The Discursive Daily

Dogs are Worth More than a PC.

MIA...and a new venture.

No-baby rabies.

Suck it up - pay for a second mobile phone...

The government is what's Loko 'round here.

What do I have on my plate?

Back.

8 Days.

Three weeks.

Smooth sailing or just the eye of the storm?

Prince Creepy

Hey Mr. DJ

The luxe life.

Mommy and Daddy's day off.

Ulterior motives.

Oppression or Freedom? The female anti-rape "condom"

Ahh, so. The slave trade never happened; we are absolved!

Justification of the week.

Case in Point

Where the hell have I been? And one thing you'll need during the zombiepocalypse.

HGTV Green Home 2010: I saw it and I have the answers!

In which I whine about JUDGEMENT [sic].

Mix CD exchange via: Accordions and Lace

Making "you vs. me" into "we". Or kinda.

The abuse of call-waiting.

Enough, you kill joys.

I love you, Meghan.

Almost killing your child isn't "failure".

My own worst enemy. And growing pains.

Sweet distraction!

Loss.

I must be one rude bitch.

On being a new dog-mom.

What happens when you become easily obsessed with things.

Your own experience isn't always the norm.

An argument for legalized prostitution.

Because getting cancer together is FUN!

Risotto love.

Deeply Personal.

Camera.

Consumerism.

Recent adventures in product.

Breach of Promise

Confused.

Now I understand...

Wedding fascists.

What's cookin good lookin?

Hate crime, take dos.

Hate crime.

Lust.

A small victory for our rights.

Privacy. Take a big, huge shit on it and call it a day.

J'aime la musique française.

Catching Fire: A few thoughts. SPOILER ALERT.

Heady white floral - success!

Jumping on the infidelity-gossip bandwagon.

MA Senate passes Martial Law bill.

The big decisions.

Products.

Perfume lovers vs. the IFRA

Rise up my perfume friends. Rise up.

How many jokes have you run into?

2011-03-31T09:01:00.001-04:00

This is a really informative and disturbing piece by Christie Keith on the San Francisco Chronicle online (whole piece at link) from last month which outlines the brutal slaying of over 100 healthy sled dogs in Canada.

Because of slow business, dog handler Robert Fawcett was instructed by his employer to get rid of excess dogs that they couldn't support. The company is Outdoor Adventures Whistler. After a vet refused to put the healthy dogs to sleep Robert decided to kill them using a gun and a knife. This is a man who claims:

He had named them. He'd raised them. He was responsible for feeding them, caring for them, and handling them. He lived with them, and was available to tend to them seven days a week. He had developed, he said, "a relationship of mutual love and trust" with them.

I am dedicated to my dog and have gone through all those same motions/emotions. I would certainly say I have a relationship of mutual love and trust with my dog. We share a really strong connection and I trust her completely and she knows I am here to protect her and that I provide for her. Since Ruby is my first dog I never knew how deep this kind of bond could be or that it could even exist - it's been wonderful having her in my life. Side note: I realize how cheesey and crunchy I sound. I think that if you have never had a dog, or if you have one but aren't really a "dog person", you may not understand and that's totally cool. I also am a cat lover and have always had cats and can say that the relationship is really different between guardians and their dogs vs. their cats. I almost think it's genetic or something! Some people like cheese. Some are chocoholics. Some people love dogs. Some people hate them. Regardless of how you feel about dogs, I hope we can all agree that the way Robert handled these perfectly healthy animals, and the total apathy Outdoor Adventures Whistler showed these dogs is unacceptable and immoral. This paragraph in particular illuminates the horror inflicted on the animals:

By the time he'd killed 15 dogs, the rest were starting to panic. This made it harder to get a clean shot on every dog, and as a consequence, the report states, "he wounded but did not kill one dog, 'Suzie.' Suzie was the mother of (Fawcett's) family's pet dog, 'Bumble.' He had to chase Suzie through the yard because the horrific noise she made when wounded caused him to drop the leash. Although she had the left side of her cheek blown off and her eye hanging out, he was unable to catch her."

Ok. Now I'm sickened and pissed off. Let's call him Fucker, instead of Fawcett, ja? No reasonably sane, mentally sound individual could be okay with doing something like that to begin with. And no healthy person would CONTINUE to slaughter the dogs after maybe the first one. Maybe some people can't envision things well - like, I have a hard time visualizing which curtains would look nice in my dining room so after one year I still have no curtains in there and the room echos something awful. Maybe Fucker is like that. Maybe he thought it would be easier and that he could suppress the voice in his head screaming that this is wrong. After doing it once and seeing the blood and really coming to terms with the fact you're killing a healthy, kind, hard working dog that did nothing but serve your employer to make everyone money is fucked up. You're not dying of starvation, lost in the woods and need to eat the dog (gross). Your boss simply can't afford to maintain these dogs. You're killing them because of the shit economy.

Yeah. WHAT?!

When companies need to save money they have some options. They can "streamline" (fire people and make the remaining folks do triple the work and tell them they're lucky they didn't get laid off). They can sell off losing parts of the business. They can outsource. They can relocate parts of their business to Ireland for insane tax savings. When these things happen it usually involves liquidating physical assets. There is a market for the used cubicles, coffee pots, computers, data center equipment, etc. This was my dad's business for years. One unfortunate summer after college, before I got a job, I worked for him. I helped him break down rows of empty cubicles in office buildings where hundreds got laid off and help him post random shit on Ebay. Most depressing two months ever.

It would make business sense that when Outdoor Adventures saw a severe downturn in business that they'd have to make some hard decisions. I understand this includes reducing the fleet of dogs to a more manageable size. But that's where my agreement with Outdoor "Murder Spree" Adventures ends. See. Dogs aren't desks. Nor are they a 7 year old PC that still runs the Excel version from like Windows 2000 or something. New Excel is so much prettier. Dogs are living, breathing creatures in which people have become emotionally invested and made part of their families. As a company you need to understand the risks you are assuming. In the business of running sled rides for tourists you assume the risk of managing and maintaining the welfare of things that are alive and are more complicated and more feeling than an amoeba. Outdoor Adventures needn't go out of business but the business had every moral and ethical - and I would argue it also be legal - responsibility to find alternative housing for these mush dogs or go bankrupt. Killing the dogs isn't an option. Going into a business that uses animals as sophisticated as dogs means a greater level of responsibility to your company's assets than going into business that uses tractors or fermentation barrels to make money. Outdoor Adventures: Fuck. You.

Back to Robert. The guy was probably desperate to keep his job and felt he had no choice. But he did. I'd bet my money that Outdoor Adventures didn't kidnap his kids or his wife and threaten to rape them and murder them if he didn't comply. That would not making killing the dogs okay but I would not blame him to going to irrational extremes to save his family. Alas, at worst, his employment was at risk. He lives in fukkin' CANADA, yo!! Isn't the social safety net woven out of gold?! That's what we here in 'Merica heard. It's not like Little Fucker Junior would go without his asthma medication or something because Big Daddy Fucker doesn't have a job. And Fucker could have really made this work in his favor. He could have written a letter describing the fact that the company owes these living creatures a lot more than death because business is slow and that he refuses to kill them. He should have demanded resources to assist him in placing them in homes. He should have then emailed it to create a trail. When they fired him for having balls and a soul he should have gone to every single newspaper that exists. He should have begged his way on to news programs. He allegedly called the SPCA in Canada twice and got no help - this should have been added to his scandalous revelations on TV.

Well. Glad he's so tenacious and decided it was just easier to kill the dogs...

He is now claiming he has emotional issues because of it. Considering the fact he willingly murdered the dogs I would say he had emotional issues before, too. I don't have any sympathy for him. I would gladly be fired and collect unemployment if it meant calling attention to and stopping the execution of 100 dogs. Maybe that's why Outdoor Adventures hired Fucker. They knew he was a bad guy and views dogs in the same light as they all view their Keurig coffee machine.

Now. The SPCA - read the article about their unwillingness to help place the dogs. They said the dogs were unadoptable, period, over the phone. Sled dogs ARE adoptable! Check out the comment on the Chronicle article by snickdog, who says it better than I could:

snickdog
5:05 AM on February 10, 2011
As this story continues to unfold, one thing keeps bothering me and that's how someone who never SAW the dogs, never evaluated them in person, could have deemed them "unadoptable." Really. How does that work? If you are sick and call your doctor, what would happen if he said you were terminally ill without ever seeing you or running tests? Would you make your funeral plans or might you want a second opinion from someone who actually SAW you, maybe ran tests (and found out you only had a stomache [sic] bug)?

These dogs never even got the chance for a FIRST opinion. While there is one killer (by his own admission) in this situation, there are others who contributed just as much, in my opinion.

First, we have a pre-conceived notion by the SPCA (who were supposed to go out, but never did - again, their own admission), fueled by a "vet who is also a behaviorist" and an "expert" -- neither of whom had EVER seen the dogs in question and don't seem to know much at all about sled dogs-- making what turned out to be a life or death decision for not one but 100 dogs. Is this ethical? You will never be able to convince me that it's ethical.

Even if I didn't have 4 sled dogs myself - all adopted from a mushing kennel - I would still think this sight-unseen "evaluation" of their adoptability was totally wrong. As someone who HAS adopted four retired/unneeded sled dogs, I feel I have the background to say they are adoptable. All of the mushers I know routinely adopt out unwanted dogs, and as their dogs reach retirement age, the mushers easily transition them into "house huskies." Racing and touring huskies are bred to get along with other dogs and with people - they have to in order to run on a team and be handled easily.

Those evaluations make no sense at all to anyone who has worked and lived with huskies. When evaluating this situation, lets not forget this horrendous ethical breach by those who felt they "knew" dogs they'd never seen; to me, they are just as much at fault, even if they didn't actually pull the trigger.

The last sentence says a lot. If the SPCA really did tell Robert they were unadoptable and turned him away then I'm with snickdog 100%.

I wish nothing but pain, suffering, and troubled times for Robert Fawcett and Outdoor Adventures. I hope they meet their end in an equally inhumane, painful way as the dogs did. I hope their lives collapse around them and they cannot find an ounce of will to carry on and live. Never have I wanted karma to be more real and more powerful.

To the murdered mush dogs: RIP little buddies. You deserved so much more than this. To the surviving dogs: Please don't judge us all. We're not all evil.

2011-03-03T08:31:00.000-05:00

Greetings! My sincerest apologies to my two readers (Meghan and Keirsten). I have neglected this place. It's always in the back of my mind but since my laptop died it's been tough to consistently post here.

Which is why it makes little sense I started another blog. I am going to spend some time dedicating myself to it because this new blog is of noble roots and lofty goals: a FOOD blog, specifically a low carb food blog. I will document the delicious things I eat and hopefully progress in my weight loss (20 pounds is my goal). There will probably be a few posts of my dog, too, since no blog is complete without her.

Please check it out! I really want people to be inspired to change their eating habits and to share their own food ideas, successes and failures.

Hope to see you there!

http://lowcarbgangstah.blogspot.com/

2010-12-03T18:19:00.001-05:00

I oft describe the irrational, unyielding, painfully pungent urge to have a baby, which many women experience, as Baby Rabies. Some will dispute the desire to reproduce as a biological urge; it was once put to me on a blog "well, I really want a McClaren F1, but I don't get to have one". As if reproduction were a simple desire for a thing. If wanting to make a baby were on par with wanting a really fast, really expensive car I would imagine we'd have died off before Jesus had a chance to show up. Or we'd all be very poor and living in these, having to pack entire extended families into them as they're over a millie.

I personally believe that for many women wanting to have a baby is driven by some mechanism that is beyond the control of rationalizing to cost of such a thing. After all. All species are driven to do this same exact thing, while they're simultaneously not at all concerned with wanting to possess race cars. Equating "wanting a baby" to "wanting a big house/bigger boobs/more vacation time/anything else people might want" seems idiotic.

This is all coming form someone who has NO-Baby Rabies.

I'm 25. Married to a wonderful man. I love my life...just the way it is, save for another dog or ten. I have no desire to have babies right now, though I can see us with children in 5+ years. I'd go so far as to say the idea of being pregnant and giving birth not only freaks the fuck out of me, but it grosses me out to the point where I don't know if I'd be mentally stable during the pregnancy. The idea of having something growing inside me and taking over my body is so repulsive I would need to drink (yet somehow I know I wouldn't jeopardize the damn alien invader), add to that THIS WHOLE FUCKING ARTICLE (on Elle.com via Gawker.com). All in all, the whole thing leaves me with a very confident feeling of "No fucking thank you".

Well. Wouldn't you believe, they're now calling my feelings tocophobia.

Phobias are fears taken to the irrational, sometimes to the point of debilitating your daily life. You can certainly get mugged, raped and murdered by a stranger out in the world but becoming a recluse and completely avoiding the outside seems a bit excessive, right? Thus, we have a neat little term for such folks: agoraphobics. When you have a phobia you seek to avoid the thing at all costs. Having to face this thing might lead to physical reactions of increased blood pressure, hyperventilation, grabbing on to the nearest body on the observation deck of the Empire State Building whilst pissing yourself, you know the rest of it. The idea of being pregnant doesn't make me hyperventilate but I can assure you I'd be severely depressed, feeling betrayed by my body for getting pregnant against my deepest wishes, feeling trapped into a life I don't want (too soon for kids), and dreading the loss of being in charge of both my body and my life.

This will seem insane to someone who is okay with the idea of being pregnant or, even more insanely, WANTS to be pregnant. But do I have a "phobia"?

I guess this fear is on par with the following things I have fear of:

Getting eaten alive by an animal (e.g: a fucking shark) OR similar horrific demise (e.g: being stabbed; cutting off my own foot)
Being in a human centipede, especially one of the people not in the front
Waking up covered in bugs/swallowing bugs/having bugs in my orifices
Having a living organism grow inside my body, sucking away my energy, causing unpleasant physical symptoms each day, distorting the shape of my body permantently then causing severe pain, disfigurement that permanently affects my ability to enjoy my intimacy with my husband thus causing a depletion in self-confidence, and possible death/long term health problems once it decides to come out. Let's just keep this in perspective: human pregnancy is really not that much different than this.

I try to avoid all of the things I mentioned above because they are disgusting, horrendous and otherwise unpleasant. But again, am I "phobic" of these things? Are you? Or are we just simply fearful and turned off by them and hope to avoid them all our long, happy lives? I assure you that, if face-to-face with a great white shark in the middle of the ocean after being shipwrecked, I'd have a goddamn fucking panic attack and definitely attempt to shoot myself in the head before that thing can eat my GODDAMN FUCKING LEGS. Did reading that sentence make your heart speed up a bit? If it did, does that make you phobic of getting eaten by Jaws or just normal? I guess the deciding factor would be along the lines of: if your fear of Jaws is so great you never enter the ocean, let alone go on a boat, it might be a phobia. If you just assume death by Jaws is imminent every time you go into the ocean, which is why you make a point to drink while on the beach, then you might just be normal.

