterns, a high percentage of those people attempting to get from point A to point X utilizing said traffic patterns. Imagine some fat-assed kid with ketchup running down his arm bent over bedazzled at the swiling colors of used oil from the wombat on a stick trailer as it floats across some puddle. Imagine his mother just standing there with one of his pudgy hands in one of her own meathooks, more concerned with keeping cigarette ash off of the acre and a half of cleavage that no one really wants to see, looking from side to side for no apparent reason, where there are no attractions on this particular thoroughfare. These dolts in their sudden halt forward are seemingly oblivious that between the two of them they are taking up the space that five people could be using to traverse the area, and had fully expected to only moments before these two paragons of humanity stopped to bask in the wonderment of it all. They are oblivious of the 300 people that were once moving at a good clip but are now getting jammed up as a result of this miasma; toes getting stomped, obscenities shouted, cigarettes acidentally burning holes in the clothing of people nearby, food being dumped uncermoniously down the shirt of the person in front of yet another kid who really didn't need another damn funnel cake. This is when I have the distinct urge to lower my shoulder and re-live my days as the fastest pulling guard in the conference. Safely clearing a path for Kathy, all the way to the end zone [parking lot]. Touch down, victory dance, let's get the hell out of here. P.S. Don't knock the corn-dogs. "Thems good eatin'!"

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 25, 2005 09:26 AM (QKvIa)

2 Janis & I go to the Iowa State Fair at least once every year. Last year we were walking through the Varied Industries building (the one with all those "Magic Orange Cleansers", Baldwin Organs, hot tubs & articulated ladders for sale) and I noticed that the guy next to me had somewhat of a stain on his shorts. I figured that he had gotten too close to an animal somewhere, but then I realized that the stain was radiating out from his OWN UNDERWEAR! Dude crapped himself and was continuing to walk around the fair oblivious to the spectacle. I'm not talking about a little stain - it was an ENORMOUS bowel movement that would have made a farm animal envious. I made it a point to stay three paces away from him, but I couldn't stop staring. He was maybe late 20's, early 30's, and he was walking around with an elderly lady, so I'm thinking that he was some sort of a "Rainman" type out to the fair with momma. Sorry about the mental image, but I just had to share it with someone. Other than that, I LOVE the state fair and the deep fried cuisine. "Gizmo" sandwiches? Roasted corn-on-the-cob? Pork Chops on a stick? Mini donuts? Those root beer stands shaped like giant kegs? Strawberry-Lemonade shakes? This is AMERICAN dining, people. Of course, the Minnesota State Fair is another animal alltogether. Probably features lutefisk flavored snowcones & walleye on a stick.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at August 25, 2005 10:58 AM (M7kiy)

3 I go to every fair within in 30 mile radius of my home. I live to watch oblivions like those described above. My son and I eat corn-dogs with abandon, and you haven't lived until you have tried the deepfried snickers bars!

Posted by: oddybobo at August 25, 2005 12:30 PM (6Gm0j)

4 I can get a deep fried snickers bar here. They call it "hot monkey love" on the menu and it comes with homemade vanilla ice cream that's to die for.

Posted by: Kathy at August 25, 2005 12:47 PM (QKvIa)

5 "concerned with keeping cigarette ash off of the acre and a half of cleavage that no one really wants to see" That's just way to vivid, somebody pass the mental clorox. Mmmmmmm corn-dogs

Posted by: phin at August 25, 2005 03:24 PM (Xvpen)

6 No, I didn't know that the Minnesota State Fair was starting up. Thanks for the tip, Kath. ;-)

Posted by: sadie at August 25, 2005 08:19 PM (xV63t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, in case I hadn't mentioned it, one of my cousins is currently deployed with the Seabees in Iraq.

He's a civil enginerd who was active Navy for quite some time, but now he's a reservist and he's been busy rebuilding stuff since he was deployed in March. He forwarded this along about one of his contractors. (.pdf file) My cousin is the one on the right hand side of the picture and was the contractor's supervisor.

Talk about being determined to rebuild your country! Holy Crap! As Pete said in his email: "One of our success stories. You could not think up some of the stuff these contractors run up against." After all the junk you hear on the news every night about how Iraqis are bickering about the constitution or are killing one another because of any number of reasons, it's very nice to read a story about one guy who is incredibly determined to get his country up and running again.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Lighten up, Francis.

