Get a freakin' grip!

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) -NASA is prepared to waive a flight safety rule so it can launch space shuttle Discovery on the first mission since the 2003 Columbia accident if a fuel sensor glitch reoccurs, managers at the U.S. space agency said on Monday.

The malfunction involving one of four hydrogen fuel sensors forced NASA to postpone Discovery's first launch attempt on July 13. For its second liftoff attempt on Tuesday, NASA is considering changing a rule that all four sensors must be working.

"Any time you talk about changing a launch (rule), that is a big deal," said Stephanie Stilson, Discovery's vehicle manager.

"It's huge. That is not something we would go into lightly, as we should not," Stilson said in an interview.

Officials said NASA was willing to waive the rule requiring all four sensors to be working because it feels there are sufficient safeguards and they are confident the shuttle's safety would not be endangered even if one sensor malfunctioned.

Liftoff of Discovery and seven astronauts on a long-delayed resupply mission to the International Space Station remained on track for 10:39 a.m. EDT (1439 GMT), despite minor damage found on a heat resistant tile on Monday that delayed launch preparations slightly.

NASA spokesman Bruce Buckingham said technicians spotted a "small ding" on one of the tiles that protects the spaceship from superheated atmospheric gases on re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, and it was "swapped out." Launch preparations were quickly brought back on schedule, Buckingham said.{...}

Sigh. I feel sorry for the poor people at NASA. That they should have to defend the action of waiving a rule that says you have to have four working sensors when three are working is ridiculous. Never mind that the fourth sensor is three times redundant, these poor people have to defend their actions to the utmost, otherwise this could be---ahem---something an astronaut could die from!

Well, far be it from me to point this out, but I do believe these astronauts know what the hell they're getting themselves into when they strap into a machine that's going to slingshot them into space. Nothing in this world is perfect, particularly not with a machine that flies into space. The entire endeavor is not safe. It never has been and it never will be. Figure it out.

What is it with these nannies in the media and in Congress? Ever since Columbia exploded two and a half years ago, I've watched in awe as everyone and their mother has bellyached about making space travel safer. And by that I don't mean they want to make it safe within reasonable expectations. They want the shuttle to be a freakin' Volvo, replete with side airbags and parachutes for the astronauts. They seem to think that if the astronauts had parachutes and a better way of exiting a space shuttle that's---ahem---in the process of exploding at a high altitude, these astronauts would be able to exit the shuttle and pull a rip cord. They would then float safely to earth from 50,000 feet or higher and would live to tell the tale.

Ok, that's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen. Do you remember how quickly both Columbia and Challenger exploded? I believe it took eight seconds for Columbia to explode. That's simply not enough time for the astronauts to undo their restraints and jump out of an escape hatch. Never mind that parachuting from that altitude is generally something only SEAL's do on on a rare occassion. The only reason pilots of F-18's and the like find themselves alive after an accident is because the roof of their plane explodes and they're forcefully ejected from their plane. Nothing even remotely similar was proposed for the Space Shuttle in all of the caterwauling that occurred after Columbia exploded. They simply couldn't remodify the shuttle for such a thing. Which should be a big honkin' clue to the rest of us that the commission meetings were not about making the shuttle safer: they were about making the people on the ground feel better about astronauts dying. They were doing something. Well, that's all well and good, but what did they actually get done at the end of the day? What, exactly, is different on Discovery because of Columbia's explosion? If they'd really wanted to make the shuttle safer, they would have done something about those ridiculous tiles that have been a problem since day one, wouldn't they? Those tiles were directly responsible for Columbia's demise, but they did nothing about them. The shuttle is still lined with them.

Space travel is something we're obviously still working out. The shuttle was a big step toward making a reusable aircraft. What I don't understand is how people could not understand that we don't know everything when it comes to flying into space. We just don't. We're still working on figuring it out. These new Magellans and de Gamas, our astronauts, know this. I have to think that they know precisely what they're risking in this endeavor to learn more. If they're willing to take on that burden, why shouldn't we, the people on the ground, trust that they know what they're doing?

I'm not saying that NASA doesn't have it's problems. God only knows that that organization has its issues. But it's time to go already. They shouldn't have to defend against worthless accusations of not wrapping the shuttle up in bubble wrap.

Nothing will happen tomorrow when---and if---the shuttle lifts off. It will all go smoothly, I predict.

So, stop worrying and light the fuse, already, eh?

Posted by: Kathy at 10:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

Does anyone find it even remotely ironic that Roman Polanski is suing Vanity Fair for libel over "allegations" that he slept around right after his wife's---Sharon Tate---death, yet this is the dude who PLED GUILTY to sleeping with a thirteen-year-old girl and then fled the country to escape sentencing?

Good. I didn't think I was the only one.

I'm somewhat tired of always being told how sorry we should feel for Roman Polanski. He's a genius, his defenders say. He didn't mean to sleep with a thirteen-year-old in Jack Nicholson's hot tub. She looked older than she really was. She seduced him. It only happened because he was so distressed over his wife's death. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Whatever.