If you have a qualified phobia, and seek help to deal with it, you may need some anti-anxiety meds and you'll most likely get some Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. CBT is a type of treatment where the goal is to learn to deal with your anxiety through repeated exposure to THE THING. Over time you'll hopefully become desensitized to THE THING and will be able to go about your life more normally. In keeping with our previous example, you'll just be a beach drinker then swim with a smile plastered on your face while secretly scanning the water for shadows continuously.

Based on some of the articles I've read, tocophobia is being seen as a widespread issue among women who have fear of pregnancy/birth. I think the diagnosis makes sense where the woman wants to have the baby naturally, but she stops herself from becoming pregnant because of the fear. For me, the disgust/fear/holyshitnoway actually turns me off to the idea completely. Like. If I never had a pregnancy in my life I would be very happy about it, just like I would be very happy about not getting bitten by a shark. Cases like mine seem to be more common than the former - and such cases are getting the phobia label.

Maybe it is a psychological condition for some women, but looking at normal reservations, or a desire not to reproduce biologically (as opposed to adoption or a surrogate) and calling it a phobia (which, remember, is a psychological condition sometimes needing medication and behavioral treatment) classifies women as freaks or something that is broken and can (should?!) be fixed. I am one such woman. Am I broken? Because I'll admit it: I feel like a weirdo, and like less of a real woman, because I have zero cravings to grow a child in my uterus. In fact. Take the whole damn uterus out. See, that? I AM REJECTING MY FEMALE PARTS. I am a bad woman; I don't feel at one with the universe when I have my period.

It's worth mentioning I also am not willing to deal with the physical fall out after the baby is born. I don't want a saggy stomach. I don't want to be a Queen Queefer; I want to enjoy sex with my husband. It'll be hard enough having the time and energy to bone once you have to take care of kids, let alone having to also deal with a vagina identity crisis, leaky tits, a leaky bladder, and sagging stomach. Many people will feel this makes me selfish, superficial and cruel. I am failing my husband. I am a blemish on womankind.

Granted, no one has said to me "you are a freak because you don't want a baby" but want to know what I do hear? "You'll change your mine. You'll want to be pregnant and you'll be so happy when the baby is born." The other day I got "Just get over it. Having a baby is normal." So is passing a kidney stone. I have no doubt I'd love my child and I have no doubts about my maternal instincts or ability to raise a child. Kids usually like me and I usually like them...and when that happens it's awesome. I've been head over heels in love with kids I've babysat so I can't even imagine how obsessed I'd be with my own babies. Part of me wishes I was just okay with the whole pregnancy thing. It would be easier (and cheaper - adoption is expensive!) than having to wrangle with all these extreme emotions and feeling guilty and freakish for having them. I envy women like my neighbor, who said to me that when she was pregnant she felt totally at home in your pregnant body. She said "I felt like 'This is my temple' it was so awesome". I'm jealous!I want to want this.

I think the whole thing is fucked up all around. It should be okay to have or to not have babies, and to have a family however makes you happy. Having babies is now seen as a choice more than any other time in history, it's not an assumption like it used to be, therefore the pros and cons are weighed like any other decision in life which can give more significance to things like NOT WANTING TO ACTUALLY BE PREGNANT OR HAVE YOUR VAGINA RIPPED APART. That was a bad run-on sentence. Opting-out of having kids is becoming more acceptable; I'd like to see it become acceptable to opt-out of pregnancy and adopt by choice just because you don't want to have the kid inside you...not because you're an environmentalist and worried about over population, or because you (sadly, if you want to be preg) can't have them yourself. Instead of treating this as something that needs fixing and women who don't want to be pregnant as abnormal, let's address it like another choice people have in life - none of which are wrong, or bad, or abnormal but just different than the one you want for yourself.

Besides. You tell me which is cuter:

This

or this

By the way, my apologies to the parents of that baby. I'm sure s/he's cute now. But fucking a, newborns are not cute to me. In fact, dogs have it made. Their pups come out in water filled sacs and are uniform in shape - what an evolutionary wonder...no enormous fucking head to put you through the ring of fire! Maybe I was just born 5,000 years too soon.

2010-11-23T10:57:00.000-05:00

Most people understand that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a work computer - it's company property, they can do what they want with it. This extends, I would think, to other devices like phones or iPads (who gets an iPad from work? But if you DID get one - don't be shady with it!). What most people probably DON'T think of is a company having control over their personal mobile phone.

Well. Enter the grey realm, where Amanda Stanton recently found herself wandering aimlessly when her iPhone suddenly blanked out. It was dead. No calling abilities. Contacts gone. Everything just...gone. Amanda's company had send a remote wipe to her phone. Her personal phone. story was discussed in an All Things Considered piece (read and listen here).

Amanda's company claims a technician did this accidentally, but the mere fact they could do it freaked her out. And rightfully so - after all, she's the one on the hook for the device, her name is on the contract and she pays the bill every month. Her company does not reimburse her.

Before you panic: your employer probably can't do this to your personal phone. Unless, of course, you've synced up your phone with office e-mail. Once your phone is connected with the Microsoft Outlook exchange server - over which your employer has inarguable control - their control and power can reach your personal device. This technology, which isn't exactly new, can send a signal to your phone, via the exchange servers, to kill your phone's Bluetooth, GPS, disable the camera/video, or do a complete wipe like Amanda experienced.

The argument companies make supporting this tech are along the lines of protecting itself from data breeches. If your phone contains important information that relates to the company, should your company be able to minimize risk? I would argue that in the case of a company-paid-for mobile phone the answer it 100% yes. Of course a business should be able to control the flow of data over devices it supplies. But personal phones? It would make sense that they could wipe/disable the Outlook application, archived e-mails and contacts as those things are company information but...the GPS? The video? Most companies will have you sign a waiver before syncing up but Amanda was shocked and obviously didn't get any information that her company could wipe her whole phone at will.

This all begs the questions: What reasonable expectation of privacy does a person have? What rights does a company have to protect itself? Where does the line between work and non-work lie?

I'm going to marinate in these questions for a while. What say you?

For now, I'd rather leave work at work. And if they want me answering e-mails from home it sure as shit won't be on my computer or on my phone. If I pay for it it's MINE MINE MINE (*stomps feet like a 3 year old*).

2010-11-17T13:46:00.000-05:00

I know you've heard of Four Loko. The fruity, canned beverage contains a mix of caffeine, booze, guarana and taurine (plus flavoring, sugar and some carbonated water) and packs a boozey punch equal to several beers plus several cups of coffee. It's been around for years but for some reason it's become notorious and buzzed about ad nauseam over the past month. I'll add to the discussion-nausea!

Colleges and universities have been cracking down and placing bans on possessing and consuming the drink. Now states and the feds are getting involved by trying to get the stuff completely banned. They apparently didn't realize a similar concoction is easy to recreate on your own with some energy drink, like Red Bull, and vodka. Don't forget Irish Coffee. But please don't tell them in case they want to re-instate the 18th rape-age of your freedom.

Because I really love OUTLINES, especially the kind that were drilled into us in high school, I will go with my favorite layout here:

Thesis: The government is annoying

Developmental ideas:

1. Banning Four Loko won't stop people from getting jacked up on caffeine and alcohol, and therefore it is a waste of congressional efforts and shouldn't be done. Just like I mention above, it's a simple, classic combination to keep you raging and lose your mind. It can be recreated easily, quickly and in an affordable manner therefore a ban on Four Loko will not solve the "dilemma" of people getting really shit faced and hyper.

2. As long as no one can prove drinking Four Loko actually has an impact on rape, murder, accident and other types of crimes which are committed against others they don't have an argument. Four Loko has proven itself to be a powerful combination of elements which stupid people are having trouble handling when they drink it to excess. Call it Evolution or libertarianism (little "l", mind you), I don't give a hoot. But I retain my right to get as effed up as I would like to so long as I don't harm anyone else. This is very scary to people who don't support civil liberties and don't think people should be able to make their own choices. Please stop trying to protect me from myself, thank you.*

If people are in hospitals because they're consuming too much of this beverage these people should feel the full weight of those choices. They should pay the subsequent hospital bills, endure the humiliation of being unable to monitor his/her own alcohol intake, deal with the wrath of family/friends, and feel all around like crap the next day or whatever health issues arise as a result. This is the only way people will learn to make better choices for themselves next time. Once we rely on external forces to make our choices for us, we lose the ability to make these choices for ourselves completely and become completely dependent upon that external force. Is that what you want? Because it's what they want.

3. Don't we have an enormous budget deficit to work on and one-sided war to wage? If this is really what these fools are worrying about, and spending their time (our tax dollars) contemplating and regulating then they should should take a pay cut. I'm not fucking kidding. Do something worthwhile that will actually impact the country in a beneficial way. Like fixing the SS system. Or keeping the internet free. Not financially free, idiot.

Conclusion: Rational choice theory, per economics, employs a utilitarian method of approaching an issue. If the gains are greater than the costs, a choice is rational. If we exclude my Big Brother paranoia for a minute we can conclude the proposed bans are irrational as far as the government's true purpose. Because there is not measurable harm on society (no proven link to increase in homicide, bankruptcy, unemployment, rape - anything that affect society negatively when rates change in some way) that can be directly attributed to Four Loko and yet it costs tax payers money to have these buffoons put the bans in place, and time spend addressing Four Loko means time NOT being spent on issues that are actually important, I argue the cost to society is much greater than the non-existent gain.

HOWEVER. If you're on the same page of Paranoia, A Novel as I am and see the government as an entity that doesn't care about your civil liberties and fear we're going by way of V for Vendetta, you'll agree they're being quite rational. Any legislation that removes personal choice from the people is gain for them.

It appears I am getting worked up over potential bans on a drink I've never even consumed (and don't want to consume - I like my Santa Margarita Reisling), precisely because we need to react in full force to every push against our ability to make our own lifestyle choices. How easy is it to justify prohibition? Very easy. Drinking inhibits your physical functions, your mental functions, there is an established medical addiction linked to it, etc. Being totally disciplined, straight edged and completely focused on productivity maximizes your value to society. Hell, I'm almost convinced. Do you really want to die knowing the only thing you ever lived for was maximizing your benefit to society? Pretty bleak. That's why I'm hitting an innocuous issue so hard. It's one regulation at a time. It's getting sexually assaulted by TSA at the airport - legally. It's being told how to spend your free time. It's government curfews. It happens slowly, over time, so you don't notice it.

*I have a heart condition which forces me to limit my intake of stimulants. I can't drink much caffeine without getting heart palpitations and, if I have enough, tachycardia. I am, shockingly, able to regulate my consumption of uppers (in my case, this just means caffeine) without the government seizing my medical records and removing my Dunkin' Donuts Trubo ground coffee from my kitchen "for my own good".

2010-11-16T22:05:00.000-05:00

No, this isn't a post complaining about having too much shit to do. I just wanted to share what was actually on my dinner plate this evening.

Do you have a few meals you consider favorites but they're not exactly something you might brag about? Most people will agree on the finer things - a glass of good champagne, hunks of real Parmesan cheese, truffles, dark chocolate sprinkled with sea salt, your grandmother's meatballs and homemade sauce, your mom's apple pie. You get the idea. But then, on your list, you might sneak on a Big Mac or Kraft Mac 'N Cheese, or deep fried pickles dipped in peanut butter (I just made that up and it sounds totally gross - I wonder if anyone really eats that?!).

This Secret Favorite Foods list is secret because it can be a little embarrassing. It's not exactly the kind of secret that'll keep you out of the FBI (unless magic brownies is on your list) but they're not very brag-worthy food items. Not saying you have to go around impressing everyone with your sophisticated taste in food but you might get a few looks when you reveal to your coworkers you eat the same thing for dinner 5 nights a week that they go home and feed their kids at 5:30 PM - which, of course, is not what they eat themselves at 7:30 PM.

Some foods on my list:
- Pizza: this isn't embarrassing but I am truly addicted. I eat pizza once a week at minimum, and I only limit my consumption because I am trying not to weight 300 lbs.
- College Casserole: My own creation which can be made in a dorm without a kitchen (Annie's Mac N Cheese, peas and honey battered chicken nuggets)
- White wine spritzers: I started this over the summer to help keep myself hydrated when drinking and also slow me down. But now I can't break the habit, even when I'm drinking a $30 bottle of wine. Pretty embarrassing. No, I don't "cut" my reds with anything.
- And a newcomer: Chicken and rice casserole...with mayonnaise. This has been on my list as one of my top comfort foods since I was a kid but I forgot about it for years. I remembered it on Sunday and was ravenous for it. My mom didn't remember the recipe but it was something she got from Arthur Roebuck who ran catering around our area. I found something online that sounded similar to what she remembered and it was spot-on. So delicious, comforting and easy. Here's what I did...

Chicken and Rice Casserole (inspired by Arthur Roebuck's British Relief Restaurant)
4 boneless, skinless chicken tits*
2 cups rice, any kind you like (I used Uncle Ben's quick cooking brown rice)
Chicken stock for cooking the rice**
2 Bay leaves
1 can of Campbell's Cream of Chick condensed soup
1 cup of mayo, I happen to like Cain's
2 tbl. whole grain mustard, I use Maille because Giada likes it
1 lemon, juiced
Few cups of Corn Flakes, OR crushed Ritz OR whatevs the hell you want to use that's crunchy and makes you happy
Pepper to taste

Preheat your dragon-fire heated stove to 350 degrees F

1. Poach chicken. Google it if you're confused. I do it in broth for extra flavor. Once they're cooked let them cool for a few minutes then shred those bitches.
2. Cook rice as directed on box except see my SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE below that says USE BROTH and the bay leaves. This is the kind of simple move in the kitchen that separates the people who give a shit about what they're making and the ones that cause dinner guests to suggest going to a restaurant next time they want to see you. What kind of rice do YOU want to make, huh?
2b. Pick out the bay leaves and discard.
3. In a 9x12ish casserole dish put all the ingredients EXCEPT Corn Flakes (includes cooked/shredded chicken + cooked rice).
4. Put your Corn Flakes on top of that shit. I crunch them up a little and push them down into the mushy layer. Some people might be inclined to put some melted butter on there, too. I didn't because our toilet was spewing (clean) water so I threw it in the oven as it was and ran to observe the excitement in the bathroom.
5. Cook for about 30-40 minutes - until crust is really golden.

* I actually only used 3.5 boobies since I gave a few very large hunks to Ruby. She was being so CUTE, I couldn't resist.
** Please don't use water. That's not flavorful and therefore ghetto.

Finished product - not the best lighting and not the best looking dish but I promise, it is yummy

2010-11-15T11:06:00.001-05:00

I should probably talk about the wedding and honeymoon and my initial thoughts on being married but let's talk about more exciting things than an overpriced party and my relationship?

How about talking about something that has pretty much been discussed at length already? Over on Amy Alkon's blog she posted a series of videos posted by Sam Dodson and his experience with TSA in an airport. There is also this guy.