Of course, Jonathan knows I say this with great love

Posted by: Kathy at 10:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that was interesting, eh?

Posting will be limited until I'm sure the server isn't going to crash again. It's my paranoia at play here, not anyone's lack of effort that's leading to this dearth of posting, so no wisecracks from the peanut gallery about moo knew service, eh?

I would like to extend big honkin' kudos to Mr. Pixy Misa, aka God himself, who has been working his tailfeather off all through his night (because he's in Australia, kids) to get things back up and running. I, for one, am grateful.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

So, you know your blogging habit is bad when your mother calls and wonders if your blog bill is current because she can't get to it.

Sigh.

From what I and a few other moo knewvians can gather the server was down this afternoon. We don't know why, but we're happy it's back up.

Anyway, here's a few tidbits for you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, to tide you over until I get the urge to get all windy on you.

• Lists of this, that or the other have officially jumped the shark with this one.

  The fact Madonna showed her navel marked her as a "mainstream provocateur?" Give me a break, eh? It's what marked that she had no modesty. There's a bit of a difference, eh? Not to mention that Keith Richard's liver is listed at #2, but---AHEM---there's apparently no mention made of Mick's lips on this list???

  Hell-LO!

  You're doing a list of the twenty-five most incredible body parts in Rock and Roll and you neglect to mention Mick's lips? WTF?

• "But Mother Superior, it just the Holy Spirt working in mysterious ways! I swear!"
• Has anyone ever considered the fact that Lance can't take performance enhancing drugs because it might not only enhance his performance, but enhance his cancer as well? That's The Doctor's opinion. Any drugs of that nature could, conceivably, bring the cancer back as well, or so she says.

  I think it's sleazy of the French to do this. It seems like sour grapes to me.

• Groom yourself, dude. Bleech.
• Mr. Squeaky Clean, Jonathan, swore in this post! I think that's twice, total. Not to mention he chats about threeways!

  I swear, I almost fainted.

  The Galley Slaves: Goin' for Broke in the Raciness Department!

That should keep you busy for the time being.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Mr. Fabulous himself, aka my dear pal Robbo, has a friendly reminder for all the women out there.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Tuesday. Hence these fine blogs are hosting the Cotillion Ball.

Run along now.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Would you listen to this man tell you what to eat or where to purchase it from?

If Alec Baldwin's a vegetarian, I'm the freakin' Queen of Sheeba.

Alec, no doubt, sneaks down to BK every day and wolfs down a few Whoppers. Quite simply put, you don't get that porky without fast food being involved. It just doesn't happen. Alec could get back to his The Hunt for Red October weight by eating broccoli every day, all day long. And the world of women would be happy, because God only knows Alec was hot when he was thin. He was a veritable Hottie McHotHot. Yet, despite his PETA advocacy, he hasn't lost one ounce. Hmmmm. That's suspicious.

Could it be, kids, that Alec is the beneficiary of a deal with Burger King wherein he stops denouncing them and he gets all the free Whoppers he can eat?

I speculate. You decide.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Suck it up, please.

He arrived 10 minutes before his fate, so Filip Olsson stood outside Severna Park High School and waited for coaches to post the cut list for the boys' soccer team.

Olsson, a sophomore, wanted desperately to make the junior varsity, but he also wanted justification for a long list of sacrifices. His family had rearranged a trip to Sweden so he could participate in a preparatory soccer camp; he'd crawled out of bed at 5:30 a.m. for two weeks of camp and tryouts and forced down Raisin Bran; he'd sweated off five pounds and pulled his hamstring.

Finally, a coach walked by holding a list, and Olsson followed him into the high school. He walked back out two minutes later, his hands shoved deep into his pockets and his eyes locked on the ground.

"It felt," he said later, "like a punch in the stomach."

