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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

They're everywhere.

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

Neal Stephenson in Reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And sliced herself to ribbons.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 .. I am truly humbled..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, not really.

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

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

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

It's about time.

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

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

Yay for my liver!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, wee bastard is officially upgraded.

The husband spent the better part of today tweaking el laptopola and it's running smoothly. He also managed to add winamp and because we're networked, I now have access to our entire music collection, which resides on his machine. All music, all the time, and no loss from my wee bittie 11 Gig memory stash! Hot damn! He's good.

And, no, I will not insert any prophecies of doom and gloom here.

The only thing that's goofing me currently is Mozilla. It's just different. I will adapt, improvise and overcome. Eventually. I'm a Luddite when it comes to these things. I despise change.

Yet, I feel the need to mention I have yet to have a page not load because some random ad tried to sneak a cookie onto my machine and Spybot went all Medieval on it. So it's got that going for it. And that's saying quite a bit considering how many pages I couldn't get to load with IE.

Y'all might want to think about switching over if you haven't already.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You're very welcome, love. But you should start calling your browser Firefox and not Mozilla. Mozilla is a whole suite that includes Firefox now, although a year ago Mozilla was something slightly different. Take back the web! Get Firefox!

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at February 07, 2005 08:30 AM (sQLe5)

2 You have a lovely husband there, Kathy. MRN, you got a lovely wife. Now that I've exchanged the pleasantries -- I have a question. I haven't been able to kick my Avant habit (and yes, I'm aware it's a shell over IE, which only makes it marginally better than plain vanilla IE) but I had installed Firefox 8.something and 9.something. I now have 10.something. Because of an extension foul-up eons ago, I can no longer view and/or change my extensions. And, you see, I am quite fond of tabbed browsing. HOWINHAYELL does one completely remove Firefox from one's system and start from scratch? (This is also something that makes me nervous, this refusing to uninstall thing. Norton did that to me another eon or two ago, and once I finally cleared it out of my registry I refused to have it on my system again.) Anyway. Sorry for hijacking this post and making MRN a Tech Assistance Hotline, but I thought I'd ask at least. Heh. TIA!

Posted by: Margi at February 07, 2005 03:58 PM (zalxZ)

3 He sent you an email, Margi. Hope it works

Posted by: Kathy at February 08, 2005 10:43 AM (sQLe5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sorry for the light posting the past couple of days. It's been extraordinarily gorgeous weatherwise. Highs in the low 50's, which is unheard of for the first week in February in Minnesota. The husband and I have been taking advantage of it and have been taking walks during prime blogging time, so, I'll say I'm sorry, but you all will know that I don't really mean it and you won't hold it against me.

Furthermore, the husband is going to be rebuilding Wee Bastard sometime soon. Like this weekend. Probably not today, but I would think tomorrow during the Super Bowl (which neither of us gives a rat's ass about and won't even watch for the commercials now that we can find them online the next day) would be a good time for this to happen. Nothing's wrong with el laptopola, per se, it's just that there's some work that could be done to increase performance and I've officially had it with Internet Explorer and the crap it lets through. Maintenence and upgrades will be done and Mozilla will be installed. It would take me ages to do this on my own, and he actually enjoys it so why not let him? Provided he doesn't goof things up too badly, I'll probably be back to full posting speed come Monday.

Finally, can someone---anyone---please tell me why Europeans (and some Canadians) keep entering "Jessica Cutler Gorilla Sex" into their local Google image search? Since the archives from the old blogspot home have yet to be transferred onto this site, my sitemeter is active on both blogs. I'm getting anywhere from ten to fifty direct hits a day on this, and have been for close to a month. And when I mean direct hits, I mean people type in the exact same phrase every single time. Has Jessica Cutler aka the Washingtonienne invaded Europe? Is there some email campaign going on? Did someone mention it on the web and I didn't see the link? WHAT'S THE FREAKIN' DEAL HERE? While I don't mind the traffic (yes, I'm bad that way. I know this.) as the person who came up with that image, I would simply like to know what the deal is.