Please read the posts - I'm not going to recap their stories. And besides, the three videos relating Mr. Dodson's experience are much more powerfully appalling than what I could relay in a paragraph. But yes, read the posts not just so the rest of my post makes sense, but because we need to spread their experiences to as many people as possible.

Here are some of the excuses ("supporting arguments" if we want to be generous) used by people who agree with TSA regs and believe the current system is both necessary and good for the safety of fliers.

1. "You already knew you could be subjected to [a pat down; the sexual predator x-ray device; being sniffed by a dog; etc.] before coming in so you shouldn't be upset/complain"

So because I knew I could be sexually molested by a TSA screener before I entered the airport, it's ok? That's exactly like telling a person she deserved to get raped because she wore a short skirt - she asked for it, silly! Stupid woman shouldn't make herself look so FINE. How does flying on a plane somehow make molestation acceptable? The logical steps used to arrive at their conclusion (justification for sexual assault on your crotch) escape me because there are no steps - it simply doesn't make sense that flying on a plane and having someone touch around your genitalia go hand in hand. Or crotch in hand, if you want to be cheeky.

2. (Or, 1. Part B) "If you don't like it, don't fly"

And again. If you don't want to get raped, don't leave your house. Or if you don't like the way animals who are raised for meat are raised, become a vegetarian. All three "solutions" are extreme reactions to problems that have much more straight forward and reasonable fixes. For example, if you don't want to get raped take self-defense, carry a weapon, get in your cardio at the gym and generally use common sense. If you don't like how meat animals are raised, get educated on how they're treated and encourage people to eat locally from farms you know raise the animals with respect and care - even though that means pricier meat and you eat it less often. As for flying, we shouldn't just succumb to their violations and demands or rely on outmoded ways to travel. As far as I thought we weren't yet being raised for meat. Let's try and keep it that way. Know your rights. Complain. Blog about it. Make a fuss (politely, intelligently).

3. "It's for your safety/to catch terrorists."

When all citizens are presumed to be terrorists and anyone's civil rights can be violated at any moment - searched without reason, without a warrant, just because an agent feels like it - isn't making us safer. It's just swapping out Dangerous Group A with Dangerous Group B. I believe Mr. Dobson described this as slowly molding us into sheep. Instead of just coming out and taking away all our rights they chip away at them slowly so we almost don't notice. We become compliant. Willing. We don't question. Dissent isn't an exercise in free speech or an assertion of rights - it's an attempt to hurt America. It undermines the State. As the video shows, those individuals are dealt with swiftly and harshly. Do you want to be able to speak your mind calmly and thoughtfully without being accused of causing trouble, being a public nuisance and being a potential terrorist?

A commenter on Amy's site, Jim posted the following:

Just curious what the proposed solution is. There's plenty of Againstism in punditry these days, but the result of catastrophic failure for a security protocol is jaw-droppingly extreme and something besides complaining about security should enter into the dialogue.
Sure, we should hire smarter TSA employees -- but in what category of life would smarter employees not be an improvement?
No searches? Just search brown young men w/ beards?
All security is invasive on some level, and has to keep changing and improving and elevating -- unless someone thinks the cadre of murderous sociopaths will just give up trying or are too stupid to think ahead.
Clearly some of them are stupid, or not smart enough, but even a cockroach learns by trying.
Posted by: Jim Hames at November 14, 2010 9:42 AM

It's true - there's a lot of Against-ism around the blogs and interwebs. Unfortunately, I am not researched-enough, and do not possess the resources necessary to come up with a viable solution that eliminates the violation of rights and government-approved sexual assault and pedophilia. It was my impression that there are people being paid by tax payers whose sole job is to actually figure this shit out. But let's start with his comment about hiring smarter TSA employees. I agree - smarter people tend to bring greater benefits to their employers than dumb people. Of course, smarts is subjective. A smart estate attorney might help his client avoid lots of money in taxes but that lawyer's smarts might not make him a good TSA screener. So, I'd prefer it if Jim didn't make light of the need for better trained, hand-picked personnel. We need agents who have intelligence background, are not rewarded for the sheer quantity of persons they detain and question, and are preferably lacking in NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) or LPS (little penis syndrome). National security isn't a pissing contest. And that applies to women, too. No ego maniacs allowed. These people should be tightly managed and have the constitution memorized and accept it as The Word. The Israelis use university students who previously spent time in the military. Given the safety/success track record of Israeli airports maybe we should follow their lead and hire - of all people - young'uns! I support this, in particular, because younger people tend to be more self-righteous observers of individual freedoms and rights, as most college students I know go through a period of anti-police-state indignation around this time in life. That is one holier than thou attitude the TSA is allowed to keep.

Jim then goes on to make a quip at searching people with beards. In other words, he challenges the concept of racial profiling. This method is used successfully in Israel and allows most citizens, who are not terrorists, to get through the airport with minimal violation of their rights, body and time. But, oh, how offensive this is to Americans. Even if this method has a proven track record when applied fairly and correctly by trained persons, it's so politically incorrect that people won't even entertain the concept. Racial profiling can be done badly and it can hurt minority groups - and it has in our country in the past and today, even if it's not an official policy. Prejudice and bias are bad. Racial profiling in an airport isn't necessarily those things. Again. Look to Israel.

His last point discusses how, with security, there is inevitably some level of violation. And...what? Well I'm not entirely sure since he didn't complete his thought, but I'll anticipate it and reply snarkily: That means we should just allow TSA agents to look at naked pictures of us and our children? Or to feel around our private areas? And how about forced vaginal exams just to see if there is an explosive in there? Or being forced to have our breasts fondled to make sure there aren't bombs in our tits? Having my license plate run against some database is a slight violation, being sexually assaulted or forced to show my ID for no reason and being hassled without cause is not - those are egregious behaviors that should be eliminated and people who perpetrate these crimes should be fired and fined. Yes. We should just fire the TSA and sue the lot of them. Because we should expect some inconvenience and have to deal with not being able to travel truly freely doesn't mean anyone should have carte blanche authority over our bodies or our belongings. The idea that it's all or nothing seems poorly thought out and very lazy.

So, Jim, after all your complaining about against-ists and their empty complaints and arguments you present your own empty words - just a bunch of contrary-for-the-sake-of-it b.s. Sorry to just randomly pick Jim's comment and get huffy with it but it seemed so ridiculous that I couldn't resist.

Update: Crazy fucking news story about a 3-year old being frisked.

2010-09-23T08:11:00.000-04:00

Things crossing my mind.

- I was annoyed that the DJ had a hard time understanding I don't want all Top 100 songs. In fact, there will be very few of those (unless you look at Top 100 from different eras, like "Top 100 Songs of the 80s"...)
- Also annoyed that Dave even suggested "Mr. and Mrs. HisFirst HisLast" as one option for the grand entrance. We're past that. I thought. I'm sick of that entire conversation.
- Worried about the ten day forecast. It says rain. All. Week. No more going to weather.com.
- Stressed that the wedding has been so all-consuming that I haven't had sufficient time to keep on my exercise regime. If I could just take the dog with me to kickboxing or the gym I'd be wonderful. (Which leads me to one of my many business ideas...)
- Good bye, savings account. It was nice knowing you. Hello big, scary bills.
- How am I supposed to be normal at work for the next few days? I am way too hyper off of OMGI'MGETTINGMARRIEDINAWEEK drugs to function normally.
- It would be nice if my stomach normalized. It's been a mess for two months.
- SO PUMPED FOR THE BACH PARTY!!!
- Also, SO PSYCHED TO GET MARRIED!!!
- I think I'll go see The Town tomorrow. Seems like a nice, low-key thing to do. I need to do anything but think about the wedding until a week from now.

2010-09-14T08:06:00.001-04:00

Three weeks from now I will be a married woman.

That should make me freak out but it's not.

Here are the things currently ensuring my stomach sees no end to its turmoil and are tops in my thoughts:

1. Paying for the wedding. Even though our wedding spending falls well below the national average, it's still a lot for us to swallow. I can't stop thinking of the opportunity costs. $17,000 could have given our small kitchen a face lift (new crown molding, painted cabinets, new door knobs/handles, etc: 3,000) as well as our bathroom (new tile: 1,000 with installation), and furniture for the t.v. room. With change to spare. I doubt I will ever, ever, come to terms with this. It just feels irrational. And yet I have a hard time thinking of how we'd celebrate the wedding in a different way that would feel right. Ahh, lovely paradoxical brain.

2. I haven't lost a pound of the weight I wanted to lose for the wedding. Also, I am just sick of having to defend my feelings whether its to "society" or to feminists. I just want to lose some weight and not have a pooch, OKAY PEOPLE?! Don't make me feel like that's not enough weight to lose ("you can never be too thin!"), or that I am giving in to the evil patriarchy.

Here I am, feeling a bit chubbier than I'd like and not understanding wtf what going on with my bod. Then this nugget comes across my radar. I think my parents having an ugly divorce, me being newly estranged from my father, my mom having to sell the house I grew up in to a snotty woman then helping my mom move, all while planning a wedding that is a bit more money and a bit more elaborate than I am totally comfortable with..and I'd say I have me some chronic stress (well, like at least 3-5 months of hard core stress). So, even though I upped the cardio and eliminated extra carbs I lost no weight. Which was frustrating. Because I wanted my arms to look cut in my strapless dress. My hope is immediately after the reception my body spontaneously loses 15 pounds, so all the sweating and pain I endured in an un-airconditioned smelly octagon every Tuesday and Thursday over the summer weren't in vain.

3. I could easily be freaking out about the fact I will have huge zits at my wedding. Because that's another way my body reacts to stress in addition to chub: ZITS. I've been battling breakouts all summer. My skin is healing right now and looks great. I have come to understand this will not last. Especially since the change in seasons typically means zits for most people, just generally speaking. My skin will be flawless until the day before the wedding, when something large, red, inflamed and with its own pulse develops on my face. Maybe it will bring some friends. Hey. Zits want to party at my wedding, too! I've just come to terms that this will happen and I will have to rely heavily on my make up artist and Photoshop. I let myself be sad about this in advance so when it happens, and it will, I won't be surprised. It'll just be "oh, well, I already knew about this." I hope that's how I react...

I'll try my best to fight back, though. My routine:
AM: Very warm, wet face cloth on my face to wake me up. Followed by some tinted moisturizer and a light mineral foundation. Concealer where needed. Bit of blush. Some mascara. That's it.
PM: This is a bit more complicated. I use Mario Badescu Enzyme Cleansing Gel 5 nights a week, the other two I use MB Glycolic Foaming Cleanser. The Glycolic cleanser doesn't irritate my skin but gives me an extra bit of chemical exfoliation. I use it Tuesdays/Thursdays after kickboxing! The Enzyme cleanser is gentle, smells great, removes all the gunk on my face and leaves my skin glowing and fresh. Never squeaky clean (squeaky clean = bad).

I ALWAYS cleanse with my Clarisonic Mia. I've noticed a huge reduction in clogging since I started this cleansing routine of MB+the Mia. My pores are cleaner and less noticeable. My skin is smoother. LOVE. Cleansing follow-up:

Eucerin Q-10 Anti-Wrinkle Cream for Sensitive Skin. I love this. I don't really need it when it's hot out but a dab on my face, and more during the winter, keeps my skin hydrated and happy. It's not greasy. It doesn't make me break out. It's gentle. It doesn't react badly with my other products. I love it. Can't speak for the wrinkle fighting properties, though, since I don't have those. Yet.

I alternate:
Night 1 - Vitamin C Serum, let that soak in for an hour or two then I put on some zit stuff. Are you shocked it's all MB? I love Mario's products. They're simple to use, targeted for specific issues, affordable and they work. I use the Vitamin C serum to even out my skin tone. I find that it's helping remnants of past zits to fade faster.
Night 2 - Up until last week I would use Azelex on Night 2, but recently switched to a retinol. The fall, as we know, can lead to break outs. Making sure my skin is shedding dead cells at a good rate will help curb break outs and reduce blackheads. Also, retinol helps fade acne marks. I use this one. It works fine - I'm peeling a bit in some areas but expect my skin to adjust by next week. It's a low concentration so it isn't as irritating as ones I've gotten at the derm's.

Other: I hit dark red post-acne spots with, yes, an MB product. It definitely reduces the redness.

I wish I could afford a light therapy facial to annhilate all the bacteria in my skin so that there would be zero chance of a break out - but I don't have $200!

There you have it. Three weeks out from my wedding and I'm hung up on skin care. All products discussed in this post were discovered by and purchased by me. My blog is not cool enough to warrant getting swag.

2010-08-02T14:57:00.000-04:00

The past few weeks have brought a great deal of anxiety and stress my way. My stomach hasn't handled foods correctly in at least 8 days. I'll spare you the details but it feels yucky. The wedding shower was two Fridays ago and it was really lovely. Lots of great people came to celebrate; everyone was excited; the food and drink were good. It was much more of a "girls night out" than your typical Sunday brunch. There were no cheesey games but there was a theme drink called the Blue Hislastname (which was actually a personal jab against me b/c my aunts think I am a Really Bad Person for planning to keep my name).

There was other drama, too. My aunts are very in-your-face about stuff; my mom is very non-confrontational and non-aggressive. They picked on her for stupid shit, mostly because I think they felt they were working harder than she was (because they need things to be beyond perfect, whereas she needs them to be really awesome but is reasonable about her blood pressure). In fact, they made my mom cry. She ended up not having that much fun because they were mean to her prior to the party then scolded her for not being involved. Then when I was opening presents I was told I had to open them faster - but all the women said not to because they enjoyed seeing everything. Plus all eyes were on me so that made me feel a little crazy. It was a great time but I am just trying to create a picture in your mind of stupid little arguments, battles of opinions and a fight for control. Those issues seem to be common among most brides and have been a source of stress.

They've been pecking away at my shield of protective positive thoughts. Also. My parents are going through a ridiculous divorce. My dad is awful and I don't speak to him. The house my siblings and I grew up in is being sold and my mom is moving 30 minutes (FAR!) away. I am wavering about what I am going to go back to school to do. All that combined with the planning and financing of a wedding has made me a bit irritable. My fuse is shorter. Which in turn caused tension between Dave and me.

Then I went for a long walk and talked with Dave's sister and played with our dogs. It was a good two hour breather out in the woods where I kind of decided to let it go. She assured me that irritability and freakouts-over-nothing seem to happen to everyone before they get married (male and female). She said she knew a lot of people who break up, albeit very quietly, before their wedding. I focused on the fact Dave and I aren't near that point and the progress Dave and I made earlier in the day (bridesmaid dresses and groom/groomsmen attire all selected and ordered; first fitting in my dress that AM and I loved my dress more than I remembered!) and allowed that hurdle-jumping victory to be the center of my thoughts. When I went home I sat Dave down and we talked through some of our stupid little annoyances and concerns that seemed to be cropping up as a result of the stress we are both under (me in particular b/c of the family stuff). After that it was about 8 PM and we decided to cook a nice bolognese because it was cool and comfy. A delicious meal, cooked together, is always cathartic. We went to bed at 10 and slept for a solid 10 hours. In the morning I went to an awesome yoga class with my neighbor then came home to write shower thank-yous. Any lingering stress melted away.