{...}Because of increased complaints from parents, many high school coaches now strive to make cuts more scientific. Until she retired last season, longtime Eleanor Roosevelt girls' soccer coach Kathy Lacey made her players run 1.5 miles in less than 12 minutes to make the team. Mike Bossom, the volleyball coach at Centennial, scores players with a number -- 1 through 5 -- for each drill and then logs the scores on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

For the first time this season, Severna Park Athletic Director Wayne Mook required his coaches to record running times and player evaluation grades, then hand in that paperwork to him. It is an arduous process that many coaches find tiresome, but Mook instituted it for a reason: After a player was cut from the girls' lacrosse team last spring, the family hired lawyers to meet with the school.

"In this day and age, you have to cover yourself a little bit," Mook said. "When I meet with a parent whose kid has been cut, I need something to show them. I need proof."

{...}While his mom, Annica, waited in the car, Olsson walked out to the school track to find Keough and Malm for his 10 minutes. They told him to work on his speed and his foot skills. They suggested he try a personal trainer.

"They think some one-on-one work would help me, so I'll do it," Olsson said. "I'm probably going to come out again next year. Getting cut hurts pretty bad, but that's what it takes. There's nothing harder than making your high school team."

{my emphasis}

Far be it from me to state the obvious, but---ahem---it's a freakin' high school soccer team. There are plenty of things that are harder than making your high school soccer team. Nuclear fission would be just one of those things, ya dig. Same with balancing the budget. Or, if we're still limiting the discussion to all things high school, well, perhaps getting a decent grade in Chemistry class might be harder than getting on the soccer team.

Oy.

I can understand about working toward a goal. This kid wants to play soccer. That's not a problem. But there comes a time when you have to realize it's simply not going to happen. I admire his perserverance, but I would think after trying out twice, and failing both times, hiring a personal trainer---for a sixteen-year-old!---so he can get on the JV squad is beyond the pale. Give up the ghost, kid. If it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to---particularly when you try out next year, you're going to be competing for a spot against fourteen-year-olds with fresher legs than yours? Do you really want a pity spot on the team? One they handed you because they felt sorry for you? Do you really want to warm the bench the whole time?

Soccer is physically demanding. Anyone can tell you that, and considering I spent a goodly portion of my time growing up attending my brother Mike's grade school, high school and college games, I can tell you from experience that it's cutthroat throughout the entire process, but is particularly nasty in high school---and this was twenty years ago! My brother's school was the Nebraska state champion, year in and year out. It took a lot to make that team, not only because soccer is a demanding sport, but because the coach had high standards. There was absolutely no shame in failing to get on the team. I can't tell you how many of my brother's friends over the years went from playing with him to stopping by to say "hello" to my mom, my sister and I while we sat in the stands at one of his games. We didn't look at them as any less a human being because they'd been cut. No one did. It was all about the team being as good as it could be, and even they understood that their presence might have hampered that.

This kid wants to get on the team. I can understand that. But, as far as I can tell, it hasn't occurred to him what his presence, if he were allowed on, would do for or to the team. It's a personal thing for him, not one where he wants to play on the school's team to help them win games. That, to me, is a pretty significant shift in attitude.

I think this kid would be well-served to go and find an indoor soccer league team he could play on. He'd actually be playing and having fun, instead of subjecting himself to torture over and over again. I also suspect he might learn a little something about being part of a team as well.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 944 words, total size 5 kb.

Courtesy of the husband, your bit of gaming humor for the day: go here, read post #3 by Brion, then scroll down to post #5 by Faydra.

Heheheheheheh.

BUSTED!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

From Sheila and Ith: List five quirks/idiosyncrasies of yours.

Allrighty Then.

1. When I'm coding stuff in HTML for the blog, if I open a tag in lowercase letters, I must always close the tag in lowercase letters. It's the same if I open the tag in capital letters. I will actually go back and change this---even though there's no need to---because the non-uniformity of it drives me batty.

2. Personal products. I am brand loyal to the point of insanity. Even if there's a better product out there, I won't switch over, no matter how many times someone praises a product. Just won't happen. Now, in certain instances, this is justified, because, for instance, there is no better lotion out there than Lubriderm. There just isn't. But, for other things, there's no rational reason for this. This particularly holds true for hair care products. I've been using the same shampoo and conditioner and styling product for, oh, about three or four years now. (In the case of the Aveda Anti-Humectant I use to control frizzies, I've been using that for seven years) I'm LEERY about switching anything up, because that might mean something very bad will happen. When I find something that works, I'm a happy camper. When someone discontinues something that I love (like my old Estee Lauder moisturizer) I practically go postal on the well-coiffed sales rep.

