The 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar comes and goes and we have not one squeak out of Robbo about it.

Hmmmph.

I wonder if this could be the reason.

Oh, and just because I can...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Victorino, one of the Galley Slaves, had the opportunity to attend a screening of The Great Raid, which is a story about American POW's being rescued from a Japanese camp in the Phillipines in 1945 and has a mini-review about it up. (Sorry, kids. Couldn't find a trailer to save me life!)

The Japanese were horrible during WWII. They hadn't signed the Geneva Convention, hence they weren't going to even bother with the little things, let alone the biggies, like food, water, basic sanitation, or even medicine. In particular the Japanese treated the Philippines like it was their own personal violent sandbox. And, yes, we're talking civilians, too. Once the Americans evacuated in 1942, it was like someone had waved a red cloth at the charging bull. They'd already done their worst in Nanking and Shanghai and other parts of China: I don't think anyone thought the Japanese could actually do worse than that, but they were wrong.

(Victorino has his own bit of disclosure about his father, as do I: my next door neighbor when I was growing up---the closest thing I had to a grandfather---was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. And he was a doctor, too, so just try to imagine what he saw and lived through. And, no, I never talked to him about it, so I don't know. After looking it up in the encyclopedia, I couldn't bear to ask, even though my mom encouraged me to.)

I digress as usual, so, anyhoo...

Noting that portraying such baddies might be touchy for Japanese actors, Victorino states:

{...}Credit should also be given to the Japanese actors who no doubt made a courageous decision in accepting the roles of ruthless killers. And who knows if the film will ever be shown in Japan? (Thanks to its distributor, Miramax, the movie should get some good press stateside.) Unlike The Thin Red Line, there are no moral ambiguities here. It is quite clear the occupying power did some really bad things.{...}

This is where the "you never know" bit comes into it. It might be released in Japan, and they might actually like it. A few years back I read a wonderful book: My Spy: The Memoir of a CIA Wife by Bina Cady Kiyonaga, a redheaded Irish-American from Baltimore who married a Japanese-American from Hawaii. In 1946. Yeah, your eyebrows should be up somewhere near your hairline. Her husband, Joe, worked for the CIA and, in between stopovers at Langley, was posted all over the world---along with his wife and five kids. As you might imagine, one of his postings was in Tokyo. Where, one night in 1957, they were invited to see the Japanese premiere of The Bridge on the River Kwai.

You can find the relevant excerpt after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1070 words, total size 7 kb.

Courtesy of Sheila, we have MORE Tommy Boy nuttiness.

{...}Cagle: Most people are reluctant to talk about religion, or anything controversial, when it is your job to be likable to mass number of people around the globe. Why, especially in recent years, have you become so vocal about Scientology, about psychiatry, which you're against?

Cruise: Communication is the universal solvent. That's why I talk about it. What I believe in is that people should be able to think for themselves, and they should be able to make decisions, based on information, on being informed. I don't believe that children should be forced on drugs. I think parents should be informed on the effects of these drugs.

Cagle: I think what upsets some people when you talk about this, what upset Brooke Shields, for example, is that you imply that someone's own experience with psychiatric drugs was, they were mistaken by the way it helped them; that other studies that are done that contradict what you believe are erroneous

Cruise: What do you mean?

Cagle: Other studies that show that maybe Ritalin does help some kids.

Cruise: When you see a study done, you have to look and see who did the study. When someone's on these psychiatric drugs, they have to try and step off these drugs, and I've stepped people off these drugs, Jess. They can go into seizure. All right, it's easier to step someone off heroin. It's more dangerous. They need a medical detox on these drugs.

Cagle: And yet some people have said they've taken them for a while, and then they've gotten off them, and it's helped them through a rough time.

Cruise: Jess, it's a point of, you look at something and you go OK. I've been on the other side of that, when people's lives have been torn apart, where you talk about suicides, where we're looking at now Ritalin is street drug; it's a study drug, because it's an amphetamine. Look, you don't have to believe me. I'm just saying, look at the data and where does that data come from? Now you need to evaluate" What is help, Jess? Is "help" that that person will sit there quiet? Did you really get to the root of the problem?