I know some of you people find your way over here. Can you please explain this one to me? I hope you find it humorous and enjoy your time here, but honestly, I would like to know about the trail of breadcrumbs.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonathan Last, head Galley Slave, extolls the virtues of Wonderfalls, some show that was on Fox and was axed before I even knew it was out there. Yeah, ok, whatever. I'm not a big fan of watching TV series on DVD, but I suppose there is an audience for something like that, given the way DVD's of 24 and Alias clutter the shelves at the local Blockbuster.

However, dear Jonathan goes a wee bit too far in his praise.

{...}The 13 episodes have an arc and a satisfying conclusion and it plays like the greatest maxi-series ever broadcast on television (apologies to the BBC's Pride and Prejudice).

Yeah, you'd better apologize to Pride and Prejudice, bub. In fact, here's Mr. Darcy now.

Jonathan, my friend, you might want to have a wee bit of a chat with the man, wherein you extend your most sincere and heartfelt apologies.

Quickly.

You might also want to take back that bit about Wonderfalls "...play{ing} like the greatest maxi-series ever broadcast on television."

Just ask Mr. Wickham about what happens to men who don't apologize to Mr. Darcy. You might find yourself being forced to marry the incessantly twitty Lydia in Wickham's stead. And I can't think that you'd enjoy that. Really. Just say you're sorry and all will be well.

Hmmmmm?

Posted by: Kathy at 01:50 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Kathy, I just love it when you get all Pride & Prejudice-y!

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at February 03, 2005 01:58 PM (7dkzi)

2 I maintain my high esteem for Wonderfalls even while singing the praises of Pride, Prejudice, Darcy, et al. How great is Pride & Prejudice? It was able to spawn, generations later, a successful franchise of literary and cinematic spoofs. That's greatness. Still, go buy Wonderfalls. It's awesome. (And a lot cheaper than the Pride & Prejudice monster set.)

Posted by: JVL at February 03, 2005 02:00 PM (W4CjZ)

3 Well, I guess you're going to wind up with Lydia, dude. This has got nothing to do with maintaining high esteem for Pride and Prejudice whilst at the same time extolling the virtues of Wonderfalls. It has, however, got everything to do with saying P&P is BETTER than Wonderfalls for the simple reason that nothing's better than P&P. I have no idea if that made any sense whatsoever. I kept getting distracted by Colin in ruffles. (sigh)

Posted by: Kathy at February 03, 2005 02:05 PM (sQLe5)

4 Mmmmm, Colin in ruffles! (No success in locating Spamalot Spam yet. Will redouble efforts.)

Posted by: Fausta at February 03, 2005 05:04 PM (6Pf+a)

5 Mmmm it's a nice day today Have nothing to do tonight -- I think I have to watch that again!

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 03, 2005 05:33 PM (B2T6R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yesterday Sadie invited me to join her in throwing a few rotten tomatoes at Tara Reid.

After looking forward to this, I find my sails have been completely deflated. I have got absolutely nothing to add to her treatise.

It's not like I'm minding all that much, either.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

No, you call me, you lazy bastard. Don't you know how to pick up the phone? Are your metacarpals somehow incapacitated, hence you can't dial the damn thing, monkey boy? Are you missing opposable digits and the damn thing keeps falling out of your hands? What's your problem? Search under the stacks of empty, grease-stained pizza boxes and see if you can find the phone and then you call me. Not the other way around.

Because that's just the way God intended it.

Sincere apologies extended to Jeff G. for stealing his schtick and for doing it so poorly, too. Honestly, all I wanted was to see if I could scan a conversation heart. I don't know where the rest came from. I swear.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

1 *snicker* Fax me? Heh.

Posted by: Margi at February 03, 2005 12:42 AM (zalxZ)

2 Speaking of PW, you need to change your info there -- it still sends people to blogspot.

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 03, 2005 01:37 PM (B2T6R)

3 We are talking about protein wisdom, right? I went there and the link was for the mu.nu address and it took me here. Hmmm. Weirdness.

Posted by: Kathy at February 03, 2005 01:57 PM (sQLe5)

4 Well, it sent me to blogspot... maybe it picks and chooses Oh, checking again: that's your link when you comment. You're a Munuvian on the blogroll.