3. I will stay up late, even if I'm exhausted, just because I can. I'm an adult now. No one tells me when to go to bed! I feel like I'm letting down all the little kids who want to stay up late if I take a header before midnight. I'm a grownup...I can STAY UP AS LATE AS I WANT TO! Hence proving to the masses of children out there that there are benefits to adulthood.

This, of course, drives the husband to distraction, because, go figure, he actually likes falling asleep with me.

4. Speaking of bed. I must have my side of the bed, no matter what bed we're sleeping on. If we're sleeping in the twin beds at my parents house (they still apparently don't want any funny business going on in their spare room) I will take the bed that corresponds to the side of the bed I always sleep on. I also will rub my feet together until I fall asleep. I don't even realize that I do this anymore. This comes from living in a drafty old house when I was growing up and having a natural aversion to sleeping with socks on. Then I moved to Minnesota and started wearing socks in the winter. There was no getting around it. I still rub my feet together because, even with the socks, they get very cold.

5. It queers my deal to do laundry in a different order than normal. You see, first it's the whites, then the sheets and towels, then the warm load of clothes, then the cold load of clothes. It's a pretty simple system, and it works well, if you ask me. You get the sock folding business over with at the beginning, so there's no excuse for not sorting the socks. This also ensures the sheets and towels are washed and replaced before we go to bed. But if the husband needs his jeans washed because he spilled something on them, and he needs them right away, this queers my deal. I don't like washing single items of clothing, because it's a waste of water, but more importantly, it's fucking with the order of things!

Anyway. There's my weirdness, out for all to see. Enjoy!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

How many of the seven deadly sins do we have going on with this little move?

Hip-hop impresario and fashion designer Sean "P. Diddy" Combs wants to make it easier for fans to shower him with adoration -- so he's dropping the "P." from his stage name.

From now on, it's just Diddy.

"We are entering into the age of Diddy. It's a new era," the rap star formerly known as Puffy and Puff Daddy told the syndicated TV show "Access Hollywood" this week.

In a recent round of interviews hyping his upcoming role as host of the MTV Video Music Awards on August 28, Combs, 35, has said he wanted to "simplify" his image and felt that the P. "was getting between me and my fans."

{My emphasis}

I think you can bust "Diddy" on pride, because he's just way entirely too proud. You're supposed to be humble, dude. You ain't humble. You could, conceivably, make a case for sloth, because it's suppposedly easier to say "Diddy" than it is to say Puff Daddy or P. Diddy. But I KNOW we've got Sean dead to rights on vanity...

...because he thinks people actually give a rat's ass about his nickname..

Posted by: Kathy at 11:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

I received the most interesting trackback to this post from yesterday. You can find the link here.

The money quote:

{...}For the record, Hawaii's independence is not secession. Hawaii's sovereignty or territory was never legally ceded to the United States, either through the purported annexation via mere joint resolution, or the fraudulent so-called plebiscite for statehood and the admissions act, both domestic legislations without extraterritorial force on the country of Hawaii, which continues to be under prolonged illegal occupation. No cession, no secession. What we are talking about is not secession, but ending the occupation of Hawaii.

Whether you agree with the above or not, it is important to at least understand that perspective, which is held by many.

Ooooooooookay then. "No cession, no secession." Heh. That's a tricksy little bit of legalese, isn't it? I honestly don't see where the heck this gentleman gets that from, given that, according to the WSJ piece, native Hawaiians voted 2-1 for statehood in 1959, but hey, I suppose everyone's got a dream! It appears this gent's arguments are derived from a "creative" workaround of the facts.

See the problem with Mr. Laudig's argument is not the---oh, how should I put this? I'm going to try and be nice, but wow, I just don't see how that's possible.---insanity in it, but rather that he doesn't carry the insanity all the way through. I mean, honestly, if you're going to do it, do it right, eh?