I feel so ready for the wedding to come -and to go. Finally, two months before the wedding, I feel I am able to just sit back and relax. Any worries I had seem to be really minor and manageable - so it's safe to say I feel like I am in my normal frame of mind. The weird 1-2 month period of out of control stress I felt is gone and I'm ready to ride this wave all the way to the wedding.

Ahhhhh....

2010-07-30T16:59:00.000-04:00

Over on Psychology Today Anastasia Harrell talks about something I've always known but never before mulled over: If women all want a nice guy, why do Nice Guys TM (superscript the Trademark in your head; Blogger won't let me get all crazy with the font) always complain that women reject them (these are the guys with a million chick friends and their friends tell them "You're too nice".)?

And here is the thing: I have been out with a few of these guys and quickly extricated myself from the situation. There seems to be a genuine lack of confusion on the part of Nice Guy TM as to how to interact with women. They hear "women want a nice guy who is sensitive and buys them flowers" or something. We see it in pretty much every movie ever made that has a romantic bone in its body. Romance in these movies = stalking; hugely embarrassing displays of affection usually in the form of public singing where strangers give you dirty looks OR join in on the singing; women who need chocolate like they need air.

Also, in these movies, the women take to the stalking.Women then think they want men who act this way. The thing is, men in movies don't really exist in real life (because guess what, moms of the earth: George Clooney isn't going to bang you but that marginally attractive man who is only 30% bald and has man boobs will.). Women complain about the unfair standards of beauty. And unfair standards of accepted female behavior. Men have to deal with the same shit! We expect men to know exactly how we want to be treated
without telling them and then get mad that they don't. What else do they have except Hollywood to get some answers?

Then they try to be Mr. Romcom Nice Guy TM and its contrived. It's super phony. They're ACTING.It's like that weird, confusing thing women sometimes say "I want you to want to do X with me" (I think this is said in Knocked Up). Women don't want cheesey poems and flowers they want someone who can balance genuine interest with having some dignity. That last part - dignity - is what Nice Guys TM seem to lose when they're acting. They try so hard to please and don't understand that being interesting and independent is just as necessary as being a polite listener. Nice Guys TM come across as pathetic martyrs which is the opposite of dignified.

Be a guy, who is nice. Listen. Be polite. Say something genuine and sweet. But if you're trying too hard to abide by the etiquette book, have nothing to add to the conversation, know where her ex boyfriend works, and every comment comes out like "You look imaginary" (see article) then you're not a nice guy, you're a creepster.

2010-07-09T15:41:00.000-04:00

The Pros held an event near our house last night. They did a presentation for the videography, photography and DJ services. They also had free wine and cheese. We needed a DJ. So. Obviously...

We probably spent way too much on our photographer but she's wonderful and we're sure the results will thrill us. As far as a DJ...some people might disagree (audiophiles)...the DJ isn't the art/focus here: we are. We care a lot about the music being played and the flow of the event (which is why we're not just hooking up an iPod) but feel we'll get good results without hiring some club DJ mixmaster deluxe for $2,500. So anyway we had to sit through their hoopla about their videography.

It went like this:

Your wedding is going to be the single most important day of your entire life. Your own birth (death?) doesn't come close. After spending a billion dollars and 5,608.32 meticulous days planning each and every minute detail of your wedding, only a hi-res video of the entire event will ensure it is properly remembered. Each and every detail needs to be fully documented in order to acknowledge your hard work for future generations to appreciate; your anal-retentive control freak side must have this. [This is kind of appealing to the Bridezillas out there. Do note I don't use that term too loosely. I am actually, factually, referring to a dinosaur they have in Jurassic Park that wears a veil, white dress, and shrieks "My Day! My Day!" when hunting spineless prey.]

You know how you traveled to Bangalore to oversee the production of the thread used to tailor the hem of your dress? You know how you personally chopped down a forest of endangered trees to build the church and had the Pope do what special Catholic guys do to make a church, like, God's house (sanctify?)? All of it will go unappreciated unless you have a 20 hour long video (the wedding was 6 hours...) to prove you had, reallytrulyactually!, silk napkins spun by reincarnated silk worms which were scientifically modified to churn out silk to match your shit brown color scheme precisely!

Because in 25 years your kids will *need* to watch this video, over and over and over (YOU. WILL. MAKE. THEM.).

Alternatively. You're parents are all going to die, like, soon.

YOU will *need* to watch this video to remember them "in their element". You will watch this video to see your parents laughing and smiling. If you don't get a video you will hate yourself forever because your parents will be DEAD. And you won't have a video of them!!! Any memory of them will be gone FOR.EV.ORRR. DEADDEADDEAD!

At this time I am a bit buzzed. I don't know what came over me but I decided to drink 3.5 glasses of wine (they were smallish!). This was an excellent example of precognition at it's best because after the guilt tripping, morbid presentation of videography, they did the DJ presentation.

And they made me go up and do the Electric Slide. This is because the presenter guy (Tomas) kept asking the group questions and I was the only one who blurted out any answers (while Dave chuckled very fresh answers under his breath to try and make me laugh). So I danced. In front of a bunch of strangers who looked a little too smug for my liking: "Hehe she has to go dance! What an idiot! I look so cool in my new DVM frock..." If that wasn't a teachable moment then I don't know what one might be: I looked dumb, and felt even more dumb = No DJ-led line dancing at our wedding! Only free form, seizure-like spasms of La Roux induced awesomeness.

THEN. They drew our names from a bucket to give out door prizes. We didn't get drawn. After all that participation we left with heads hung low and $150 poorer (deposit). What a let-down!

My conclusions are these:

I'm a bit of a cynical bitch, but I can make a fool out of myself for the sake of having a good time and adding to the overall well being of a social gathering. And I laugh at myself for doing so.
I don't need to remember EVERY single detail of the wedding. Mostly because I'm not allowing myself to get so caught up in the details as to go crazy. I can imagine that if I spent unholy amounts of time on everything from the chair covers to the napkin rings to the exact serving temperature of the food I might inclined to feel the event requires over-documentation. If I were such a nutjob, I'd probably not come to this realization at all; the video would be just an extension of my over-zealous control.
Perfection isn't the goal. Getting married to Dave is my goal - and I'd like to have us look good doing it and have a fun, pretty celebration after. We're spending more on it than I want ($17,000! That's a new kitchen from IKEA!). I want to document the beautiful moments and most special details (like a picture of our shiny new wedding rings together!! Ooooo!!!). But I don't need zoomed in, slow motion video coverage of the place settings.
Wrong approach to sell me on something we don't really want or have the money for.

2010-07-08T10:43:00.000-04:00

Little Ruby Boobie McPuppymeister (we have approximately 1,000 names for her) has the best life of any animal that I know.

1. Everyone is obsessed with her. This includes both my and Dave's moms, my sister, her boyfriend, and everyone who meets her. Meaning: she is lavished with kisses and praise. We're waiting for this to all go to her head. She knows she's hot stuff but is surprisingly humble (and uses her cuteness as a Manipulation WMD).
2. She's an only child so she is the focus of our attention and extra money. E.g: Is it too hot in here for her? (Yes! = we installed an extra a/c for downstairs) Do you think this new dog bed will be comfortable? Would Ruby like this special Gourmet $10/pint Dog Ice Cream?
3. Said Ruby worshippers kidnap her when Dave and I are working and take her on adventures. Dave's mom brings her to a friends house on the Cape. Her house is on a cranberry bog. My mom takes her to her house where Ruby swims, swims, swims all day in the pool, with little puppy naps in a house with central air conditioning. My sister takes her to the park.

But the best is clearly my sister's boyfriend, "Uncle" Eric. He officially makes my dog way cooler than Dave and me.

Yes. That is my dog with Eric on his long board. The waves might not be big - but how awesome is this picture?! Don't worry: He's very careful with her (you can see the shore = they aren't far out) and she's an excellent swimmer. We think she might have some lab in her or something b/c I've never seen a full Boxer take to the water like Ruby.

Can someone in Hollywood please get me a contract to sign? Ruby needs to be famous.

Oh, and full credit to Eric's friend George - he took these pictures at the beach near his house. Thanks guys!

See. My dog has a better/cooler/more exciting life than I do!! Being a dog (or cat - they don't have it as exciting but are spoiled nonetheless) is where it's at in our family.

2010-07-02T10:07:00.000-04:00

A two year old kid in the South End picked up his dad's White Russian beverage and took a swig, thinking it was milk. He promptly stopped sipping as that drink is pretty nasty as it is, let alone for sensitive baby taste buds. As far as I know this kind of thing happens. At the age of 3 my brother introduced himself to the remains of a wayward Heineken at a cookout. My mom took a picture. He got SO DRUNK off a tablespoon of flat, warm beer, man! Or rather. He spat it out and went on his merry way. I ALWAYS asked for a shot glass of beer when my parents were drinking it (which was maybe once a month). It was NBD. For all you old people over the age of 30 that's "no big deal".

The mom of the South End toddler, Jessica Smith, chose to call the police. 1. Just in case the kid got shitfaced on the sip of that Kahlua mess (which is legit) 2. To BUST the restaurant for "serving" a baby.

She actually thought there was a criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by the waitress, who had put all the drinks in the center of the table while the parents (who ordered the alcoholic beverages) were sitting there. How did the kid grab the beverage? Who knows. Shit happens when parents aren't looking for 1/99th of a second. You move the drink away and, in this case, probably should just keep an eye on the kid. If you're really worried call poison control. That seems reasonable. Rational. And I thought normal.

This woman wanted the waitress to get in trouble. She is a fuckin' fool and we all should publicly mock her for being a naff cow.

That's all I have to say. Oh and British insults are much better than American ones.

2010-07-01T10:27:00.003-04:00

It's a very slow time in the office. People are on vacation. There is very little to do. This causes me to get link-click-happy. As in. I'm on a random blog and click to another then another then another. Stumble Upon brought me to some earthy crunchy website. Pretty soon I was convinced that my dependency on fancy body wash/face wash/moisturizer/hair products/toothpaste et cetera was bad for a few reasons.

Typically, people DIY their own bathroom products for very noble reasons like saving the environment. Shampoo and face lotion has tons of chemicals in it. Meghan even sent me a link yesterday explaining that the high level of chemical exposure we experience today might be a cause of reduced sperm count in men. Not only are we polluting our bodies but we're polluting the environment. The plastic containers and chemicals inside them, not to mention factory production and shipping, all add up to anti-environmentally friendly suds.

We don't really need all those chemicals. They're harsh and stripping and leak into our blood stream through our pores. Oh and it's expensive shit, too. Crunchy people, I thought, were just dirty but apparently hygiene doesn't have to go out the window when you start wearing Jesus sandals. According to these crunch blogs, you are able to clean your hair with baking soda, condition with apple cider vinegar and wash your face with a Castor oil/vegetable oil blend. That stuff is all easy to find, it's cheap, and it probably won't give you cancer or dry up your ball sack or mutate your eggs. Good, right? So of course I had to try it. I had 4 glasses of wine after work last night (there was a party, okay?!) so it was a perfect opportunity to do something ridiculous/dumb.

But I'll confess something here: I don't care about shampoo making me infertile (In just a minute you'll see why reproducing in my lifetime might seem like a bad idea); I'm not trying to save money (I like my hair to SMELL GOOD and I'll pay for shampoo to do that); and the environment is great but I'm more concerned about oh, the oil spill. Denial? So why the eff "wash" my hair with a baking soda/water solution and "condition" with vinegar?

Because I am one high maintenance bitch and also really paranoid, I KNOW some crazy shit's gonna go down in my lifetime. Maybe it'll be terrorists. Maybe it'll be a biological weapon. Maybe Waterworld. But it'll probably be zombies (thus, having a baby=bad idea. How will I RUN when I am obese with child? A huge stomach will probably hamper my super powerful decapitating roundhouse kicks, too.). In any scenario there is a common element: Having to rough it. Now, I'm not someone who likes to rough anything. Especially when it comes to my beauty routine. Baking soda and vinegar seemed like a legitimate cure to finding myself in a dystopian land without working Proctor&Gamble factories to make me some nice smelling anti-frizz-but-still-volumizing shampoo. Seriously, people. If I'm running from zombies I'm not going to smell so great. Having clean hair and clear skin is the least I can do to soften the harsh reality of life on the run from the stinking-rotting, flesh-eating undead motherfuckers.

So there you are. I tried an all-natural, earthy crunchy hair washing experiment to see if it's a viable option for when the zombiepocalypse happens.

My hair is a bit flat today but it's shiny and not greasy; I slept on it while it was wet and today it has a nice wave. I might do this once or twice a week because it IS bad to strip your scalp of all its oils with shampoo everyday (I'll give the crunchies that much). The vinegar smelled like sour asshole, though, it dissipated after standing under the shower for like ten minutes. Perfume also helped. It also doesn't do jack for tangles so this will only work if you have really well-behaved hair that never turns into a giant rat's nest like mine.

Conclusion: When the zombies come, I'll just shave my dumb ass head. Easier to maintain. No hair for them to grab. And I'll look like a bad ass bitch.

Obviously from Terminator. They didn't have one of Sarah in her jail cell so this will do.

2010-06-21T08:42:00.001-04:00

Along with the notoriously annoying vuvuzela, the current World Cup series in South Africa is laden with sex. Paid-for sex is very common at all World Cup events. In the 2006 World Cup in Germany there was a sex city - with huts and hookers available for some dirty fun the German way; controlled, clean, professional.

But if you're in South Africa for the FIFA World Cup right now I'd probably advise against banging anyone, since the highest AIDS population in the world currently resides in South Africa. A depressing 5.9 million people in that country are infected with HIV/AIDS. It's no surprise that, in a country where rape is highest per capita in the world, STDs are easily, quickly and lethally spread. What to when even your best intentions to avoid a disease that will kill you might not be enough? It's bad enough to be raped, it's worse if it's your death sentence.

A doctor named Sonner Ehlers spent the past 40 years trying to figure out a way to keep women a little safer - or at least help increase conviction rates and get rapists off the streets. Her years of research resulted in a condom, with teeth, that latch on to the penis of a rapist. It's surprising that this didn't get invented sooner but I'm wondering if it'll work. All a rapist has to do is put a finger up there, check for the teeth and then pull it out. Or beat the shit out of her because she so inconvenienced him and ruined his plan to get laid. The nerve of her!

But I can't agree with this:

It's also a form of "enslavement," said Victoria Kajja, a fellow for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the east African country of Uganda. "The fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to."

A woman or a man shouldn't live in fear. Period. No person should fear that leaving their house will result in one of the ultimate acts of violation against their being. This device might prevent even a few women from being totally broken by the experience of a rape and that's a good thing. The women who are raped in South Africa are victims of a society that doesn't care enough, a government that is too indifferent and probably too poor to do anything about it. That's the enslavement. Not this device. The device doesn't cause the fear; the device doesn't cause the rape, ergo the device isn't the enslave-er. I hate these sweeping, fanciful statements about "enslavement" in such metaphorical terms. Oppression is just that: oppression. The device isn't a way to give up or dodge the issue, because clearly no one really cares about these women anyway. It just buys them some time. Maybe they'll get raped next year instead of now. Maybe by then we'll have a cure for HIV/AIDS and it won't be so bad. I'm so disgusted by these statistics!