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 03, 2005 05:37 PM (B2T6R)

5 Old cookie. Will have to change that. I don't post much at PW's site. Anymore, that is.

Posted by: Kathy at February 03, 2005 10:32 PM (sQLe5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My sister has recently turned into one of those knitting gurus. Ever since she taught herself how to do this, she constantly has a ball of yarn in her lap and keeps her needles clicking and clacking. The wedding season in Omaha was a bit slow last year so she had to turn those crafty instincts of hers elsewhere. On the whole, it's been a good thing. I got a sweet cashmere blend scarf for my birthday.

She's always looking for new projects. I don't think this one will pass muster, though.

Yep. You saw that right. That's a grenade purse. Helpfully, The Guardian has given you the instructions on how to make your very own grenade purse in this article!

But why would someone want to make one in the first place? you ask.

{...}An exhibition at the Crafts Council Gallery in London next month will show that knitting - long belittled as the preserve of elderly ladies declining towards senility - has become a politically engaged, radical artform.

One artist constructs intricate, two-metre-high knitted panels based on prostitutes' calling cards. Another knits balaclavas and photographs people wearing them around New York. There is even a group of activists that stages knit-ins on the London Underground, occupying a carriage and knitting around the Circle line.

The exhibition comes as knitting enjoys a fashionable resurgence, with celebrities from Madonna to Julia Roberts and Russell Crowe extolling its virtues as a creative outlet and a stress reliever.

Katie Bevan, one of the exhibition's curators, believes that the roots of the trend are deeper. "There's a sort of zeitgeist: a make-do-and-mend spirit during this war on terror or whatever it is. Everyone just wants to go home and knit socks."

For many of the artists in the show, the act of knitting is itself political. Shane Waltener, who is making a site-specific, web-like piece embedded with a text from the French semiotician Roland Barthes, says knitting has been "long underrated because it is 'women's work'". Part of the point for him is "going public as a guy doing knitting ... I had to teach myself to knit and crochet, because 'boys don't'."

For many political knitters, the craft represents an act of rebellion. Waltener says: "On the one hand I am celebrating this tradition that I really believe in. On the other it is about self-sufficiency. By knitting you are resisting capitalism and consumerism. You are not responding to the fashion industry; you are making your own decisions."{...}

Yes. That's right. Knitting is a political statement. These folks want to be self-sufficient. They don't want the fashion industry telling them what to wear! They're rejecting capitalism. They're resisting consumerism. So, of course, their knitting project of choice would be a grenade handbag.

{Insert sound of head repeatedly slamming against desk ala Don Music here}

Methinks someone should hand these people one of the real things and have them knit a cozy for it. If we're lucky, the pin will fall out during the measuring stage and we will be spared more of this sanctimonious, self-righteous, and utterly meaningless crap in the future.

{hat tip: Adrianne}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the hockey season's over with.

I know it's not official, but nothing's going to get these bums to come to an agreement this season.

Bastards.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

One wishes Dan Akroyd would make a journey to the NBC Studios this Saturday night to deliver that line.

She'd probably think it was a compliment, though, so it's probably a waste of time.

Sigh.

And people wonder why I don't bother watching SNL anymore.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

...but rather Quentin Walker (Llamabutcher)! Woohoo! Thank Goodness Steve-o had some sense pounded into him.

Go on over and say congratulations!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

My devoted Cake Eater Readers, I present to you...Spamalot

Ahem.

Austin, Minn. (Nov. 29, 2004) – In honor of SPAMALOT, a new musical lovingly ripped off from the motion picture “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” Hormel Foods is introducing a limited edition flavor, SPAM™ golden honey grail in a “SPAMALOT collector’s edition” can.

The SPAM™ golden honey grail will be available, in limited quantities as of February 2005 at select New York City retailers, including Broadway merchandise stores and the Shubert Theatre merchandise kiosks. The can features SPAMALOT graphics and characters from the new musical and instructions in “SPAMALOT-ese” on how to “cooketh” SPAM®.{...}

So, what I want to know is this: who lives in New York City and can score me a can?

{hat tip: Enlightened Cynic. Who thinks it's "bloody brilliant!"}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.