If Hawaii was really under a "prolonged illegal occupation," Mr. Laudig shouldn't recognize Senator Akaka as a "Senator," should he? After all, you can't send representatives to a government you're being "illegally occupied" by, can you? That's not the way it generally works. I mean, what's the point in doing that, from the occupier's viewpoint? If you're going to expend the time and effort to "illegally occupy" a place---particularly for going on fifty years---why on Earth would you give its people access to representative government of the occupier, let alone all the rights and benefits that come with the citizenship you gave them upon entry into the Union? I suppose one could argue that we're taking the "killing them with kindness" path, but, really, why bother if it's just an "illegal occupation"? It doesn't make much sense, on the whole. It seems a wee bit generous.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:04 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

1 oh yeah, and of course I recognize that the U.S. sees Akaka as a senator, and does not view it as an occupation. my calling him a senator is the only point you actually raise as "the problem" with the argument, but that's beside the point. who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy

Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 04:26 AM (yNvjo)

2 Wow, lady. You really stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't you? Seriously? I find the whole "50 years of occupation" thing incredibly ridiculous. Are they contending that Hawaii isn't better off as a state in the Union? What I find curious about this is my own history in Kansas. You see, I'm originally from Southwestern Kansas and a number of years ago, there was a part of that region that wanted to secede from the state of Kansas, and become a separate state in the union. The ambition came from irritation over unreasonable taxation. For example, larger proportions of land owners in the west paying more than their fair share of revenue to prop up Eastern Kansas crap. The movement failed, but there were a lot of hot-blooded individuals riled up about it (including my own family - we have a problem with unreasonable taxation). Back to Hawaii. I've been to Hawaii. My concern here is that it sets a dangerous precedent. I also don't see how the US taxpayer can take back all of his investment in Hawaii, so I don't really see it as fair. Honestly, I don't think they have a snowball's chance in Hades.

Posted by: Phoenix at August 19, 2005 09:24 AM (4N2f4)

3 Oops. Mr. Crawford might have been given the benefit of the doubt, treated fairly and earned the respect accorded to people making worthwhile comments to demonstrate differeing points of view. He might have even gotten many people to read the articles he pointed out supporting his position. But then: who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy Unreasonable bias has been displayed. If he believes that all the gerrymandering done in this country has been done from the Republican side of the aisle, who the hell knows what else he might believe? Admittedly, this doesn't have much to do with his original argument. But of course, that's the point. Why would he handicap his cause by setting off the warning bells in our heads that we just might be dealing with a moonbat?

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 10:25 AM (6r15q)

4 Scott, brah, you have da kine lolo ideas. Sorry, couldn't resist. The Hawaiian statehood question is a fantastic legal exercise, but nothing more. I don't doubt there's a groundswell of anti-statehood sentiment in the islands right now - having lived there for a few years in the last 80s, I saw how tightly some held onto their grievances. It's now believed that those aggregated grievances, along with some legal two-stepping, can change the fact that those living in Hawaii were given a chance to vote on statehood and accepted it, that Hawaii was admitted as a state by Congress and President Eisenhower and, most importantly, that the Hawaiian government and native Hawaiians have accepted the benefits of statehood without complaint for half a century. Hawaiians have allowed the federal government to pay for roads, schools and other capital improvements to the island before and since becoming a state. Paying taxes, voting, taking federal funds and participating in other U.S. civic exercises does imply that Hawaiians have, for years, consented with the fact that their territory is a state subject to the rules and customs of the United States. One could argue, I suppose, that the Hawaiian government was forced to take millions in federal funds from the United States and elect representatives to its government, but it's a hard sell. If those advocating Hawaiian independence want to live by the courage of their convictions, they would pull their representatives out of Congress, stop paying taxes and stop accepting funds from a government they do not recognize as their sovereign.

Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 12:39 PM (V7NgR)

5 Here we go again. Americans blabbing about what we are not or we cant do or something else that completely avoids the Truth of the racist and illegal theft of Hawaii. The US Constitution says that treaties are the "supreme" law of the land. Is that true or not? Is your word of honor for real or not? The US broke just about every single treaty it had with native peoples and all with Hawaii. So? So lets go to a neutral non US court for a judgement. We tried at the Permanent Court of Arbitration but the most powerful, richest, self rightous nation on the planet would not come. Bottom line. The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen. Lastly, it was non native Hawaiian Americans who voted for statehood. This included all US servicemen and their families.