I just hate allegorical proxies like that. It removes you from the situation and places blame in the wrong place. Call it what it is: a country with a high crime rate and the whole nation needs to be rehabilitated. Preferably by the Dutch and the British. Blame the rapist. Blame the society and nation that breeds a lack of ethics and respect for human rights.

Ideally, though, these woman would be getting phasers, set to "incapacitating motherfucking pain" that only work on men (so he can't use it against her).

2010-05-17T13:25:00.001-04:00

Just in case anyone was still feeling some white guilt over the whole slave thing, feel guilty no more!

In fact, it didn't really happen like in that dumb ass, totally made up, no-actual-basis-in-history movie with all those annoying African people. Fuckin Kunta Kinte was probably living like a king, my friend! It was just a simple, misunderstood trade agreement between the Americas and Africa. PHEW! Now I can go back to enjoying my pasty skin and not worry about stuff like the civil rights movement and stuff. And the problems in the Middle East? It's just those silly Muslims causing a raucous again.

Those damned teachers in high school really screwed me over by making history seem so complex. If only I had known that the military is the true root of forward momentum in this God Blessed country, and that White Christians with Guns* are the only truly important folks on this earth, I might have really excelled!

Experience the ridiculousness in its entirety at the guardian.

*I do support gun rights but they're so PREDICTABLE, right?

2010-05-14T14:57:00.000-04:00

We all have vices. And we've all had to cut back (unless you're like really rich, in which case you can send me cash!) in recent times. Even those of us fortunate enough to keep our jobs are very conscious of the economic climate and are re-thinking the usual purchases, or putting things off until things pick up.

One of the things I think is really ridiculous to blow between $30 and $50 on is a pedicure. I mean, really - pay someone to scrub your feet and paint your toe nails? How pointless can you be. I can do it myself, albeit my toes will look worse than when I started.

And yet. I find myself willingly putting off buying gas and walking more just so I can justify a pedicure. Why? Because cracked feet and chipping, yellowing (ew you know who you are!) toe nails are an abomination. It's cruel to make anyone look at that shit. Pedicures are really a favor to everyone else's eyeballs!

There you are: justification.

YOU'RE WELCOME?

2010-05-07T17:19:00.000-04:00

I posted recently on "judgment". The gist was: We all do it, but it's good to have some empathy for those whom you are scrutinizing and put a little thought into it. Sometimes judgments are uncalled for and hurtful - recognize that and be careful of what you say (e.g: if you really hate German cars, and I am excitedly talking about my new BMW X5 M, don't say something about how Japanese cars are superior. I've actually done this to someone excited about their Japanese car and afterward felt like the HUGEST DOUCHE BAG. I wished I was more flexible so I could have swallowed my entire leg. It popped out so fast!). Sometimes I think judgments healthy and important, and in fact, more of this politically incorrect judging might keep people from behaving with wild stupidity.If you're friend is clearly showing signs of alcoholism, it's a great time to judge their behavior as reckless and makes them less fun. Tell them they need to get help. Judgment = win.

Enter: Tragic story of a dead 21 year old. His mother, Marissa Evans, had her dead son's sperm harvested so she can have a surrogate carry his biological children. Because, according to her, he always wanted to be a father. He even had the names picked out.

Evans had to get a court order to harvest her son's sperm. She is planning to raise the resulting babies "on her own". She explained that it would help to heal her heart to bring these babies into the world - because she felt her son would want that.

We can all presume to know what dead people would or would not like to happen after they're gone. But it typically doesn't work out very well, which is why my fiance has a job writing wills and setting up trusts: presumption actually means jack shit if you think about it.

This woman, grieving in one of the most painful ways possible, trying to assuage her loss by...bringing someone else's babies into the world.

This story was discussed, mostly by commenters, on the NYT Magazine series "Motherlode". One commenter, by the moniker Anothermom, says:

1. April 29, 2009 12:15 pm As someone who was fortunate enough to have the kids she wanted, I feel I am not in a position to judge the ones who have to resort to the new scientific methods.
I read about this mom trying to use her dead son’s sperm earlier and really, how can I understand her sorrow, her motivation, and judge her?
I think as long as things are done in a legal manner, we should try to hold judgement!
and Yay for science!!
— Anothermom

She makes a pretty valid point: as someone who has never gone through this kind of pain from this kind of loss, we have no idea what the woman is feeling. We have no idea what she needs to get better. Her post oozes with "compassion". It almost convinced me - but alas! My senses kicked in and I realize: WTF?!

We also have no idea if some dead person would agree to having children produced with his biological material and to be raised by a single mom.

It appears that Evans assumes her son wanted children of his loins to simply exist; without acknowleding the important fact that most people want to make babies...so they can RAISE them. How might she know, unless specifically told by him, he wouldn't have higher standards for his own children? I make my own assumption: she willingly provides that he "wanted kids someday" but makes no mention he also said "please let it be my legacy to have you take my sperm and make some babies with a random lady's egg and raise them as your own!".

I'm not sure how I can touch on this seeming violation of his body. Obviously a dead person can't really make many decisions about his/her own body after they're dead, but we can listen to the legally binding dictates of proper wills and organ donor elections (he was not an organ donor). There's no document stating he wanted this. There was not kind of agreement, as you might find between a married couple, that having children is top priority. What if this guy would have been appalled by this? We cannot assume anything about wishes he didn't make clear, which is why it's important not to make BABIES based on a nothing more than a grieving woman's feelings about what her dead son MIGHT want. That last sentence was horrible, I am sorry.

If a person dies without emphatically stating in a legal document they give you permission to take their biological material to make babies, soothe your pain another way. Because babies are not beta fish. They're not vintage cars. Viewing babies like a little commemorative token by which to remember someone, to keep their legacy alive (literally.), is extreme and misled. Keep your son's old baseball card collection instead: it won't hurt anyone. Babies will grow up into people with inquisitive minds and ask "where's my dad?" "did he love me?". They will *need* a dad. Which brings me to: she intends to raise them alone - they will not have a father.Optimal child rearing requires two committed people. I cannot support bringing a kid into the world without two parents.

And. Even if this woman had a husband, it wouldn't change the creep factor. The violation of his body. The fact that it's so incredibly awful to make babies as a means to assuage your emotional loss.

Dearest Love: If I die, please leave my eggs the fuck alone. I hope you never forget me, and that you always reserve a place in your heart for me. However, you will eventually get bored being alone and want regular sex again. Have babies with her. Maybe name them GMoney and McGillacutty. And leave my picture next to the bed so she knows I am #1 4Eva (I'm WATCHIN', YOU BITCH!) I would never want my children to be raised by just you. Nothing personal at all. It's just that I am pretty sure you don't where tampons even go or what they actually do, let alone be able to explain what to do when it is a 12 year old's first per. And, you are really busy. You'd be happier splitting the task with someone so you can work out or meet up with friends.

My mom is a single mom and she's doing a great job. But a growing teenage boy needs a proper father figure and vice versa (a constant, responsible, loving, guiding one). Parents need breaks. They need time with the kids to give them ample emotional support. To let them know their little-kid problems are legit and help teach them how to deal with bullies and how to do long division. Parents need a certain amount of money to pay bills. Single parenthood is just not an ideal situation for a child: why would you willingly produce a child knowing you won't be providing it with the best life you could? And legally rape your dead son's scrotum to make it happen?

2010-04-27T14:14:00.003-04:00

Must dl album immediately. It's time to get back on top of my music, esp. since I'm due to send out a mix tape.

Of course we could focus on more immediately pressing issues, but why dwell in the realm of reality when we can allow our fantastical imaginations to run amok?

When the zombies rise/reptilian shadow government implements Marshal Law/there's a biological terror attack/et cetera we will need lots of water. Because it's a lot of effort to be one the run. Machetes, gas masks, and condoms will all be integral elements in the survival of the human race. Oh wait just kidding - continue the population? Not condoms, then. Viagra? No - VODKA! Yes. Vodka.

Probably night vision goggles, too (and wtf do you even do with "night vision weapon goggles"!? Shoot fricken laser beams from your eye balls? If the answer is "yes" can I put them on the wedding registry?). But water comes first. (Cue Michael: "THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID". If he doesn't get sick of it, neither shall I.)

Nothing says "I love you" like giving the ability to stay hydrated when outrunning the undead. Keep that in mind this mother's day, kids.

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/

2010-04-25T15:51:00.004-04:00

Disclaimer: I'm not associated with HGTV or the Pinehills in any way. I'm just a fan and hopeful contestant to win the house. I love daydreaming and daydreams are always much more fun when they're realistic - and having the facts helps Pisces daydreamers get lost in their heads! I'm just here to talk about what I saw at the Green Home.

Also, about that picture. There is an explanation below as to why I look miserable. Huge disclaimer: I don't look so potato-like in real life. I was hunched over and my puffy rain coat was riding up. BUT, you can see how uncomfortable I am...too bad the pic isn't clearer, my mom was trying to figure out how to use the phone and we didn't know if we'd get in trouble so it was rushed. The little sign on the counter top read: DON'T F**KING TOUCH. Well. It does but more nicely. It's nice to know when we all move into this place (since we all want to win...) that our couch and stuff will be nice n fresh.

The development is right off Exit 3 on Route 3. It's about 1 hour driving from Boston without traffic. It would be a long commute into the city in traffic, though, there is a commuter train. The proximity to the Cape is both a plus and a minus. Plus: You're near tons of beautiful explorable places. Minus: Learn the back roads, otherwise you will not being getting anywhere very fast on the weekends Memorial Day - Labor Day. Plymouth has beaches and ponds if you're into water sports. There is a lot of stuff within about 15 minutes driving (a half-way decent) mall, an Ulta (cosmetics!), Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. It's convenient but removed from the hustle and bustle - which is what so many of us want.

The Basement:

For anyone outside of New England, basements are fairly necessary around here. You will probably not be able to find a house without a basement. Yes: the door under the stairs in the kitchen does go into a full basement. The basement is the footprint of the house. The utility equipment was off to a single area so you could easily build it out to separate it...and then finish the rest of the basement. The ceilings are nice and high, however there are some beams that are probably 6.5 - 7 ft. An easy solution for taller people would be to keep the high ceilings but have a carpenter finish the beams so they look nice and are covered up (that way you only would have to duck sometimes). The basement could probably fit another bedroom and a rec area, however it would be a pretty dark bedroom (unless you're willing to dig out a well and put in some windows - which might not be allowed. There were small standard basement windows but I think only like 2 or 3). As far as adding a bathroom down there: I have no idea what the land is zoned for. If enough people ask, I might be inclined to call the zoning office in Plymouth and ask if another bathroom could be added. Also, the land in Plymouth is VERY sandy. This is excellent for water drainage. I doubt the basement will "get water" (like a house built on ledge would).

The Kitchen:

The island counter top looks orange in the online tour. But it's not orange, it's deep red. Not quite a deep cranberry, but a true blue-red (make up junkies will understand what I mean!). It also has pretty specs sparkling across the surface. The cabinets are full of nice Crate & Barrel stuff (square plates!) - you can keep all that if you win.

Master Bed & Bath:

There are two closets flanking the bed in the master. The one on the right (if you're facing the bed) is actually a fake-out. When you open the door there's a mirror. The "kids bathroom" is actually behind there. The door on the left has a small closet - obviously they just wanted a uniform look. The bed is queen-size and the frame was custom made by the builder. It's really gorgeous but a queen sized bed is small for two adults and a big boxer! The closet was as you'd expect and the light from the solar tube is great. The master bath had a huge let down. When I walked in and looked at the tub I thought it was a joke: the tub is about half the length of a normal tub. It's a "soaking tub" according to the staff member in the bathroom. When she left the room I climbed in and the only way I could sit was if I was sitting upright and my feet flat on the ground (like if you're doing sit-ups and you're in the "up" position). I guess it's to save water (the whole "green" aspect). But I have to ask: what's the effing point? I'd much rather have no bath tub than have this one in there taunting me every time I'm sore after the gym.

Bathtub: You look like you just worked out pretty hard. I bet your ass is sore from all those lunges.
Me: Yeah it's continuously sore because I'm on the Mattie Special: Lunges, squats, more lunges, and more squats.
Bathtub: So why don't you pour some wine, grab a book and come relax?
Me: Because it's not relaxing to be in the fetal position. In fact. The fetal position + warm water + dim lighting is pretty much a uterus. I don't want to feel like an adult fetus.
Bathtub: But you won me and I'm so much better than the tub in your old house which was 35 years old and was uncleanable! SOMEONE ELSE COULD BE TAKING A BATH IN ME RIGHT NOW YOU BRAT!
Me: I can't help it if I have legs, you ass!
Bathtub: I can't help it if I'm too short for you!

And then there we are. In an awkward silence, backs to one another. Where do we go from there, people? The bathroom is an emotional crisis. I love the environment but honestly?

On a lighter note: the bathroom is beautiful. The shower and vanity are gorgeous and spacious (I'd rather have a smaller shower and a nice long tub, but I'm not gonna win anyway!). The high windows bring in tons of light but without sacrificing privacy.

The Kids Bedroom:

There is no closet. Because apparently, truly eco-friendly children go nekkid. There are two 1-foot-long rods in the little niche by the sink area. You could easily install some proper rods and a pretty curtain (to do it inexpensively) or build out a closet.

Overall: I love the place. It's beautiful and the craftsmanship of the home and the furnishings don't disappoint. The woodwork detail is really stunning - the bead board/coffered ceilings are very beachy + classic New England.

If anyone has any questions please leave it in the comments and hopefully I'll know the answer.

Thanks to the ladies working on the tour. Everyone was incredibly informative and friendly.

*If I get enough response and questions, I might be able to revisit the tour and take your questions with me.*

2010-04-19T15:30:00.003-04:00

There is a really popular topic these days: judgment. Namely. That it's bad to judge and you shouldn't do it. On the whole, I disagree (<-- = JUDGMENT!) (and I swear to gods, by the end of this post I will remember to omit the "e" from "judge" when spelling "judgment" and not have to right-click the underlined word and fix it!).

Well here is the thing about judging. We all do it on some level. Some of us are very narrow-minded. This means you'll judge lots of people all of the time. Some people are more open-minded; these folks tend to be empathetic and introspective. I strive to be part of the second group. If I make a judgment, it's usually after I do a lot of thinking about something (this is for the big ticket items, folks. I don't care if you buy Tropicana over Minute-Maid based on nothing more than a whim or cheeky packaging. But stuff like euthanasia needs more than a gut reaction.). I value other people's judgments when those judgments are backed by thoughtful argument and are presented respectfully.