So, let's see where Tommy Boy has upgraded his message since his interview with Matt Lauer.

1. Tommy Boy, apparently, cannot conceive that someone's own good experience with psychotropics is better than Scientology studies that make claims to the contrary. Because they only took them as a result of faulty research. And if we only really knew the whole story, well...

2. Tommy Boy, apparently, seems to be implying that suicides happen because people are on psychotropics. Most people see them as the things that KEEP PEOPLE FROM KILLING THEMSELVES.

Now, Tommy Boy is not only claimng to be an expert on psychiatry, he's also a detox counselor. And apparently Ritalin is worse to get off of than heroin. Yeah, right. And he knows this for a fact because he helped them "step off" these drugs. Yeah, Right. I'm pretty freaking sure he sat there and held their hair back while they puked. Mmmhmmmm.

And the phrase, Tommy Boy, is not "step off" it's "get off." Learn your detox lingo, my friend.

"Doctor," heal thyself! Before someone gets killed.

As far as the whole universal solvent thing is concerned. That sounded a wee bit funky, like it came from someone else's mouth, so the husband googled it for me. Here's a funny, and telling, anecdote about "universal solvents."

One day the famed German chemist Justus von Liebig was approached by an assistant, who excitedly declared that he had just discovered a universal solvent. "And what is a universal solvent?" Liebig asked. "One that dissolves all substances," the assistant explained. "And where," Liebig replied, "are you planning to keep this solvent?"

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

Yes, usually I am full of it. I will be the first to admit to it, too. But there are times when my overlarge ego is well deserved.

And this would be one of them.

A-freakin'-HA! I have confirmation! My ego is well deserved.

I rule!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems Phin got Madame Sadie to thinking about her new profession:

Phin:

{...}In general I've found that most people hate to ask for help; especially to resolve a situation we've screwed up. Personal observations have lead me to believe that once we've shit the bed we're typically not happy until we've also to flung poo into the ceiling fan trying to take care of the problem ourselves. We'll finally quit when we're neck deep in our own crap with no way out and we call somebody else to clean up it up. It's that moment of being helpless, when we realize that we can't solve the problem and we've made it worse, that causes us to loath lawyers.

Sadie:

{...}With divorces so commonplace these days (Everyone's doing it, didn't you hear?), and most people thinking they got screwed over royally in the legal process, of course lawyers are disliked. Especially when one considers that it a divorce essentially results from the ill contributions by both parties, and not everyone is willing to admit that they failed in love. Add children to the mix, and it gets even stickier. Interestingly enough, the criminal law judge that I once worked for had just transferred off the domestic docket, and he pointed towards the relative civility of the criminal defendants in relation to divorcing couples. I do suppose that since most criminal defendants opt to plea bargain, they must be rather content with the relatively lighter punishment they receive at the hands of their attorneys. Heh. On the other hand, an attorney certainly isn't a marriage counselor, no?

When lawsuits are resolved by negotiation or mediation, there is possibility for solutions that perhaps might benefit both sides. When things get to a lawsuit, only one party technically "wins," although that party may not be as big a winner as they had hoped. So right there, that's at least fifty percent of people involved in litigation at any given time that would tend towards disliking lawyers. With multiple lawsuits and lower verdicts than ever these days, it's easy to see why more parties see themselves as "losers" in the fight against lawyers. {...}

There is much truth to both what Phin and Sadie have written, but as one who's been on both sides of it---working for lawyers and having to have my beloved represented by one---I think there's a wee bit more to it than just the inherent odds of the situation.

Lawyers are a specific breed: they are there to mediate your troubles away. And it's important to realize that they are there to mediate. To negotiate a compromise to a conflict, and to do it within the reaches of the legal system. That's why you hire them. They attempt to solve your problems to the best of their abilities. Now, many people don't realize this. They want the problem to go away and they expect to win. There is no compromise where these people are concerned. They believe they're right, the other party is wrong and that's the way it should be seen by everyone involved. Duh. So, to that extent, I will agree with Madame Sadie.

