So, I got this email from Steve-o yesterday asking me to step up and guest blog over at the Llamabutchers while Robbo is in Disneyworld hell.

After much deliberation---at least a whole thirty seconds worth---I said, "heck yeah!"

I've never guest blogged before. I've had guest bloggers, but never have I actually held the keys to someone else's kingdom in my sweaty little palms. It's a bit daunting---posting to two blogs---but it should be fun.

So, if you don't find me here, chances are I'll be over there.

And yes, Mom, that means you finally have to bookmark the Llamas. Wouldn't want to miss anything, would you? Hmmmm?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to everyone for their kind words of support and for keeping their fingers crossed about the Cake Eater Pad situation.

I don't know what the hell is going to happen, but we'll find out soon enough. The husband and I decided yesterday we're going to ignore it until tomorrow. We didn't want our weekend wrecked because of all this crap, so until tomorrow we're officially delusional/in denial.

Second, The Cake Eater Chronicles has officially reached Large Mammal status in the ecosystem. How the hell that happened, I don't know, but it did. I suspect link whoring has something to do with it, but who the hell knows how that ecosystem thingy works. NZ Bear's algorithms are one of the few mysteries we have left to us. It's best left a mystery, if you ask me, but I'm sure some enterprising person will suss it out someday.

While I'm chuffed to be a large mammal, I will admit I'm pretty happy to be the smallest of the large mammals. I don't want to have to worry about being a large large mammal, as well. I have plenty on my plate as it is without worrying about if I look fat in this.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeff Goldstein needs cold, hard cash or he won't put up any more Martha Stewart photoshops.

Go. Give.

Because we wouldn't want to have to suffer through our boring lives without wondering how Martha's getting along in prison.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

...an avatar for their blog that screams, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way"?

No, seriously.

I'm thinking the upper right hand corner of this pig is a little boring. What with all that blank space, there's room for something new and visually interesting.

UPDATE: And, no, I don't want Marie Antoinette up there.

UPDATE 2: She should be luscious and wearing glasses.

And be a brunette.

Because I am luscious, wear glasses and am a brunette.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:41 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Heh heh. Would you like some assistance with that, Kathy?

Posted by: sadie at February 19, 2005 03:39 AM (4CLu3)

2 Check your email in the morning;-)

Posted by: Sadie at February 19, 2005 03:43 AM (4CLu3)

3 Hey, Lady, I just dropped you an email, too! Enjoy. Thanks!

Posted by: Christina at February 19, 2005 06:49 AM (zJsUT)

4 Because I am luscious, wear glasses and am a brunette. I'm listening.

Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer at February 19, 2005 01:34 PM (R4gIs)

5 Oh, hell....I tried to post a suitable comment, but it's late and everything I come up with seems designed specifically to get me into a world of hurt.....

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at February 19, 2005 10:49 PM (ywZa8)

6 I want that too.... mmmmmmm sexyblog

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 20, 2005 09:27 PM (0OALK)

7 My pinup toon is from Rion Vernon. He's a got others, including one that was leggy and just a little too racy—from my husband's POV—for me to use. Furthermore, he's very open about allowing bloggers (at least the not-yet-profitable ones) to use his images in their blog designs (provided credit is given, of course). I don't remember any in glasses, but it's very possible there were some.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2005 06:23 PM (RjyQ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Peggy Noonan on Blogging in today's Opinion Journal. {registration required}

{...}When you hear name-calling like what we've been hearing from the elite media this week, you know someone must be doing something right. The hysterical edge makes you wonder if writers for newspapers and magazines and professors in J-schools don't have a serious case of freedom envy.

The bloggers have that freedom. They have the still pent-up energy of a liberated citizenry, too. The MSM doesn't. It has lost its old monopoly on information. It is angry.

But MSM criticism of the blogosphere misses the point, or rather points.

Blogging changes how business is done in American journalism. The MSM isn't over. It just can no longer pose as if it is The Guardian of Established Truth. The MSM is just another player now. A big one, but a player. {...}

Amen!

The information wants to be free. We're simply allowing for it.

Read also: Robbo.

{...}I'm glad she didn't focus exclusively on those bloggers going toe to toe with the MSM in the fields of news and politics, but also mentioned folks like Lileks and Terry Teachout. For every INDCent Bill or Dr. Rusty out there scalping Dan Rather or posting Jihadi snuff films, there's also someone blogging about their favorite music, changing the baby's diapers or when they ought to plant the spring bulbs. This is one of the major beauties of writing in the 'Sphere as opposed to the MSM. Not only do I not have to ask an editor if I can run another Eason Jordan story, I also don't have to ask if I can post about the daily harassment I suffer at the hands of my cat who, as soon as I get home, starts demanding loudly that I sit down in the library so he can jump into my lap.