So this whole "don't judge!" fan club is like a subset of the Political Correctness Police. Lost in their self-righteous, judge-less battle-cries is a potential idea which I like: Don't judge...too quickly, and censor yourself. On its face I don't like censorship. However, I will begrudgingly admit it is not without merit, e.g: Not dropping f-bombs in front of Dave's mom like our puppy drops silent but deadly stink bombs while she is innocently sleeping next to you. Conclusion: Judging is not bad; being quick with the judgments (<-- I AM LEAVING THIS MOTHERFUCKER AS IS) and having a fat mouth about it is annoying. And makes you look like a jackass. Example: My father, and most bigots (there is some overlap there).

Of course this is leading me to a wedding epiphany. Weddings - whether you're planning one or whether you're just observing the making of one - are rife with judgment. People's opinions regarding weddings are out of fucking control and don't you know that everyone knows what's best for you better than you do? And all these opinions being foist upon you have this tremendous force behind them, and the foist-ers don't let you forget it; "It's your WEDDING!" they all say as if 1) you didn't realize this and 2) it being your wedding means you should stop being yourself and simply adopt their values, even if they go totally against who you are. If you veer even slightly off the path of pre-approved wedding behavior you will regret it every day of your life: your marriage will fail; you will cry every time you have guests over and don't have proper formal bone china upon which to feed them; your children will have scoliosis and it will be ALL. YOUR. FAULT. Because you didn't get married in a church! Or didn't invite plus-ones! Or eloped! Whatever you do: LISTEN TO THE WEDDING GESTAPO: THEY JUST KNOW SHIT YOU DON'T.

Sometimes these judgey wudgey wedding nuts don't say anything at all. They just sit there and say "uh huh". They're implementing the censorship rule - which is great. But I still have to wonder: Why are people so attached to malformed notions of propriety when it comes to weddings? (Aside: I am thinking of specific people, and I know they are "uh huh'ing" me because they think I'm an idiot and don't "get" weddings. Thus *this* [waves arms around wildly to 'show' you the monstrosit-ous wedding blog items written on here]) So many folks who I know to engage in pleasant exchanges of ideas shut down and shut up when it comes to weddings. If they open up about it it's really hostile. We can all discuss abortion or socialized medicine like nice little girls (it's never boys with the weddings; I am so jealous) but weddings, well, that's just not something we can disagree on!

Example, and reason for this post: Plus-ones. Spouses, fiances and live-in long term partners are always invited. If you don't invite those pluses you should really explain yourself because I am curious as to how you decided that. I think that's hurtful and exclusionary. By "plus-one" I mean a "random date" that your good friend brings along. There is a time for these pluses: when you are inviting a friend who knows nobody else; a date will give them someone to hang out with so they aren't sitting alone with other relationshipless people and feeling super awkward. Or, if your fiance's (much older) sister is 42 and single and would feel better about herself if she had a dude with her. And it will make her mom stop being mean to her. Fair enough. Rule: When the person's comfort is seriously at stake, and a plus-one would alleviate the anxiety and help the person have fun, or if the person is in a serious relationship = they should get the to bring a date.

But what about my list of 20-something year old friends who all know each other and the majority of whom aren't in a long term relationship? The notions about creating comfort don't apply here. Likewise, we are having a small wedding and had to be very critical of who we are inviting; inviting plus-ones would mean eliminating people I genuinely want to come to the wedding but who wouldn't necessarily question being invited or not (e.g: a couple that my mom is close with and who I enjoy very much; they aren't expecting to come, but it would be really nice to have them there. Whereas: a random lay that a friend will not talk to next week doesn't bring a lot to the table. And yes, by "the table" I mean: that person doesn't add to Dave's and my wedding in any way and yes that sounds incredibly spoiled. But, eh. It's our wedding, and our friends are our guests and we're inviting them to enjoy their company, not the company of strangers. If we had gobs of money I think we might consider other options because it's fun to be very generous, but we don't have a dime to spare so we're doing what we have to do and being as fair and consistent as we can.).

The Wedding Gestapo gets annoyed with logic like this. I just should do plus-ones. I am being rude. And if I can't afford to do a wedding right, I shouldn't have one at all! How is my way wrong. And isn't it rude to assume you should be able to bring a stranger to someone's wedding? How is anyone being hurt, or put into an uncomfortable social situation? How am I snubbing anyone's significant other? I am not. I've painstakingly examined this issue and I'm sick of being told I am just plain wrong, without getting real arguments to support the opposite position. Stop being quick to open your mouth, or whisper about my rudeness behind my back and clam up in front of me if you don't have a real argument.

Judgment itself isn't bad, so that's why I hate feeling like shouting STOP JUDGING ME!! But I do. If my dad doesn't walk me down the aisle, please know there is a reason and I've thought this through. To assume there is only one way to do things is an egregious error in thinking, in fact I would say it lacks any thought whatsoever and I might not like you. Know that I am okay with my decisions and I can live with the consequences; I have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. You don't need to save me from myself unless I am standing on the ledge of the Pru ready to jump - and that'll only happen if this wedding task force doesn't lay off. I can make my choices but beg you to keep an open mind because one day you will get married and you will have a budget. And suddenly the constraints of that budget - no matter how big or how small - will cage you in like a rabid animal desperate to bust the fuck out and elope. You'll have to make decisions that you don't want to make. And you will offend people's inflated sense of decency and you will want to tell them to get a fucking life. I will listen and I will agree with you when this happens. And you will be SO FUCKING GLAD you aren't going through this first. And then we'll get drunk and you will tell me I was right all along: People are annoying and nosy and need to stop caring so fucking much about what you're doing.

2010-04-08T13:29:00.000-04:00

A. over at Accordions and Lace is a rock star. She has devised a game where we all send in our music likes and dislikes, mixes things all up and then sends our information to other people who then make us a CD. How much fun is that?

This comes at a perfect time when I am sick of all my music and way to lazy, and cheap, to sit down and gets some new stuff on my computer. Hopefully I will get some new treats myself, and will introduce someone to music she's never had the pleasure of experiencing! And also, this will give me the push I need to scour the earth for more music.

Go visit A.'s blog for more details and information about joining the game! Deadline: Tomorrow, Friday 4/9 at midnight EST.

2010-04-07T14:41:00.001-04:00

I love Lyn's Another Damned Wedding blog. It's awesome; she's awesome. I wanted to reply to her recent post about money, and weddings (duh) but it was getting really long winded. No shock there. So I decided to throw it up on here because I hate being a comment hog and I haven't posted in a long time.

This part of her post got me: "People have vastly different ideas of what constitutes “reasonable.” Reasonable is a highly personal decision informed by individual experience and systems of belief."

Last night Dave and I were in a tiff because our individual ideas on money + the wedding are different. I didn't want a wedding-wedding from day one; he did. So I have been reluctant to make certain decisions and am freaking about money. If you don't want something, why would you want to spend gobs of money on it? Our disagreement yesterday was over me feeling our Italy honeymoon can't happen because the wedding is a big money pit and I was sad b/c Italy was the big thing I wanted out of this whole shebang. Now, I almost feeling like any honeymoon is pushing me over the edge of financial-insanity. He takes offense to my feelings about money and the wedding, saying that he "just wants to have a nice celebration with everyone he loves". Fair enough. Not unreasonable. Except I don't equate "nice celebration" with $15,000 that we don't have sitting in the bank. I am saying "this is so much money that it makes me uncomfortable and it's hard to be excited" and he is hearing "I AM A PARTYPOOPER AND I DON'T WANT TO CELEBRATE GETTING MARRIED! I HATE YOU!"

Where are my feelings coming from? Lots of places. A recent idea I've been stuck on:

Back in the olden days, like yanno probably the 1940's and before, a "nice happy celebration" was thrown by many newlyweds and shared with many close loved ones. But the expectation to have music, food, booze, fancy outfits, etc. were a lot less, if not non-existent.

In talking to my nana and his mother (they're roughly the same age. Heh.) they both had "weddings" but it was a small luncheon or appetizers in someone's home with a record player going. It was appropriate. It was tasteful. It was joyous. No one felt they were over-spending. No guests felt they weren't getting their wedding present's worth of fancy schmancy wine. Good times were had by all. And then they used all the money they had on a house. Or a car. Or nothing. Whatever, yanno? Point is, the relative cost of a wedding is astronomically higher than it used to be and our very idea of what a wedding entails is grossly different. At least based on my un-scientific survey of about 4 people over the age of 60. Today's weddings are gala-level entertainment, even when they're done on the cheap.

Those "old fashioned" affairs sound nice and I wish we could pull that off but I know that it would leave all the people we are inviting (who are all family and a few friends) feeling like we cheaped out! And Dave wouldn't feel sufficiently married or something and he'd be full of resentment.

This makes me annoyed because Dave thinks I am being a Scrooge or a turd (he won't come out an say it, though, but I'm pretty convinced of it.) Or that I don't love him or that I'm not excited to marry him because I'm not toats on board with the wedding hooplah. I am mad because I feel like, in order to be honest and in-touch with my feelings on this, I am being an asshole and treating people badly. There might be an element of me holding myself to a different standard than other people - I might be imagining these "expectionts" - but I definitely feel like there is veracity to my feelings. It makes me all WTF?!

I can't help but think Dave's attitudes towards the wedding are bigger, and more gut-level/emotional, than just "I want to have a nice celebration". Because it seems a simple affair like I described - afternoon snacks with all our peeps - above wouldn't cut it. There's this element of social norms playing into his ideas on it. Then he'll counter with the fact that I am inviting a fair number of guests. If I want an inexpensive wedding, why do I have such a long list of invitees?

He doesn't understand why I can't pick 'n choose between some relatives. His family is tiny; his closest relatives total about 8 people. My mom is one of six, my dad is one of three; all my aunts and uncles are very, very close. I am also close with several of my cousins - their kids. When siblings (my aunts and uncles) are really close, it makes it impossible for me to say "well you can bring one of your kids, because we're friends, but you can't bring your other kid." Or "Uncle A you can't bring your kids, but Uncle B you can bring yours". That's really rude and not very good for family harmony. And by kids, we're talking ages 13 (I'm very close with my 13 year old cousin) - 22. It's hard to express this to someone who doesn't come from a close-knit family where everyone knows everyone's business before they do, what it's like. I don't hold it against him but for me, the options are: 1. No wedding/elope. 2. "Wedding" with our moms and siblings: no friends, no other important aunts or uncles (b/c again: I can't invite just my mom's two sisters b/c I am closest with them, and not invite her brothers. It doesn't feel right to get married with out my godmother there...b/c it ). 3. Wedding, but I have to invite all 45 aunts, uncles, and first cousins, lest I destroy my relationships permanently - which would really hurt. It would be feasible if we had a simple affair without the photographer, dj, and just had keg beer in someone's backyard. But that isn't "wedding-y" to him. It's not a proper party and doesn't celebrate the marriage in the way he wants. So that is how we got to this point: A "real wedding" that costs more than I can stomach.

So that's what Lyn's post got me thinking about: He has an idea about how he wants to get married and I have mine. And so, we're having The Wedding and it'll work out. But it's just a tough process and lots of emotions and thoughts to trudge through.

2010-02-17T13:04:00.002-05:00

There are very few technologies that I've met and not liked. They usually make life easier, more efficient by saving me time and keeping me organized. Thanks, tech! But there's one little tiny technological thingamajig that has been irking me. Maybe it's not the technology itself but the way some folks use it...and if you read the header you know it's call-waiting.

I do like it for several reasons.
1) If I am waiting for a really important call, and am on the phone, I can jump off. This means less potential for phone-tag on an issue that I need to resolve. Usually I will let person #1 know "Hey, I'm waiting for the doctor to call so if I jump off the call I'll get back to you". This should be sufficient warning for most people and doesn't leave them thinking you're a jerk, or incontinent, if you suddenly burst out "GOTTAGO!!", and also you get to find out you don't have the clap or something like that and can move on with your life. I also use the pre-call-cut-short notice when I am approaching a tunnel. Yes. While talking in the car. Lovely.
2) If I am the caller, and the callee is on the other line, the ring sounds different. This is when I hang up the phone (at least when I am calling a cell phone, which I usually am). 99.9% of the time the person I was calling saw my name pop up during their other conversation and will return my call. No one is unduly interrupted and all necessary conversations take place. Beautiful.

3) If I am stuck on a call with my father, who drives me fucking insane and with whom I try to avoid conversations at all costs, and another call is coming in I can say "Oh crap, work is calling, I gotta go!!". Even if it's just the hair salon reminding me of my appointment tomorrow. The economy is tough; if "work is calling" you can't fuck with that. I'm not too worried about being rude here because most likely I'm ready to kill him anyway. Sweet.

So, given all those things I appreciate about call waiting there are a few negatives that drive me. Effing. Nuts.

1) Typically only older people do this. Usually moms (not mine!!) or grandmothers or mothers-in-law (no hate, just a fact). You call them and they're on the other line and before you can hang up they switch over, almost out of breath with the excitement of it all, and instantly declare "I'M ON THE OTHER LINE - I HAVE TO CALL YOU BACK!!!". Or my mom's personal favorite "I'M AT STOP AND SHOP CHECKING OUT!!!!! I HAVE TO CALL YOU BACK!!!!" Then they immediately drop you. You're left a bit flustered because their anxiety about dealing with this technology permeates through the phone. You are also a bit baffled by the behavior, as it makes very little sense.
1b) It slows down their conversation with the other person, as they have to squint at the phone whilst holding it 5 feet from their face, then try to find the flash button (on house phones, because they wouldn't figure out to press "Send" on the mobile to pick up the other call), then they have to frantically tell you they'll call you back, then they have to find flash again. This whole process can take at least 60 seconds, which, if you're sitting there as Phone Vic #1, seems like a really long time.
1b-1) It makes me feel slightly unimportant when my mom or MIL flashes over to me just to tell me they're on another call then drop me like a hot crack pipe...but that is a bit childish (egocentric) of me. Therefore it doesn't constitute a legitimate annoyance. Which is why I have it as a sub-sub bullet.
2) It's really annoying to others when you pull the "I'm in line at the bank/Stop&Shop I gotta call you back" bit. Like, for the cashier. Or the person behind you. Not only do you have an obnoxiously loud Christmas ring tone even though it's now February, and you talk way to fucking loud, but it's entirely bullshit to answer the phone when you have at least two people waiting for you to move your ass along. Your kid/husband/friend/God can fucking wait a second until you pay for your shit/make your withdrawal. If you've noticed, another thing that annoys me is creeping into this bullet point and engendering some real emotion: People who talk on the phone way to fucking loudly. Or people on the train who have boisterous conversations at 6:11 AM all the way from East Weymouth to South Effing Station. Or people who think their EXTRA LOUD Brittney ring tone makes them cool. SHUT THE FUCK UP. I keep my shit on vibrate for more reasons than it tickles my right hip.
3) They flash over to tell you "hold on one minute let me hang up on Kathy". Five minutes later they're still chatting away with Kathy from book club. If you hang up they call you back and ask why you hung up (um, maybe because I have better shit to do than wait around for you to talk to me and it's just as easy for you to call back when you're available?). Then they tell you you're impatient. And that you weren't raised that way. Growing up subjected that attitude is probably why I feel bad about myself when someone flashes over just to say they can't talk to me. See, it's not my fault I'm crazy.