Where I disagree, however, is in how some lawyers conduct themselves. The good ones will lay the odds out on the table for you, first thing. They will say this is where we have the best option of saving grace, but to save said grace, we will have to give something else up over here. They will make it clear from the get go that there will be no winners, and hopefully everyone will come out of this without feeling like a loser. These are the lawyers who will work their butts off to resolve the situation. They will throw themselves into defending your side of the equation.

These are also, it should be said, the lawyers it costs an arm and a leg and part of the other leg to hire.

The bad lawyers, however, are the ones who promise the moon and the stars. They can make it go away, they'll say. And they'll do it for x number of dollars, which is not cheap, but is a more reasonable number than the other prices you were quoted. You, who are in the desperate situation, want to believe them, and you're really grasping for hope, so, despite your better judgment, you do believe them and you fork over their retainer. Then after a brief flurry of activity on your behalf---announcing to the court that they're your counsel, copies of letters they've sent to the prosecutor proclaiming the same, copies of police reports, etc.---you can't get them on the phone. Suddenly they're "in court" all the time. Their paralegals have no time for you, either. You only see them when you have a court date and then they spend as little time as possible telling you what the deal reportedly is. They scoot off as quickly as possible because they have some other pressing matter to attend to. These are the guys who have subscribed to doing their business by volume. And I'm not only referring to ambulance chasers here, but respectable firms, with nice offices, friendly, well-coiffed receptionists and a big, impressive client roster. These are the firms who strictly keep their eyes focused on the bottom line. You, to them, are a commodity, not a client. Yet another sucker who's gotten themselves into trouble and you are, in their eyes, just another way to make some coin. Hence, all their promises about the moon and the stars and your freedom, which is something you value highly, suddenly disappear. They've baited you, and now they're going to serve up a monster switcheroo: your case is worse than they originally thought. They believe this plea bargain they've arranged is the best option for you to take and they'll push for it. And if you want to take another option, and fight it out, well, it will cost x amount of dollars more than what was originally agreed.

And you'll say, "Hey! You can't do that! I signed a fee agreement where you promised these services, should it come to this, and you now want more money for them? Well, no. That's not the deal we struck. Damnit, live up to your end of the bargain." And they'll say, "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you weren't exactly honest with me (which you were, but apparently that's not the way they see it) when you signed up and you can feel free to find other counsel. Which is generally a bad idea at this late date. And by the way, don't bother suing me for breach because I'm a lawyer. I'll just countersue claiming that you breached the original fee agreement by not divulging certain information. This is what I do for a living. I sue people. Do you really want me suing you? I didn't think so. Really, it's not that much time in jail. Or on probation. Just take the deal because the deal with evaporate if you fire me. Then you're back at square one and the prosecutor will be pissed off, too, and won't be so generous the next time around, I promise. Just take the deal. If you don't, you'll find yourself in a whole mess of trouble."

Have I mentioned that this particular type of lawyer is also the kind who will send you a bill for their services and will then bill you for the postage which enabled your bill to work its way through the postal system? I just flat-out love that. It's just so brazen! So brash! So fucking arrogant! If the rest of us tried this sort of thing, we'd be beaten within an inch of our lives. So we don't do it. But that doesn't stop them. They're entitled.

Not only have I worked for this particular breed of lawyer (I was the low woman on the totem pole in the office: I was the one who had to add the cost of a stamp to every client's bill), the husband has also been represented by their ilk. And I despise them. They are so desperate to increase their bottom line, they will violate any and all trust that they've established with you to get what they want, which is maximum money for minimum effort. And they're not above using coercion to get it. The judge that Sadie refers to was so surprised at how agreeable criminal defendants were compared to divorcees. This is because, I believe, by the time they actually get before the judge to enter their plea, some criminal defendants have been beaten into submission by their lawyers. They're tired of it. They just want to get it over with. They've been abused already and what's one more whack when it's all said and done with?