Likewise, and equally importantly, readers of blogs aren't confined by the MSM's gatekeeping. If someone stumbles across our site, likes my cat-blogging for instance and is sufficiently impressed with the quality of our writing, why, they're free to come back any time. And to request more of the same. (We're always open to suggestions. That's what the TastyBits (TM) Mail Sack is all about.)

That, by the way, is why we Llamas like to think we have something pretty special going on around here. We get into the political debate now and again, but we also opine about whatever else crosses our crazed minds. As Steve-O likes to say, we cover the waterfront, gathering rats and toasting them on sticks so you don't have to. {...}

Interests vary from person to person. When you remove the control that says only this should be interesting, everyone wins. I'll say it again: the information wants to be free. If I can do someone a service by pointing them to an article that interests them, I will have served my purpose as a blogger. From there on in, no matter what I say about it, it's up to you, my devoted Cake Eater Reader, to, in the words of the Oracle, make up your own damn minds.

I, for one, think you're capable of it.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.

Poor Howie Kurtz.

Subjected to keeping track of what the blogosphere is saying for Judy Woodruff.
(scroll down on the transcript: about a third of the way)

A bona fide watchdog of a journalist watching the blogs watch journalists. And on and on. And this looks like it's going to be a daily Inside Politics feature, too.

It's like one big multimedia circle jerk.

Dear Howie,

Please end your association with CNN at once. The career you save might be your own. At the very least tell Judy to read the blogs on her own. You're a bit above this sort of thing.

Thanks!

Kathy Nelson
Cake Eater Chronicles

Posted by: Kathy at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

As the traffic has gone up a bit lately and we've got a few new people commenting, I would like to revisit my comments policy. I laid it all out on the old blogspot home, but failed to bring it along with me when I moved. My bad.

Since the archives are goofed up on the old blog, and there are numerous entries about this, I'm going to cut and paste, ok? That work for everyone? Ok, good. Here we go.

First:

Anyway, let me just outline the Comments Policy quickly so you can get back to surfing pr0n.

1. Abusive comments will be deleted---just as soon as I figure out how to do that. What qualifies as abusive? Well, if you tell another commenter (or me) that they should go and do certain things with a donkey, your post will be deleted. It's really quite simple. See #2 for guidelines on how not to have your comments deleted.

2. My mother reads my blog and the woman has no shortage of opinions, so you might be hearing from her. Like mother, like daughter. However, since my mom is reading this thing, and knowing that she believes in the "it's takes a village" concept, know that she will smack you down if you get out of line. And I'll let her. She's my mother---she owns me. I have no choice in this regard. So, it would seem that the best rule of thumb for commenting here would be---ahem---if you wouldn't want your mother reading what you wrote, don't post it for my mom to read.

And second:

While we're on the subject of comments, it seems Blogger wants you to log in if you leave one. Which we all know is so conducive to cooperation. (I wouldn't log in to leave a comment---are you kidding? Way too much work.) But it does give you the handy-dandy option of posting anonymously! (Note to the Blogger People: WOW! Way to invite the trolls in, kids!) If you choose the option to post anonymously to save yourself the time and hassle of logging in, that's fine with me...AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE A HANDLE IN THE TEXT SECTION. That's all I ask. I'm not asking for an email address or a weblink. Just leave a name to go with the opinion. That's not a whole hell of a lot in the scheme of things, so please do it.

So, as you might be able to deduce, I first had Haloscan comments, then switched over to Blogger's variant. But now I have the primo commenting system: Movable Type's commenting system rocks. It's non-intrusive and while I realize our benevolent dictator has had some issues in recent days with DOS attacks on trackbacks and comments, it's still the best thing around. It's the most user-friendly system out there. While these posts don't cover everything, they should give you a clear understanding of what I do and do not like when it comes to what gets posted on my space. No to anonymity (unless I say it's ok on certain posts.) and respect for the sensibilities of others. That's not too much to ask, really.

Sooooo, I can understand about spoofing your email address to prevent spam because nasty bots do spider this site occasionally. No issues with that. Yet, I don't really see why anyone would have issues coming up with some sort of unique, recognizable handle to use when they post a comment. For the edification of someone who posted a comment this morning: a pronoun is not a handle. While I love the fact that people come here and want to discuss things and would never do anything to prevent that, I would simply ask that if you're going to comment, leave a handle by which I---and my readers---will be able to identify you. That's it. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask.

Any ?'s--email me and I'll try and explain it. I'm just trying to be fair. I don't want to delete comments, but I have a serious thing about anonymous comments. Accountability in words is a big thing for me. If you're afraid to post your name---or even a handle you've come up with that, you believe, serves the purpose of anonymity---the general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't be posting. While I like to respect privacy, your anonymity is not fair to my readers or to me, and in the future, now that the policy is laid out, I WILL start hitting the delete button. Even if they're worthwhile, respectful comments, they will go. I've been reading other people's blogs long enough to know this is where the road to Troll Town starts, and quite frankly, I just don't want to go there. I haven't had to delete anyone's comments so far, and I want it to stay that way.

I thank you all in advance for your consideration.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

Yep. We got out of the house last night and blew some of the stink off.

You're shocked, right? I know. I know. We never leave this place. We're pathetic. We fully realize this and will be trying to remedy this in the coming months. Anyway, we made a start last night when we meandered down to Keegan's to attend the MOB Bash.

It was quite the experience.

I finally got to meet my wing man and his lovely wife. Gary, very chivalrously I thought, ignored the rudeness of my demand that he buy me a drink and bought me one anyway. Sweet man with a sweet wife, who I might add, does something that I could never do: she homeschools their three kids. Even better, though, she enthusiastically said, "it's fun." My hat's off. They disappeared before I could say goodbye, but it was very nice to finally meet Gary, even though he pointed out that he's very disappointed with me for this post.

As Keegan's was packed to the brim with bloggers (even a few who were liveblogging the event), it was kind of hard not to meet people. I was very fortunate to add Douglas of Belief Seeking Understanding, John of The First Ring (the other fellow Cake Eater City resident present at the party) Noodles of The People's Republic of Minnesota, Ellen of Mama Ellen and her husband Doug of Bogus Gold, the very enjoyable Cathy from Cathy In The Wright and Jordan from Jo's Attic (both of whom, very bravely, showed up in their jammies) to my acquaintance. I also was pleased to meet Flash from Centrisity, one of the few liberal bloggers amidst the the hordes of conservatives, Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark, and two out of the four Fraters, Chad and Saint Paul.

There were, according to Mitch, lots of political and media movers and shakers there. I didn't meet any of them. Apparently I don't rate and that's just fine with me. Although, I did recognize local Republican activist/consultant Sarah Janacek, but that's only because she's on the news regularly. As far as the media people were concerned, well, I did meet Mischke's producer, who was a very nice guy and who doesn't deserve the fate of me not remembering his name. Sorry. I also met Bob Davis' producer, Kodiak. Scott Johnson from Powerline was there, too, and created quite the stir when he entered, but he was surrounded from the moment he entered Keegan's and there wasn't any opportunity for causal chit-chat, so I didn't meet him.

And just because I know those of you who don't live here are curious, yes, Lileks was in attendance. Gary, very wisely, brought his copies of Lileks' books along with him and got them signed. Gary said something about them going up on Ebay today, so you might want to check. (And, yes, he was joking. He's not giving up those suckers for love nor money.) So, did I meet the great man? you ask.

Nope.

All evening long I stood no further than ten feet away from Lileks. Could I work up the courage to chat with the man? Nope. I am the world's biggest chicken. I don't know exactly what it is about talking with people I admire: I freak out, then I freeze up. I don't want to sound like a blathering idiot, or clam up so I generally just avoid the situation entirely and dodge and duck around like a dolt. The husband has no fear, however, and went up and chatted with him. Of course, he had the cigar opening to work with (Lileks and crew had fired up, despite the bar not allowing for cigar smoking). During their brief conversation, the husband says he pointed me out to him. I doubt I rang a bell. The Giant Swede was there, as well, and the husband got to chatting with him and introduced me. It took me a few minutes to cotton on to the fact that he was, in fact, The Giant Swede. I know, stupid me, but he was introduced by his actual name and I didn't make the leap that he would be in attendance. (Neither did he seem gigantic. He's somewhere around 6'2"-6'4". I've got nephews who top him easily. That and I'm relatively short. Just about everyone's taller than me.) We had a lovely conversation with him about all sorts of stuff. A very nice man.

Anyway, we had a great time meetin' and greetin' and can't wait for the next gathering.

So long as it's not over at the State Fair.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

Due to all my holiday frolicking (Wooh. Midnight Mass is really getting edgy!) I'd forgotten to check up on Mike Kinsley's Social Security columns in the WaPo.

You can read them here and here. My response to his bleg to the blogosphere can be found here.

I've been banging on the same drum since I was sixteen and started watching Crossfire but hell, I'll bang it again: what a tremendous ass Kinsley is! Not only does he just not get it about Social Security, he also manages to diss the exact same group of people he went to for research material:

Just so I don't sound too naive: I am familiar with the blog phenomenon, and I worked at a Web site for eight years. Some of my best friends are bloggers. Still, it's different when you purposely drop an idea into this bubbling cauldron and watch the reaction. What floored me was not just the volume and speed of the feedback but its seriousness and sophistication. Sure, there were some simpletons and some name-calling nasties echoing rote-learned propaganda. But we get those in letters to the editor. What we don't get, nearly as much, is smart and sincere intellectual engagement -- mostly from people who are not intellectuals by profession -- with obscure and tedious, but important, issues.{...}

Oh, I'm sure he didn't think that bit up there about bloggers not being "professional intellectuals" was a slam. I'm sure he thought he was being complimentary after having rolled those beady eyes of his at the mere thought of having to weed through a full inbox. He meant it as a compliment, I'm certain. A little MSM pat on the head. Good little blogger. Niiii-ce blogger. Remember the Milkbone I slipped you and don't bite me.

Chomp.

I may not be employed by a Beltway think tank or by some Ivy League university, but that does not mean I do not consider myself to be an intellectual. As much as I hate to refer to the dictionary, I find myself needing backup. The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition defines intellectual as: "a person possessing a highly developed intellect." I'm sure we can split a few hairs about what "highly developed" means but if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty, well, that pretty much defines anyone who reads on a regular basis, doesn't it? Someone who thinks deep thoughts. Who has curiosity. Who wants to figure out how it works and thinks that, after coming up with something new, they can add something to the discussion and who then might put the fingers to the keyboard and pump something cohesive out. Is this person not an intellectual? We live in a free society which provides for an open exchange of ideas. Anyone with the chops and the know-how can take part. Despite his call for opinions, despite his implied pledge to that open society with a free flow of ideas, ironically (or not)Kinsley, it appears, would have it otherwise. Never mind the inconvenient fact that we the people actually have a stake in this very important discussion. That's the least of it according to the Gospel of Mike.

Yet, while I would like to think that anyone who is curious about the world can consider themselves to be an intellectual, this apparently is not the case. You need to have credentials. You need degrees hanging on the wall. After all, the very word "profession" implies that this is what you do to earn your daily bread. A professional intellectual would be one who paid his bills by thinking deep thoughts, because we all know nothing is worth anything unless you get paid for it. That's the standard we Capitalists have developed, so we'll stick with that. Hmmmm. Let's see. Can we find an example to prove Kinsley---and the rest of the world---wrong? To allow for deep thoughts to be thunk by anyone other than Los Angeles Times opinion page editors and members of the ivory tower? Aha! I've got it! Einstein! Albert Einstein was a patent clerk when he developed his Theory of Relativity. But Einstein didn't make enough to earn his daily bread by working on this Theory of Relativity, so he went to work at that infamous Swiss Patent Office. Does that mean Einstein---the man who explained what Newton could not---wasn't an intellectual?

If you use Kinsley's standards the answer would be "no." Einstein wouldn't have qualified. Accordingly, bloggers can come up with "intellectual engagement" but we're not "professional" intellectuals. In other words, bloggers are only good for a brief battle or two, like a reservist, but we'd best leave the fighting to the serious soldiers, like Kinsley. We might get ourselves killed otherwise.

Screw that.

Kinsley's cushy, protected, little paradigm is shifting. The vast wonder of the Internet is giving voice to millions of previously unheard people. That's got to be a be a little nervewracking if you're used to having to only bat back Robert Novak for the consumption of the average basic cable audience. I would bet anything that while he enjoyed the responses he received and---admittedly---was surprised at them, he still refuses to think that anyone could grasp the argument better than he could. That despite our responses, Kinsley probably thinks the blogosphere consists only of pajama-clad diletantes. Not surprisingly, this close-mindedness to what bloggers---let alone the common man or woman who hasn't set up a blog---are capable of is also why Kinsley refuses to see any argument other than his own regarding Social Security.

The man is, quite simply, a brick wall against which anything that's not of his own creation smashes.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

Much like the crack young staff of the Hatemonger's Quarterly, I whined a bit about not being nominated for any 2004 Weblog Awards.

Apparently, however, they've gotten over their angst and they suggest that the rest of us do the same:

{...}And this brings us to another topic. It seems to us as if the 2004 Weblog Awards have inspired a ridiculous amount of e-malaise on the part of “webloggers” everywhere. Erstwhile talented “webloggers,” due to the introduction of the “weblog” awards, have been nattering on about some sort of existential crisis they are enduring.

Now that my “website” has or has not been nominated for such awards, say manifold “webloggers,” I simply can’t go on. I’ve lost that e-loving feeling. “Weblogging” just doesn’t have the beauty, the purity with which I used to associate it.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Get over yourself, Sartre. You are an indigent hack who wastes endless hours penning posts that will be read by three people and a mule. And two of the people will have stumbled upon your “website” by mistake, whilst hunting for Internet pornography.

So let’s not pretend that your foray into unpaid pseudo-journalism has lost its magic just because your “website” has suddenly attracted four people and two mules.

Be done with picking the belly-button lint, says the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly." It's apparently not attractive and you really won't like what you find on the end of your finger.

Wiser words have never been written about the fine art of blogging.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.