If you're on the other line, stay there. Call me back. I'm not you and therefore not (too, too) psycho. If you don't pick up when I call I will not proceed to call you 15 times in the next 30 minutes and send 911 texts because I want to know Auntie Whosie's new address. You can call me back at your leisure, preferably within the next few hours because that seems polite. If it's really important and I need an immediate response I might leave a message, send a text, or call back in 10 minutes. That way you'll know I am desperate to ask if it's okay to swing by now, instead of later, because I realized I forgot something was scheduled later. I prefer to do a follow-up text because more often than not a person can discreetly shoot you a response via text. Then the issue's closed.

There. I feel a little better. It appears that the entire thing was a wash: three pos three neg.

Pic via Windsor Public Library.

2010-02-12T15:31:00.002-05:00

I am quite a cynic. When Dave proposed, I wasn't sure if he was sure. I was also confused - he was really proposing? Like, four months before the earliest possible date I thought he might (I expected something during the summer of 09, as we'd been discussing marriage. He proposed in March. Outta nowhere.).

I have a tough time displaying too much emotion verbally and wouldn't really call myself a romantic.

When I was in high school and the first few years of high school I was very, very, very single. Not so much as someone to acknowledge I was alive, in a romantic sense. Lots of friends has significant others - especially in college.

I would kind of go along with the anti-V-day movement, silently nodding my approval in the direction of "It's a commercialized abomination!" murmurs which were so obviously steeped in deep self-loathing. When, quite secretly, I really didn't give a shite. I always had a nice little Valentine's day because my mom would send me a cute card and I'd get some chocolates. It really, honestly, didn't bother me that I was without a man because I am a little indifferent towards the day and the bitterness was a little bit of fun camaraderie amongst single ladies, but in reality who cares?

It's important to show genuine appreciation and affection towards your S.O all year round, but why not indulge yourselves in a little cliche every now and then? So go ahead and let go of your bitterness if you're single. Get yourself a nice bottle of champagne and some good take-away and watch your favorite movie. It's really not depressing, so don't fall into that equally horrendous cliche of "I'm single and it's the end of the world". It's not. I've been there. I lived. If someone at work gets flowers, be happy for her (or him). Please don't respond "They die" and walk away. You come off a little pathetic.

And embrace the cheesey, "commercialized" customs of the day if you're in a relationship and you semi want to. Buy your partner some roses. Or make him/her dinner. Take the time to make a point of showing your love. And don't feel like a sell-out.

Everyone needs to stop being so fucking miserable on both sides of the fence. Do what makes you happy and stop the bitching.

2010-02-10T13:56:00.000-05:00

I love you lots.

Re-posted without permission, but I'm sure you don't mind, do you Meghan?

From Sub-Verse-Ive Genius (I came up with the title! Gimmie, gimmie credit!).

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Gospel XVIII: On Dating America

So you're dating a girl/guy and at first s/he is charming and extremely interested in you. There is cuddling, dinner dates, and adorably sweet phone calls. The phone calls are the first to go, followed by the dinner dates and now your lucky if you even have sex. You find that when you do get lucky, it doesn't last more than 20 minutes and forget about YOUR needs.

You wake up one day to realize that that special someone spends his or her time sitting on their ass eating, drinking beer, and watching TV.

Congratulations!

You're dating America.

Sweet, sweet America.

Initially deceptive, s/he draws you in and once you're a sure thing they then guilt you into submission and trap you into their mind-numbing pattern of mediocrity. Sedentary, bored, and brainwashed by trashy reality TV you realize that you're on a slippery slope that could land you in a life full of Budweiser, obesity, and extreme right leaning tendencies (literally you will be leaning to the right due to the stroke from all the chemicals your body is now being pumped full of).

Have heart!!! Bob is your savior and he will save you from your inner lemming. Simply leaving the situation is far too simple a solution. That bastard needs to learn his/her faults and shortcomings! You as a disciple of Bob are just the person to do it.

Start by assuming an aura of haughty disdain. To successfully pull this off sneering and mastering the patronizing eye roll is key. Second, you must channel your pent up bitterness and hostility into passive aggressive snide, cutting comments that widdle away her/his self-esteem. Pounce on those insecurities! Third, question his/her basic comfort habits and really tare apart their view of reality. Especially important to this third step is making her/him painfully aware of his/her inadequacy in the bedroom. This crucial point is usually the final push that will irrevocably break their spirit. Huzzah!!!!!

By following this repertoire created by Bob you can escape your fate of becoming a lazy, indulgent, American of today and bring back the hard-ass-I-eat-babies-son-of-a-bitch American of yester-year.

Lock it up fellow citizens and let's give this country exactly what it needs.

~The Gospel of Minister McGonagle XVIII 9:11 am

2010-02-02T09:35:00.001-05:00

It's 1) a terrible accident 2) the result of your stupidity.

Mika Brzezinski is a news anchor for Morning Joe. She did an article for the MSN Lifestyle section about the time she nearly killed her child when she tripped on the stairs. She was over-worked, over-tired. A mom of a toddler and new born, working her ass off to get her dream job.

I feel for her, in the sense that having little kids seems like a death-defying experience everyday. While I don't have kids and therefore cannot fully empathize, all new moms get a vote of sympathy from me because it seems like it sucks balls.

When something like that happens it should prompt change from most rational human beings. The solution Mika and her husband came up with? Go into debt paying for 24-hour child care so Mika could get the rest she needed and clock the hours at work she needed in order to accomplish her career dreams.

Disclaimer, before people start misinterpreting this on purpose just to be pains in the ass:
Of course moms can work - my mom did. She somehow made it work and didn't almost kill us and functioned pretty well. I love and respect her for it. But you and your spouse cannot work 16 hours a day, whilst nannies raise your children, and claim to be "good parents". That isn't balance. That's being totally career driven. Which is fine. Unless you reproduce.

What I am saying is this: If you are a person of either sex and have lofty career goals, it's probably best to wait to have children until you're at a point where you can achieve balance. By balance I mean: you, hopefully 1/2 of a two-parent equation, are the best person to be with your child. This doesn't mean you have to dote on the child all day. But if you have to put in 16-hour work days, and so does your spouse, is leaving the kids with a babysitter the best choice you can make?

This couple went into debt to pursue their careers while nannies raised their children. They did this because they got more than just a paycheck out of their jobs - they are career oriented. They enjoy the work and their jobs are part of how they define themselves. That's healthy and parents should retain parts of their B.C identities and do things that provide personal outlets outside the home...because this can all go the opposite way, too (think: helicopter parents and over zealous soccer moms). Key word to most of what I feel: balance.

So while I think families need to take the shape which suits them best, only parents have a true vested interest in how their kids turn out. Parents are supposed to give the most shit about their mini-them's; I babysat kids while their parents worked 7 AM-7 PM. They were out of control. I did what I could but they never had consistent discipline because they never had a consistent leader in their lives. Children will overrun nannies. Being with your children from 7-8 PM isn't enough. Sorry to pop your bubble.

To think you can carry on life like it was B.C is idiotic. Changes and sacrifices will be made. I'm not just talking about sleep, or sex, I'm also talking about how much time you can dedicate to your job. How many nights a week you can see your buddies. How often you can work late. Add in a marriage, which needs constant upkeep (shocker!), and you have a recipe for disaster. No one is superman/woman. Something's gotta give. Usually it's the marriage (which should be top!!!). This all falls under the "optimal scenario" umbrella. Of course no situation is 100% optimal, but you need to strive to give your kids the best shot.

Leaving them at home with nannies so you can achieve personal success outside the home is sub-optimal. So is ignoring your spouse: hello 50% divorce rate. You just don't have that right, ethically. Once you make a decision to have a child you need to consider his/her needs completely and a fundamental need is to have involved parents who strive to create a balanced life at home. Bring home the bacon...but do you need ALL the gadgets and gizmos? Kids need loving, supportive parents who set a positive example to follow. Not iPods. Children don't care about your personal need to feel validated at the office, they care about whether or not you read them bedtime stories instead of Nanny.

This is why I am freaking out and feel tons of pressure to figure out my career right now. Dave has completed law school and has embarked on a path to achieve some success in his field. We want to have kids someday and I am terrified I will still not have a satisfying job, and a few years under my belt, to cut back at work without feeling too huge a loss of self or whatever. I realize the importance to achieve things NOW so I can focus on striking a balance later. It makes me a little envious of people whose goal is to be a SAH parent. That would remove some of the urgency/panic.

2010-01-25T13:44:00.001-05:00

I have a tendency to be my worst critic - which hardly makes me unique. I judge my feelings and resulting actions/decision by comparing them against what other people, in a similar place, are doing.

This is worst when it comes to the wedding and my relationship. I am not very traditional, though sometimes I wish I were because it would make things easier (e.g: not changing my last name). I was just over at another damn wedding and was reading about her reaction to a wedding check-list from the book The Bride's Year Ahead. She pokes fun - mostly because it is such a contrast from her own choice to have a small, less frilly wedding. The book says that nine months before a wedding (that's where Dave and I are at) we should have our linens picked and decor picked out and to start buying/storing things like urns and columns. WTF? I didn't realize I was getting married in the Parthenon. One reason it gives for choosing fancy lettering is that it's more traditional.

So here is where my judgment, and where I judge myself for judging, comes in. I don't think that "because it's tradition" is enough of a reason to do anything. If someone wants a fancy wedding and loves that font then do it and love it. But simply doing something because that's how it was always done seems a little, well, thoughtless. If you think about something and still like the tradition then I don't see a problem. The key being that you thought about it and decided to do it that way for a reason that's important.

Many traditions carry weight - a white dress carries LOTS of significance. I can see why some people will ultimately choose white or not. But, when people do things simply because "that's how it's done" I can't help be feel a spark of smugness. Sheep. Non-thinker. This is instantly followed by remorse. She is just doing what she likes. But does she really like it? She's just doing it blindly. Then I am back at square one.

See how this over-thinking isn't always good? And how, while I might feel good about picking a dress that means something, I might be locked-up with Nurse Ratchet when the wedding finally rolls around?

So as if this cycle of thinking like an insane person isn't bad enough, I also question my own choices - and don't always feel good about them. In the most general sense, I am not really that "into" my wedding. I'm sure it will be a fun day, but I'm shy and have a hard time being verbal with my lovey-dovey feelings. The idea of saying sacred vows in front of people is not appealing. It will be hard enough to say them in front of Dave without having other people watch us like we're a t.v. show. Being the focus of people's attention during the reception is also scary. I hate being congratulated (this probably stems from being extremely insecure and not feeling like I've adequately achieved whatever I am being congratulated on. Isn't this fun?).

I've never dreamed about a wedding. I don't feel very attached to it. I've dreamed about romantic moments sprinkled throughout the city of Venice or Tuscan country side. Of cozying up with a glass of wine next to a fire. Sharing an intimate meal. Saying romantic things in front of everyone I know is the opposite of romantic to me. Now, I get the whole "public declaration" thing. But - isn't getting married declaration enough? Why does anyone else have to hear how I feel? Does having other people witness make it more important? More valid?

The wedding doesn't feel like "me". And, truthfully, it's more for family and friends - who would all be devastated if we didn't have one. And for Dave, because he would also be devastated (and maybe HE, another over-analyzer, would interpret my wedding apathy somehow means Dave-apathy?). What he doesn't know is that I am determined to ensure the honeymoon is actually a two week long "wedding" - lots of romantic moments and disgusting, emotional revelations. I've decided that a day of discomfort and sacrificing my exact wants (elopement - which is extreme and from two opposites there is typically little room for compromise) is worth it to make Dave really happy.

And here is the crux of it:

Does the fact that I don't want to publicly broadcast my feelings for Dave somehow mean I am not as "in-love" or that the relationship isn't as special to me as women who are completely enthralled with every minute detail of planning her wedding? It's as though I view my own lack of wedding hungriness as some kind of subconscious message, of which I am aware but unable to interpret.

It's probably a useful point to mention that I possess an overly vivid imagination; I am a bit fatalistic; I have a strong flair for the dramatic and I am paranoid. Like. The bump in the night is either a mass rapist/murderer in my house and I should jump out the window or it's an alien, or a zombie. At that point my heart is usually racing and I am thinking of ways to defend myself/escape. Then I fall back asleep and have horrifying nightmares.

So: I try not to take secret messages from my subconscious too seriously, because my subconscious is probably the paranoid little effer giving me nightly heart attacks. Bad, subconscious - bad girl!

Just like I think it would be easier to like traditions, I think it would be easier to be into this wedding. It will come together and I am not worried. But I cannot see myself truly feeling like I own the day (well, 50% of the day).

Now that I have myself going, it's worth mentioning that, of all the blogs I've ever read no one has been able to declare that having exactly the right linens or invitations somehow created a better marriage. Or was some kind of true outward expression of love. A wedding is an event, one that's supposed to be about that love and marriage. And I understand why people want to have a wedding that represents them, and part of that is the details. But in the end it's all a bit silly to me to go around planning this elaborate event, with the candles and candies and silverware and dresses all planned down to the last stitch. It's just...inorganic...for lack of a better word. The idea is to celebrate, right? And if you want to go big by all means. But it just never clicked for me.

A to-do list telling me I need to know what kind of flowers to use seems oppressive and stifling. I don't care about having the perfect flowers at home so why do I care about them at an event that's supposed to feel like me?

Maybe my problem isn't so much with the establishment (ugh *yawn*) as it is the actual, direct expectations put upon me by everyone (except my friend Meghan, who may very well be reading this with fists in the air tell me to fight the establishment). The wedding is more of an obligation I need to fulfill to get what I really want: a happy, satisfying, peaceful, fun marriage with Dave.

I am finally coming to terms with my own unease and lack of interest in the wedding. I don't have to care and that's okay. And I don't have to feel defensive about it or feel hostile towards/jealous of women who are psyched out of their minds about their wedding. We're just different and I am trying to be okay with it.

2010-01-13T11:48:00.008-05:00

As sad as I've been since we lost Gus on Monday, I've also been afraid of my own reaction. I have been crying and depressed and didn't know if/when I'd get over it. Didn't know how I'd ever be able to be okay again. Just now am I seeing that I will go on but will always have a big hole in my heart - and it's okay.

But nothing like a little distraction to help you get through the day! Here is a letter from Anne Landers, found on Creators.com.

Dear Ann Landers: My fiance and I have been together for almost four years and are planning to be married next summer.