Do I sound bitter? I'm sure I do. When you've paid thousands of dollars for ineffective, lazy counsel who did much less than they promised, you'd be bitter, too. Money doesn't grow on trees, after all, and when you've been suckered one too many times, it stings. Not only in the pocketbook, or because they did what they did, but because you let them get away with it. You may not have felt you had a choice in the matter, but you did let them off the hook nonetheless. You didn't call the Bar Association to complain, because would they actually listen to your petty complaints? No. Did you tell the judge? No, because why on earth would they believe you an "alleged" criminal. It's a "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," situation. And the shame of it is huge. Because not only have you been stung financially, you've lost your freedom as well. It's, ultimately, your own damn fault because you were stupid enough to believe them in the first place.

So, while I'm sure I sound bitter, let it be said, however, that we have had good experiences with lawyers, too. One in particular who saved the husband's bacon with his felony dwi. He was one of the aforementioned "good lawyers" who laid everything out on the table first thing. Not surprisingly, he also cost an arm and a leg to hire, too. He bluntly told the husband he could not escape jail time. There was just no way to do it. But he worked the situation and he worked it hard to make sure it was the most positive outcome he could deliver. He answered questions. His paralegal answered questions. He updated the husband on the developments in the case without having to be prompted. But, most importantly, HE DIDN'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR THE POSTAGE HE USED TO SEND OUT HIS STATEMENTS. He was worth every dollar we paid him. And he'll probably be hired again soon when the husband applies to the court to be released from his sentence. Because the husband has been a good boy and has done everything the court has asked of him. He thinks he has a fighting chance of being released early from his probation, and with this lawyer on his side, I, too, think he has a decent chance. But what's really important is that if the husband doesn't have a good chance, well, this lawyer will tell the husband that flat-out. He won't "try." He'll either do it or he won't. And he won't send us a bill, either, to tell the husband that.

So, to wrap up this bit of longwindedness, yes, lawyers perform an important task. No, they don't all deserve the bad rap they receive. But there are plenty who do deserve the bad rap and they're the ones who ruin it for everyone else.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1968 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Damn woman! I think I just received a crash course in professional ethics.... You definitely made your case. Just damn! Yeah. We all know that the pricks are out there. I just hope like crazy that I'll never become one of them.

Posted by: sadie at June 27, 2005 02:25 PM (7SNDe)

2 The toughest thing to do is that which the client needes most--the attorney's unvarnished assessment of where things are and how much it will cost. I do not sugarcoat anything and if something sounds like a bad idea, I will tell them that they will be wasting their money. Sometimes, I have to preface it with something like: "while my kids will appreciate your willingness to put them through college . . ." Clients appreciate it when you give it to them straight, even if the news is not what they want to hear.

Posted by: LMC at June 27, 2005 03:10 PM (61/Yb)

3 Sadie: you won't. I'm sure of it. LMC: I knew you were one of the good ones

Posted by: Kathy at June 27, 2005 04:01 PM (yCuZO)

4 Being that I work for attorneys also, I've found that the easiest way to separate the wheat from the chaff is ask a few trusted lawyers whom they would hire to represent THEM.

Posted by: Margi at June 27, 2005 09:35 PM (nwEQH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We had a bit of a Christian Bale weekend here at the Cake Eater Pad.

The husband picked up The Machinist the other day at the video store and we finally got around to watching it on Friday. (Thank you, Blockbuster for your no late fees policy!) It seemed a bit dark and I wasn't really sure what the plot was about, but...that, ultimately, turned out to be a good thing. Hence, I'm going to skip describing the plot because I don't want to spoil it for you.