You're either a grown-up and you take responsibility for your actions, even if they land you in the can for a while. OR you have the good sense to shut the fuck up about it. It's pretty goddamned simple, if you ask me. But the one thing you do not do is sue a magazine for libel because they point out the one part of your well-documented sex life that seems disrespectful to a dead woman. You made your bed, Roman, you little slut. Now lie in it.*

pun fully intended

Posted by: Kathy at 03:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

For the love of God.

LOS ANGELES - Actor Colin Farrell is suing a woman for allegedly trying to distribute and profit from a sex tape he says the two recorded with the agreement they would never make it public.

The lawsuit filed Monday in Superior Court seeks general and compensatory damages as well as a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting the sale and exploitation of the videotape.

Farrell, 29, accuses Nicole Narain of trying to distribute the tape through an intermediary. The two had an intimate relationship 2 1/2 years ago and both agreed that the 15-minute tape that shows the couple having sex would be jointly owned by them and would remain private, according to the suit.{...}

See, here's the thing, Colin. You're a celebrity. You're famous. You're also tabloid fodder because of the way you act. Soooooooo, doesn't it make just a wee bit of sense to you that perhaps, just perhaps, if you don't want a sex tape of yourself running around on the internet YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Jeez. How stupid can you be? Ah, but I'm judging Colin from the mantle of sobriety. He's a boozer. He doesn't see things clearly.

I ask you this, my devoted Cake Eater Readers: are there ever times in this life when you can just see the outcome of stuff, like you're an author and you know how the book is going to end? Can you see it coming? See, here's what I can see for Colin's future. Brilliant, widely acclaimed actor will keep on acting for a while, and he's going to keep on partying hard, too. Women will walk in and out of his life, and the reason they will keep on walking out of his life is because he's a feckin' drunk. An alcoholic if you will. His family works very hard to keep him from imploding, but they will ultimately fail. It's predestined, because everyone who tries to keep a drunk---famous or not---from imploding fails. It can't be forestalled. So, one day, he will drink himself into yet another stupor and...

...here's where you can play with the ending. But logic dicates that there are only two choices because Colin's the kind of guy where it's either all or nothing.

The Sad, Literary Ending: he will choke on his own vomit whilst sleeping it off. Or he could be behind the wheel of a car and will drive off some cliff in L.A. Or, if you want to be ironic about it, he could be killed by a drunk driver as he stands incoherently in the street, disgusted with his behavior, promising to make amends, swearing that last Guinness he drank was his last drink just as the car smacks him. However you want to slice it, he will die an early death and he will be lauded for the rest of eternity. Like an Irish James Dean.

or

The Happy, PR-Friendly, Tee-Vee Movie of the Week Ending: He will realize he's letting his life slip past in a haze of booze. He will check himself into rehab, and two months later, a shaky, but somewhat solid Colin will emerge from the dark to be praised for his courage in overcoming his demons on the cover of every magazine across the world.

I'm afraid that after having lived through this sort of shit, it all becomes rather obvious after a time. I can spot a boozer at ten paces and it's a tedious sort of knowledge, because you see all the talent that's wasted. Colin Farrell is yet another boozer who thinks he's got his shit together and he doesn't. What's sad is that if you've seen Tigerland you know how talented this guy really is. I don't think any of the standard Hollywood fare he's made since has showcased his talent as well as that small film.

I know. I'm getting my knickers in a twist over someone I don't know or really care about all that much. But when you see it happen, over and over again, well, you just want to knock your head against the wall. It's frustrating because you can see it, but they can't. And you can't even tell them what they're missing because they won't believe you until they can see it for themselves. That's just the nature of the beast. I sincerely hope, even though I will despise the fact his face will be plastered all over the newsstands for months, he opts for the PR-Friendly ending.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 4 kb.

Because someone is outgeeking you!

Go read the article and be amazed, once again, at what people will do to fill the hours.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

This is just disgusting.

From the outside, Ruth Knueven's Mount Vernon home has real charm: a verdant lawn, manicured hedges, flowers blossoming from fresh mulch beds and, near the front door, a garden ornament depicting two playful cats.

But police said that what lurked inside Knueven's two-story home was hardly so delightful. Hidden behind that garden ornament was a house bursting with real cats.

Animal control officers removed 273 creatures -- 86 of them dead -- after neighbors complained vehemently of odors Friday. Cats were still being plucked from the house yesterday, extracted from the walls and from deep within the brick chimney. Traps were set.

"I don't know how they got in there," Fairfax County police officer Richard Henry said of the hidden cats.

Before leaving, officials slapped a bright-orange sticker on the front door, condemning the dwelling on Ludgate Drive that they said was overflowing with feline feces and urine. Knueven, 82, and her husband and daughter were ordered to leave.