Posted by: steven at August 19, 2005 01:13 PM (g8EE1)

6 Oh, where to begin... First, "racist" is not a synonym for "everything I disagree with," okay? Throwing the word around like so much confetti only makes it harder for those of us who value the language to use it when it really applies. Second, this Hawaiian independence movement is largely based on the 1993 apology resolution sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka. You wrote:The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen.In that case, Kathy's original point still holds. A U.S. Senator elected from an "illegal" state would not have legal standing to sponsor such legislation. By the act of electing Senator Akaka and all of the other representatives to Congress, the Hawaiian people have shown they are willing to consent to the rule of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, with the right to elect senators comes the responsibilities of statehood. Hawaiians want it both ways - they want to use the rights given to them as a state to advocate for their independence. Again. If they want independence, they should stop paying taxes, withdraw Congressional representation and cease cashing treasury checks. Until that happens, this is just a lot of hot air and empty protests.

Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 01:31 PM (V7NgR)

7 MRN, i was making a joke. or trying to.

Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 01:41 PM (yNvjo)

8 Scott, If that's the case, then please accept my apologies. Its difficult to joke about things like that, because as you can see from poster Steven above, the truly blinkered lemmings come out of the wood-work on issues like this.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 04:48 PM (QKvIa)

9 Just wrote something (about akaka of the "akaka bill" (S147)- that might fit here: In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:40:19 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, scott@aloha.net writes: actually he's (akaka) still not saying it precludes it (independence), just that it has nothing to do with it, and that he doesn't support it. he's trying to satisfy both sides, and it's funny to see him bounce back and forth in how he explains it. He has "sworn on oath" to support the (u.s.) federal constitution (and I don't know what else). Hawai'i independence is not something that the "constitution" provides for. Actually - it's something that the "constitution" DOESN'T provide for and/or actually restricts (in one way or another). So - his compliance with federal law, policies, etc., ALL goes opposite from where WE want to go. Don't expect MIRACLES. "Akaka" is not the first step towards independence - it is the last step FROM independence. On another angle, the Doctrine of Terra Nullis and the Foundation of Manifest Destiny are still alive and well in u.s. outlook and practice. Let's face it - being "brown" and (seemingly) "non-Christian" does not help our cause. (Anyone who feels that america and the akaka bill has nothing to do with race is a blooming idiot.) When Lili'u was on the throne, they said that "Hawai'i was ripe for the 'taking.'" So - they took in brazen defiance to all the rules of "civilized" relations between nations/states. Now the traitors among us are poised to complete the job - making it able for the u.s. to seamlessly finish what it set out to do - "relating everything back" as if the Monarchy (and its subjects) voluntarily transitioned to "the Hawaiian governing entity" (that is nowhere a "government" that will be part of a "government to government relationship" that OHA and others want everyone to think that the outcome will be) - with all historical, legal, etc., glitches [like the "annexation" that didn't happen and theft ("ceded") of our lands] being hit by the "delete" button. The actual transaction will be factually a lot more inferior than the Indians' selling Manhattan for a handful of beads. Is there anything like a "voluntary" theft? --- Where the victim helps the thief rob himself? On the other hand, after all - isn't this what wardship is all about? We aren't "big enough boys and girls" to take care of ourselves and all our resources - and "patrimonious" u.s. is here to take care of us - and rape us and ours (and our resources) any which way it can. (This is NOT a laughing matter.)

Posted by: Ku Ching at August 22, 2005 02:04 PM (6mUkl)

10 Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated. The management.

Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PM (QKvIa)

11 kathy, i realize it might not be clear, but except for the first paragraph quoting an email from me, the rest of the post is original words from Ku. Might have composed it in response to my message on an email list and then cross-posted it here, but it is still an original comment and not an "article" fyi.

Posted by: scott crawford at August 22, 2005 11:56 PM (yNvjo)

12 Scott, I do realize that. Ku posted a thousand word + article in the comments right below his earlier post. I deleted it. I just wanted to let them know where it had gone and why.

Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2005 12:12 AM (QKvIa)

13 oh, okay, sorry about that. i'll mind my own business

Posted by: scott crawford at August 25, 2005 02:58 PM (yNvjo)

14 "Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated. The management. Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PM" Those were my comments!!! Was it an article? Might be debateable. However, my comments are as viable and appropriate as anyone elses - especially if its the "truth" from the "other" side. ku

Posted by: Ku Ching at September 21, 2005 03:54 PM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Doug on the three hundred small bombs that were set off by Islamofascists in Bangladesh yesterday. "Brown people have mothers too."