It's a fabulous, if dark, movie. It all just depends upon how you like your stories told. If you want everything to happen quickquickquick, this movie is most definitely not for you. The pace of it will drive you mad. However, if you don't mind the time it takes for a flower open up when sunlight graces its petals, you'll like this film. Because, to continue the metaphor, the plot opens up just like a rose when the sun hits it first thing in the morning. You have to wait a while for it to start blooming, but when it does, you've become utterly caught-up in the story. Ulitmately, it's one of those films where you watch for clues, which are delivered sparingly, you put them together, you form your hypothesis about where it's going and when you're found to be correct, you're satisfied instead of disappointed.

Bale is utterly mesmerizing to watch in this film. How he manages to stand up, let alone walk and talk and breathe, is beyond me. He dropped sixty pounds for this role. He looks like---and I'm sorry for this comparison but it's true---his head should be shaved and he should be wearing striped pajamas. Every bone in his body just sticks out, hence all of his movement, his facial expressions---every little thing he does to get this character across---is heightened. When you receive a flashback to the past, and he's at his normal weight, he seems almost too hale and hearty. This, undoubtedly, was the intention, and it works. I just hope he didn't damage himself in the process.

The Cake Eater Verdict: Spend the money and watch it. You won't be sorry.

Both the husband and I were keen to see Batman Begins. It lost the toss of the coin last weekend (we actually do flip coins to decide which movie gets watched first, or whose movie we see. It's only fair.) so it had to wait until today.

If Keaton's your favorite Batman currently, well, Bale will forever be your favorite after seeing this movie. He's my favorite now. He even does the "I'm Batman" thing perfectly. I would wager that this is where Keaton wanted to go with the character, but where he wasn't allowed to roam because of Kim Basinger's idiotic Vicky Vale, Tim Burton's effects showboating, and Jack Nicholson's over the top villain.

This is the Batman movie we've all been waiting to see. This is what Ebert said in his review and I completely agree with him:

{...}I said this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for; more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for, because I didn't realize that more emphasis on story and character and less emphasis on high-tech action was just what was needed. The movie works dramatically in addition to being an entertainment. There's something to it.{...}

It does work. Very well. I've always been one of those freaks who likes Batman, but who always wished they'd spend more time on Bruce Wayne. Yeah, sure he fell into a cave when he was a little boy and was swarmed by bats and this affected him, but until this movie came along, you never really had a plausible explanation as to why he chose the bat as his symbol, what it really meant to him. With this movie, you do, and it fits perfectly. Not too neatly, because then you'd lose part of the mystery of Batman, but it fits plausibly enough, the ends are tied up loosely, not with Boy Scout knots, and it works.

And while we're on the subject of plausibility, well, this movie has it in spades. You could almost believe that, given the tools he has and how he got them, well, he could exist today. The Batmobile is the perfect example: I could completely see where someone would come up with that for military purposes. The supporting characters are plausible as well. Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon is just a regular cop. He refuses to go on the take, but he doesn't rat anyone out either. He's not someone of above-average intelligence, outstanding political skills, or holier-than-thou-morals but rather someone who just wants to get the job done; a decent man who knows his limits. In every other Batman movie (or even the tee vee show) you have a "Commissioner Gordon" who always reminds me of someone who could have been cast as a supporting player in Plunkett of Tammany Hall.. I'd always wondered how Batman and Gordon got chummy in the first place, and in this version you finally get a plausible explanation: Gordon was kind to Bruce Wayne when he lost his parents as a child. The then-commissioner came in, shooed Gordon away, and tried to treat a little kid, who just happened to be rich, like he was an adult, informing him that they caught the guy. Gordon was kind, and that's what counted.

I, quite literally, could go on about this movie for quite some time, but I'll spare you. Because it's late and I want to go to bed. So, I will simply say that you really should go and see it. It's a great movie.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 961 words, total size 6 kb.

Nothing quite like being asked for poetry ideas.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't ask Chrissy if "she's got her husband's permission to buy a new car."

One of my brothers co-owns a few dealerships in Montana and he's recently branched out to New Orleans and he would, I'm sure, be mortified that some salesman pulled this stunt. Not because he thinks women are easy targets when purchasing a car and he thinks the guy could have just been more subtle in his sexism---I'm sure he doesn't think that, and if he does, we'll we're going to HAVE WORDS---but because everyone's, man or woman, money is green. You don't discriminate against money. What a way to blow a sale. Holy poor salesmanship, Batman!

Which prompts the question: what is it with the automotive industry that makes the men who work in it think they can take advantage of women? And this doesn't only cover buying a car, but getting one fixed as well. Isn't this just bad business? I know there's one born every minute, but why is this habit so pronounced in the auto industry?

Case in point: I got suckered one day during an oil change. I'd put six thousand miles on the puppy, the oil needed to be changed so I took it to a Jiffy Lube. While the car was being serviced, one of the crew guys came in to show me how filthy my air filter was and that it should be changed, toute suite. It looked dirty to me, so I authorized the change. It, of course, cost extra. When I got home I told the husband about it, he shook his head, told me that it didn't need to be changed and that I'd been had. He told me the next time they hit me up for an air filter, I was to take the old one outside, smack it around a few times to knock the dust loose, hold it up to the sun, and if I couldn't see sunlight through it only then was I to allow them to change it.

Sure enough, after another six thousand miles, they hit me up again for another air filter (even though it was the same shop and they had computerized records of what had been done last time). I did precisely what the husband had told me to do. I could see sunshine coming through it. I walked back into the shop and told the guy, "no, thank you." He gaped at me and went back into the service bay without speaking another word. I will fully admit it's my fault that this happened, because I just didn't know enough about air filters at that point to know when they needed to be replaced.

Don't get me started on serpentine belts!

So, the question of the day is this: why, at car dealerships and repair shops, do you have to prove you aren't a sucker before they'll treat you fairly? While I'm sure there are a fair number of men who don't know anything about cars who've also been suckered on the upsell, it seems to me that this practice is carried out more on women. We have to prove our worthiness to get a good deal. And that ain't fair. Because I know any number of men who have no idea what it takes to keep a car up and running, yet, because they're male, no one bothers trying to take advantage of them. I know many dealerships and repair shops have made a concerted effort in recent years at resolving this problem. But I also know a fair number of women who still have issues with this and won't set foot on a dealer's lot without a man in tow because they're afraid they'll be taken advantage of.

Discuss.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:37 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 3 kb.

Have I mentioned that the Divas have taken over WitNit? Mark's in Singapore, just trying to keep himself from chewing gum, and he asked us to take over.

Poor man.

Anyway, Sadie, in a effort to fill up some space and keep a friend's blog alive, is asking a hard-hitting question that's been on everyone's brain for years now: did Mulder and Scully do the dirty deed? Unfortunately, she never seems to actually, you know, answer it. Go over and prompt her to put up what she thinks happened. Conspiracy theorists everywhere will thank you for your time and effort in this matter.

For the record: I'm pretty damn sure Scully's baby was not the product of an immaculate alien conception, ya dig, but rather is Mulder's kid. I believe Scully got drunk one night, showed up at Mulder's in a fit of lust and doesn't remember it. And Mulder left because she didn't remember it. He was ticked off that their one night of passion was nothing but a faint "what the hell?" moment for her.

Stop looking at me like that. It could have happened.

Or baby boy Scully could be Frohickey's. You never know, do you?

Posted by: Kathy at 10:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!

Posted by: Kathy at 09:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Stiggy on Cricket.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Holy Crap! Sauron is real!

I could never be described as a Tolkein junkie EVER, but that, I must admit, is pretty freakin' cool. Provided the all-seeing-eye doesn't see me.

{Hat Tip: Martini Boy's Bartender}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

But maybe if the French had perhaps spent a little more time fighting than rounding up the train car where the Treaty of Versailles had been signed to serve as a quaint surrender locale, well, perhaps they wouldn't have been occupied for four years?

I understand they're all about being the hosts with the most, but really.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

I present for your perusal three stories:

Bloomberg: U.S. Air Force Academy Details Pattern of Religious Intolerance

NY Times: Panel Finds No Overt Religious Intolerance At Air Force Academy.

San Jose Mercury News/AP Wire: Religious Insensitivity Cited at Academy

So, am I to use the "two out of three ain't bad" yardstick here?

Posted by: Kathy at 05:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

The husband emailed me this earlier with the message, "Don't shoot the messenger" attached.

LONDON - Married men earn more than bachelors so long as their wives stay at home doing the housework, according to a report on Wednesday from BritainÂ’s Institute for Social and Economic Research.

Academics Elena Bardasi and Mark Taylor found that a married man whose wife does not go out to work but is primarily responsible for the cooking and cleaning earns about 3 percent more than comparably employed single men.

But that wage premium disappears if wives go out to work themselves or donÂ’t do most of the housework.

“It has been fairly well documented that married men earn more than single men,” Taylor, a labor economist, told Reuters.

“However, our research established the wage premium is related to the wife doing the chores,” said the academic who teaches at the University of Essex in eastern England.

He said analysis suggests there could be two explanations for the results:

A marriage might allow a husband and wife to focus their activities on tasks to which they are most suited. Traditionally, this would result in the man concentrating on paid work enabling him to increase productivity and in consequence his wages.

Taylor said another explanation could be that marriage may increase the amount of time a man has to hone work-related skills which could trigger higher wages.{...}

Have no fear, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, the husband will be live and well for quite some time. I can't shoot him: he's the breadwinner.

Heheheheheh.

All kidding aside, though, this doesn't surprise me one bit. I learned long ago that no matter what I did, or how brilliantly I did it, he will always make more money than me. While I don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that I, someday, could overtake him in the money department, I don't think it likely and it's simply because he has a different skill set than I do. I have a Liberal Arts---would you like fries with that?---degree; he has a Business---we need to be thinking about the P/E ratio---degree. He's also heavily interested in and has been working in IT for years now. I haven't. Hence, he's made himself highly marketable, whereas I haven't. It makes sense, then, to spend my time working on my stuff, whilst doing stuff around here to clear his schedule. While I'm sure some bra-burning, hairy-armpitted feminist thinks I'm subjugating myself to his will, that's not the case. It makes more sense, financially speaking, to maximize his potential and if that means taking care of the chores around the house, well, so be it. If the situation was reversed, it would make an equal amount of sense for him to take care of the chores.

What would interest me, however, is if someone did a study to see how marriage affected a woman's earning potential when her husband was the one to stay at home.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm a little tired of watching cable news right now. I would like to know what's going on in the world. Instead I am subjected to endless reports on Natalee Holloway.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I would like for her to be found as much as the next person. I am sorry for her family because it's obvious that they are only looking for her body right now. It's a horrible situation all around, but I'm failing to see why so much coverage is being devoted to her story, other than that it's apparently a slow news summer.

That and the fact that the networks apparently needed another pretty young thing to focus on.

I'm tired of this. And I mean, I'm really, really tired of this. Women, it appears, are only of value to the tee vee news networks if they disappear or are murdered horribly. And if they're pretty. They do have to be pretty. Because no one really focuses on the ugly, fat women that disappear or are murdered, do they? Apparently you have to be white, with big eyes, carefully groomed hair, and tastefully applied makeup to rate. Oh, and it helps if you're skinny as well. You can have some extra meat on your bones, but only if you're pregnant. Cable and network news have taken a cue from Hollywood on this one: if they can't cast you as the girl next door, you don't rate.

The families must really have a heck of a time submitting snapshots to the networks, don't you think? Good God, the pressure of that choice must be horrible on top of everything else. And I'm not being sarcastic. Can you imagine what it must be like, to be in that situation, to want desperately to get the word out about it, and then have to find a recent snapshot that's exceedingly good? One that shows your loved one at their finest? Because you'd know that the media wouldn't deign to cover the story if your loved one just had a mistake of a haircut or color job? Or if they were having a bad time keeping control of their weight? It must be a horrible thing to know that their physical beauty could be the one thing that might make the difference. That's a double-edged sword if there ever was one.