"Desmond" and I are having a serious disagreement because I do not want to change my name when we marry. When I let him know a year ago that I want to keep my name, Desmond said, "I hope you aren't serious." Not another word was said about the subject until last week. Because Desmond thinks it is so important for us to have the same last name, I suggested that he take MY family name. His response was, "That's the craziest thing I ever heard of." Is this an example of male ego run amok or what? I do not want this issue to create a rift between us and would agree to change my name just to make him happy, although I really don't want to. Am I being overly obstinate, as he says? I would appreciate some Ann Landers guidance. We're getting nowhere. — A Split Opinion in the Midwest
Dear Split Opinion: The "liberated women" are going to hate me, but I suggest a compromise, even though there is something to be said for tradition — and I believe you lose nothing by respecting it. Use your own surname for professional purposes and your husband's name for everything else.

Is there anything wrong with taking your husband's last name upon marrying? Definitely not. The same holds true for him taking your name. Or both changing your name. Or whatever. It's your name, do what rocks your world.

The only important thing is that you do what is right for you, and not give into someone else's demands, or blindly follow expectations (or one day you might realize you sold yourself way short). This may initially seem a bit pigheaded - after all, isn't marriage about compromise? In almost all ways it is. But Desmond is more or less telling his wife-to-be that her desire to keep her last name is (in not so many words) unimportant to him and based on the letter he doesn't seem to have presented her with any kind of rational, well thought-out argument as to how he feels. His reaction is gut-level. Brash. Unintelligent.

There are a plethora of reasons NOT to change one's name. For me, the tradition doesn't make sense. But it's the expectation, which is something I always question and I rarely find good reasons to back up. The expectation is what pisses me off, more so than the actual act of changing one's name. Expecting a woman to take the man's name makes no more or less sense than a man taking a woman's name. So why is it woman-takes-man's? Only upon examining the history of this tradition do we begin to understand how and why we have arrived at this assumption today.

For me, that historical examination made me sick. I will spare everyone my ranting and ravings again against Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which were the foundation upon which common law and many traditions in the U.S were built. Please feel free to get a copy at your local library. Just to give you an idea of where our traditions, which Anne loves, come from:

...By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law ^l : that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband : under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing ; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert ; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord ; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her ^m : for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence ; ...

Back then men would actually be jailed for offense's of the wives (+1 ladies). If she had debt prior to marriage he was solely responsible to see that it was paid (+1 ladies). A lot of stuff made sense because society worked differently. A man worked and protected his wife and family. She made his baby boys and raised them. Men had all control over property and his wife (she was effectively his property in many ways, acting on her behalf always. She had no actual right to act on her behalf. +infinity men). But today, if I get married it doesn't mean I can stop working and have Dave be legally obligated to pay off my car loan which is in my name. The fact I can even own a car and negotiate a car loan and enter into a contract is a change from these old laws. And if I kill someone and am convicted I do the time.

Being married today does carry certain legal rights and responsibilities but there is no literal merging of two persons into a single legal entity, in all aspects. We still maintain individual responsibilities and rights, which wasn't true when this country was founded. During that time, given all those societal circumstances, it would have made sense that the woman take the man's name - simply based upon the general attitude that the woman was literally absorbed the man's legal identity. A woman was no longer an individual maintaining premarital rights, responsibilities or identity. Having his last name makes PERFECT sense in such societies.

I don't know anyone who still holds to these standards, and the law doesn't agree, either. But yet this lovely tradition of assuming the woman takes the man's names continues. Men can be stay-at-home-dads and women can be the sole earners. A woman can carry a gun and literally protect her husband and family if she wanted/needed. There is little need for many of the standards which were once held and many assumptions have, thankfully, melted away. I completely agree that sharing a last name makings things less confusing and easier. The act of changing one's name has logistical advantages. But I can't agree that the traditional assumption that the woman takes the man's name makes any sense in any capacity today. No more sense than Dave serving jail time for me. No more sense than placing the burden of being the sole wage earner on him. No more sense than him not being "allowed" (lest he be stoned to death by his friends) to be a SAHD if that works for us financially and is what we both want.

So, Anne. You missed the mark on this one, and it was big fucking target. The response was extremely typical of non-thinkers who call traditions quaint and follow them without understanding them or relating to them in a tangible way. If, upon examining said traditions, and you still want to take his name: power to ya, sista'. I mean that. But this issue is important to a woman to whom Anne was trying to help. Yet she shed no light on the topic and didn't help the LW. And what's with the fucking quotations around "liberated women"? Am I not liberated because I to want to understand why things are the way they are (strike 1, right off the bat, lady.) and approach issues that are important *to you* with knowledge and reason. If being informed and rational makes me un-liberated then I think you need to crawl back into whatever grave you came from, Zombie Advice Lady, because you are out of touch with reality.

If you don't give a rat's ass what your last name is then I semi-envy you. Because sharing a name IS easier. But I can't bring myself to do it, much to the chagrin of most relatives with whom I've discussed this.

2010-01-12T10:33:00.003-05:00

I feel fortunate to not have had to experience true, painful, burdensome loss until the age of nearly 25. But let me tell you, I would have gladly gone another 25 years to experience this. It sucks more than anything.

My grandfather passed away in October of 08 and it was sad, but we were prepared. We mourned but we honored him. Remembered him. I cried a bit but it was a cathartic process and I felt okay with it. He was sick so him passing on was natural and not traumatizing.

Yesterday my two year old cat dropped dead - literally, my mom was in bed and heard a loud thump. Gus was leaping off the desk in her room and must have died mid-air and fell to the ground. She called me at 6:45 AM, while I was babysitting and trying to get the kids off to school. I immediately lost my shit. Our other cat, Tiger, is 14. I was prepared for that. But Gus? I fully expected him to be around at least another decade. He was absolutely the most cuddly, adorable, playful cat that ever lived. He could do tricks...he loved hair elastics. You'd fling them across the room and he'd leap 2 feet into the air and catch it with his paws or in his mouth. Sometimes he'd bring it back to you, just like a dog playing fetch. Gus would wait by the door around the time he'd expect you to come home. He'd follow you around the house and just sit to observe what you were doing.
He did this by himself, we didn't pose him like this!

Just the other day I posted on my new puppy and included a picture of Gus, just because he is amazing and deserved a shout-out. Now he is gone. I have nothing really poignant or revelatory to say on loss, except that it sucks as much as I figured. And I will say that there is a such thing as "prepared" or "ready" for loss. Not expecting it makes it worse. The pure shock of it was enough to make me want to collapse into a pile on the floor.

Well. After my mom called I went over to the house and he was wrapped in a blanket and placed on the chair in the kitchen. He'd always perch himself on the back of it just hang out with us. He looked so innocent and sweet, just like he was sleeping. I nuzzled into his perfectly soft, white fur and patted his cuddly little head. I said good bye. I told him I was sorry if he was sick and we didn't know it. I told him his life was too short and that in the two years we had him he had one of the most powerful effects on me I've ever had in a relationship. If you have a pet you understand what I mean. If you don't have a pet you think I am some kind of non-social introvert loser who needs to "get over it". And I think you're a fuck. Just saying.

My dad, who isn't allowed on my the property, was allowed to come into the house and say his good-byes. He then managed to dig a hole in the frozen ground. My mom placed Gus into a box and we cuddled him up with a note, telling him we'll miss him, some of his toys and my sister's "Gus socks" - socks with cats on them that made her think of him. My brother Erich was home when my mom found Gus. He wanted to call 911. I would have wanted to do the same thing. He cried on the floor next to him and listened for a heartbeat for 10 minutes. Then he punched a hole into his bedroom wall and went to school early to practice his 3-pointers. My sister, who had just gotten back to school, was on the phone with my mom before we buried him. I held him a little bit. It sounds so morbid but it wasn't as weird as I thought it would be. He was still warm, but his little nose and ears were no longer pink.

I didn't work yesterday and cried on and off all day. My throat hurts from crying so much and it's hard to suppress it even now.

I just wanted to talk about him. I miss him so much and wish I could snuggle up with him and play with him once more. He brought so much to our lives. Now that he's gone something is missing and my childhood home feels empty.

Gus as a kitty. December 07.

2010-01-06T15:06:00.005-05:00

It seems that I almost never agree with Miss Manners. While she is, by almost all standards, indubitably polite, she goes too far with it. Yes, I am saying that there is a such thing as too polite.

For example, from this week's column on msn.com:

Dear Miss Manners,
My husband, five-year-old son and I were invited to spend a night with a couple we don't know well. We have spent a fairly significant amount of time with them at other friends' homes, but had not been to their home.
Unfortunately, after we arrived, we discovered that this couple's home was the most disgusting, filthy place I have ever been. Every floor was black with food, grease and who knows what else (they have three small boys). The dishes they provided us to eat off were dirty, the counters, tabletop and chairs were so sticky that I left fuzz from my sweater everywhere I touched.
When I changed into pajamas and walked across the hall to the guest bedroom, the bottoms of my feet were black from the floors. The shower was full of mildew, the shower curtain had spider egg sacs in it. Worst of all, the bed had obviously not been changed and the sheets were covered in hair and crumbs.
My gut instinct was to leave, but I was unable to find appropriate phrasing for these people who are apparently completely oblivious to the condition of their house. Is there a way we could have left without ending the friendship?

When I read that letter writer's question I was, unfortunately, reminded of some of the more disgusting episodes of A&E's Hoarders. I actually went to a house before where the people were hoarders. I was 17 and this mental illness had yet to be made well know by the voyeuristic golden touch of reality-based television. I was with a group of people and we were having a small party at someone's house because her parents were out of town. Great opportunity, no? I was the DD but it still should have been fun. There was trash piled floor to ceiling. Ironically, everything was "neatly" piled. It wasn't shit upon shit lying haphazardly across the floor; there were these little paths. There were the requisite roaches in the kitchen - and by roaches I don't mean the kind my pothead friend left behind. I had what can only be described as a panic attack. Indeed, one person's obsessive-compulsive disorder is another person's psychotic break. Okay so I didn't have a psychotic break but I started to hyperventilate and genuinely thought I was going to die. I said I felt ill and needed to leave. I think I hightailed it down her dirt road, through the woods, in reverse. Could you relax here?

So much for being the DD.

The reason I share this is because I could never and would never actually SLEEP in a house kept to that low standard of cleanliness. I am admittedly a neat freak but not obsessively so. I don't like tons of clutter everywhere (I love closets!!) and don't want handfuls of my hair on the bathroom floor or a huge pile of dirty dishes in the sink for two days. I can deal with places that are a little cluttery (not everyone has the same standards. Fair enough.) but outright filth? AND DIRTY SHEETS?! FUCKING EW. Oh yeah baby, hook me up.

Miss Manners claims that to leave would have been incredibly rude and lying your way out would surely end in disaster.

Now, I don't make a habit out of hurting people's feelings. And I agree there is no tactful way to tell someone their house is less sanitary and appealing than Bhopal. And I also agree that leaving and making way to a motel or something might in fact lead to suspicions and an uncomfortable conversation leading to strain on the friendship.

But.

How much do we have to endure in order to be polite? We really need to force ourselves to cringe through an overnight hell whilst covered in their leftovers? Also, LW mentions these folks aren't great friends (why stay with near strangers, anyway? Whatever.). If they aren't incredibly close who cares if a lie is revealed? No, really. Do what you can to graciously thank them and come up with whatever lie you can - like, Little Suzie has allergies and she had a bad reaction to something and isn't feeling well.

Sometimes the cost of being polite is too high. When my health and mental state are at risk, I will do what I need to do. Because if a friend's health hazard home gives me an anxiety attack it'll be a lot easier to explain "Oh, I have to run - I feel quite nauseated, bad seafood!" than "your house is the most insipidly untidy, unsanitary hole of absolute shite and being here makes me feel like the victim of a natural disaster."

Final thought: Isn't is rude to make your house guests sleep on sheets that are actually ridden with grime? Because then we could play the "you were rude to me first" game.

2010-01-05T11:48:00.006-05:00

Dave thinks "Ruby" sounds like the name of a 75 year old life-long smoker from Brooklyn who has horrendously dyed hair, wears too much make up, drinks cheap liquor and swears rabidly. I just think of my wee pup! Needless to say naming the puppy hasn't been an easy process. At first I was pushing for Bella but once her wild/weird sides came out she wasn't so much a Bella. She is a bit crazy - she doesn't know how to play yet so she gallops around and jumps on her toys - so Maizey was a contender (Crazy Maizey!). But Maizey seemed too wimpy for a Boxer. I settled on Ruby but Dave is still unconvinced. I guess that, 5 days after getting her, the puppy is still technically nameless (though I call her Ruby and she comes to that!). His alternative association of the name Ruby is the hick-ass kid "Ruby Sue" from Christmas Vacation. Since he hasn't come up with any names on his own and rejected about 12 that I came up with (Hera, Sorcha, Bella, Bia, Nyx, Rumor, Ruca, and others I can't remember), I am going with Ruby. If he doesn't like it I think he ought to brainstorm and come up with some options, no?

This is my first dog. We had a tiger cat growing up and got Gus a few years ago. I always loved cats, still do, and defended cats as the superior pet to "dog people". They're self-sufficient! You can leave them home alone with a big thing of food over night and they won't die or poop on a rug! You don't have to bring them out during a snow storm to pee! They don't smell! These things are still very true but what I didn't know was that the advantages - mainly, the endless supply of love - of a puppy far outweighs any negatives.

Sure, it's basically like living in the Arctic Circle lately making housetraining a real bitch. She has to go wee every two hours when she isn't crated. Sometimes there are accidents. This morning I was trying to get ready for work and she was crying because the bathroom door was halfway open and she couldn't see me (I am sure she'll figure out that I am actually there, and not just a disembodied voice soon enough). I can't wear any perfume or she will lick me to death. Same for hand cream - my hands are DRY but the tiniest bit of lotion will get attacked! Ruby likes to chew on everything, like any normal puppy. Forget about tablecloths, and now she's discovered that the corners of my throw pillows are rather yummy. She can jump the baby gate (we still want to get that on camera) when we are in the shower or outside for a minute (not wanting to crate her every time we leave the room) and then she goes upstairs to find us and can't get back down!

But I am completely smitten and don't mind any of it. Oh, and she's soft and cuddly and makes silly noises when she sleeps.

Shout out to Mr. Gus

2010-01-04T10:08:00.003-05:00

I have a proclivity towards obsession. Pizza. Perfume/makeup. My puppy (who I miss so much I am wondering if homelessness would be worth it so I could be with her all day. I don't know how I would actually feed her, though she is so cute I am sure she could beg for food.). Computer games. This latter obsession once revolved solely around The Sims, which progressed to The Sims2 and now we're up to The Sims3 with the World Adventure expansion pack and about thirty "real-world" dollars in decor items purchased through the Sim store. Given the opportunity I can play The Sims for 6 hours a day. I told you - obsessed. Now I have discovered, like many other unfortunates, Farmville. This game doesn't have much going for it from my jaded Sims3-playing perspective. The graphics suck. The little farmer moves slower than the Comcast turtles (which is why I have to lock her up between bales of hay to plow/plant/harvest). The game itself is rather uneventful and predictable. But for some reason it has sucked me in. Maybe it's the fact that other Facebook people play and I get a little competitive. