Cake Eater Chronicles

Pointy!

I'm a wee bit late chiming in on this one, but good God, get a freakin' clue.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. {...}

One of my best friends is English. And she has, in the past, spouted off about how appalling she finds the Second Amendment to be. The last time she did this, I had to laugh. She stared at me for a time and then I explained.

"You do know why we have the Second Amendment, right?" I asked.

"No," she replied, after a long thoughtful moment.

I laughed again. "It's because of the English. King George decided it was all right to quarter his soldiers in colonials' houses and, while they were there, they stripped the owners of said houses of all their armaments. Armaments they needed to survive the wilderness. That's mainly why. The other reason is that the Founding Fathers decided we should always have the means to overthrow our own government if the need should arise."

She stared at me for quite some time. Like I'd grown a third head. Her eventual reply, which skipped over my final reason entirely, was, "Well, too bad we didn't take all the bloody things away."

I should probably mention that what brought this whole subject up was that while I was visiting her place in London, we were watching the news and they were reporting that a couple had been stabbed to death in their own home.

I wonder what she thinks about the possibility of her very nice set of Wustof-Tridents being banned. In her own country. Because they're too dangerous.

{Hat Tip: Andy}

Cue The Kid From Poltergeist

I'm BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

Did you miss me?

I doubt it. But here I am nonetheless.

And I will shortly be deserting you for the very nice weather that is currently gracing the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Sorry, kids. Iron hot. Striking. That sort of thing. The husband would like to have a conversation with one of his Cuban friends over at the lake (if you have no idea what I'm talking about know that the friend is not legal and he smokes quite nicely. If you can't figure it out from there, well...sorry) and I need to get outside and kill the creeping charlie that is profusely sprouting all over my flowerbeds. The junk that I have for creeping charlie demands that it have two days without rain to work. Since it finally appears as if we've got that with the weather forecast, well, this means you're screwed. Sorry. Life is occasionally like that.

I would like to thank my very nice guest bloggers, Robert and Sadie, for chiming in over the past couple of days. I hope you enjoyed their contributions---I know I did. Steve-o, I believe, was peeved that I did not allow him access to upload images, hence no participation. All I can say to him is that if you live by the sword, buddy, you'd better be prepared to die by it.

On the whole, I had a very nice few days off. I feel refreshed and probably will have a few things to say about this, that, or the other shortly. It was probably a good time for the blogmutes to settle in as I really did have "other things" to do. Which included some cleaning, some laundry and painting a sandwich board for the sidewalk outside the husband's new computer fixit shop. This meant coming up with my own stencils (thank you photoshop and acetate sheets!) and then hand-painting the letters in. Since I'm no Rembrandt, well, this took some time to get right. Hopefully this thing will bring in some customers. All I can really say is that I'm glad it will be leaving the premises tomorrow and I never have to look at it again.

As far as the archival transferral is concerned, well, that's an interesting thing. I asked the husband to help me out with it, and utilizing his high-level of logic, he decided it would simply be easier for him to do it rather than telling me how. Hmmmph. Go figure. Anyway, the reason you're not seeing almost two years worth of monthly archival listings over on the side is because he couldn't do it. He was able to package everything up according to MT's instructions, but as far as loading them onto the server, well...he couldn't do it. He didn't have the access to get them into the right spot, so he sent them to God Himself and hopefully they'll get uploaded sometime over the next couple of days. Keep your fingers crossed. In any case, since we have the archives elsewhere now, the old blogspot home has been BLOWED UP! Yep. That's right. I deleted it. It was a curious experience. I used to wait and wait and wait to upload a post to the blog yet the deletion of said blog took about three seconds...total. Hmmmm. Quite weird.

I don't quite know how I feel about this development. It's not really bothering me per se, but I do kind of feel like I've just blown up the trailer park from which I sprang forth. Every time I surfed over to the old home, well, I felt like poor white trash who'd gone off, got themselves edumacated, and went off into the big wide world only to come home and see the old homestead with a new pair of eyes---a new pair of eyes that thought the old homestead looked pretty damn shabby and simply couldn't understand how anyone could live like that. Which is a pretty snotty attitude to have, I gather, yet is one that I am completely unrepentant about holding. I'm spoiled rotten right now and I like it like that. Sue me.

Anyhoo, expect some posting after the sun goes down.

Women In Combat

Next week, the House and Senate will vote on bills seeking to prohibit women soldiers acting in direct ground combat roles. This is the most controversial aspect of a bill that also seeks to increase the number of Army soldiers and Marines, increase pay grades, and guarantee military health care for members of the Army Reserve and National Guard.

Essentially, this is a clear political move to push the issue of women in combat to the forefront, and if these bills don't pass, the Democrats will be whooping and hollering at the audacity of Republicans to deny uniformed personnel pay increases and guaranteed health care. Yet I really don't see the major controversy at point here, especially in light of this exerpt from the cited article:

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat ... The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

These bills would only codify the long-standing practices of our Armed Forces, and secure women from being forced to perform in a job that they simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed. Of course, very few exceptions to this rule exist, although I doubt that many women soldiers possess the muscle tone and aggressive demeanor of Linda Hamilton's Terminator II character, Sarah Connor.

The current fitness tests used to evaluate combat readiness are scaled according to age and gender. This is self-defeating to the military's goal in predicting a soldier's success in combat. In addition, women on the front lines would disrupt the cohesive units of battle and underemine the esprit de corps though the politics involved with romantic relationships. This doesn't even touch the issues involved with pregnancies, but it suffices to say that the effectiveness of the military lies in the ability for every member to completely trust and respect one another.

Allowing women to compete for all military occupational specialties shouldn't be treated as an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to retain its status as most powerful and capable military power, we need to have the best person in each role, regardless of their gender.

NOTE: Since the Minister of Propaganda has decided to push the proverbial envelope, I'll likely continue this issue at some point Monday afternoonish. It will probably occur over at The Boileryard, as I'm sure that the Goddess of Snark will reclaim her blog in a few short hours.

UPDATE: Kath here. Interesting points to be found in the comments, although I'm inclined to agree with Sadie on this one. We used to have this argument back in high school (at the ALL GIRLS high school I attended) when the military had just started allowing women to serve in support roles and the debate---even then---was about expanding into combat. It was the general consensus that if women wanted to go and serve in an auxilary role, great, but women shouldn't be on the ground in combat. We were concerned that if the women in the service started actively pushing for this, we'd wind up being drafted later on down the line. The reasoning behind our argument against was that there was no way we could carry a seventy-five pound pack whilst running and shooting a gun at the same time. We're just not built for it. While I do not doubt there are some women who are built for it, the majority of us are not. The average height of an American woman is five foot, three inches. While I'm above average at five foot, six inches, I know I can't lift seventy-five pounds even when I'm at my most fit. I just can't do it. The laws of physics do not allow for it.

I simply cannot make any judgments about the esprit de corps arguments that Sadie listed simply because I've never served. While I'm sure there are a lot of men who would simply prefer that the military remain one all-male clubhouse, that this is what works best to ensure a "Band of Brothers" attitude that will keep soldiers alive, I am, however, not so sure that this is the case in actuality. But, like I said, I've never served, nor have I ever polled the family members who have/are serving to see what their opinions on the matter are.

That said, I do have issues with female service members who get pregnant while they're serving. I'm sorry. I'm sure this will rankle a few people, but there it is. If I have to see one more picture of that idiot Lyddie England in a camo-uniform maternity top, I'll gag. That the freakin' Army actually has camoflauge maternity tops, well... take from that what you will. If you want to serve your country in a combat capacity, knowing full well that you might be called away at any moment to serve in a war---in either an auxilary or front line position---you should be using birth control. It's that simple. (And of course this does not count for women who are at desk jobs. Duh. So don't ream me about it.) Men, obviously, cannot become pregnant. Their biology prevents such an outcome. It's irresponsible in the extreme for a woman to ignore their biology and then expect everyone to make allowances for them. You can't have it both ways, even though conventional wisdom---and the law---says you can. Take one for the team you want to be on: get on the pill.

Reporting for Duty

So Private Sadie is sitting here on a Sunday afternoon, and she is attempting to blog for her good pal Kathy. Meanwhile, this seventy-five pound golden retriever is staring balefully at her. Those big brown droopy eyes are delivering one heck of a guilt trip to her conscience, which is really saying something for someone who's usually getting pounced upon by a curly-haired, four-year old bundle of sheer enthusiasm.

PET ME. Ah yes, so the canine begs for a walk through the neighborhood, which is always fodder for the blogging mind. Never fear, she shall return!

Gratuitous Cake Posting

I just might get in trouble with the Goddess of Snark herself for posting a photo, since she didn't give the humble guest bloggers file uploading privileges. Since this seems a perfect venue for a bit of cake blogging, I took the liberty of uploading this to my server:

You see, I am getting married this summer, and the Lad and I are going to Las Vegas. This plan was intended to avoid the muss and fuss of wedding planning, along with all of the madness (cue photo of Jennifer Wilbanks) involved with throwing what is essentially multi-thousand dollar party. Overall, this was the best decision for our future nuptuals, except for one teensy little aspect. I will indeed miss having a decadent and outrageously overpriced wedding cake. Mmmmmm.

'Tis a lovely tradition, to keep the top of the cake for a private one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, I've heard that the cake generally tastes horrid after one year in the deep freeze. Hmmm. Anyone have any suggestions on this dilemma?

On Rhetoric

Socrates always called rhetoric one of the "flattering arts," but of course, he is often considered to be the godfather of rhetoric. In law school, the professors aspire to employ the "Socratic method" of lecturing to the masses of frightened students. Generally, this is effective on the first-year students, who are eager to please and often quite intimidated when presented with the following sobering statistic:

Look to the students seated on your left and right sides. Don't get to know them too well, because at this point next year, one of you will be history.

Flunk-o.

Of course, this sends all the neophytes into a tailspin of round-the-clock studying for the next ten months. By virtue of hard work, intelligence, and let's face it, pure luck, two-thirds of them manage to wade through the Socratic obstacle course and return to finish law school. Of course, those who return become a part of the tradition, as they have realized that the Socratic method is essentially a very lazy-ass way of teaching. Two years later, these students graduate - and they are dangerous.

Bestowed with this newfound knowledge as power, I must now reflect upon my favourite answers to unexpected questions, courtesy of a few great oralists:

1. It depends...could you clarify your position so that I may provide a more accurate answer for you?

2. That could go either way, really....[insert some bullshit followup phrase similar to above]

3. Interesting thought there, freako. You got anything to back that up?

4. That is a valid question, but unfortunately, I am far to busy to answer it for you. Why don't you research that issue and let me know what you come up with? Indeed, I am very interested in the conclusion and all its resulting implications, but analyzing the problem yourself will benefit you far more in the long run. Oh, and when I said was too busy, I also meant that my time is more important than yours.

Ah yes, this will go far in the courtroom, indeed.

L'Idiot

I saw picutres of these morons on the news last night, and it started me on a rant that Kathy unfortunately had to endure. (We trade off ranting whenever the news is on...this is our past time.)

Thousands of winemakers have staged protests in the streets of France to demand government help over falling exports and a slump in domestic sales.

Gee. Let's guess WHY exports are falling and prices are dropping:

They blame over-production, shrinking exports and a government campaign against alcohol abuse for what union leaders call a "crisis" in winemaking.

Over-production? How can that be possible from such a 'struggling' industry? Oh, I remember...how about THE BLOODY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES YOU MORONS MARCH IN THE STREETS FOR EVERY SIX MONTHS!?!?

Idiots. You take money out of the hands of people who engage in marketable activity (via taxes) to facilitate more production than the market will bear and - NO SHIT - you're going to get the very over-production you're bitching about now! When the hell are you going to figure out that MARKET FORCES WORK!!

Of course, what does the collective economic genius of the French farmer come up with as a solution?

The unions want the government to provide money for farmers wishing to move from vines to other crops and greater compensation for uprooting unprofitable vineyards.

That's it...take more money out of the system because you're too stupid to choose to produce marketable goods.

That's almost as rich as this stupid statement of the week: 'The focus by the world's richest countries on debt relief is misplaced and donors should instead concentrate onincreasing aid flows to poor countries' so says the IMF's chief economist, Raghuram Rajan.

Where'd you get your economics degree buddy? How in the hell do people get to these positions in powerful international organizations without knowing the first thing about how things work in the real world?

These are the kinds of things that make me hope against hope that the U.S. congress pulls it's collective head out of it's ass and approves Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. Forget sharp elbows, the U.N., the World Bank and the IMF need to have a flame thrower taken to them.

Float Like A Butterfly, Sting Like A Bee

Isn't that how one deals with a showoff opponent in the boxing ring? Ah well, no matter, since I'm only teasing Robbo here. It's a pleasure to step onto the Cake Eater home turf, since I'm usually acting silly over here. Anyhoo, I thought it proper to step in and check the place out briefly, just to see if any renovations were needed. As expected, Kathy keeps a ship-shape operation, and all is in working order. As promised, I shall make an official appearance tomorrow.

Yip Yip!

You Guys Like Quizes, Right?

Well, here's one:

You are Pope St. Pius X. You'd rather be right than
newfangled.


Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Actually, I'm an old-fashioned Rite I Episcopalian, so I'm not up on my recent Catholic history. Nonetheless, I think I'm pleased with this result. I'm certainly not surprised.

Yips! er, I mean Slice o' Cake to The Irish Elk.

A Little Help?

By the way, I meant to mention that the last thing I want is for Kathy to come home to a blog empty of all sound save the chirp of a lonely cricket, so if there's any particular topic that you Cake-Lovers would like me to ramble on about, well, feel free to drop a comment and let me know.

Fight! Fight!

Jay Tea over at Wizbang is ruminating on the lessons that can, and perhaps should be learned from schoolyard scuffles.

This reminds me of the single genuine fight I ever got into in school. I was in seventh grade (at Eisenhower Middle School in San Antonio, for those of you keeping score). There was a guy a grade behind me who took the same bus home, so we generally had to hang around in the same area of the bus stop after school. He was a nasty bastard - hyper-aggressive and a real bully.

One afternoon, I somehow got on his bad side and he started going for me. You have to understand that I was a flabby, scrawny and (at the same time) slightly chunky kid with thick glasses. I don't think he really expected any resistance. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, something snapped off in me: when he started shoving me around, I hauled off and slugged him. To this day, I remember the round-eyed look of wonder that sat on his face for an instant. Then the battle light flamed up and he came for me again.

As it turned out, the kid was aggressive but very wild. He sent haymakers all over the place, only a few of which got anywhere near me. In the meantime, I managed to land several solid shots to his face, eventually bloodying his nose. After a time, he closed in and we fell down in a clinch. I dunno what would have happened next, because at that point the bus stop monitor appeared and broke it up. She then marched us off to the vice principal's office, where it was explained to me that the punishment for fighting was a paddling (this was in, lessee, about 1977 or so). I was given a permission slip to take home for my parents to sign and dismissed back to the bus.

When I got home, I explained to the 'rents what had happened. They told me that I'd done exactly the right thing, but that the rules were the rules and I had to go ahead and take the punishment.

The next day, I remember that I was in Mr. Gillespie's history class when word came down from the office that they were ready for me. As I left the room, I could hear the whispering all around me.

When I got to the VP, he again explained why I was being punished and asked me if I was sorry. I said yes I was, but that I had only been defending myself and that I'd probably do it again if I had to. He nodded and proceeded to have me empty my back pockets and lean over a chair as he reached round for his paddle.

Well, I can't really recall now whether it hurt very much. I don't think so. But here's the thing - I only got one swat. That was it. The other kid, so I was told, got the max of six. And because he was a perpetual troublemaker, I'd go bail the VP hit him harder than me.

Personally, I think I learned an awful lot about character and consequences from that little episode, all of it to the good. I doubt very much that anyone would take away similarly useful wisdom in this day and age.

Gratuitous Random Fight Club Observation

I might be on thin ground with this.

Maybe the first rule of plot implausibility is that you don't talk about plot implausibility.

Then again, although I've seen this film several times, I've never actually seen the very end of it, so perhaps there's some big chunk of explanation that I've simply missed.

But not knowing what the hell I'm talking about has never barred me from opining before, so I don't really see why it should start now.

So here goes:

I can see where, if coming out of a bar and spotting two guys beating the crap out of each other, I would be intrigued. And I can see where, once I got an idea of what was going on, I might be tempted to join in - writers as diverse as Hemingway and Wodehouse have written about the sublime meaning of boxing. And once I joined in, if one of the ring-leaders started serving up helpings of dorm room bull session anti-Establishment cant, I might be inclined to listen to them. My crew coach in college was a past-master at this kind of thing. And once I started listening to said cant from said ring-leader, yes, I can see how I might eventually be converted into an econo-terrorism zealot.

But if I come out of that bar and see one guy beating the crap out of himself? Well.....I don't think I'm going to look on him as potential Fuhrer material. Know what I mean?

Just saying.

You Would Have Seen This Anyway

Kathy and I have a long tradition of pinching memes from each other. So here is one served up courtesy of the Impenetrable One:

The following all begin with 'In your lifetime, have you....'

1. ...ridden on a rollercoaster? I rode on a semi-grownup one on my recent trip to the Dark Lord Mickey's Kingdom. That was plenty for me. I am not fond of being frightened.

2. ...performed (in any area of the arts) onstage? I was in various piano recitals and competitions as a kid, the last ones being during my high school years. While in law school, I played Lysander in Midsummer Night's Dream and Jimmy Farrell in John Synge's Playboy of the Western World in productions at the Missus' college. I would also include the various trials, hearings, moot courts and mock trials that I've done, since oral legal advocacy is as much stagecraft as it is anything else.

3. ...planted a garden? "Planted a garden?" they ask! As if I can get myself to shut up about it......

4. ...ever had to reformat your hard drive due to a virus/spyware? I only vaguely know what this means, so the answer is no.

5. ...written a book? A poem? A song? I've written various poems and songs, mostly in light comic verse, all for private consumption. And I wrote a very laborious minuet in the style of Haydn once that, if nothing else, convinced me that I really have no talent for musical composition.

6. ...sang karaoke? As I've said at my own site, the story that, dressed in a tunic and chains, I had to get on a table in the middle of the Missus' college dining hall and sing along to Madonna's "Like A Virgin" at the top of my voice has been taken badly out of context.

7. ...been interviewed by a local TV station/newspaper? Nobody actually seeks out my opinion on anything, so instead I force it on them. Prior to blogging, I used to do a goodish bit of letter-to-the-editor writing and even had one published in The Wall Street Journal a year or two ago.

8. ...witnessed a tornado/earthquake/hurricane first-hand? I've been through a couple of hurricanes, although they were usually tropical storms by the time they got to my neck of the woods. The only gen-u-ine hurricane battering I experienced was when I was a junior at the People's Glorious Soviet of Middltetown, CT and Hurricane Gloria came rolling up the Connecticut River. On the other hand, my brother was a medical student in Charleston, SC when Hurricane Hugo hit it head on and had to work in the hospital all the way through it.

As for tornados, I've never actually seen one other than a couple of waterspouts. Every now and again I think it would be cool to take one of those storm-chaser tours to try and get a look at a Tornado Alley Special.

Earthquake? Nope, and I'm not sure that I'd want to. The sensation of having the ground shake under your feet, I'm told, is horrifying.

9. ...participated in a photo scavenger hunt? Nope - don't know what that means.

10. ...traveled to another country? Canada (New Brunswick) and Mexico (Texas border region) several times. And I lived in London for a year after college.

Hi, Kathy's Mom!

Yes, it is I, Robbo the Llamabutcher, trying my very first test post here at the House O' Cake-Eating.

Even if you don't click over to our digs as Kathy says, you probably at least recognize my name by now. Just by way of adding in a few more biographical details, I'm a forty year old lawyer living outside of Dee Cee in Northern Virginia along with my wife of (almost) twelve years and our three little girls (known in the Blogsphere as the "Llama-ettes"). I blog occassionally about politics, but more and more prefer to ramble about culture - high, low and throat. (Steve, my partner in Llamadom, is more of the political guy. He's also in charge of the photoshopping.)

As a matter of fact, Kathy and I first met on-line when we discovered we shared the mutual opinion that Emma Woodhouse was a more satisfying Jane Austen heroine than Lizzie Bennett.

[Insert sound of daemonic cackling here.]

Oh, this is going to be fun.......

Impromptu Vacation

Allrighty kids.

You'll undoubtedly have noticed that I haven't had much to say over the past couple of days. I have a serious case of the blogmutes settling in and instead of forcing you to suffer through it, I've decided to take the rest of the week off. There is no point in writing what, undoubtedly, would be crap just for the sake of keeping this thing up and running.

And besides, I've got other stuff to do. Around the house, and here, as well. I can no longer put one particular task off: I must transfer the archives from the old Blogspot home to this one. This task will take some time. Actually having to come up with content in the meanwhile? Well, that sort of puts a damper on getting the basics done.

I know. You're undoubtedly heartbroken, right? You, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, are afraid you will not know what to do with yourselves and are wondering if you're going to be forced to resort to surfing Asian Lesbian pr0n, like you did before you found The Cake Eater Chronicles.

Well, have no fear my children. I have lined up a few guest bloggers to entertain and enlighten you.

I may regret my choices later, but I am handing the keys to the kingdom over to my dear pals Robert and Steve, aka The Llamabutchers and to The Goddess of All Things Bloggy, and another dear pal,Sadie, who despite her busy schedule, has promised to drop by later this week. Between the three of them they should keep the lights running on this production and they should have a good time running amok in my playground while I'm away from the keyboard.

Besides, as an added bonus, this will be good for Mom. She tells me she never clicks over whenever I include a link. Which is a habit I'm trying to disabuse her of, but she does it nonetheless. I feel she's missing out on some good stuff, so, instead of forcing Mohammed to come to the mountain, well, I'm bringing the mountain to Mohammed.

{Kath checks pockets for her keys. Nope. Not there. She remembers that she handed them over already. She says, "good" and moves on to other things}

Have a great rest of the week, kids and I'll see you on Monday!

Lonely or Broken?

Once again Tuesday has rolled around, hence once again it's time for the Demystifying Divas and The Men's Club to enlighten y'all about a few things.

This week's topic was inspired by one, in my humble opinion, particularly annoying Yes song: which is better to have---a broken heart or a lonely heart?

Now, whomever wrote this song for Yes came to the conclusion that, indeed, it was better to be the owner of a lonely heart, rather than a broken heart. Much better than... This is the first time I've actually read the lyrics to this tune, and I have to say I have no idea what their reasoning behind this bit of advice is. I've never been able to understand the words when they sang them, so I don't know why I was thinking I would be enlightened when I read them, but hey, I'm a hopeful girl that way. Alas, they have not provided any enlightenment. So, I suppose I must actually work at this post and come up with my own conclusion. Bastards.

{Goes back and reads the lyrics again}

It seems, upon a second reading, that if you have a lonely heart, somehow, you seem to have control over your fate. You can make the choice not to be lonely, whereas if your heart is broken, well, you're pretty much screwed. Hmmph. Basically, this gets back to an old Shakespearean theme: is it better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all?

I would have to say, yes, it is better to have loved and lost, because at least then you know what you're missing. The thought of going through that all again may terrify you, but at least you've risked something. You've gone out and made choices and are living with the ramifications of those choices. You've been brave before and you can be brave again, because you know what love feels like---and on its good days, it's a pretty nice thing. But if you think loneliness is the best option, well, you may, like the song says, realize you have control over your fate. You may realize that you don't have to let it get to you, you can insert Oprah's message of EMPOWERMENT here, yadda, yadda yadda, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

But...

Let's be honest, kids. How many people do you know who seem to have a serious attachment to being lonely? They've made loneliness into their mate and they talk about loneliness the way some women and men talk about their significant others. Because those people are out there. I'm sure you've met a few: single women and men who constantly bemoan how if only I could meet the right person and then never actually get off their ass to do something about it. You invite them out, you introduce them to someone you think they'll get along with, hoping against hope that this will get them to quit their bitching, or at least move to a new stage of bitching, and five minutes later---POOF!---they've hit the self-destruct button and are back at your side, bitching and moaning again, about how that person wasn't right for them, what were you thinking, etc. They have run back to their ever faithful mate: loneliness. These are the people, in my experience, who have the ideal mate all laid out in their mind and they won't settle for anything but that, while they know, somewhere in the back of their mind, that said ideal mate simply does not exist in reality. They set the bar too high for any mere mortal to pass over.

In other words: there are people out there for whom loneliness is their drug of choice and, boy are they ever addicted to it. Instead of falling off and having to get back on, they prefer never to get on the horse in the first place. They've decided that while getting on the horse is ideal, and something they really should do, they prefer to turn the horse into a unicorn: a mythical creature that can and will never be caught. It's more comfortable for them. And that's fine and dandy. I just wish the few friends of mine who are like this would quit bitching about the damn horse, because it gets so boring to have to listen to it.

But, you don't have to take my word for it. You can go and read what the other Disarming and Demystifying Divas have written on the topic. Make sure to give a warm welcome to Pammy, one of our Red Hat Divas, who has joined in this week. If you'd like to flip the coin and see what the males have to say, you can go over and read what the Air Marshal, The Wiz, Stigmata (who's filling in for our beloved, but dead as a doornail and subsequently flushed down the toity Puffster) and Phin have coughed up.

UPDATE: Serendipity

She Probably Doesn't Care and Will Just Tell The Pool Boy To Fetch Her Another Cosmo, But...

But just in case she doesn't know...

...Arianna, darling, hotlinking is considered to be a big boo-boo in the blogosphere. It's stealing, plain and simple. I realize you're probably shelling out a small fortune for hosting, but, sheesh. One would think you could probably afford to host your own images instead of stealing from a non-profit organization's blog.

Madame Sadie---from whom I found out about this---our freshly minted law school graduate, is wondering what sort of compensation would be in order.

I don't know, but after reading The Huffington Post's Terms of ServiceI got the distinct feeling that there's some Beverly Hills law firm just waiting for someone to steal from Arianna so they can take part in a We live to crush the little people smackdown. (Christ. Honestly. Who gets lawyers to write Terms of Service? For a freaking blog? I know you're just dying to spend your ex's money, Arianna, but really...how bourgeoise can you get?) So, really, turnabout would seem to be fair play, wouldn't it?

If you want a real blog that doesn't endorse thievery, read this one instead of Arianna's.

The Reduced Revenge of the Sith

Ever heard of the Reduced Shakespeare Company? They can reduce Hamlet from an hours-long play to a performance of less than thirty seconds.

Well, I'm going to do that with my Revenge of the Sith review.

Actually the husband's going to do it for you. Here's what he said when we left the theater yeseterday:

Well, it took him two and three quarters movies to get back, but he got there.

Yeah. I had to steal it. Those of you who have seen it know what I'm talking about. Those of you who haven't---well, that's probably all you wanted to know, right?

If you want more---because you're a greedy bastard that way---well, take the jump for some observations. There are spoilers involved.

In no discernable order (and they might not be about the movie):

1. Georgie Porgy Puddin' and Pie needs to get down on the ground and lick Ewan McGregor's boots. For the rest of Ewan's life. The man---who I consider to be a pretty darn good actor---had so little to work with, yet, somehow, managed to keep all three of those films from crashing harder than they already did.

2. The husband leaned over the minute the Lucasfilm logo appeared at the beginning of the movie and whispered, "Please don't suck. Please don't suck. Please don't suck."

3. Yoda kicks ass once again. If a Mexican jumping bean could wield a light saber, I have to think they'd look like Yoda.

4. AMC can kiss my lily white ass if they think that after paying $6.50 for a freakin' matinee ticket, I'm going to give up my hard-fought aisle seat because "the show's nearly sold out and we want to make it easier for those still coming in to find seats, so could you please scrunch in?"

Dream on, bitch. Ain't gonna happen.

Although, if any usher came up to me to tell me to move in, I had a "I have a bladder problem" excuse all lined up.

5. All of the threads were tied up.

6. If you blinked, you missed Anakin's legs being whacked off by Obi-Wan. Was I the only one who blinked? I must have been. I completely missed it. One minute he had legs, the next he didn't. I'm assuming they cut it (hahaha) quickly to try and keep the gore factor down.

7. Yoda's quick disposal of the Emperor's red guards elicited a cheer from the entire theater.

8. Obi-Wan and Anakin seemed pretty cool and content whilst fighting in flowing lava. They should have been sweating more. I don't care if they are Jedi and they can control their heart rates, etc. 2000 degree molten lava would probably make even a Jedi sweat.

9. A little boy who was sitting next to us was entirely decked out as Darth Vader. Replete with light saber and mask. He was stoked, and not only because he obviously got another wearing out of his Halloween costume.

10. Speaking of Vader, well, that scene was a wee bit disappointing, wasn't it? Not when they clamped the helmet on and he started breathing. That was cool. I'm talking about what followed. Darth Vader is Darth Vader because he feared losing his wife in childbirth? Hmmph. I actually felt sorry for poor James Earl Jones being forced to scream "PADME!"

11. Hayden Christensen still can't act his way out of a paper bag. Natalie Portman? Well, she blew, too, but not as badly. Oy.

12. The dialogue was mildy better than Attack of the Clones. And by mildly I mean it's mildly better to catch one strain of Ebola rather than another. They're both nasty, but one you will survive while the other you won't.

13. I wanted to see more of the Wookiees. Particularly Chewbacca.

14. Could Georgie Porgy have come up with a more lame choice of name for General Grievous? Wooh. The subtlety was postively overwhelming. Bleh.

A Few Items From The Fair Fiefdom of Cake Eater Land

Here's a list of what's annoying me in a mild sort of way about living in Cake Eater Land this weekend.

1. It's been raining cats and dogs here for the past couple of weeks. I am annoyed with our sunless state. I am also annoyed that the new landlord has yet to purchase a lawn mower because the lawn looks like crap. Well, let me amend that: the lawn always looks like crap, but now it looks like overgrown crap in the few spots where there's actually grass. My current nickname for the lawn is "The Savannah." I fully expect that Marlin Perkins and Jim will show up soon to film an episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom because the grass is so tall that there's probably some interesting wildlife in there.

And there's a profusion of dandelions, too. Woot!

I am also annoyed that the new landlord has yet to tell me what I can and cannot do in regards to my plantings. With the Great White Hunter-exlandlord and Tweedledumb, anything you wanted to do that made things look nicer, well, they were for it---as long as you didn't expect them to pay for it. Hence I have a nice little landscaped flower bed full of lilies and hostas. I always border this with impatiens, because a. they're colorful and b. they're one of the few annuals that do well here in the Hinterlands. I also put out some pots on the front porch, as well, and when we had the roof of the garage as our deck, the husband built me some flower boxes and I filled them with pots of pansies and petunias. Well, since the deck is no longer stable enough for the average sized human to walk on, I have to rely on these other areas to satisfy my gardening jones. I have no idea if I'm going to be allowed to do these things this year. We'll just have to see.

And no, the man has not called the plumber to see what's wrong with my dishwasher, either.

2. The church that resides across the street from us has once again allowed clubs from the local high school to use their circular drive for fundraising car washes.

Sigh.

So, it seems we're back to being subjected to shouts of, "CAR WASH!" every Friday and Saturday afternoon. They shout this at cars who are going above thirty mph and who are prevented from stopping by the laws of physics and traffic. So, these drivers---may God smite them---honk their horns, repeatedly, to show appreciation.

Said honking gets quite annoying when the eighteen-wheelers that barrel through the neighborhood to avoid traffic on Hwy. 100 join in on the action.

This, of course, says nothing about how scantily clad these teenagers are. They bare their young bodies in a barely decent sort of way in an attempt to bring in customers. Yes, I know, it's a car wash. They're going to be dressed in swimsuits and the like. Ok, that's all well and good until you see what these kids do. One of the more popular ways to bring in customers is to hold a large poster directly over the midsection of your body to make it appear to drivers that you're naked. They've apparently learned that sex sells. (Hmmm. I wonder where they got that one?) I've never once seen a faculty advisor tell these kids to knock it off, either. It makes me feel like they're hooking for funds to support the marching band or the swim club or the track and field club, etc. One, I suppose, could also make comments about the luring of pedophiles if one was so inclined.

Surprisingly enough, the pastor of this church, when I've spoken with him in the past regarding this, has no issues with this behavior. Neither does he mind that all of this behavior is happening in his church parking lot. Apparently being concerned with "community involvement" is more important than the prostitution of children for extra-curricular activities funding. Yay for the Lutherans! They've got their priorities in the right place!

3. The obnoxious Cake Eater neighbor is weaseling his way into our lives. Even more than he's already done so.

I cannot tell you what it is about this guy that sets me off. He just bugs me. There is something there that not only makes me dislike him, but creeps me out as well. And most people don't creep me out. He does. In a I-don't-want-to-be-alone-with-him sort of way. He's definitely a Cake Eater---someone who is concerned with conspicuous consumption strictly for the sake of Keeping Up With The Joneses---and his new area of Cake Eatery behavior takes him into the land of computers. And he's adopted the husband as his guru. He keeps buying computers---as in there are four people in their house, and they now have five laptops, two desktops and a PSP. FOR FOUR PEOPLE. Of course, the guy has absolutely no idea what the hell he's doing with all of this technology, so this is where the husband comes in. He keeps it all straight for them.

Which gets annoying when the Cake Eater neighbor calls at ten at night and expects the husband to come running to solve whatever problem has arisen now. Because we live next door, of course, in the immortal words of Martha and the Vandellas, there's nowhere to run to, there's nowhere to hide. Fortunately, the husband has no issues with saying "get bent" when this happens. But this doesn't apparently stop the Cake Eater neighbor from trying it on again and again, because the man has no familiarity with the concept of boundaries.

Furthermore...well, this is great news for the husband, but I'm leery. The man has decided to set the husband and this other guy up in a computer fixit business. He's funding it, he's got retail space for them---the works, in other words. The store opens for business on Monday. I'm happy for the husband---really I am. This is a big deal for him and I'm happy he now has the opportunity to see one of his visions come into being. That's wonderful and all that. But...

...I wish someone else who was dishing out all of this largesse. Someone who didn't give me the creeps and who didn't feel that it was all right to stick his nose into our personal business. Which he does. All the freakin' time. Sigh. Oh, well. I suppose you have to take the good with the bad. I just hope I don't blow it for the husband the next time the Cake Eater neighbor makes some suggestion about what I should be doing with my time. Because he apparently feels my life is now his business. {Shudder}

And if there are annoyances, there is, of course, also good news...

The downstairs roommate who I mentioned in this post from last week, well, he's doing wonderfully. He rested over at his girlfriend's last weekend, and he's now back at the house. He took the week off from work, but while it definitely looks like he had surgery recently, he looks pretty good, considering. Everything's good and they're thinking they got all of the cancer. I was chatting with him the other evening and he's really hoping they got all of it, because if they didn't, they'll have to operate again---and will have to remove all of his lymph nodes.

Keep your fingers crossed for him.

Linky Love

Let's have a little hot link on link action this morning.

• The Wiz is back from his muy importanto business trip and has posted on the bling-bling. The words "chrome" and "Craftsman" are lavished about. Go and read what he has to say.
• Some of the other Naked Villains have followed the example of their fearless Maximum Leader and they, too, have thrown their own two cents in on the jewelry thing. I must admit, I'm not all that surprised to find out that the Minister of Propaganda has his ears pierced. (He works in the film industry. If that's your story, boy, I fully expect you to stick with it.) I wonder what Madame Sadie thinks about this development and if Smallholder has suddenly gone back up in her rankings as a result.
• I'm a little hurt that no one bothered to tell me that PUFFY DIED! I would have sent flowers, I swear, but I didn't know!

  Anyway, I look forward to his reincarnation. Which I'm assuming will happen more quickly that if it had been a human who'd died, rather than a fish. Fish years being what they are and all.

• I must admit, I adore The Girl Child.

  She reminds me of someone. Hmmmm. I don't know. Who could it possibly be? Oh, yeah. That's right. It's me. Just ask the Cake Eater Mother for confirmation on that one.

• Doug doesn't quite know what to make of this development.
• Silk chats about growing up and how good things can come out of "disagreements" in bars.
• I'm a complete and utter dunce: I almost forgot to remind you to go over and take part in the Carnival of the Babewits, hosted by the most gracious WitNit.

That should keep you occupied for the time being.

So...

Anyone else watch Quentin Tarantino's CSI last night?

Quickie review after the jump.

First off, let me qualify before this girl jumps on me. I love Tarantino's stuff. While I may have skipped Jackie Brown I have seen the rest of his work---even the stuff he's only produced---and think it brilliant. I love the way he jumbles the timeline to make the narrative more interesting. Nobody---and I mean nobody---pulls this off as well as he does. The payoff is always there at the end of it. You could go on about what movie he does this the best in, but I would have to say, just in my humble opinion, that Kill Bill: Volume I & II, is the best example. What would have been a simple revenge story was masterfully raised to something they'll teach at film schools years down the line. The part with The Bride, Pai Mei and the whole hand thing was a marvelous,"Oh, so that's what that was for" moment.

Given this, it was a bit surprising to me that Mr. Master of the Timeline Futz, except for one brief instance of flashback, told the story of Nick being buried alive straight through. And---God help me when Sadie reads this---it was all the more boring for it. It was probably the most boring episode of CSI that I've ever watched and I've been watching since day one. I, quite simply, expected more. I suspect the fact it was a network tee vee gig made him hold back, but still...

I did appreciate the ghoulishly funny morgue dream toward the end. That was very Tarantino and it was a welcome relief by that time in the episode.

On the whole, I think Quentin should stick to making the movies he does so very well and should stay the heck away from tee vee. It's simply not the medium that showcases his abilities best.

Get It Done

I hadn't heard about this one until the husband clued me in last night.

Billionaire developer Donald Trump has officially thrown his support behind a plan to rebuild the Twin Towers at Ground Zero in practically the same form they were in prior to the September 11 attacks with a few safety modifications.

Trump implored Governor George Pataki to discard the plans for the 'Freedom Tower' presently on the table, describing the design as 'the worst pile of crap architecture I've ever seen in my life,' according to a report published in 'Newsday.'

Wednesday, Trump held a news conference at Trump Towers on Fifth Avenue to announce his support for a 'taller, stronger, more beautiful version of the World Trade Center.'

The design, drawn up by engineer Ken Gardner and architect Herbert Belton would make the new towers one story higher than the previous ones. It would preserve the footprints of the original towers but would have improved fireproofing and more staircases and means of escape in case of emergency.
{...}

Now, I'm not Donald's biggest fan. There's way too much waste in that man's lifestyle to make me ever think that being that rich would actually be fun. (If having a billion dollars in the bank can be classified as being "F You" money, one would think that it would get you out of boring black-tie charity dinners. But noooooo. Apparently you have to go to a lot of those dinners if you're The Donald.) But, I will admit I watched season one of "The Apprentice" and while I may think that "Trump Ice" bottled water is just plain stupid, the man knows what he's talking about when it comes to business: sales, sales, sales; if you can't market it, you can't make money on it; but most importantly, if you say you're going to do something, do it, and stop fucking about in the meantime.

I appreciate that.

That's why I'm pretty darned happy he's stuck his nose in on this one. It's time they stopped fucking about and just built the buildings. Every day construction of the new Towers is halted, is one more day that goes by that tells those bastards they've won. The Towers have to be rebuilt. It's not only a matter of New York pride, but is also one that belongs to the entire nation. And it's being held up by a few prima donnas. This is where Trump's brilliance shines through: he knows he'll never actually get to build the new Towers. It'll never happen. He knows this. He's simply using his reputation to get the chosen people to work.

Trump's smart enough to know that by inserting his nose into the mix, they'll be scared enough by that prospect alone to actually get moving. Because Donald isn't exactly known for his spectacular good taste and I can see where some hoity-toity architects would get their asses in gear just to prevent his taking over the project. Trump, undoubtedly, knows this. If he has to take one for the team to get it done, he's apparently willing to turn his back into the pitch.

Good for him.

{Hat Tip: Martini Boy}

That's Gonna Leave a Mark

Jonathan has his review of Revenge of the Sith up.

{...}What is most satisfying about Revenge of the Sith is that it finally delivers us back to the beginning, to the Star Wars we loved; to the Star Wars we still remember after all these years. Sith and the other prequels will, happily, soon be forgotten.

Ouchie. Georgie Porgy Puddin' and Pie's going to need a band-aid.

Fear not, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, I'm assuming that he won't have any problems finding one with R2-D2 or Yoda on it in his medicine cabinet.

What's Good For The Goose Is Good For the Gander

Good For Her.

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- A pregnant student who was banned from graduation at her Roman Catholic high school announced her own name and walked across the stage anyway at the close of the program.

Alysha Cosby's decision prompted cheers and applause Tuesday from many of her fellow seniors at St. Jude Educational Institute.

But her mother and aunt were escorted out of the church by police after Cosby headed back to her seat.

{...}The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation.

{my emphasis}

Adrianne, who it seems is finally done with her thesis, says:

{...}You can fight abortion, and you can fight unwed motherhood,* but at some point (for example, the point after conception) you're going to have to choose which one is worse. Even making equal punishments for each doesn't actually work for impartial condemnation of each; as it's much easier to have an abortion without anyone knowing about it than to carry a child to term and give birth without anyone knowing about it, a pregnant girl faced with a specific punishment has the option of choosing birth and certain punishment or abortion and punishment only if discovered. And, unless I am mistaken, while traditional Catholic teaching does not approve of unwed motherhood (nor the behavior that led to it), after the fact they prefer it to abortion. Practices such as kicking pregnant girls out of school (not quite what they did in this case) and firing single mothers and potential single mothers, while they'll keep your school or company cosmetically pure-looking, will have the effect of encouraging abortion over illegitimacy. {...}

I wholeheartedly agree.

I know I have related this story before, but you'll forgive me if I choose not to spend time trolling around the archives looking for it. It's a pretty simple one: most of you will know that I went to Catholic school for twelve years. Eight years were spent at a co-ed parish grade school, and high school was an all-girls school. The policy was quite simple at the high school: if you became pregnant, you were kicked out. No appeals were allowed. Interestingly enough, to prove Adrianne's point, there was this one girl in my class who, toward the end of senior year, became pregnant and procured for herself an abortion by asking her friends to chip in and pay for it---even though she could well afford to pay for it out of her own pocket. (She didn't want her parents to find out and they would have if she hadn't spent her allowance on clothes. I know. Rough life. Guess what? I went to a school that had plenty of spoiled little girls. Go figure.) The only adverse effect she suffered was that word spread to the boys' school down the road and she couldn't find a prom date to save her life.

I still have a very hard time with this one. This rich bitch admitted, point blank, that she'd had an abortion, but no one ratted on her because a. she would deny it to the administration and b. her parents were big donors to the school, so it would be unlikely that anything would happen anyway. Plenty of wonderful, deserving girls were booted from that school, and one rich bitch got away with it and never had to pay a penalty for her behavior. I'm sure I could call up my niece---who now attends this same school---and ask her if the policy is still the same, but I suspect it is.

Moreover, the fathers of these babies were never held accountable for their actions by their respective schools. When a girl was kicked out of school, there was never a reciprocal booting at the boys' school down the road. It's a double standard that it seems is still in practice today, given the father of this girl's child was allowed to take part in graduation, rather than being banned, like she was.

I can completely understand about the setting of an example. Of having a zero-tolerance policy. Yet, let's be honest about one thing: it takes two to tango. If you're not holding the father to the same degree of responsibility that you hold the mother---particularly in this instance---what sort of example does that send to other young men? It cuts both ways. Just because you don't have irrefutable proof of his actions in the form of an expanded belly does not mean he is not culpable. In this day and age, when everyone is bleating on ad nauseam about how society is going down the crapper because of same-sex marriage, the divorce rate, the everpresent evil that is abortion, single parents, etc. one would think that it would be a good thing to be consistent and apply condemnation equally, instead of simply resorting to age-old attitudes that have never worked.

One of the reasons I always thought it was very unfair the girls were kicked out was because, while the babies were the result of premarital sex, the school seemingly ignored that these girls were nonetheless respecting the doctrine of life by seeing the pregnancies through. Their actions in this respect, to my mind at least, should have been celebrated and held up as an example of what to do should you find yourself in this situation. But it never was. The premarital sex thing was apparently the more important lesson to teach of the two. They just seemed to assume no Catholic girl would ever go and get an abortion.

Well, they were wrong, weren't they?

Warning: Curves Ahead

Ms. Feisty has an important question.

{...}What is the real skinny on thin women?

Which is more attractive and why: Thin Kate Moss - Gweneth Paltrow types or women with voluptuous curves?{...}

All I can really say is that no one ever stuck their head out of their car window and yelled, "NICE ASS!" at me as I walked down the street when I weighed 110 pounds. Surprisingly, ever since I gained weight, I get this all the time.

Hmmmph.

Take it for what it's worth.

The Periodic Table of Elements as Theory

I present to you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, your chuckle of the day.

26 elements have been added since 1923. When will it end?

This Crap Has GOT To Stop

WRITE something, dude.

My Eyes, My Eyes!

Step away from the photoshop, Steve-o.

It's for your own good, I promise.

Although, I have to admit, I like the one with Reagan and Goldwater. Heh. I also like the new llama portrait. I always knew Robbo had the braided bun thing going on.

Agreement

Ith is right on about last night's House episode.

It was incredibly clever storytelling. If you missed it, well... you're just going to have to wait until the reruns come along this summer.

Biting the Hand That Feeds You

I'm not the biggest Coldplay fan. I've heard their music on the radio, and I like it. It's decent music, but, unlike many people, I don't think it's the best stuff ever. There was nothing there that made me say, "Hey, this is fresh stuff! I need a copy! I must go out and get this!" It sounded vaguely regurgitated to my jaded ears. And Martin's whiny, high-pitched vocals did nothing for me musically.

After reading this, I'm pretty damn glad I didn't contribute to Chris Martin's ever expanding ego.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - British rock band Coldplay played Manhattan on Tuesday to promote their highly anticipated new album and said they are uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can move a major corporation's stock price.

EMI Group Plc, the world's third-largest music company and owner of Coldplay's label Capitol, warned in February that profits would be lower because the band took longer than expected to finish their first studio album in three years.

This I can understand. The fate of a record company resting on your shoulders would not be an easy thing to deal with...or so we'd think, if we were assuming that Coldplay was actually, you know, a humble entity.

This does not appear to be the case.

{...}But lead singer and charismatic frontman Chris Martin said in an interview, "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that."

"I think shareholders are the great evil of this modern world," Martin told Reuters before a concert at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre.

But however uncomfortable Martin is with what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders," the reception to Coldplay's third studio album will be closely watched by EMI shareholders.{...}

Oh, it's slavery, is it? Shareholders are the "great evil of this modern world."

{...}Still, for all the corporate involvement in the band of four friends who met in university, Martin said it was all worth it, since it gave them artistic freedom and the ability to talk about subjects dear to them such as fair trade, or paying fair prices for products such as coffee and cotton from developing nations.

On Monday, the band recorded an episode of VH1's "Storyteller" show and told the audience there, "Deadlines mean nothing to us. We'll sink the whole company (EMI) if we have to," Billboard reported.

Hmmph. Someone's got a wee bit of a head on them, haven't they?

In this day and age of program trading---where missing projected numbers by a hundredth of a percentage point can cause the NYSE to go down fifty points in the blink of an eye---one would sincerely hope that the brokerage houses have factored Martin's mouth into their programs.

Furthermore, it'd be pretty nice if everyone who held EMI stock would tell Martin to bugger off, and to not bite the hand that keeps him and Gwyneth in expensive soy-based products (he's a vegetarian, don't you know) by dumping said stock. You know, sort of like these guys. Only without the violence.

A Random Thought About How All Running Activities Should be Banned Forthwith in The United States of America

I went running yesterday. For the first time in God-only-knows-how-long. I only ran for a mile, thinking I'd best not push it. That's it's been a really long time, and that I'm really out of shape. That I didn't really want to be in pain tomorrow (today) and if I pushed it, well, I'd be prostrate on the sofa, begging the husband to feed me bon bons.

All I can really tell you is that one mile for me is now pushing it.

And all I really want right now is to lay on the sofa and have the husband feed me bon bons.

Dear Mr. Lucas

You've undoubtedly heard about what Georgie Porgy Puddin' and Pie had to say the other day at Cannes, right?

Well in case you hadn't, here's a wee bit of reading material to go with your sherry this evening.

"Star Wars" director George Lucas says that although he wrote the original film during the Vietnam War, his six-part saga could apply to the war in Iraq.

''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.

''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.

''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.{...}

In response, Mr. Chenkroff has written an open letter to Mr. Lucas.

{...}You might be aware that all of us who saw the "Star Wars" trilogy throughout the communist world saw it as an entertaining, yet still nonetheless powerful commentary on the current world events. We simply couldn't escape the conclusion that the militaristic and freedom-crushing Empire with its legions of stormtroopers is a futuristic version of the Soviet Empire, which had conquered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people like myself. For us, of course, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and all the others fighting to restore the Republic were brave oppositionists and freedom fighters in the truest sense of the word. Like the Western movie goers, we too cheered when the Death Star was destroyed (twice), but whereas for our counterparts in the Free World this was just a great cinematic climax, for us it embodied the hope ("A New Hope", if you pardon the pun) that one day the specter of totalitarianism will vanish and we will be free again.

Apparently, however, we were wrong - we didn't read your movies correctly.

{...} May I also add that whatever your thoughts about the United States and its supposed descent from a democracy into empire, had the Rebels won, you would have never had a chance to film a critical allegory on your own government. At best, your artistic output would have consisted of short features about the 150% increase in the wheat harvest, and at worst - if you had stayed true to your conscience - you would be dreaming your "Star Wars" trilogy from behind bars.

{...}But if in your mind, it's the United States that has slowly transformed itself into an evil Empire, and therefore, logically all those who stand up to it are our story's true heroes, than I have to say that the Dark Side is very strong indeed, and I have crossed over a long time ago. If America is the Empire, then please prepare a black helmet and uniform for me too.

Go read the whole thing.

{Hat tip: Fausta}

A Kiss on the Hand Might Be Quite Continental...

Another Tuesday, another topic for the Demystifying Divas and the Marvy Men's Club. Today's topic: women and their love of jewelry.

(You'll need to click on the image to actually be able to read it.)

And do women ever love jewelry. In my humble opinion, there are very few exceptions to this rule. Even if some women don't opt for the all the flash a professional, Certified Gemologist-employing jeweler can provide, they still wear a chain around their neck, a ring or two on their fingers, and earrings. The question, to my mind, would be why? The reason I ask this question is because I don't think most women have stopped to think about why they wear all this stuff.

Jewelry is such an automatic thing for most women. I know it is for me. I don't have my ears pierced, so I rarely worry about earrings, and when I do, well, I can't find any that I like because the clips you find in department stores are not designed with my demographic in mind. I don't wear anything around my neck mainly because chains and I do not, for the most part, get along. But I always wear my wedding ring, my watch, and a bracelet the husband bought me in Kuwait that I'm particularly fond of. I believe this throws me in the "low maintenence" section of the jewelry department, but even I am susceptible to the thrills of all things sparkly.

I don't know what that's all about, either. I'm not a jewelry hound. Never have been, never will be. I suspect you'll never find me draped, head to toe, in diamonds at any point in my life. Even knowing this, I still cannot stop myself from looking at the sparklies on display. I just can't. My friends are the same way. In the past, I have compared this susceptibility in women to oooh and aaaah at the offerings in a display window to men's fascination with women's breasts: in either situation, we can't really help ourselves when it comes to looking. Heterosexual men, always, always, always, look. They cannot help themselves. I think it's hardwired. When they're younger, they stare and gape and generally act like it's the first time they've seen a pair of boobs. But when they get older, the better they get at looking surreptitiously. The open-mouthed staring becomes a quick glance downwards that you might easily miss if you're not paying attention. They might not have any need to look; they might be happily married to their wives, whom they adore, but they still look. It's the same with me and jewelry. I have no need for more jewelry, but I still look.

But I don't feel the need to be sneaky about it.

Case in point: when the husband, Mr. H and I were in San Francisco and were walking around the high-end shopping district that is Union Square, we passed a few jewelry stores along the way. We'd be walking along, minding our own business, enjoying the city, and then---whammo! We'd pass a window with diamonds and pearls on display and I'd stop to stare. The boys would keep walking until they realized I was no longer with them, and then they'd come back to see what I was gazing at. The husband didn't mind my behavior: he was used to it. It was Mr. H. who was surprised with me. He knew I didn't ever really want more jewelry, and that I wouldn't probably wear it if I had it, so he didn't understand the fascination with the stuff. I couldn't explain it to him. It's just that it was pretty, it caught my eye and I wanted to look at it. It was particularly bad when we got over to Chinatown, because there was an amazing wealth of goods on display, and they, unlike the pricey shops over in Union Square, had stuff I could actually afford to buy.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to walk into a jewelry store and say, "May I please look at that bracelet? And that ring..." with the actual intention of buying. Looking is one thing that I like, but actually laying down cold hard cash for something, that in reality isn't all that rare? You do know that, right? That diamonds aren't rare at all? Well, you do now. You can walk down a creekbed in South Africa and the pebbles you would feel crunching under the soles of your shoes would not be pebbles at all but rather diamonds. Uncut and unpolished diamonds, but diamonds nonetheless. The only reason diamonds are an expensive quantity is because of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, who not only went on to found Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe), but also DeBeers. You see, Cecil, and the men who followed him, through some seriously ruthless business practices, created a monopoly for DeBeers. Through this monopoly they were able to keep prices high for something that is not rare at all. You should have seen the look on my sister-in-law's face the first time I told her this: a world-reknowned jewelry hound, she looked like she was about ready to burst out in tears. My brother, her husband, however had a different look on his face: I think the phrase "abject fury" would describe it quite well.

And that, I believe, gives us a clue as to why some women drape themselves in sparklies: it shows off how well they---or their husbands---are doing in the world, financially speaking. Sure, when you're younger, jewelry is about decoration. It's about it being pretty and nothing else. Yet, once you get to a certain point in life, jewelry takes on more meaning than simple decoration. This is how you judge people. Is this shallow? You bet it is. But is it any more shallow to judge someone based on what handbag they carry, what clothes they wear, what car they drive? Nope. It's just one more benchmark we have to use to decide about people without actually having to ask them a thing.

My sister-in-law, sensing a threat to her world, and how she judged the people therein, God Bless Her, blocked out the information I'd related to her. (That is if, of course, if she remembered it, all of us being somewhat inebriated at the time of telling.) I don't think my brother really had a choice in the matter, this not being information that would serve him well in his negotiations at Borsheims.

But anyway, don't take my word for it: go and read what our other Daring Demystifying Divas have to say on the matter. And, because five is always better than four, make sure to check out what my lovely blog child, and Divaesque Lady, Phoenix of Villains Vanquished has to add to the conversation.

As far as The Men's Club is concerned, well, I'm afraid I have good news and bad news. The bad is that Zonker has decided to frame his membership badge and hang it up on the wall because he's got too much work going on at the present moment. We will miss him. The good, however, is that the wonderful Villains over at Naked Villainy have decided to jump into the testosterone pool that is The Men's Club. So, make sure to go over and read what our Maximum Leader has to say, while also checking out Phin, and Puffy. The Wiz was called off on a muy importanto business trip at the last minute yesterday, so I will update when he gets around to posting about this topic.

I Think Hal Holbrook Will Play Him In The Movie

Steve-o, in a Deep Throat sort of way, picks up where Newsweek left off. He has the scoop on what was actually swirling around in the toitys at Guantanamo instead of a copy of the Koran.

It's an exclusive. *Must Credit The Llamas*

My Goodness

It seems I pissed someone off. And not even the person I was intending to.

But wait, there's more....I even got threats of physical violence, too!

wOOt!

I'VE HIT THE BIG TIME, BABY!

You see, I've been waiting almost two years for this to happen. I've toiled in obscurity for so damn long, just begging for someone to declare the desire to whack me on the shins with a seven iron! I prayed to God. I wondered when my time in the spotlight would come. I worked hard, hoping that it could, but gosh, I will admit, I was beginning to lose faith. I didn't think it could ever happen to me! I really didn't! Geez, I'm so surprised. It's like winning an Oscar or even a Golden Globe!

I feel like I should have a speech prepared. First, I'd like to thank the Academy...

Hot damn! I am so frickin' excited I can't hardly believe it!

And all this on a post that a. wasn't directed at Learned Foot and b. he didn't bother to read. Does it get better than that? Oh, it just might!

The phrase "ad hominem attacks" was used! Tee frickin' hee!

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, does it get any better than that? I don't think so.

Oh man! It's like Christmas came on my birthday or something! It's just too much to ask for!

Shit. I think I need to break out the whisky to celebrate this one.

UPDATE: Someone over at Kool Aid Report deleted my trackback! And after I went to all that trouble to manually ping them, too.

Classy stuff, that.

In The Immortal Words of Eric Cartman: SUH-Weet

Hot Damn!

WASHINGTON - Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan, which supporters said were aimed at protecting local wineries and limiting underage drinkers from purchasing wine without showing proof of age. In all, 24 states have laws barring interstate shipments.

The court said the state bans are discriminatory and anticompetitive.

"States have broad power to regulate liquor," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers."

"If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms," he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The ruling means that legislatures in the 24 states barring out-of-state shipments will have to review their laws to make sure in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally. As a result, states could choose to allow wineries to sell to consumers directly, but could also bar all wineries from doing so.{...}

Hurrah for interstate commerce!

{Hat tip: Absinthe and Cookies}

Putin 15, Oligarchs Zip

Why am I not surprised at this outcome?

It'll be interesting to see what he's sentenced to.

Anyone want to wager that hard labor in Siberia's an option?

Pixy Misa Strikes Again!

Feisty Christina has a new home! Right here at Moo Knew!

Woohoo!

Make sure you go over and welcome her to our little home!

Suppositions II

Whoops. Dementee posted a reply to this post from the other day and I missed it. My bad.

My failings as a World Champion Web Surfer aside, let's get down to brass tacks. If you're interested, take the jump.

My oh my, how I love being the instigator. The trouble is, Kathy’s response to my post is one of emotion, not reasoned thought. While this is typical for a liberal, I always hope for more.

I’m going to respond to Kathy’s “Suppositions”, but I have to tread lightly so as ot{sic} to fall into the black hole of her logic.

I do not know why I feel the need to clarify my political position for Dementee's benefit, but I will anyway, just so we're all on the same page here.

I am a libertarian. Not a liberal. There is a difference. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Along the political spectrum, one can place me squarely on the right side, but closer to the middle than Dementee obviously is. Simply because one does not agree with the extreme right wing position of Dementee does not mean one is not a conservative, and hence can automatically be classified as a liberal. Life might be that simple for Dementee, but it's not for the rest of us whose political philosophy is not quite so easily defined. Methinks Dementee and Robert Novak would get along just swell.

As far as my political beliefs---registered Republican who has never voted Democratic ever---are concerned I will simply state that I believe in the priniciples set down by John Locke over two hundred years ago: life, liberty and property. These principles influenced Thomas Jefferson and the Framers of the Constitution greatly. In essence, I'm keepin' it real...dawg.

If the opposite of law and order is anarchy, I believe we need just enough law to keep from reaching anarchy and not one law more. This means I believe in the classical vision of the United States as the Framers of the Constitution intended: one where the overarching arm of The State was kept out of it as much as possible, because they, indeed, saw that anarchy brought about by excessive regulation and bureaucratic meanderings could be just as deadly to our Republic as the sort of anarchy that exists when there is no law.

If that makes me a "liberal" well, so be it. I don't think the Democratic Party would approve of my position, though.

Supposition 1: I would feel bad if a pharmacist denied be his/her services on moral grounds.

Response 1: My argument is based on religious beliefs which, by nature, are much less transient than one’s morals and are actually cited in the constitution. Kathy is attempting to change the premise and, therefore, the playing field by creating an equivalency between morals and religious belief.

So, basically what Dementee is saying here, I believe, is that religious beliefs automatically trump morals. Religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, while "morals" are not. Religious beliefs are supposedly "much less transient" than one's morals. Which is a whopping logical fallacy that I will come back to in a moment.

Ok, let's take a looksee to see precisely what the First Amendment says in this respect:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That first bit there is the one in question. With one one big gulp of air the Framers said that there shall be no state sponsored religion, while with the second breath they qualified and said that no one shall impinge on someone's religious rights. In his rush to embrace the latter, Dementee forgets the former. There shall be no state sponsorship of religion in this country. You are entitled to practice whatever religion you would like, but the Framers decreed that the State is not in the Religion business. Over the years, the State has held true to this belief and has told many, many people to get their religion out of state matters. Sort of like keeping the chocolate out of the peanut butter and vice versa. With these two elegant bits of language, the Framers guaranteed that the secular is just as equal as the religious. One does not trump the other. Both face cards hold the same value in this game of bridge we call America.

As far as Dementee's assertion that religious beliefs are "much less transient" than morals, well, let's go there for a moment, shall we? Morals are universal. Morals are, first and foremost, concerned with the difference between right and wrong. It is wrong to murder someone. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to have the hots for your neighbor's wife. These are universal values, they are secular, and you ignore them at your peril. The trouble starts when "religion" gets involved as the means of dissemination of said morals. "Don't kill someone" morphs into "Thou shalt not kill." And at that point your not only commiting a sin against whomever you might have killed, you're also committing a sin against God. I can only suppse that Dementee believes that by adding the God bit, there's more force to back up the "Thou shalt not" part, hence his assertion that religious beliefs are "less transient" than morals. Because by adding a third party to reinforce the difference between right and wrong that you and your conscience have to fight out---a third party which has some power with the Big Man---you're less likely to stray to the wrong side of the path if you fear the Big Man.

Dementee believes that I am trying to insert some sort of equivalency between morals and religious beliefs, when in fact this is already the case. Secular morals and religious beliefs are equal. Morals are universal. Religion is a man made insitution meant to spread morals. They are the same thing, only the matter of dissemination is different. In this country, the framers of the constitution said that morals are universal, but that religion divides us, hence we must fall back on universal, secular, morals to decide the difference between what is just and what is not just, not religion. They took the long view. Any attempt to cloak morals under the phrase "religious beliefs" is just someone looking for cover where they think they can find it.

Response 1A: I would not be happy if denied service, but I would “feel” no differently about my position.

Conclusion: Kathy’s attempt to blur the issue by introducing morals as equivalent to religious beliefs falls flat. As does her assumption that I would abandon my argument to serve selfish purposes. The fatal flaw in her argument is her belief that I am like her. That I will put my selfish wants above the rights of others.

Oh, I'm a selfish person because I think my right to medication is more important than someone else's right to believe whatever they choose.

I'm a bad, bad girl! Spank me!

My Goodness. Where to begin with this one? Hmmmm. Oh, I know! How's about we start with the false presumption that someone's religious beliefs trump my need for high-grade, potentially life-saving pharmaceuticals? Then we can move on to the fact that someone is, in essence, trying to me what I should believe. Then we can move onto the fact that since pharmacists are licensed by the whichever state they live in, if we allow them to choose not to dish out drugs they object to, why, that's just STATE SPONSORED RELIGION! Which I believe there to be a clause against in the Constitution, but darned if I can remember it!

But Gosh, I'm a selfish person! I believe I'm more important than someone's right to believe! How hubristic of me! Flog me now!

/drama queen

If you start this business of allowing pharmacists to not dish out drugs they have a problem with morally---and just remember that we've established that morals and religious beliefs under the Constitution are equal---where does it stop? Just to present another out-there hypothetical, there have been reports recently that so many people are on prozac that when they flush, the leftover bits find their way into the water supply and, consequently, into the fish population. What happens when an environmentalist preacher convinces a pharmacist parishoner that prescribing prozac is immoral because it's harming God's creatures? What happens when that parishoner decides, according to his or her religion, that he cannot dish out prozac because he believes it to go against God? Which serves the greater good there? Is a pharmacist's right to religious belief greater than the right for this prozac-prescribed person's right to live a productive, non-depressed life? If you say that the person's right to believe is greater, well, you're wrong. Each person's rights are equal under the law. The pharmacist has the right to believe; the patient has the right to receive a medicine which they were prescribed legally by a licensed physician. The problem comes in when Dementee automatically assumes that religious beliefs trump the patient's rights. That is incorrect. They are equal. Again, they have the same value, and just because the Constitution says that there shall be nothing that stands in the way of anyone practicing the religion of their choice does not mean that right trumps all else. In such a circumstance one is trying to impinge the liberty of another person by forcing them to subscribe to beliefs they might not hold. As such, one must err on the side of the prescribee, not the pharmacist. The pharmacist is a representative of the state, because they are licensed by the state, which as we've already established, is not in the religion business.

{Ed. I'm using the word 'trump" an awful lot, aren't I?}

Supposition 2: I would feel differently if a pharmacist was holding my prescription hostage and forcing their morals down my throat.

Response 2: Again with the feelings and morals? Can we not stick to the original premise of refusing service on the religious grounds? And pack up your feeling in your old kit bag. Feelings have no place or meaning in a debate.

Oh, Christ. Time to whip out the old "I was talking about religious beliefs" saw again. Sheesh. It's a bit tiresome, no? Let me repeat it for your edification: religious beliefs and morals are the same thing. They are equivalent.

As I have no old kit bag, I have nothing to pack up "my feelings" in. And I wasn't talking about my feelings in the original post, I was talking about what I "supposed" Dementee's feelings would be. Get it? The post was titled "Suppositions." Remember? I was supposing about Dementee's feelings, not mine. This, of course, presumes he has any to begin with.

Response 2A: I never have and never will approve of holding one’s prescription hostage. Nor would I stand for someone cramming their moral or religious beliefs down my throat. Nor would I run to the Nanny State if a pharmacist, or any other professional, was doing one, the other or both. There’s a simple solution Kathy: Raise hell, walk away, protest the store, spread the word, go to management, etc., etc., etc.

Well, it's good to know that Dementee wouldn't like having someone's prescription held hostage. However, he should know that this has already happened a few times and it's bound to happen more often once pharmacists are allowed this "right." A pharmacist is in a position of power. Furthermore, they already are, in their refusal to dish out the drugs, forcing someone to get in line with their beliefs. They are, in a de facto sort of way, being forced to believe the same thing as the pharmacist. They are being held accountable to the same religious standards the pharmacist believes in, which could easily be defined as proselytizing. Mild proselytizing, but proselytizing nonetheless. The pharmacist is telling them what is right and wrong in their world and forcing them to believe in the same things. How Dementee cannot see this is already the case, I don't know.

Since Dementee states would refuse to run to the nanny-state to ensure his right to medication isn't impinged we must make a few assumptions about his beliefs politically. He undoubtedly believes in the free market, and in competition. Now, this is all well and good providing there is a competitive market. There might not be. Say the owner of a pharmacy in a small town---where there is not another pharmacy for miles on end---is also the sole pharmacist and refuses to fill a prescription because he or she objects to the drug on moral grounds. Who is the prescribee to complain to? It's all well and good to boycott a business when you've got other options but a lot of people in rural America do not have the option to go somewhere else when something like this happens. They just don't. Saying they can resort to mail-order doesn't cut it when the prescription is time-crucial. Saying they can complain to the management isn't going to cut it, either, because the management is the one refusing to fill the prescription.

I am a big believer in the free market. I wouldn't mind one bit if a pharmacist posted a notice saying to go elsewhere for such and such drugs. I would have no issues with it in a small town, either. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. They inform the prescribee of this when they've got the prescription in hand. What have these pharmacists done instead of hanging up signs? They've ignored the free market and have gone running to the government for protection in the form of laws that specifically state they can skip filling prescriptions if they object morally to said drugs. They've climbed up on the cross of "Someone wants to tell me what to believe and I'm protected by the First Amendment!" following the time honored example set down by the ACLU, while conveniently forgetting that the state has licensed them not to dish out morals, but rather drugs. If that doesn't strike you as somewhat hypocritical, well, you're not wired correctly. Furthermore, to imply that people shouldn't go running to the government in such a circumstance is erroneous. These pharmacists have gone to the seat of power to make sure they've got the law in their corner. It seems only fair for people to go to the government if they've got a problem with it.

If you live by the sword, you'd better be prepared to die by it.

Supposition 3: The establishment clause isn’t going to shield a pharmacist from a lawsuit when someone dies because of their refusal to dish out drugs they might have problems with.

Response 3: I don’t know how a court would rule in this case, but I do know that no rights are absolute. After all, shouting “fire” in a theater is not protected speech nor is smoking peyote a protected religious exercise. But neither of these exceptions to the first amendment negate the first amendment.

Under our current system of torts, I can very easily see where a pharmacist would have their pants sued right off them if there were adverse consequences to their refusal. Hell, people sue when they slip on a grape in the grocery store. Would Dementee have us believe that some pharmacy wouldn't receive the same---or more likely, better---treatment from the Trial Lawyers of America? I don't think he would, but the point stands: the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is not going to protect pharmacists in such a circumstance. They will have to pay, and pay dearly for their refusal, which, of course, will drive up the costs for all of us, because not only will they have to pay out settlements, the cost of their malpractice insurance will go up as well. Then, what do you think the poor, widdle discriminated-against pharmacists are going to do?

Why, of course, they'll run to their state legislatures, looking for liability shield laws. Which, of course, they'll get in some states. Which, of course, will be struck down by some appeals court as a violation of the establishment clause. Which of course will provoke more and more whining about "activist judges" who are bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country!

Which of course will also prompt legislation in Congress that federally forbids such actions entirely. Because no self-respecting Senator or Congressperson could resist this sort of debate. If you think the Democrats will let this one stand, you're nuts. They'll propose more regulation to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. And while they're at it, they'll also throw in a bunch of other regulations, because that's what they do. And that will wind up costing us all more money.

Bleh. Who needs it? I certainly don't, but the pharmacists asked for it, so I suppose we're all screwed when it comes to entertaining C-SPAN viewing. Thanks!

Bottom line: Kathy does not have a leg to stand on. I cite the Constitution, she responds with the most extreme example – death – to argue against it. I talk about the free exercise of religion, she responds with talk of morals and feelings. I say let the market work, she prefers the Nanny State.

She is Left...I am Right.

Again. Bleh. Let's just reiterate. Morals are equivalent to religious beliefs. I can quote the Constitution as well as Dementee. Yeah, someone could die as a result of this stupid legislation and some pharmacist will have their pants sued off as a result. Not to mention the extra penalties added on for pain and suffering. I would actually prefer for the free market to provide the resolution. Unfortunately, as I've laid out above, the instigators didn't rely on the free market to solve their problems, so I don't see why anyone should have to resort to it to solve the problems these pharmacists caused. In other words, they started it.

Then to wrap up his argument, Dementee resorts to lining us up on the political spectrum again, you know, just to clarify things. And he does it in such a clever way, doesn't he? Gosh! He deserves a spot on the talk show du jour, doesn't he? Because he can sum things up so neatly! Gracious, I'll just have to get his autograph right now, before he gets famous, so I can put it up on Ebay and make a profit when the getting is good! {Insert dramatic swoon here}

Of course, this, like Dementee's argument, is bullshit. But you already knew that.

Chuckle Time

I have to say that I enjoyed this article immensely.

The other 364 days out of the year, politicians in Washington act like they've never heard the word "constituency," let alone have realized that they are, indeed, in hock to the voters of their respective districts for their jobs.

This one day, however, when their jobs are on the line because they didn't have enugh clout to keep their local bases off the base closing list, well, they're scrambling around like a half dozen eggs thrown into a pan of hot bacon grease.

I just love it. It's so enjoyable watching them squirm for a change.

A Couple of Linguistic Pet Peeves

I'm not extraordinarily fussy with language. While I like playing with it as much as the next writer, more often than not I have a tendency to stick with plain language to drive my point home. So, really, I'm the least likely candidate to pick on someone's use of language, but, on Fox News Channel over the past couple of days there have been a few linguistic follies repeated ad nauseam that have driven me to the point of distraction.

Just to get them off my chest, and to entertain and enlighten you all, I shall list them out here.

1. "Shot Dead." As in, "So and so was shot dead on an L.A. freeway and it was broadcast on live television." I cannot tell you how much I hate these two words when they are thrown together. I will not quibble that "shot dead" is efficient language. Two words are used to get a message across, instead of five or ten or fifteen, which is handy when you have a word count to pay heed to and there are other things to focus on because their death is not the real story, but rather an unfortunate by-product. Yet, I cannot help but feel it's callous language. That its usage alone denies a victim of their dignity. I hate this phrase. It knocks someone's death down to two words. How cruel is that? Particularly when the rest of the story is nothing but hot air or bloated speculation meant to fill air-time, rather than to inform? The repeated usage of this phrase irks me to no end.

2. Filibustering. As in, "Senate Democrats are filibustering Republican judicial nominees." I did a doubletake on this one last night. It was so blatantly wrong that it stuck out like a sore thumb. This, to put it mildly, is inaccurate language. This is lazy language. If you took this literally, you would be well within your rights to believe Teddy Kennedy is out there on the Senate floor right now, a coffee cup full of scotch at the ready, reading the collected works of William Shakespeare into the Senate record. He's not. Neither is Hilary Clinton warming up her vocal chords by singing scales at a piano bar in Georgetown. They're not filibustering anything. Yet. The Democrats have threatened to filibuster Republican judical nominees; they have not, however, followed through. There is a difference. The threat of the filibuster is not the same thing as the actual filibuster itself. Yet, as far as the media is concerned, it is. Hence the liberal usage of the word "filibustering" to describe something that hasn't happened yet. In the process of using this lazy language they are misleading people. They skip over procedural steps that the public should be informed about; they are creating a foregone conclusion where there is none.

Since the Republican leadership is threatening to get rid of the filibuster altogether, it might behoove this news channel (and all the other ones) to describe the filibuster correctly, so as not to mislead their audience on this very important bit of news.

Ok, I feel better now. Throw your own lingustic pet peeves into the comments section. You'll feel better, too. I promise.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

That's how the line goes, right? I can't remember my Hamlet this morning, but the sentiment fits.

What the hell does this mean? How can the Cake Eater Chronicles be #445 in the Ecosystem?

Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute.

Just in case you're thinking I believe this blog should be higher, think again. I believe it should be lower in the rankings. A few weeks ago I was in the seven hundreds. Now I'm in the mid-400's? Something's really wrong.

All I can think is that the Ecosystem must have been consuming large quantities of beer (hey, maybe it's been hanging out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?) is drunk and is about to let loose with one heck of a belch.

UPDATE: Title fixed.

I Will Undoubtedly Get Pelted For This But...

I have to say it anyway.

You can't drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08 in Minnesota.

But if you're a cop, apparently you can be out there policing---with a loaded sidearm---with a BAC of .20---more than twice the legal limit.

Which of course doesn't count the fact that Sgt. Vick got into his car and was in the process of driving home when he was murdered.

According to this paper:

Two thirds of drivers in alcohol related fatal accidents have a BAC of .14 or higher. The average BAC involved in fatal accidents is .17

Think about that one for a minute, eh?

I'm sure Sgt. Vick was a good guy and a good cop, and he most certainly didn't deserve what happned to him. I'm not trying to smear the guy. Really, I'm not. He was out doing his job, which meant he was working undercover. In bars. Where you have to drink to fit in. I think he probably had one too many and that's that.

While I am concerned about the fact that I'm pretty damn sure the St.Paul police, had he lived, would have done nothing more than slapped him on the wrist for this behavior---that he would have in no way, shape or form, ever been prosecuted for this behavior, unlike the general population---this isn't really what interests me. What I find curious are Sgt. Vick's defenders.

His defenders say "he made a mistake" and his life and death shouldn't be judged by that one mistake. The Mayor of St. Paul said it was important that no one should "revictimize the family." If Sgt. Vick simply "made a mistake" and no one should be "revictimizing" his family for said mistake, why are people jumping to his defense left and right, instead of saying, "yeah, it happens" and moving along? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we treat those who have had too much to drink in this day and age? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we look at alcohol in this country nowadays?

Being drunk every once and a while never used to be anything to be ashamed about. Maybe you forgot to eat before you went out. Maybe you just had one too many. It never used to signal that you were a problem person because you tied one on and never was the reputation you worked hard over a lifetime to establish on the line because of a night of drinking. Not so anymore, it seems. As far as society is concerned, if you have a BAC as high as Sgt. Vick's, you're a bad person. Unless, of course, you happen to be Sgt. Vick. Then you're not a bad person. You just made a mistake. That by releasing this information, and then commenting on it, we're all speaking ill of the dead.

Ummm, I don't think so. I think this controversy points directly toward the fact that in this country we are moving toward a new age of prohibition. One where excessive regulation will act in place of a new Eighteenth Amendment. Outlawing alcohol outright didn't make the problems associated with those who drink---drunk driving, fighting, excessive screwing---disappear, so now the conventional wisdom is to not only make buying and consuming alcohol a nanny-state, regulatory nightmare, but it's to also shame people into line. The bar goes lower and lower every year in regards to what is acceptable behavior where alcohol is concerned. If something doesn't happen sometime soon, pretty soon you'll have a wine box in the fridge that will have a breathalyzer attached to it and it won't dispense any more wine if you blow above the legal limit.

I don't think Sergeant Vick was a bad guy because he had a BAC of .20, even if I don't think he should have been out policing with that much liquor in his system. But how many people do think Sgt. Vick was a bad guy simply because he had that much liquor in his system? That's the question that matters. How many have made assumptions precisely about what type of person he was strictly because of his BAC level? After all, if no one had made this assumption, he wouldn't need any defenders, would he? It would all be taken in stride.

Think about that for a minute and then try and tell me this country hasn't gotten out of line with its attitude toward alcohol.

Worth The Wait

Puffy has finally completed his research into Tuesday's topic and has posted.

Don't go and read it unless you have one of two things handy: a. a shower capable of pumping out gallon after gallon of cold water or b. a partner in crime who can help.

Dang!

Good Deeds Never Go Unpunished

You know, I always had this idea that France, and Paris in particular, appreciated art. After all, they've got the Louvre. Impressionism, the Grunge Movement of the late 19th Century, started there as a backlash to the overstylized manuevers of the Romantic period and the Salon that appreciated them. Van Gogh whacked off his ear in Provence. Picasso did some of his best work in France. I could go on, but I think you're getting what I'm saying: France, and again Paris in particular, has always been associated with art and the appreciation thereof in the minds of many people.

Not so anymore. Courtesy of Fausta, we have this lovely tidbit:

The French art world is reeling after this week's announcement by the billionaire businessman Francois Pinault that he is pulling the plug on what was to be a major new gallery of contemporary art in Paris.

The 69-year-old tycoon, who is a close friend of President Jacques Chirac, was planning to put on display his 2,500-strong collection of late 20th century works in a futuristic museum to be built on an island in the river Seine.

But on Monday Pinault said that he was so fed up with planning delays and other bureaucratic obstacles that he had decided to stop the whole project.

Instead, his collection - including pieces by Miro, Jackson Pollock and Jeff Koons as well as British artists Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin - will be housed in the magnificent 18th century Palazzo Grassi on the Grand Canal in Venice, which Pinault bought last month.{...}

Gallery-owner Emmanuel Perrotin said that "once again it holds up to ridicule the sluggishness of the whole French system".

"Here was someone who wanted to build a museum as big as the Pompidou centre... Seen from abroad, Paris keeps its image as a small town in the provinces."

Francois Pinault has been buying modern art for more than 30 years
Even the left-leaning Le Monde newspaper agreed: "The fiasco has sent a clear message, discouraging anyone tempted by a similar adventure.

"It underlines the supreme difficulty of launching an initiative in the field of the arts outside the path of public aid. This situation is untenable. The state cannot do everything.{...}

Fausta shows her shrewdness yet again when she says:

"I have the distinct impression that the Boulogne-Billancourt bureaucrats assumed that the Pinault project was "a done deal"(*) and that Pinault wouldn't dare locate the collection anywhere but in France.

Clearly, they were wrong."

What have we here? A France that was so unenthusiastic about the fact a private entrepreneur wanted to set up an art gallery that would be good for the economy that the entrepreneur in question became completely frustrated and set up shop in Venice. I'm not a business world junkie, by any stretch of the imagination, but even I know who Pinault is and he has a reputation as a shark. The article mentioned that he owned Gucci, and this should tell you something very important. Gucci was the subject of a hostile takeover by LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy), another French luxury goods maker a few years back. Bernard Arnault, the head of LVMH, tried for a very long period of time to get Gucci under the LVMH umbrella and ultimately failed. Pinault was the man who benefitted from Arnault's battle: he was patient and let Arnault do all the heavy lifting, then swooped in as a white knight on Gucci's behalf and snaked the company out from under his competitors nose. This shows that the man is canny and has plenty of patience. That he lost patience with the French government in all its local and national flavors should tell you something is not quite right here.

For all their moaning and whining about the assault on French culture, it doesn't even seem as if the French appreciate it enough these days.

Life Sucks. Get a Helmet.

This is just a friendly, Friday-ish reminder from me that when you think you're life is shit, and you're weeping and wailing about it, and in general feeling sorry for yourself about nothing serious, well, just remember there is somebody out there who's life definitely is shit.

As the wise man once said, "Perspective matters."

The new landlord moved into the Cake Eater Pad on May 1st, and we're pretty happy with the guy. So far, so good. He's a little loud when watching the NBA playoffs, but that's forgivable. I get a little loud when I watch the news. It's all good. The only issue I have with him is that he keeps putting off calling the plumber to see what needs to be done about my dishwasher that has been on the fritz since last fall. No worries, though. He'll get to it eventually; he's not ignoring me out of spite or cheapness like the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb would have done. He's young, too. As in his middle-twenties. Neither is he married. Hence, he has a roommate, who is yet another really nice, unmarried young man in his mid-twenties.

Well, the husband was chatting with the roommate last night and during the course of the conversation the husband learned that the roommate is going into the hospital today for surgery. He told the husband because he wanted to let us know that no one was going to be around this weekend, as the landlord is out of town on business. You see, the reason for the surgery is that he has testicular cancer and he has to have something (I think you can probably guess what) removed. The husband didn't give me many details about the conversation, because I think he was a bit stunned and didn't ask. The offer of "if you need anything at all, please let us know," was proffered, but I don't know that the guy feels comfortable enough with us to take us up on it. And that's fine: we've only known him for thirteen days.

I just saw him walking to his car to go to the hospital. His girlfriend was with him and he looked determined. He was carrying his suitcase, swinging it mildly, like he knew he wasn't going to be able to do that when he came home, so he was going to get in as much of that activity while he could. He was walking with a distinct purpose, like the time had finally arrived for him to go off to war, and there was no need to dither about like a sentimental fool. It was inevitable. The thought, "let's get it over with" was written all over his young face. His girlfriend looked resigned, maybe even a little tired, and her lips were puckered with worry. She was dressed comfortably in a polar fleece, basketball pants and cross-trainers for what will undoubtedly be a long day of sitting around a hospital, waiting for doctors to come and tell her what the scoop is.

Life, at this particular point in time, is sucking pretty badly for these two people. But it's obvious that they've acquired helmets and have put them on, to protect their noggins from whatever might come flying at them in the next few days.

I suppose this should serve as a friendly reminder that no matter what you're going through, it could always be worse. Sometimes we need a reminder every now and again of this fact. If you're feeling sorry for yourself this morning, and are weeping and wailing about your own problems, well, take a lesson from these two people: get your own helmet and batter through your own problems, because, after all, it could be worse.

Hmmph

Well then.

Apparently you all don't think I'm the fount of wisdom I make myself out to be because no one---not one single, solitary person---sent a question to the divas sez mailbox for me to answer.

Hmmmph.

I was going to go and snatch a bunch of questions from Carolyn Hax's column, and answer them in my own way, but I just figured it's not worth my time to try and entertain and enlighten a bunch of people who just don't give a damn.

You'll excuse me, but I need to go and milk my martyr complex for what it's worth.

Hell? Handbasket? We Report---You Decide

Man, you really gotta wonder about the Smithsonian's standards nowadays.

It seems they'll let just anyone speak in authoritative tones nowadays.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Dennis Miller is going off the air!

Waaaaaaaaaah!

I'm bummed. As is Jonathan, who was actually a guest a few times.

I liked Dennis' show, not simply because I'm a Miller Junkie and have been since I was in high school when he did the news on SNL (Tina Fey? Who the hell is that?), but rather because he made a conscientious effort to have guests who would not turn into a pack of screaming mimis. That was one thing you never had to deal with on his show---people screaming at and over each other to the point where no one got heard. I know that quality apparently makes for great tee vee, but it's not appealing to some of us. I enjoy a good catfight as much as the next person, but political news shows nowadays, like Hardball are a waste of time, in my humble opinion. I have no idea how someone can sit through an hour of that crap. No one listens, people flog books relentlessly, they spout the most inane opinions. Ugh. Who needs it? Dennis, while still the biggest wise-ass known to mankind, nonetheless respected reason and civil discourse. What exactly does it say about television viewers nowadays that a show where people were actually allowed to state an argument that--ahem---could be heard wasn't watched?

Fare thee well, Dennis. Good luck and if you ever get another talk show and need a guest who can crack wise, I am so there.

Provided I don't get that deer-caught-in-the-headlights thing going on.

Bucky's Gone Round The Bend

Oy vey. He's wondering if WWII was really worth it because the vile governmental system that was Communism wasn't destroyed at the same time Fascism was.

Some fascinating, out-of-this-frickin'-world money quotes would include:

{...}As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings. {...}

But wait. In true Ron Popeil fashion, there's more:

{...}Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war? {...}

{...}True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?{...}

This, to put it mildly, is one of the biggest chunks of bullshit that Bucky's ever produced and that's saying quite a bit, given how much bullshit Bucky produces on a daily basis just by opening his big fat mouth to order a coffee at the local deli.

I honestly don't know where to start. The blatant revisionist history? The overall wrongness of his conclusions? The fact his Lindbergh-esque isolationist bias is showing? Good God, my mind is a jumble.

Thankfully this is not a problem, because Martini Boy has done an excellent job of fisking this puppy. Go and read.

Wonky

Something is really, really wrong with the internet right now.

It seems like some dot com addresses are down. That's bad when its yahoo dot com that you're trying to reach. Some dot org's are down, too. This is really weird.

I don't know what got hacked or who hacked it--- and of course, this is presuming the problem was caused by hackers---but wow. I haven't seen anything like this in a while. The husband is wondering if a big patch of DNS servers are down somewhere.

I dunno, but whatever it was, it's really screwing the pooch.

UPDATE: Google's down. I can get to Blogspot blogs, but I can't get to their parent company's site. What the heck is going on here?

What's weird is that my site is still up and running, while I can't get to other moo knew sites. WTF?

UPDATE DEUX: But I have to say, WOW, what's left of the internet is really freakin' speedy. It's taking no time at all to post this stuff. A few seconds, at most. Which doesn't usually happen.

UPDATE THREE: Do you think a few people are now realizing how addicted to the Internet they really are right about now? Heheheheh.

UPDATE FOUR: And we're back up and running.

Cake Eater Approved Mockery

Apparently, the fact that The Huffington Post is a one-stop-shop for all your mockery needs wasn't good enough for some people. They had to go one step further.

Heh.

(Make sure to check out the blogroll. You'll get a chuckle.)

(Hat Tip: Hog On Ice)

Oh Well

Moo Knew has been having some issues today. Hell if I know what the problem was, but it was acting suspiciously like that red headed stepchild of the blogosphere that is Blogspot. It even double posted once. Hmmph. That's a first.

Anyway, now that it's working again, well, I don't really feel like writing a damn thing, but rather have decided to take a bubble bath.

Pfft. I'm fickle that way. Sue me.

Oh, Jeez

Ok, is this scaring the heck out of anyone else? I need to know that I'm not alone here, folks. Back me up.

Makes one wonder if one should pay their taxes if this is the best the goverment can come up with.

{ducking and running}

Denying Financial Aid

Interesting piece today in the Opinion Journal about Columbia University's refusal to bring ROTC back to campus.

{...}Yet Columbia remains a holdout, not least because of Mr. Bollinger's dismal leadership. It certainly didn't have to be this way. The 1994 Solomon Amendment forbids universities that exclude ROTC from their campuses from receiving Pentagon funding--reason enough, we would think, for a university president to bring his school into compliance with the law. In April 2003, Columbia held a student referendum on ROTC. Two-thirds voted to bring it back. This led the university senate to appoint a 10-member panel to examine the subject; it split down the middle on the question of readmitting ROTC "as soon as is practicable."{...}

See, this is where the Opinon Journal missed a big opportunity to take a big, fat whack at Columbia's politically correct, lefty ponfitications.

ROTC, along with being an armed forces training/recruitment device, is also a huge scholarship program. You see, if you join up with the Reserve Officer's Training Corps, you get money to pay for school, and while you are required to serve for a specified period of time after you graduate, it's no different than the Americorps program, which I don't believe Columbia has an issue with.

Columbia, with its hoity-toity attitude is depriving its students of the potential of financial aid. You know, getting the government to pay for education, which is something I believe is something the lefty professors and adminstrators would advocate. This policy, one could also suppose if one were so inclined, discriminates against those who perhaps don't qualify for a large financial aid package, who haven't received scholarships ad infinitum, and need yet another way to pay for school without taking out a small fortune in student loans.

How much is tuition at Columbia again?

Too bad the Opinion Journal missed that one.

Drunk Riding

A dude in Kentucky was arrested for riding his horse while drunk.

@#$#!!@#@ MADD!

I hate OMVI laws. For the uninitiated, OMVI means "Operating a Moving Vehicle While Intoxicated." That doesn't necessarily exclude a car or a motorcycle, but could also include riding mowers, bicycles, and yes, horses. A horse, it seems, is a "moving vehicle." Don't tell the horse; he'll probably be insulted.

I would really like to know how many people were killed in the past five years by a drunk lawn mower driver. Same with drunk cyclists. Do we really need to protect the citizenry of this country from these people? Is there such a dire need for protection from these people that the police really need to be arresting drunken equestrians? I don't think so. I think this is about money and the raising thereof for shiny new cop cars and cop shops. And God only knows anyone charged with an intoxication offense of any kind gets milked for all they're worth.

It's just like speeding tickets; it's easy money, baby. Why the heck not charge someone?

Nanny state, we greet thee.

Bastards

Die trackback spammers, DIE!

Sigh

{Insert Edna Mode Voice Here}

Questions, darling, questions. I need questions for Divas Sez on Friday.

Don't be mediocre, darlings. That simply wouldn't do.

/Edna voice

{Clicket on baby-got-back-girl over on the right sidebar to receive an email prompt}

Day Eleven Questions

Alrighty then. Are you ready for Day Eleven's Questions in THE FIRST (AND LAST) STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST?

Of course you are, being the good little geeks that you invariably are.

Far be it from me to keep you in suspense...so away we go.

• What Rebel snowspeeder pilot had the callsign Rogue Two?
• Who reactivated the hyperdrive on the Falcon during its escape from Cloud City?
• What was Han Solo's first line in The Empire Strikes Back?
• What, according to Han, was the destination of the stolen Imperial shuttle?
• What creature is the typical meal for a wampa?
• Who went full-throttle during his Death Star trench run to keep TIE fighters at bay?

Go to it. As always, either throw your answers in the comments section or send a secret transmission to the Evil Cake Eater Empire's mailbox.

Day Ten Answers/Winners

Our winners in Day Ten of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST are...

Doug (of course) and Ith!

Congratulations to you both!

You can find the answers after the jump.

• Who grabbed his blaster rifle for protection when he saw Sand People approaching?

Luke

• What spearlike weapons do Sand People wield?

Gaderffii, or gaffi sticks

• Who frightened away a group of Sand people?

Obi-Wan Kenobi

• What planet are Sand People native to?

Tatooine

• What creatures do Sand People ride?

Banthas

• What order do Sand People ride their mounts in?

Single-file

Sniffer's Row

Ah, it's Tuesday so of course that means the Delightful Demystifying Divas and myself are handling yet another hard-hitting expose. Our topic today: strip clubs.

Ahhhhhh. Yeah, I know. everyone's favorite subject. Well, at least it is for some of the men in the audience. For the women? Well, that's another story entirely. In my experience, women, on the whole, do not like strip clubs. Nor, for the most part, do they like strippers---unless they happen to be one. Strippers are seen as a threat to a happy home. This is why men, wisely enough, tend not to advertise when they go to a club. When was the last time any man told his wife, "Yeah, honey, I'll be at such and such bar for a time, then we're planning on going over to the King of Diamonds after that. I don't know when I'll get home. But I'm going to need cash, and I'm going to need it in small denominations, so can you get me $100 in five dollar bills when you go to the bank?"

Yeah, like that's going to go over well.

If they divulge that information at all it's after the fact and not before. I know many a woman who simply does not want to know, so it's a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. One of the husband's friends, however, has a wife who would hit the roof if she found out where he'd been, so he has, on occasion, asked lil' ol' me to cover for him, should his wife call and wonder where he is. Fortunately, she's never called, so I've never had to cover for him.

I, on the other hand, have absolutely no illusions about the husband's activities. He's been. I know he's been. He knows I know because he's told me. I know that, sometime in the future, he'll go again. I see no reason to disillusion myself in regards to this, or demand that he not go: I wouldn't want to put him in a position where he has to lie to me, and I must say that I don't understand women who don't get this. Men are going to go to strip clubs. This is a fact of life: why not just deal with the facts as they are rather than trying to bend them to your particular whims? While you may think that your man's visits to a club means something about your relationship, you should probably know that, unless your man is going on a daily basis, those visits have absolutely nothing to do with your relationship. They do, however, have everything to do with looking at naked women.

Men go to look at naked ladies. They have reached the stage of their life when they have some brass in pocket, and they can pay to see a naked woman, rather than having to work for that particular payoff. I truly believe this activity is them trying to get in touch with the glories of sex and women as seen through the eyes of a teenager, when sex was new and any naked woman was gorgeous, even if she was, in reality, a hag. Nowadays, they just let their eyes wander in an unfocused sort of way to get back to that feeling. They just can't touch.

Now, I can understand how men can go to these places. No hassles there. What I don't understand is why women would want to go. And there are women who dig those places. If you're one of them, well, know this much: I don't get you. Those places are for men. They appeal to men. They smell like men. They are populated with men. This is their clubhouse. If you show up at one of these places, a muppet will pop up and will start singing "Which one of these things is not like the other?" Furthermore, I don't think men want you there. It ruins the illusion for them. How do I know this? Because I've been, and I was a less than enthusiastic visitor. If you want the rest of the story, take the jump.

And no, Mom, you're not allowed to take the jump.

For those of you who would like to skip the jump, you can go and read what the other Delicious Demystifying Divas have to say about this topic. Make sure to go over to Meanderings where one of our Red Hat divas, Michelle, has also thrown in her two cents. You can also go and read if Pete, Zonker, Puffy or Phin have confirmed or denied my suspicions.

UPDATE: Pammy also has chimed in.

You see, I'd lost a bet. The bet being that if I and my friend could win this particular game of darts, our boys would submit to whatever we wanted to do for an evening. If we lost, well, we had to submit to whatever they wanted to do.

Of course, after my friend and I laughed about taking them to the opera, the Law of "Learn How Not To Shoot Your Mouth Off Before The Deed Is Done, You Silly Wench," kicked in. The husband's friend promptly threw two triple bullseyes in a row and closed out that particular game of cricket without needing the third throw.

Their chosen activity? Of course, being the bright little things you, my devoted Cake Eater readers, are, you have guessed that their chosen activity was to head out to Clearwater Beach in far West Des Moines. For those of you who have never been to Des Moines, well, you should know that Clearwater Beach isn't a beach at all. I don't even believe there's a body of water nearby that would have even provided inspiration for said name. Clearwater Beach, however poorly named, is the street in the middle of nowhere where all the local strip clubs reside.

Now, I'm no welsher. When I make a bet, I make it with the full intent of paying up if I should lose, so I tried to hold my head up high when I walked into the club. I whined a bit, I will admit, but I sucked it up and prayed that this would be over with quickly. And it was over quickly, but I had to endure a bit of humilation in the meantime.

The husband, the friends, and myself, after paying seven bucks each for a can of Budweiser, gravitated toward the stage because the place was relatively unpopulated. It seemed silly, even to me---who didn't want to be anywhere near the stage---to hang out near the back. There were a few guys here or there, but it was apparently too early in the evening for the place to be packed. Not like you would have noticed the place was packed even if there happened to be a lot of customers because this bar was massive. It was easily a quarter of the size of a Costco, and it was, for a low budget strip club clean and decently decorated, with padded chairs (with vinyl seats, of course) and plenty of tables and booths. They had an above average sound system, the stage was lit up professionally and there were three poles, placed equidistant from each other along the thirty-foot runway.

Now, see, here's where I made a grave tactical error. If I'd been a solider in battle, instead of a girl in a very male place, you could have said I'd set myself up for an ambush. They would, forever, be teaching my mistake at West Point as a "what not to do" situation. What was this tactical mistake? you ask. Well, here it is: I sat down. Everyone else remained standing. The friends were off to my side, and the husband placed himself directly behind my chair, which I thought was, at a reasonable five feet, far enough away from the stage to avoid direct contact with the strippers. Well, it wasn't. Particularly when the husband whipped out a twenty dollar bill and held it over my head.

Yep. That's right. The husband bought me a dance.

Sigh.

Now, bottle blondes in red satin bikini bottoms with rhinestone accents placed strategically on the hips, four-inch stilleto heels, with feather boas snaking along the stage after them are not my thing. Never have been. Never will be. Sorry, guys. I'm just not one of those chicks whose ultimate fantasy is to be with another woman. Doesn't do a damn thing for me. Again, I'm sorry to shatter your illusions on this one. You can, however, find some consolation in the fact that if I don't dig women, well, I was as squirmy as a worm when I received something you'll never get when you go to a strip club: permission to touch.

This surprised me quite a bit. I didn't think anyone was allowed to touch, but she invited me to because, apparently, I wasn't that threatening. Go figure. {insert rolling of eyes here} But I didn't want to touch her. I really didn't. Watching was one thing. Touching was entirely another. It wasn't because I was afraid to touch, but rather because I didn't think that if, God Forbid, I found myself stripping for a living, that I would appreciate having a set price on allowing some stranger to feel me up. I felt like I was, in some small way, violating her and I didn't want any part of it. Yet, after much encouragement not only from those who had accompanied me, but from the stripper herself, I started touching her legs. And that was as far as I got...

...because she had the softest and smoothest legs I've ever felt. Mine aren't even that good and mine are pretty damn nice, if I don't say so myself. I wanted to know what the secret to those legs was, and so I asked, "What razor do you use?" And we got to talking about shaving. It was a topic she warmed to, and had a lot to say about in between twirls and shoving her cleavage in front of my nose. Just for the record, she used one of those little pink Bic razors and soap. She didn't even use fancy lotion. She had, apparently, been blessed by the gene fairy in the good skin department.

Shortly after that, thank Goodness, my time expired and she went offstage after kissing me on the cheek and telling me I was a good sport. She also went offstage with a five dollar tip from me tucked into the portion of her g-string that rode over her hip. (Yeah, I went there. It seemed the least I could do.)

And this is why I do not understand why women would want to go to one of these places. I wound up, front and center, for the main event and I ended up chatting with my dancer about shaving. I don't find sex offered up on a platter to be erotic. That's not what does it for me. I will make the grand statement and say that I don't think most hetero women find it erotic either. It's just not our bag. And to go someplace that offers it up for people---namely men---who do like it, well, it just doesn't ring true.

Leaps

Proof that some leaps of the imagination can be baffling.

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.{...}

{empahsis mine}

Let's see if we can follow the logic the FRC is using here. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. They believe sex before marriage is bad. Hence if you're vaccinated against HPV, you are, from there on in, going to be ruled by your hormones, because, obviously any lessons you've received over the course of a lifetime about abstaining from sex before marriage will fly right out of your head the minute the vaccine hits your bloodstream. It's apparently tricky that way. It gives women "a license to engage in premarital sex."

But Kath, you say, how could this affect other women?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's follow that one down the line, shall we?

What about married women? What does that mean about them if they get vaccinated against HPV? Hmmm. Could that mean they're going to go right out and cheat on their husbands? Why would they need it if they're in a committed, monogamous relationship? Hmmmm? Furthermore, I suspect these wicked married women are just giving their husbands a free pass to go out and get laid in the back of their local Perkins if they get vaccinated, because why would they need to protect themselves with the vaccine if it were otherwise?

What about rape victims? Does this mean that if a woman was vaccinated against HPV that they were asking for it? That this, like a woman asking for her rapist to use a condom, means she consented? Well, then, she wasn't really raped, was she?

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

For an organization that promotes issues of faith, well, it sure would be nice if the FRC had some in women.

{Hat Tip: Andy}

Suppositions

One can only suppose that Dementee might feel a wee bit different about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for moral reasons when someone tries to deny him his hypertension medication one day with the excuse that hypertension is a gift from God, a reminder of how fragile we human beings really are, that perhaps he should cut back on the pork rinds instead of resorting to Mother Pharmaceutical to solve his problems. After all, he can just hightail it down the street and find another pharmacy, can't he? Well, that would suppose that Dementee lives in a large metropolitan area, instead of a rural one, where there's only one pharmacy within a few hundred square miles.

Methinks Dementee might also feel differently when another pharmacist decides to hold his prescription hostage because not only is said pharmacist not morally obliged to fill Dementee's prescription, he's in a position where he could shove his morals down Dementee's throat---who may or may not agree with them. And we all realize what a tempting option that is, don't we kids? Mmmhmmmm. Good stuff there, the opportunity to proselytize from the back of a Walgreens! There's no power to be had at the back of a Walgreens, is there? Nope. None at all. After all, there's no state license required to dish out drugs...anyone can do it!

Perhaps, until then, Dementee should realize that this is a slippery slope he's advocating and perhaps, just perhaps, it requires a more nuanced answer than simply assuming that the pharmacist has the right to do whatever they damn well please. The Establishment Clause isn't going to shield a pharmacist from a lawsuit when someone dies because of their refusal to dish out drugs they might have problems with.

I suppose if Dementee's got a problem with all of that, perhaps he can go and fuck himself, no?

Competition

As in I think I may have competition for my Goddess of Snark title.

Heh.

As far as Arianna Huffington's new group blog is concerned, well...

I suppose it's going to be good to have a potential one-stop-shop for all your mockery needs, eh? I mean, come on. It's not everyday you get to link directly to the puffed-up pontifications of Mike Nichols, David Mamet and John Cusack.

Should be good fun, no?

UPDATE: OOOOOOOOH, OOOOOOH, MISTAH KOTTAH!

Check out the Terms of Service

{...}(a) Unless expressly permitted, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this Service, except as permitted under the last sentence of this Section 4(a) and except that you may make one print copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing (but subject to the last sentence of this Section 4(a)), you may not distribute any part of this Service over any network, including, without limitation, a local area network, nor sell or offer it for sale. In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind of database. Just as THP from time to time excerpts materials from other sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings contained herein, we respect the right of others to make "fair use" of the materials contained on THP; accordingly, you may from time to time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site, provided, that you must give the original author credit and such use must be for a non-commercial purpose only and not, for example, for re-sale.{...}

If the party of the first part decides to rob the party of the second part blind, well, the party of the second part is completely entitled to fuck the party of the first part up the ass with a particularly pointy broom handle.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. This blog is a dream come true!

Random Question of the Day

What's up with everyone getting knocked up all of a sudden?

Jokes aside, mazeltov, congratulations, etc. to the both of you from the Cake Eater.

Something That You Should Be Concerned About

And that thing you should be concerned about is the Real ID Act of 2005.

{...}The Real ID Act, which was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday and likely will clear the Senate next week, would require most license applicants to show a photo ID, a birth certificate, proof of their Social Security number and a document showing their full name and address. All of the documents then would have to be checked against federal databases.{...}

I'm not concerned so much with added scrutiny in regards to granting driver's licenses. What concerns me---and many geeks---is the last sentence of that paragraph: "All of the documents then would have to be checked against federal databases." The problem here being that with this bit of language it will be much easier for a hacker to steal your identity should this be signed into law.

{...}The bill dictates that all states collect, at a minimum, personal information from citizens in order to obtain a driver's license, including name, date of birth, gender, driver's license or identification card number, digital photograph, address and signature.

Whereas collection of this particular information is not new, the linkage of states' databases is. The bill specifies that states link what are at present discrete databases, creating, in effect, one nationwide database with personal information pertaining to all citizens. {...}

Right now, a hacker would have to attack the databases of all the DMV's in all fifty states to get the information that, should this bill pass the senate and be signed into law, would be available in one place. This would create one big ass bullseye instead of fifty bullseyes.

Data convergence is all well and good until the Federal Government gets its grubby paws on the data. Given that Lexis-Nexis had the information on 310,000 of its customers stolen recently, and the same happened to Time Warner employees, do you really think the Federal Government will be able to keep your data safe from hackers?

I don't.

Call or email your senator today. They're trying to slip this one in under the wire to please those who watch the Lou Dobbs Xenophobe Hour of Power by attaching it to an Appropriations Bill, with no debate or hearings allowed. This is what the focus on illegal immigration has wrought. Pat yourselves on the back, big boys. You should be proud of what you've accomplished! Way to put everyone in jeopardy! THANKS!

{Hat Tip: Mike at Techdirt}

Day Ten Questions

We have reached Day Ten in FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST.

You're probably scratching your head and wondering why this is important. Well, it's not really...but you should know that it means there are only TEN DAYS left until Episode III is released.

wOOt!

Anyway, we're halfway done here. Are you having fun yet, kids? I sincerely hope so. Here are your questions for today. There's a definite theme going on here.

• Who grabbed his blaster rifle for protection when he saw Sand People approaching?
• What spearlike weapons do Sand People wield?
• Who frightened away a group of Sand people?
• What planet are Sand People native to?
• What creatures do Sand People ride?
• What order do Sand People ride their mounts in?

Throw your answers in the comments or send them to the Cake Eater inbox.

Day Nine Answers/Winners

Ok, somebody answered the Day Nine Questions in THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST

The only problem is that it's Doug. Again.

Congratulations to him. To the rest of you, get with the program here and have some fun! You can only have said fun by answering the questions!

You can find the answers after the jump.

• What two characters are each described at various times as the "only hope"?

Obi-Wan and Luke

• What type of vehicles were used to fly Attack Pattern Delta?

Snowspeeders

• Who summed up Vader's revelation that he was Luke's father as "unexpected" and "unfortunate"?

Yoda

• What planet's moon were many ancient stone temples erected on?

Yavin

• What creatures have two legs, curving horns and stubborn temperaments?

Tauntauns.

• Whose last words in The Empire Strikes Back are, "I promise"?

Lando Calrissians

Germany:Sixty Years After

Interesting.

The part, however, that had me flipping my head in manner reminiscent of Gary Coleman and saying, What you talkin' about Willis? was this bit:

May 8, 1945 - a day to remember for Germans and their WWII opponents. There is a remarkable uneasiness among German elites how to commemorate this day: defeat for Germany or liberation from Nazi suppression?

May 8, 1945 as the day the Germans were liberated from Nazi suppression?

Ummm. No, I don't think so. You don't get to spin the defeat of Nazi Germany that way. You just don't get to do that. Nope.

While I do not doubt there were many Germans who did not belong to the National Socialist/Nazi Party and who weren't wild about what they stood for and what they ultimately did, there were plenty of Germans who were pretty darned happy they were in charge of the country. They were the majority, party membership notwithstanding. There were people who did disagree. I do not doubt this one iota. It was, however, this minority which most Germans claimed to be a part of when the war ended. These claims were taken with a knowing nod after the war, in an effort to get beyond it, but are we honestly to believe that the Germans of today have actually bought into that lie? So much so that these so-called German Elites of today were actually thinking of spinning the defeat of Germany in WWII into a liberation?

Again. No. I don't think so. They don't get to do that.

The average, ordinary German of today is no more responsible for the War and what occurred during it than I am responsible for my government's policy in regards to the Native American population. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son, I believe is how the saying goes.

That does not, however, mean that the sons get to spin the actions of their fathers into something that is virtually unrecognizable from the truth of the matter in attempt to make it look better.

You just don't get to do that.

Day Nine Questions

Here are your questions for Day Nine of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

We'll see if anyone answers them this time around.

Hmmmph.

• What two characters are each described at various times as the "only hope"?
• What type of vehicles were used to fly Attack Pattern Delta?
• Who summed up Vader's revelation that he was Luke's father as "unexpected" and "unfortunate"?
• What planet's moon were many ancient stone temples erected on?
• What creatures have two legs, curving horns and stubborn temperaments?
• Whose last words in The Empire Strikes Back are, "I promise"?

As always, either drop your answers in the email box or into the comments.

Day Eight Answers

Well, then.

No winners in Day Eight of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST.

Why, you ask, are there no winners?

Well, I'll tell ya. Because no one bothered to answer them.

Hmmmph.

• Who, according to Vader, is "as clumsy as he is stupid"?

Admiral Ozzel

• What type of vessels escorted Darth Vader's shuttle in Return of the Jedi?

TIE fighters

• What insurgent movement was formed in opposition to the Empire

The Rebel Alliance

• What city and what planet are shown celebrating just before the Imperial capitol is shown at the end of Return of the Jedi Special Edition?

Cloud City and Tatooine

• Who called Chewbacca a "hairy beast"?

C-3P0

• How many TIE's followed the Millenium Falcon into the second Death Star's reactor?

Two

How To...

Sadie finally answered the all important question that remained in the Diva inbox on Friday.

Let's just say that she truly is demystifying things for the men in the audience.

I shall only add this bit of advice onto hers: learn it and live it!

And, yeah, I'm up at bat for this Friday. Get all your very important questions into the divassezatgmaildotcom mailbox by Thursday evening.

Our Girl's All Grown Up!

Ms. Sadie graduated from law school this evening.

And I am positively sure she will kill me for this, but I can't quite help myself...

CONGRATULATIONS, GIRL!

She'll be billing $300 an hour at a law firm not anywhere near you soon!

Just so she has other targets on whom to vent her spleen at being congratulated, I'm going to be cheeky and say these good wishes are from all of us.

And by that I mean her and her and him and him and him and him. Oh, and just because I love to pick on them (and I know Sadie does, too) we'll throw these gentlemen in the mix too.

{insert ducking and running en masse here}

Day Eight Questions

I'm a wee bit late posting these. Sorry. I actually had a life today. Shoot me. I'm sure you'll get over it.

Anyway, here are your Day Eight Questions for THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST

• Who, according to Vader, is "as clumsy as he is stupid"?
• What type of vessels escorted Darth Vader's shuttle in Return of the Jedi?
• What insurgent movement was formed in opposition to the Empire
• What city and what planet are shown celebrating just before the Imperial capitol is shown at the end of Return of the Jedi Special Edition?
• Who called Chewbacca a "hairy beast"?
• How many TIE's followed the Millenium Falcon into the second Death Star's reactor?

Have at 'em, kids.

Day Seven Answers/Winner

The winner of Day Seven of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST is...

once again, Doug. No one else seemed to want to get their geek on. Hmmph.

Anyway, congratulations, again, go out to Doug. The rest of you should know that he did miss one, so if you had bothered to enter your answers, you could have conceivably run away with it.

Answers are after the jump

• What slimy, green-faced, trunk-nosed alien makes a one minute appearance in Star Wars: A New Hope before being blasted?

Greedo (AND HE DAMN WELL DID NOT SHOOT FIRST! Er. Ahem. Bygones)

• What color was Darth Vader's lightsaber blade?

Red

• Which film in the trilogy features Admiral Ackbar?

Return of the Jedi

• What substance is mined on Cloud City?

Tibanna Gas

• Whose periscope is the only thing seen above the sand after his leap from the upper deck of Jabba's sail barge?

R2-D2's

• What sound effect was produced by tapping on a radio tower's guide-wire?

A blaster shot

Giving Up the Teet

Have you heard about this one?

Rosie Stamp, 32, a freelance video producer, made the journey hours after arriving in New York when she phoned home and heard year-old Betsy crying in hunger.

"I had no choice. She just wouldn't take the bottle," explained Stamp, who had expressed breast milk before leaving on the planned five-day trip for a crucial business appointment.

She said Betsy was in the habit of drinking water from bottles, so she and her partner, therapist Nicholas Bolton, 49, assumed the baby would take the expressed milk.

But "she of course knew breast was best," said Stamp, a strong believer in breastfeeding until babies are 2. The trip was the first time she had left her baby, who is now 16 months old.

{...}The incident occurred in January, but Stamp - now pregnant with her second child - began a battle with British Airways and her travel insurers for a refund for her emergency flight.

She had paid $760 for her first round-trip ticket and had to fork over $800 for the early flight home. She then paid another $900 for her second trip to New York. She also spent almost $600 on international cell-phone calls.

"For months I've been trying to get BA to have compassion," said Stamp, who argued that Betsy's need to breastfeed was a medical emergency.{...}

Yes. That's right. It's British Airways responsibility, according to this woman, to pay for her airfare because the baby wouldn't drink pumped milk. Because she's a mother. Her child was HUNGRY and SHE was the only one who could stop her baby from starving to death! It apparently never occurred to this mother that since she was going out of town for an extended period of time, and the baby was a year old, that perhaps, just perhaps, this would have been a good time to wean the kid.

Never mind that a pediatrician probably could have told the father how to solve the problem at minimal expense.

British Airways needs to have compassion. Because this was a medical emergency.

I can only hope that BA holds firm and says GO TO HELL in a resounding voice. I can't imagine why they would cave. This isn't about discriminating against mothers who breastfeed. This is about not picking up the tab that resulted from a woman's irresponsible behavior, who then, doing nothing to help her own credibility, decided to climb up on the cross of breastfeeding martyrdom to get her ticket paid for. That's bullshit.

And no, of course, I have never breastfed a baby. I haven't had kids, hence I haven't lactated yet. Duh. But I know plenty of people who have, and believe you me it never would have occurred to them to cross a fucking ocean because their baby was being picky in their eating habits. What's the matter with that father that after ten hours, he demanded she come home instead of calling the doctor or his mother or someone who knew what they were doing?

This is ridiculous. Far be it from me to point out that this woman is making things harder for the average woman when she tries to feed her child and some puritan takes offense a a tit hanging out in---gasp!---public.

Oy.

{Hat Tip: Michele, who also has some worthwhile things to say about this.}

A Delightful Surprise

A few months ago, when I was sorting out how I felt about P.G. Wodehouse, I posted this bit linking to an article Hugh Laurie/Bertie Wooster had written a few years back. I also learned during this Wodehousian adventure in Googling that Laurie had also written a novel, The Gun Seller.

It seems as if the guy who plays Dr. House is a talented gentleman.

I finally was able to lay my hands on a copy through the library and I have to say, it's just a wonderful read. It is, truly, something very special, or maybe I just feel that way because it's right up my alley. Who knows? Anyway, I finished it last night and I'll be purchasing a copy when I finally have some spare coin for such things. I was curious about some of the reviews, however, because they seemed to think this book was a "spoof" or a "satire" on the spy-novel genre. I don't think so. It's a thriller with a sense of humor and to imply that Laurie was simply spoofing the genre really doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

Ah, anyway...there was one part of the book that had me chuckling more than usual and appreciating the author's cleverness, so I had to share it with you. If you're interested read on after the jump.

Fortunately, it doesn't need any set up, so I don't have to waste your time explaining it. Just know that the hero of the book, Thomas Lang, occasionally goes off the reservation to explain how he feels about a few things. This excerpt covers how he feels about sex.

Chapter Twenty, pages 256-257, The Gun Seller by Hugh Laurie, Copyright 1996. All rights reserved. (Well, actually, now that I look at the copyright, there's something odd going on there: there's an extra line that states, "The author has asserted his moral rights." What the heck does that mean?)

Ahem...

"When it comes to sex, it seems to me, men really are caught between a rock and a soft, limp, apologetic place.

The sexual menchanisms of the two genders are just not compatible, that's the horrible truth of it. One is a runabout, suitable for shopping, quick journeys about town, and extremely easy parking; the other is an estate, designed for long distances, with heavy loads---altogether larger, more complex and more difficult to maintain. You wouldn't buy a Fiat Panda to move antiques from Bristol to Norwich, and you wouldn't buy a Volvo for any other reason. It's not that one is better than the other. They're just different, that's all.

This is a truth we dare not acknowledge these days---because sameness is our religion and heretics are no more welcome now than they ever were---but I'm going to acknowledge it, because I've always felt that humility before the facts is the only thing that keeps a rational man together. Be humble in the face of facts, and proud in the face of opinion, as George Bernard Shaw once said.

He didn't actually. I just wanted to put some authority behind this observation of mine, because I know you're not going to like it.

If a man gives himself up to the sexual moment, then, well, that's all it is. A moment. A spasm. An event without duration. If, on the other hand, he holds back, by trying to remember as many names as he can from the Dulux colour chart, or whatever happens to be his chosen method of deferment, then he's accused of being coldly technical. Either way, if you're a heterosexual man, emerging from a modern sexual encounter with any kind of credit is a fiendishly difficult thing to do.

Yes, of course, credit is not the point of the exercise. But then again, it's easy to say that when you've got some. Credit, I mean. And men just don't get any these days. In the sexual arena, men are judged by female standards. You may hiss and tut and draw in your breath as sharply as you like, but it's true. (Yes, obviously, men judge women in other spheres---patronise them, tyrannise them, exclude them, oppress them, make them utterly miserable---but in matters of a writhing nature, the mark on the bench was put down by women. It is for the Fiat Panda to try and be like the Volvo, not the other way round.) You just don't hear men criticising women for taking fifteen minutes to reach a climax, and if you do, it's not with any implied accusation of weakness, or arrogance or self-centredness. Men, generally, just hang their heads and say yes, that's the way her body is, that's what she needed from me, and I couldn't deliver it. I'm crap and I'll leave at once, as soon as I can find my other sock.

Which, to be, honest, is unfair, bordering on the ridiculous. In the same way that it would be ridiculous to call a Fiat Panda a crap car, just because you can't fit a wardrobe in the back. It might be crap for all sorts of other reasons---it breaks down, or it uses a lot of oil, or it's lime-green with the word 'turbo' written pathetically across the back window---but it's not crap because of the one characteristic that it was specifically designed to have: smallness. Neither is a Volvo a crap car, simply because it won't squeeze past the barrier in the Safeways car-park and allow you to get out without paying.

Burn me on a mound of faggots if you like, but the two machines are just plain different, and that's that. Designed to do different things, at different speeds, on different types of roads. Not the same. Unalike.

There, I've said it. And I don't feel any better.

Latifa and I made love twice before breakfast, and once afterwards, and by mid-morning I'd managed to remember Burnt Umber, which made thirty-one, something of a personal record."

Heh.

{Insert a random aside here: BRITISH SPELLING SUCKS! What is it with you people? Is there not a 'z' to be found in all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? You have gnomes and fairies and a freakin' Queen, but you have no 'z''s? Explain that one to me, would you? Because I'm just not getting it. Don't even get me started on "centre." Here I thought you people hated the French, but apparently not enough to boot any trace of their language from yours. Pfft. }

It's Time To Review A Crucial Cake Eater Chronicles Policy

This was sent to the Cake Eater Inbox yesterday from the Eibensteiner/Hoplin mailing list. I waited until today to post on it because I did not want to inadvertently give them precisely what they were looking for when they sent this email:

Eric Hoplin will be on Fox News this afternoon with Neil Cavuto discussing the importance of reforming social security.

Your World with Neil Cavuto starts at 3:00 PM CT and is replayed at
midnight.

Also, Eric's wife Nicole has written a great letter regarding Ann Coulter's recent visit to the University of St. Thomas that has been posted on the Power Line blog.{...}

Since I have NO idea who these people are, Doug was good enough to inform me that Eibensteiner and Hoplin are the Minnesota State Republican Party Chair and Vice Chair respectively.

Grrrrrrr. Rant ahead. Consider yourselves warned.

To: All Minnesota Politicos
From: Me
RE: Promotional Emails

To Whom It May Concern:

I have officially HAD IT with you people sending me emails, looking for cheap PR.

Please read this, and then this.

I cannot tell you how badly this frustrates me.

I do not care about your world, AKA the inbred world of Minnesota Politics. I don't care about what issue you're plugging today that you think signals the sky is going to fall down hard on all of us. I don't care about how you think same-sex marriage is truly going to bring Armageddon on us. I do not care about how Ann Coulter was "abused" at St. Thomas. I do not have a shrine to Sarah Janacek set up in the Cake Eater Pad. Most importantly, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR PISSANT LITTLE AGENDAS. They bore me to tears. They always HAVE bored me to tears, hence I don't write about them. Did you get that or SHOULD I REPEAT MYSELF ONCE MORE? I'll repeat myself. I DO NOT WRITE ABOUT MINNESOTA POLITICS! IT BORES ME. Since this is MY blog, and not YOUR free PR outlet, I shall declare what is worthy subject matter and NOT YOU! Did you get it this time? I would hope so, or I'm really going to reconsider voting for your party next time around.

Furthermore, it would behoove you to learn which blogs do care about such things. There are PLENTY of them out there. Trust me on this one. There are many, many bloggers who would love to receive your promotional emails. That you haven't figured this out yet just signals to me that you have absolutely no clue as to what the blogosphere is all about. If you actually read the blogs you are so interested in courting favor with you would---A-freakin-HEM---already know that you will gain no purchase here.

Consider yourselves warned. The next time I get an email from ANY Minnesota politico, I will mock it. And believe me, you don't want that. If you think this post is harsh, just you wait.

Go elsewhere with your crap. Reading Powerline does not mean you are well-informed on how the blogosphere works. It just means you are, like Jane, an ignorant slut.

/rant

That Diva Sez

The ever magnificent Sadie is dishing out the advice. Go and be enlightened.

She's also working on one question that is requiring a bit of research to answer, so I will update when she does.

Quick!

Does anyone have Robbo's Social Security number?

The reason I ask is because he really, really needs one of these. Badly.

Day Seven Questions

Day Seven Questions for THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

Woot!

If you need the rule or are wondering what the heck this is all about, go here and be enlightened!

• What slimy, green-faced, trunk-nosed alien makes a one minute appearance in Star Wars: A New Hope before being blasted?
• What color was Darth Vader's lightsaber blade?
• Which film in the trilogy features Admiral Ackbar?
• What substance is mined on Cloud City?
• Whose periscope is the only thing seen above the sand after his leap from the upper deck of Jabba's sail barge?
• What sound effect was produced by tapping on a radio tower's guide-wire?

Have at 'em. As always, you can either throw your answers in the comments or you can email them to me.

Day Six Answers/Winners

Our Day Six Winner in the FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST IS...

...Doug. (Once again. C'mon people, he's running away with this thing.) With a very honorable mention going to the Wiz, who got five out of the six correct.

Congratulations to you both for having some fun!

Answers can be found after the jump.

• Who bravely assumed full responsibility for losing track of the Falcon, and then apologized to Lord Vader?

Captain Needa

• How many engines does an X-wing fighter boast?

Four

• Who was the first Rebel pilot to die during the first Death Star battle?

Porkins

• What color is Hoth as seen from space?

White

• What character was referred to as "the Critter," during early story meetings for The Empire Strikes Back?

Yoda

• What two pilots were Luke's wingmates during his Death Star trench run?

Wedge Antilles and Biggs Darklighter

Ten Questions

Ooooh.

Spooooooky. I was just chatting with Jonathan about this the other day. His preference is for Vanity Fair's Proust Questionnaire. (He doesn't think he'll ever be tapped for it. I think he will.) Mine is for this one. How handy is it that it suddenly appeared, eh?

1. What is your favorite word?

onomatopoeia

2. What is your least favorite word?

c**t (I *HATE* that word. And if you don't know which word I'm referring to, well, know that the Brits use it quite a bit, but we American women hate it. That should give you a clue.)

3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?

conversation, reading, simply paying attention to the little things, debate, friendship, love

4. What turns you off?

selfishness, endless rationalization, addiction, looking down one's nose at other people for no good reason.

5. What is your favorite curse word?

m*therf**ker (I don't use it very often, but it is just so good in its nastiness)

6. What sound or noise do you love?

an orchestra tuning their instruments and warming up

7. What sound or noise do you hate?

a lawnmower at seven a.m. on a Sunday morning

8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?

Something where I'd be well-paid but wouldn't have to work a lot. Hmmmm. I know! I'll be an actor!

9. What profession would you not like to do?

garbage person, mortician

10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

Oh, good you're here. You look somewhat surprised. You were expecting, perhaps, something different? Well, I know, but you're such a lively person, we couldn't have you spending all that time in Purgatory, so come on in and put your feet up. You've earned it!

The Stifling of "Louie-Louie"

Does anyone else find it ironic * that a school superintendant is trying to keep a marching band from playing Louie-Louie because she finds the lyrics to be offensive?

*and by that I don't really mean ironic in the true sense of the word, which would be "unexpected," but am rather slagging off and mean it's "moronic" instead. Because I'm hip with the ways and means of language that way.

Day Six Questions

We have reached Day Six of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST! Geeks of the world should not fear that we have reached Day Six. We are not even halfway done.

Okeydokey. Here's today's batch. As always, either throw your answers in the comments or send them to me via email.

• Who bravely assumed full responsibility for losing track of the Falcon, and then apologized to Lord Vader?
• How many engines does an X-wing fighter boast?
• Who was the first Rebel pilot to die during the first Death Star battle?
• What color is Hoth as seen from space?
• What character was referred to as "the Critter," during early story meetings for The Empire Strikes Back?
• What two pilots were Luke's wingmates during his Death Star trench run?

Day Five Answers/Winners

Our Day Five Winner of the FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST is...

Kevin of Eckernet

...with The Wiz of Down For Repairs coming in second in what ultimately turned out to be a photo-finish.

I actually had to judge this one. Woooh. Work was involved, you should be proud of me. Anyhoo...Kevin had all the answers correct, but the Wiz failed to list a crucial element in one of his answers, hence Kevin takes the marbles. Mazeltov, congratulations, etc.

You can find the answers after the jump.

• Who called the Millenium Falcon a "bucket of bolts?"

Princess Leia

• How many lasers are on each of the Millenium Falcon's turret cannons?

Four

• Who owned the Millenium Falcon before Han Solo?

Lando Calrissian

• What was the Falcon inside of when it lost its topside radar dish?

The second Death Star

• How many holomonsters are visible on the Millenium Falcon's holoboardgame

Eight

• What's Chewbacca's position aboard the Millenium Falcon?

First Mate or co-pilot

News Flash

As with all of my news flashes, this one is late.

My glaring faults with timeliness aside, Michelle Malkin's outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell 'ya, about Laura Bush's comedy success at the White House Correspondent's Dinner on Saturday night. She even got some time on O'Reilly last night, which I didn't bother watching because I had to see what happened to Locke on Lost.

From her blog:

{...}Most of Mrs. Bush's humor at the correspondents' dinner was just right: Edgy but not over the edge. But I think the stripper and horse jokes were totally beneath her.

Just put it to the other-shoe test: If it were Teresa Heinz Kerry standing up on the dais telling the same jokes, the conservative commentariat would be buzzing for the rest of the year about what a tasteless skank she is.

"Lighten up?" How about cleaning up? The First Lady resorting to cheap horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. Unlike many Beltway and Manhattan commentators, I do not think the Wonkette-ization of the White House is a good thing. {...}

From her column:

{...}The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.

Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."

Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a South Park/Desperate Housewives conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.

Yeah, I'll say lighten up, but first off, I tell Ms. Malkin, to get a freakin' clue.

First off, it wasn't a horse masturbation joke: it was a joke that honed directly at the fact that W. didn't grow up on a farm, despite his "Ranch Owner" props, hence, didn't he know which animal to milk. Any horse masturbation that *might* have occurred was strictly accidental, hence the joke. Hahahahaha. That's funny, right? Not according to Ms. Malkin, who seems to think Mrs. Bush's comedy routine is now on par with the regular ass-f***ing commentary at Wonkette.

But, just in case this hyperbole didn't push you into the Downward Facing Dog position, Malkin decides to make some sort of wild leap into the "what this all means for Conservatives" realm. She claims that "self-censorship is a conservative value." To back up this point, she quotes from a speech the president of the Heritage Foundation gave at Hillsdale College. Yeah. That's right. Hillsdale. That bastion of Cutting-Edge Conservative Thought (TM) where the founder had a nineteen-year long adulterous affair with his daughter-in-law, who then committed suicide. You see, if I was Malkin, I could easily make the leap that because Feulner was speaking at Hillsdale his declaration that we must keep our tongues and pens in check was a way of saying that the scandale at Hillsdale never happened. Furthermore we can extrapolate from Feulner's commentary that this scandale means NOTHING about the state of Conservatism in America, let alone taint all the good work they've done at Hillsdale. That "self-censorship" and keeping it civil means to sweep the non-conservative actions of the president of a conservative college---actions some might be justified in lumping into the hypocrisy category---under the carpet and simply hoping the lump under said carpet doesn't become too noticeable.

Hmmm?

I find I must resort to the linguistic follies of the Wayan Brothers to respond to both---Malkin's and mine---leaps of the imagination.

Ahem.

Homey don't play that.

But then again, "In Living Color" wasn't G-Rated so she probably won't get that.

I digress, but it's obvious that Malkin just doesn't get is that "self-censorship" should, indeed, be a thing unto oneself. As in, if someone's language offends you, you should probably go elsewhere, not moan and caterwaul about what it means for Conservatism that a Conservative First Lady cracked a joke about going to Chippendales. When it comes to language and the topics it is employed to describe, you can be broad minded and skip over what you find offensive because someone else might find it funny. There is a choice involved, in other words. And that choice resides with the listener, not the speaker. It does not mean you should censor yourself to the point where you don't offend even the most purehearted of listeners. Furthermore, to blindly dictate that "self-censorship" is such an important part of Conservatism smacks of the politically correct movement of the left.

To quote protein wisdom himself:

{...}let me just note that the measure of one’s conservatism is NOT tied to one’s vocabulary so much as it is to one’s political philosophy. And in many ways social conservatism—with its desire to dictate “proper” or “decorous” speech—is simply dressing the PC-sensibilities of the left in the starched, high-collared clothing of neo-Victorian morality.{...}

To claim that "self-censorship is a Conservative value" offends me. Malkin, will, undoubtedly, blow my offense off because, of course, her offense is greater than mine and, of course, has more serious ramifications attached to it, or so I suspect she would argue. Where exactly is the fairness in that action, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers? Is not my offense at her puritanical attitude worth the same in this marketplace of ideas? Am I not worth as much as Malkin is, intellectually speaking, because I drop the occasional f-bomb into my writings? Well, golly gosh! I'm mightily ticked off! I might just have to write a post about it...

Is It Cinco De Mayo Already?

Gordon, the Cranky Neocon, has been digging in the dirt and has come up with some rather interesting revelations concerning our mutual friends, The Llamas aka Steve and Rob. Or should I say...Stephano Esteban and Roberto.

Regarding their motivations:

{..}What are their shadowy motives? I was dumbfounded at first, but with the discovery of this photo, I'm pretty sure that they are here to crash parties, get drunk and annoy girls.

I, Kath the Cake Eater, hearby swear that I have confirmation of Gordon's story.

You see, this is the Americanized version the Llamas would like to present to you, the average American Joe.

But as you can see from this next image, all is not as it seems with the Llamas.

Yes. That's right. Someone photoshopped the tequila and the sombrero out of the image. They AMERICANIZED it. Someone has some explainin' to do Lucy! Or should I say, {insert pointed finger here} STEPHANOESTEBAN?

The fact that Roberto's not wearing a sombero only confirms the fact that no matter where he might be---Mexico or Dee Cee---he's the type of Llama who's too fastidious with the hair gel to wear a hat. StephanoEsteban, well, honestly. The sombero, now that you can see it in all of its glory, well, suits. The fact that "Yip! Yip! Yip!" works as well in Spanish as it does in English tells the discriminating viewer that they're clever that way and are all about saving themselves some work!

Of course, none of this goes into the fact that they're hanging out with Susan-freakin'-Sarandon.

But this should be enough for the WaPo to start a full-blown MSM Woodward-Bernstein-ish smackdown.

I'm sure Sadie, Jose Cuervo's lover, can pick up where Gordon and I left off.

UPDATE: Dork-a-thon?

Ahem.

Hi, my name is Pot. You must be the kettle. I hate to tell you this, but just on the off chance that you don't know, well...YOU'RE BLACK!

Three words, I believe, will suffice in this situation: BRING IT, ELI!

Day Five Questions

Today is Day Five in THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

If you're new to all this bewildering contest stuff, go here for the rules to the game. You may either put your answers in the comments or you can email them to me. There's a definite theme to today's questions. Have fun with it.

• Who called the Millenium Falcon a "bucket of bolts?"
• How many lasers are on each of the Millenium Falcon's turret cannons?
• Who owned the Millenium Falcon before Han Solo?
• What was the Falcon inside of when it lost its topside radar dish?
• How many holomonsters are visible on the Millenium Falcon's holoboardgame
• What's Chewbacca's position aboard the Millenium Falcon?
Posted by Kathy at 01:11 PM | Comments (1)

Day Four Answers/Winners

Ahem. The Winner for Day Four of THE FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST is...

...Ith!

Woohoo! Way to have some fun, girl! (Maybe this will make up for the whole House thing)

Answers are after the jump.

• What two characters did Luke order Jabba to release into his custody?

Han and Chewbacca

• What vehicle did Luke Skywalker take down with a harpoon gun and a land mine?

An Imperial Walker

• How does a cantina patron translate the remark of a drunken alien who tells Luke, "Negola dewaghi wooldugger"?

"He doesn't like you."

• What planet's system contains a great deal of meteor activity?

Hoth

• What short furry creatures are revered for being master builders and artisans?

Ewoks

• Who created the unique sound effects used in the movie trilogy?

Ben Burtt

Random House Related Thoughts

Ok, while I know the following opinion will displease Ith, I must state it anyway:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO'effinNO! on the whole House/Cameron dating thing.

Come on. Asking for a date as your one condition to return to work? How freakin' contrived is that? Bleech. That's something straight out of a Nora Roberts novel. Honestly, I thought the writers on this show were better than that.

While I will, undoubtedly, enjoy watching this train-wreck-in-the-making, Cameron just bugs me. And she is so not the girl for him. I don't know that there even is a girl for House, or that there ever could be a suitable mate for that man. It's like trying to pair Sherlock Holmes up with someone. Irene Adler may have, ultimately, been the love of Sherlock's life, but he didn't exactly wind up with her, ya dig?

If you're interested, there's a poll up over at the House site on this topic. I voted "Neither." I think you should as well.

If you know what's good for you.

Ever Put Mrs. Potato Head's Lips on Mr. Potato Head?

Yeah, well, I did. I'm perverse that way.

Anyway, those wacky llamas picked up on a topic that's been traveling around: movies that are aimed at your gender, but that you may not like; movies aimed at the other gender, that you do like, etc.

Ahem.

Guy movies that I, a woman, love

• Highlander (Is it really wrong of me to think that Clancy Brown as the Kurgen was kinda sexy in a perverted sort of way? See the comments. He totally stole that movie.)
• Die Hard (The original. Number II sucks. Number III ain't bad when compared to number II, but is a pale imitator of the original. I have my brother, David, to thank for hooking me on this one. I know all the lines.)
• All the James Bond movies (Excepting, of course, those with Roger Moore. Won't watch them and you can't make me.)
• Enter The Dragon (I have the husband to thank for my Kung Fu movie habit)
• The Matrix Series (Yes. I like all three. If you don't, you just didn't get it. I pity you.)
• Band of Brothers. (Not a movie, but rather a miniseries, I know, but this is one that if someone bought it for me (hint, hint) I would be eternally happy.)

Chick Flicks that I, a chick, do not like

• Beaches (How do I hate this move? Let me count the ways...)
• Titanic
• How to Make An American Quilt
• To Gillian on Her Thirty-Seventh Birthday
• Fried Green Tomatoes
• City of Angels (Colm Feore was the only redeeming thing about that movie. Well, that and the soundtrack.)
• Ghost
• An Officer and a Gentleman
• Dirty Dancing (Go ahead and put Baby in a corner. I won't stop you. I don't give a rat's ass. Really. I don't.)
• It Could Happen To You
• Bridget Jones' Diary (It slays me to admit this one because my adoration of Colin Firth is well-documented. Really, I love the book. I just hate this adaptation. It got it all wrong.)

Movies that I, as a hardened, cynical, unfeeling, soulless person tend to break down in tears watching.

• Steel Magnolias (Every single time. I can't help myself.)
• The English Patient
• Terms of Endearment (Give my daughter her medicine!)
• Love Story
• Hope Floats
• An Affair To Remember(If it had to happen to one of us, why couldn't it have been me?)
• Schindler's List
• Saving Private Ryan
• Philadelphia

Discuss at will.

Holy Cow, This Dude is a Loser

Courtesy of Puffy, we have Episode IV---done in ASCII.

I agree with Puff's sentiment that someone had way too much time on their hands.

The husband, however, when shown this marvelous bit of animation, declared it to be cool. He said there are two choices Geeks have whenever they wake up. Should they continue to have fun today?Or is today the day they decide to subject the world to their dominance?

I have no idea what this person was thinking, but I suspect it was the former.

At least I hope it was. Because if he was shooting for the latter, well, he/she/it fell way short of world domination.

Day Four Questions

Ok, here's the next set of questions in the---ahem---FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

I'm not going to insert a reminder about the rules. If you're new to this, go read this post and be enlightened.

• What two characters did Luke order Jabba to release into his custody?
• What vehicle did Luke Skywalker take down with a harpoon gun and a land mine?
• How does a cantina patron translate the remark of a drunken alien who tells Luke, "Negola dewaghi wooldugger"?
• What planet's system contains a great deal of meteor activity?
• What short furry creatures are revered for being master builders and artisans? {Ed. If you don't get this one, I'm going to doubt your intelligence because it's a FREAKIN' gimme!}
• Who created the unique sound effects used in the movie trilogy?

Day Three Answers/Winners

The Day Three winner in the FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST is...

Doug. Again. Kevin of Eckernet, while giving it a valiant try, nonetheless just wrote "ditto" to Doug's answers. That, in my humble Empire-running opinion, just doesn't cut the mustard. Ya gotta show me your work, dude. So, after giving it a day, I will say this much: you can email me your answers if you'd rather not dump them into the comments. Sigh.

Anyway, Day Three Trivia Contest Answers can be found after the jump.

• What did Luke refer to when he told Leia, "In time, you'll learn to use it as I have"?

The Force

• Who reached for his laser pistol when an Ewok stuck a spear in his face?

Han Solo

• Who sees Luke before the first Death Star battle and exclaims, "I don't believe it! How'd you get here"?

Biggs

• What enemy vehicles did the Rebels first spot from Echo Station 3T8?

Imperial Walkers

• Who first saw the mynocks crawling on the Millenium Falcon's hull?

Princess Leia

• What did Luke not know the power of, according to Darth Vader?

The "Dark Side"

Something To Make Your Nose Gay

So, if it's Tuesday, it must be Demystifying Divas Day, eh? Actually there's no question about it: it is Demystifying Diva Day, and the topic we're manhandling this week are scents.

The nose is a particularly funny looking part of our bodies. I mean, honestly, have you ever actually looked at your nose? It is, by all aesthetic rights, a silly thing. It sticks out, for no apparent reason. It could be big, it could be small. It could be wide, or it could be so small that when your nostrils flare on an angry exhale, you look like a pissed off chihuahua. But what the hell is it there for? Why do we have this incongrous thing sticking out of the middle of our faces? The answer, my dear friends, is to smell things. Because we need our sense of smell, as it is necessary to our survival as human beings as our hearing, sight and taste.

It's easy to forget nowadays, when everyone is so very interested in making everything smell like nothing (or everything, as the case may be) that we need that big proboscis on our faces to keep ourselves alive. After all, how can you tell if your food or drink is spoiled when it looks perfectly fine? How can you tell when you're in trouble? Because you smell the fear coming off your comrades---and yourself---in the form of body odor. You can smell sickness. And since it's generally an unpleasant smell, you know to stay away, hence keeping yourself from catching a nasty illness. You can also smell the putrid odor of the decay of death and you know to stay away from that as well. Smell is as crucial to human beings ability to survive as the ability to see the bus that's barrelling at you at 45 m.p.h. These drastic examples aside, smell is also crucial to the survival of the human race for another reason: it helps you find the person you're supposed to mate and reproduce with.

Now, personally, I believe that in this day and age we are too obsessed with scent---and not in a good way. How many ads do you see for a product that appeal to your sense of smell during your favorite one hour tee vee show? Think about it for a minute. Just off the top of my head I can think of laundry detergent, fabric softener, cleaning products, air fresheners, shower soap, lotion, arthritis rubs...and this doesn't even count the ads for actual perfume. A primary selling point of these products is that they appeal to your sense of smell in a positive way. We like things to smell nice: our clothes, our houses, our air, but most importantly, our bodies. We want these things to smell nice because it's not fun, in this day and age, to have things that don't smell nice, because that will bring social ridicule upon us. Hence I believe we go a bit overboard in an effort to avoid said ridicule. People make fun of other people who don't wash on a regular basis, hence we find a soap that not only makes us clean, but gives off a fragrance to cover up any body odor we might give off during the course of the day. In fact, the anti-bacterial properties of soap are there, primarily, not to keep you from being sick or becoming infected, but because bacteria is the stuff that makes us smell perhaps not so fresh. You can sweat all day long, but you won't start to smell unless that sweat combines with bacteria. We find a fabric softener that not only keeps the static cling away, but also radiates a powerful flowery fragrance, because that smells better than our own natural smell, which can and will cling to clothes. Fragrance, these days, is just as powerful a marketing factor as the primary purpose of whatever product the fragrance is attached to. As such, I think we've lost quite a bit, and perhaps---just perhaps---are making life more confusing for ourselves. After all, would you rather know what a potential mate smells like, and be able to discern what you find attractive by that, or would you rather judge them by the smell of the fabric softener they use? How can you tell nowadays just what a potential mate smells like when they're bathed, head to toe, in loads of different fragrances?

Now, speaking for myself, I like a man to smell like, well, a man. I refer you to a passage I wrote for the never-finished, forever-being-tweaked manuscript. I'm not going to set it up for you: you don't need to know. Surprisingly enough, this passage hasn't been tweaked too much and has survived a few ruthless edits simply because I like the way I put it the first time round:

"...but to smell him? That was a thing of beauty. He smelled like a man should smell: of utilitarian soap, small, minty traces of the shaving cream he’d used, the wool of his damp overcoat, the starch the drycleaners had used on his shirt, the one whisky he’d allowed himself at the party, and the beginnings of sweat and hormones. She could remain in that miasma for hours and feel nothing but pleasure."

I can conjure all those smells from memory, separately and I can also throw them together as well. Can you? I'm pretty sure you can, and you probably have your own notions of what will and does smell good on your own potential mate. I'm not a big one for men dousing themselves with cologne. I think a man who simply washes on a regular basis smells good. Yet, I will shamefully admit, there was a time that I would gladly follow a man around, like I was the village idiot, when they wore this. Oh, God did that stuff ever smell good to my eighteen-year old nose. I would like to think---ahem---that it was because it accentuated what I thought smelled good on a guy naturally, but that would just be my brain trying to justify my actions. The stuff, in all actuality, appealed to my baser instincts. My hormones ran over whenever I caught a whiff of that stuff. That stuff was ambrosia. I'm getting shivers even now just thinking about it. (Meeeeow!) Not to put too fine a point on it, let's just say that my good sense went straight out the window when a man who was wearing Drakkar walked by. He could have been a complete and utter troll: I didn't care. He was wearing the stuff that appealed to my hormones. And, in that shameful admission, I believe we find the answer to why we're so busy trying to deceive our noses with all the fragrances we use: because they might make us more attractive, more appealing to the opposite sex; they might cover our flaws; they might level the uneven playing field that is the battleground to find a mate---they allow us to think maybe we've got the high ground. What's sad, however, is that you may, in all reality, be down in the swamp and you might not know it because you can't smell it over all the fragrances wafting around you.

Ok, enough with the longwinded bullshit. Now it's time for you, my devoted Cake Eater Reader, to go and read what the other DeliciouslyDiabolical Demystifying Divas have written. Make sure you go over and welcome one of our Divaesque Ladies, Ruth, at Chaos Theory, who has chimed in as well today. As always, in the spirit of equality, make sure to check out what the fearsome foursome that is The Men's Club---Puffy, Phin, Zonker and The Wiz---have produced on this topic as well.

Nauseating

You know, I could, conceivably understand why you would want to set up a website for a wedding. It would, if nothing else, save on all the mass-e-mailings, etc. But why on earth, when you're providing this valuable service for your guests, would you post your story as well? Shouldn't they already know that? I mean, come on, kids. You're just opening yourselves up to a (much deserved) world of hurt. Particularly when you're a pair of politicos.

{...}One day, which was a day of great tragedy for our world and country — September 11 th , 2001 — Pat and Laura made independent decisions that they we were not going to allow terrorists to take away that which is most sacred to Americans - the right to vote, for September 11 th was an election day in Saint Paul. They each voted that day and they each traveled similar paths to an election night gathering party at Mancini's. It was a time for Americans to be together, and they needed that time. That night, Pat and Laura sat next to each other, talked, and looked into each other's eyes. They were the same.

But it was not that fateful day when Pat and Laura officially came together. Some time later, while Pat was sitting at home watching another stimulating rerun of Happy Days, most likely the one where Fonz had to get glasses, Pat's phone rang. The voice sounded like Laura. Was she calling to ask Pat on a date? Not even Andy Summers could imitate someone that well. It definitely wasn't Duff, as the tone was sweet and devoid of references to violence. It was indeed an actual woman calling Pat, and it was actually Laura. For this one brief moment, Pat was surely the Fonz, although with a tattered brown sweater and oversized khakis. {...}

I'm as much of a sap as the next person. Probably more so. But, really, I'm trying to resist the urge to vomit.

I mean, c'mon girls. Aren't you just dying to make your guy feel like the Fonz?

{Shudders}

Many congratulations to the happy couple and all, but sheesh. Watch what you share, eh?

{Hat Tip: Fraters}

Quote of the Day

"I mean, seriously. Blog feuds are like watching Trekkies fight over who has the more authentic-looking rubberized Spock ears."

Just Remember That Steve Asked For It*

INDC Bill wonders whether or not he's jumped the shark with his mockery of the llamas.

Well, if he hasn't, I surely have.

{Decent God-fearing people should not take the jump. The rest of ya, well, since you're going to burn in hell with me, come on down!)

*via email

Jabba sez: Linda Lovelace ain't got nuthin' on Steeeeve-o!

A Must Read

Go Now.

Realize this is not fiction, either.

Another Munuvian!

Phin has moved into his new fishbowl. He moved because the old neighborhood wasn't doing so well and this new bowl has nicer owners who are willing to clean things out every now and again so the poor wee fishie isn't swimming around in muck all of the time.

Go on over and check him out!

Like You Needed More Proof

That Mac users need help, but here it is anyway.

{...}The fact that we have an entry today is a testament to Tiger, the new Mac OS. Friday night I went to the Mall (took Gnat, so she may have a dim memory of these wondrous times) to get OS X 10.4, promising her we’d get ice cream. Here’s a sign of how much Apple-flavored Kool-Aid I’ve consumed: as we approached the store I noted the jam-packed parking lot and thought gee, I hope they’re not all here for the new operating system – what if they’ve run out? (It was seven PM, one hour after they’d opened the doors.) Then I realized that most people were here for crude, base things like movies or meals, and relaxed. There was a cattle-chute marked off my ropes that had contained the mob until six; one employee told me people had been queued since three. Three hundred and fifty people were waiting when they opened the doors. At the Mall of America, the line stretched halfway down the length of the Mall, which is no small accomplishment. All this for widgets?

Yes. Yes, indeed. That’s why we’re here: widgets. The new OS has a handy little feature called “Dashboard” – hit F12, and the screen fills with mini-apps of varying usefulness. I don’t need an analogue clock, for example. The FedEx tracking widget will come in handy someday. The Flight Tracker widget, which displays flight speed, position, arrival time, is cool beyond measure. But there’s a dictionary widget, a phone book, a weather program, and an FTP widget that makes uploading this site a thing of beauty – I just hit F12, drag the file to the widget, and voila. In the old days I opened the program, logged in, navigated to the proper folder, and dragged it over: four steps. FOUR! This is 2005: I don’t have time for four steps. Now it’s two steps. I will spend the extra time learning how to sculpt marble.{...}

Dude. We Windows users also have "widgets." It's called Google. All of those lovely tricks and treats you silly Mac users lined up for hours for on Friday are available in Google. Want to track a flight? Just enter the flight number in to Google and the information will pop up. Want to track a UPS or FedEx package? Just type the number into the Google engine and VOILA! There's your information.

That these people waited in line for hours and PAID FOR stuff they could get for free means they are officially in need of deprogramming at a de-culting center somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Neither should they be let back into society without a court order confirming said de-culting is complete.

I've mentioned before that Lileks' mall is my mall. Whenever we're down there, I cannot help but note that there's an oxygen bar right next door to the Apple Store. It's times like this when I'm absolutely, positively sure the oxygen bar's tanks are leaking.

And Here I Was Starting To Worry...

...about the level of dorkdom I've been showing over the past couple of days.

I should not have feared, it seems. Just when you think you're a dork, someone else comes along and totally outdoes you.

Day Three: Questions

Ok, here are your questions for Day Three of the FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

{Insert reminders about not Googling the answers here}

• What did Luke refer to when he told Leia, "In time, you'll learn to use it as I have"?
• Who reached for his laser pistol when an Ewok stuck a spear in his face?
• Who sees Luke before the first Death Star battle and exclaims, "I don't believe it! How'd you get here"?
• What enemy vehicles did the Rebels first spot from Echo Station 3T8?
• Who first saw the mynocks crawling on the Millenium Falcon's hull?
• What did Luke not know the power of, according to Darth Vader?

Throw your answers in the comments, please. Don't send any more secretive Imperial transmissions to the email box because you're afraid the Rebels might intercept them.

Or I'll do that Darth Vader choke-hold thingy.

Day Two Answers

No winners in yesterday's edition of the--ahem--FIRST (AND LAST) CAKE EATER STAR WARS TRIVIA CONTEST!

Hmmph.

Answers can be found after the jump.

• What Rebel pilot boasted, "Right now I feel I could take on the whole Empire myself"?

Dack

• Whose shuttle had the code designation of ST-321?

Darth Vader's

• Who was Luke's wingmate during his first pass against the Imperial Walkers on Hoth?

Hobbie

• How many moons were visible above the planet Hoth?

Three

• Who piloted the sand skiff away from the battle at the Sarlacc pit?

Lando Calrissian

• What was Obi-Wan Kenobi's last line in Star Wars?

"The Force will be with you...always."

Good Tee Vee Reminder

That magnificent wee bastard is back!

Well, I'd love to stay and chat, but you're a total bitch.

Tonight. 8 pm CDT on FOX.

Be there or you will have confirmed the worst ideas I have about you.

Day Two: Questions

Are ya ready for the next set of questions? You are? {Nods head and rubs hands together} Excellent.

Let's get this show on the road. Reminders about not googling the answers shouldn't have to be given. Neither---I shouldn't have to add but I will---should you pop your very much beloved and heavily guarded VHS tapes of the original series into your VCR to find the answers.

But, you say, how the heck will she know if I do that? Well, I won't. I can only refer you to what my mother used to say to me when I whined about cleaning behind the sofa, because, to my mind, no one would ever really know if we did or not. She said, usually in an ominous voice: "GOD WILL KNOW!"

So, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, do you really need that sort of a guilt trip hanging over your head, particularly when you probably already skipped church this morning?

I didn't think so.

Anyway, here we go: Day Two Questions. Answers and winners will be posted whenever I get around to it tomorrow.

• What Rebel pilot boasted, "Right now I feel I could take on the whole Empire myself"?
• Whose shuttle had the code designation of ST-321?
• Who was Luke's wingmate during his first pass against the Imperial Walkers on Hoth?
• How many moons were visible above the planet Hoth?
• Who piloted the sand skiff away from the battle at the Sarlacc pit?
• What was Obi-Wan Kenobi's last line in Star Wars?

Day One Winners/Answers

In the First (And Last) Cake Eater Star Wars Trivia Contest our Day One Winners are...

Doug

and....

Katie.

Well done, my young Jedis. Way to have some fun! I'm proud! If you're so inclined, send me your pics and I'll p'shop ya. (Although, I think I'm going to do one for Doug because that picture on his blog is just begging for fiddling.)

Answers to Day One's Questions are after the jump.

• What was Piett's rank in the Imperial military at the start of The Empire Strikes Back?

Captain

• What type of machine on the first Death Star bore the unit number 326827?

A trash compactor, or garbage masher

• What suggestion of Darth Vader's prompted Luke to attack Vader in a murderous rage?

Turning Leia to the dark side

• What massive object did Darth Vader's flagship collide with?

The second Death Star

• What Rebel had an alien co-pilot named Nien Nunb, in Return of the Jedi

Lando Calrissian

• Who, according to Grand Moff Tarkin, was the last of the Jedi?

Darth Vader