I'm weary of this. While I'm sorry for Miss Holloway and her family, I just don't see where this is news. Reporting the latest rumor about which of the four well-connected Arubans contacted their lawyer today is not news. There are literally hundreds of other women who are murdered or go missing every day of the week. I'm sure the fact she went missing in Aruba, a nice tropical locale---with plenty of posh hotels for all the reporters to stay in---isn't hurting matters, either, but let's face facts: it's because she's pretty that her disappearance is a priority story. And that's just wrong.

What's even worse is the number of people who are lapping this story up. And by that you know who I mean, don't you? Yes, that's right. I'm talking about the viewers. They have been devotedly tracking this story, like they knew her when they didn't. The networks at least have the excuse that they're only providing what the public wants. What excuse does the viewing public have? Yes, they can claim they're only interested in the story; that there seems to be an epidemic of violence against women, and that concerns them; that they're interested in poor Natalee's fate. And I suppose those are legitimate excuses, up to a point. But, what I would like to know is that if they're so interested in this particular missing-persons case, why aren't they interested in all the other missing persons cases? Perhaps the ones they read a quick blurb about in the paper? Or see on their local news? Because it's not logical to say that you're interested in this case, but not all the others. Unless, the real reason they're interested in is because poor Natalee is pretty. Could that possibly be it? Hmmm. I wonder.

Everyone's guilty on this one. The people who watch, and the people who provide the content. And I'm tired of being guilty by association in this little media festival of the grotesque because there's nothing else on. I feel dirty after watching some of these reports. And I'm really tired of feeling that way.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 4 kb.

I just got a new dishwasher hence I'm in a giving mood.

Did I mention it's stainless steel? And that I can fit wine glasses on the top rack?

WooT!

Anyway, here's a bit of a roundup.

• Does it ever worry anyone else when Steve-o decides to wax rhapsodic...about anything? Yeah, that's what I thought. Your bomb shelter or mine?
• Speaking of the Llamas, I must say, dear Robbo has greatly disappointed me with this very lax critique of the DirecTV Sunday Ticket ads. Who cares if it's from Willy Wonka or not. What really matters is that those @#W$#$#$@#$@$ ads are ANNOYING AS HELL! Particularly when they play it again and again and again. Really, Robbo. I was hoping for more.{Insert windy sigh of disappointment here}
• There are times when I wonder if Doug would like to go down to the Portland Avenue headquarters of the Strib and just start beating the crap out of the editorial board. Methinks they've got it coming. And people wonder why I don't subscribe/bother to read that paper anymore.
• Usually it's the French waiters who do the bashing, but that little bit of truth isn't going to stop Phoenix from dishing out some payback. Oh, and she, too, chimed in on the Diva topic of the day. Go and read.
• Margi's preggers and there's apparently no such thing as too much information.
• The Manolo, he has the inside story on the David Spade.
• Go over and read Rich's blog. He likes it when people do. Really. And because I owe him an email and since you people are my minions, well, you'll have to give up some love on my behalf.
• I meant to link this one yesterday. My bad, yeah, I know. But it's worth the wait. Fausta wonders if Batman is a Republican.

Allrighty then. Go forth and share the love that is a link dump, kids. Your karma will be all the better for it.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Go on and click. You know you want to.

Ovaries. Twitching.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

The blogosphere's veritable James Joyce Junkie, Sheila, has gone Bloomsday crazy.

Back away from your copy of Finnegan's Wake, Sheila. Slowly. Go very, very slowly.

Go on over and just keep scrolling

Posted by: Kathy at 02:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

1 HAHAHAHAHA It's a yearly tradition. I can't stop. I've taken a break for now. But I'm STILL NOT DONE.

Posted by: red at June 16, 2005 03:00 PM (qxKkx)

2 I think Joyce would appreciate that sentiment

Posted by: Kathy at June 16, 2005 03:11 PM (cgZvM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Someone comes along and takes a digital picture that just blows your expectations out of the water.

Mazeltov, Margi and Koolaid!

WooT!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.