Last night, police said, Knueven returned to the house and ripped down the condemnation order. Animal-control officers found her inside trying to smuggle an additional 30 cats out of the home, bringing the total last night to 303. The animals were confiscated, and more traps were set.{...}

Why on Earth would anyone think this is the kind thing to do?

Disclaimer: I've never had pets. The Cake Eater Parents just didn't go for them. Rumor has it we had two cats before I was born, but they didn't make it past day two. (The cats, reportedly, had a love of cars and traffic.) And forget about owning dogs: my ex-farmboy father thinks it's cruel to keep dogs anywhere other than a place with a field attached.

So, while I will admit I have very little experience with pets, I nonetheless have a REALLY hard time understanding why anyone would be so incredibly freakin' selfish as to keep THREE HUNDRED AND THREE cats in their house. And let's face it: this comes right down to human selfishness. This woman, obviously, wasn't worried about the cats as over eighty of them were found dead. She was thinking about herself as some noble rescuer of unwanted beasts even though she did not have the capacity to take care of them properly. I think it should be a big freakin' clue that when you can't keep up with the kitty litter---and the neighbors are complaining about the smell---you probably have too many cats.

I am very tired of people treating animals like they were human beings. Yes, love your dog or your housecat, or your gerbil or whatever sort of pet you have. These are not the animals/people I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who claim to be serious animal lovers, who will do anything necessary to ensure their survival, yet get in over their heads and don't realize it because they're too busy being righteous about their love of animals. A online community I used to frequent had a sort of virtual church attached to the community: people would go there and post about their problems. It was a wonderful place where they could find support because we were an exceedingly friendly bunch of people. (We had no trolls. It was wonderful.) One time one woman posted about how she'd moved cross country to be with this man, who, as it turned out, was abusing her. She would not remove herself from this dangerous situation---even after the bastard put her in the hospital a few times---because she couldn't afford to cart her horse or her five dogs, three cats and god only knows how many small rodents back from whence she came. She was afraid of what her abuser might do to them if she left. So she stayed until she could afford to move all of them, and, of course, she wound up in the hospital one more time because of her refusal to abandon them. She had plenty of friends who wanted her to leave the guy and who offered to shelter these animals, but she refused them: she didn't want to leave without her pets because "her life wouldn't be complete without them." Ooooookay. They're animals not human beings. You are a human being who's having the crap beaten out of her on a regular basis by another human being. Your best option is to leave. You have to leave or YOU MIGHT DIE and you put the animals first? WTF? It made no sense to me then, and it still doesn't make any sense to me now. It was selfish. And what made it even more selfish on her part is that she refused to invoke her right to self-preservation because, apparently, she was willing to martyr herself for her pets.

Now, that's selfish, my friends. And what was worse about the whole situation was that she kept posting about all of this and people agreed with her. They offered her "support to get matters taken care of so she could leave." One other woman and I were absolutely flabbergasted at how her supporters had absolutely no common sense where this woman was concerned. Furthermore, we were verbally slapped at when we told her to just pack up and leave, the animals be damned. Her life was the one that counted. Animals were animals; a human being was entirely something else. But she didn't get it and neither did her supporters. Fortunately, she got away from her abuser, but what would have happened if she hadn't? Would the local media have told her story as one of a devoted animal lover who wouldn't leave without her horse, implying that she'd made the correct, albeit deadly, decision?

It's just wrong to think that because you love your pets their lives have the same meaning as yours---a living, breathing, human being---does. Animals can be wonderful, I will admit, but when you're willling to give your life for theirs, when you're willing to adjust your life around theirs, something is seriously wrong with the way you think. You may claim to be a lover of nature and animals and all that jazz, but you have forgotten about Nature---with a capital "N"---and how Nature doesn't really make allowances for your sort of love.

{Hat tip: Victorino at the Galley Slaves, who has some fun with puns.}

*the husband is deathly allergic to cats and hates them accordingly. To his way of thinking, they hated him first by making it impossible to breathe when they're around so fair's fair.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1115 words, total size 7 kb.

From Brian Williams' Blog yesterday:

{...}Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England.{...}

{emphasis mine}

Bullshit.

No one in England---or anywhere else for that matter---would have called George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams "terrorists." They would, however, have called them---ahem---traitors, because that's what they were to the average Joe or crown sporting monarch in England. They told King George III to go and do something obscene with said crown because they were fed up and they weren't going to take it anymore. That, generally, will get you labeled as a traitor because Kings, as a rule, don't like that sort of behavior. It makes them testy.

Yet, there's a bit of difference between a traitor and a terrorist. And if you can't see that, well, you're a dolt, Williams. But we already knew that because you're the "managing editor" of the NBC Nightly News, which, let's face it, is not exactly the most taxing form of employment and you only need the IQ of your average zoo-residing chimpanzee to get the freakin' job.

{Hat tip: Martini Boy's Bartender. See also: Doug}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.