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Just some of the stuff that's currently flitting about in my head.

• Is it just the husband or is it a worldwide male thing that necessitates the stuffing of an umbrella back into its condom-like wrapper? Sort of like the way men always declare WD-40 is the solution to most problems, and if that doesn't work Duct Tape probably will?
• Whenever the Doctor and ML ask me to walk their dog in the day because they'll be out of town, it's a guarantee for poor weather. They're in Dee Cee this week and, of course, today it's raining. Last December when they were tooling around the wine country, it was ten below zero. Earlier this summer when they were biking around Minnesota, it was a hundred degrees outside. Just once would I like to walk their dog when the weather agrees with such an activity.

  At least I get out of watering their plants today.

• The husband and I have been watching "The Complete Bond 1962-1989" on AMC for the past week or so. We'll quit after tonight, because the Roger Moore ones go straight to hell after The Man With the Golden Gun.

  A few observations:

  • I adore the way Sean Connery pronounces Pussy Galore's name in Goldfinger. It just makes me smile.
  • Thunderball is still my hands-down favorite of all of them.

    And this chick is the baddest of the bad Bond Girls.

    

    There shall be no debate on this one, either. My decision is final.

  • You Only Live Twice is the last one that has that lovely early to mid-sixties aesthetic sense that just suits the Bond World so well. George Lazenby never had a chance when they stuffed him into a ruffled tuxedo shirt in the opening scenes of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It was never going to work. They should have known better.
  • The husband commented last night when we were watching Live and Let Die that he really didn't like how Bond conned Solitaire into giving up her virginity. The husband said it was cheating.

    Is the husband correct? Discuss.

  • Why could they not find one Felix Leiter?

• Why do Jolly Ranchers no longer have hard edges on them? Also, why are they exceedingly sticky nowadays? They seem smaller, too.
• Tide with a "Touch of Downy" is a waste of money. By itself it does not cut down on static cling. And if you use a sheet of Bounce, well, your clothes don't exactly come out smelling like Downy, ya dig? Just buy a bottle of Downy along with the regular Tide.

And that's enough of a peek for you, my devoted Cake Eater readers.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:36 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Because I keep swinging my head around, like I'm a Breck Girl.

The reason for said swinging is because I had somewhere around eight inches of hair whacked off yesterday. Which I believe means, due to the fact I have seriously thick hair, my head weighs about five pounds less than it did yesterday.

It feels sooooooo good. I just can't help myself with the whole swinging thing.

The other thing that I believe is contributing to my dizziness is the fact I had highlights put in yesterday. And...well, how do I explain this? I suppose I must just come out with it. Okedokey---here goes: I'm a blonde.

Well, not really, but since I'm still somewhat new to the world of hair coloring, I didn't think my dark brown hair could go all the way up the scale to whitish blonde. I figured it would stop somewhere around "Light Bozo Orange" from whence the colorist could throw toner in it and it would still come out lighter than it was before. But Don, my hair guru, yesterday declared that he was going for the "sunkissed" look with me, and hence I now have blonde streaks framing my face. The foils just stayed on a wee bit longer than normal and no toner was used.

Surprisingly, it looks fab. I must say I'm quite pleased with the whole thing. I sort of have an early Jackie Kennedy bob going on, only it's a bit shorter and blonder. What's even better about the whole 'do' is that it looks good curly and straight, which is a rare thing.

Now, if I can just stop flipping my head around, I'll be in good shape.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

So, which one's Ponch and which one's Jon?

{Sooper Sekret Message to Steve-o: this just smells like a pshopping opportunity)

Posted by: Kathy at 10:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

So, the husband and I are walking through downtown Cake Eater Land this evening, enjoying the weather, hoping that the powerball ticket we just bought is THE ONE while simultaneously knowing that we have a better chance of being hit in the middle of the night, in our bed, on the second floor of our house, by a rogue NASCAR driver. We're cool with it. But to what should our wondering eyes appear at the main intersection?

Protesters. About thirty or forty of them. Standing in front of a pricey jewelry store of which they'd undoubtedly start winging rocks through the windows if they learned they were selling conflict diamonds.

Anyway. One of them had a sign that read: "George W. Bush: Talk To Cindy Sheehan!"

For fuck's sake. It was bad enough before the election. If you weren't dodging stupid little MoveOn.Org employees, registering voters, who never remembered that THEY'D ALREADY ASKED YOU TWICE BEFORE if "you would like to help remove George W. Bush from The White House?", you were dodging the stupid peace protestors who hogged the corners. Then you'd have to wear earplugs to avoid all the stupid idiots who were honking either in support or derision---you rarely knew which.

But then Kerry didn't pull through and all the little nutjobs went away. No more MoveOn twerps. No more Mother Earth hippie types flashing you the peace sign. No more honking. George W. Bush's win last November really and truly was a win for peace---because all the stupid noisy types left the neighborhood and all was well in the fair fiefdom of Cake Eater Land.

So, the last thing I expected to see tonight was these doltish protesters out there again, hogging the corners, blocking the way of pedestrians. I truly thought we were done with this crap. It's just so boring. So yawn-inducing. Geez. If I'm tired of it, you'd think they'd be tired of it as well. But apparently not.

I'm wondering if this was an organized move by MoveOn and their ilk. I'm assuming it was. It's not like you had a Moonbeam there, who whipped out her own protest sign and wielded a magic marker like a light saber. Everyone looked well prepared with homemade signs or those stupid "Support The Troops, Bring Them Home" signs that they'd ripped out of their front yards (where they've been since March, 2003) and were waving them with glee. The problem is I know I'll feel dirty if I click over to their site to fing out.

Anybody want to do it for me?

UPDATE: the full story is here and here

Posted by: Kathy at 10:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

This is disturbing.

The Senate is poised to sanction the creation of a racially exclusive government by and for Native Hawaiians who satisfy a blood test. The new race-based sovereign that would be summoned into being by the so-called Akaka Bill would operate outside the U.S. Constitution and the nation's most cherished civil rights statutes. Indeed, the champions of the proposed legislation boast that the new Native Hawaiian entity could secede from the Union like the Confederacy, but without the necessity of shelling Fort Sumter.

The Akaka Bill classifies citizens by race, defying the express provisions of the 14th Amendment. It also rests on a betrayal of express commitments made by its sponsors a decade ago, and asserts as true many false statements about the history of Hawaii. It should be defeated.

The Akaka Bill's justification rests substantially on a 1993 Apology Resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton when we were members of the Senate representing the states of Washington and Colorado. (We voted against it.) The resolution is cited by the Akaka Bill in three places to establish the proposition that the U.S. perpetrated legal or moral wrongs against Native Hawaiians that justify the race-based government the legislation would erect. These citations are a betrayal of the word given to us--and to the Senate--in the debate over the Apology Resolution.

We specifically inquired of its proponents whether the apology would be employed to seek "special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii." We were promised on the floor of the Senate by Daniel Inouye, the senior senator from Hawaii and a personage of impeccable integrity, that "as to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians . . . this resolution has nothing to do with that. . . . I can assure my colleague of that." The Akaka Bill repudiates that promise of Sen. Inouye. It invokes the Apology Resolution to justify granting persons of Native Hawaiian descent--even in minuscule proportion--political and economic rights and land denied to other citizens of Hawaii. We were unambiguously told that would not be done.{...}

Now, while I would like to pass each of the the fomer senators who authored the piece a brown paper sack to help with their hyperventilating, I don't think they're completely off the mark here. If this bill is passed, not only would racial preferences be put into law, but Hawaii could, conceivably, give secession from the Union a good hard whack. This would be precedent setting for all those other groups of people---African Americans, Native Indians, etc.---who would like special racial recognition and the accompanying reparations, land, etc. from the federal government to "right" past wrongs.

I have to admit, however, that it's ironic it should be the Hawaiians who are on the brink of succeeding with this sort of legislation where so many others have failed. Hawaiians have benefitted quite handsomely from being incorporated into the United States and its citenzery. Other groups have not. That's curious. What, precisely, is their beef? That there's too much tourism?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.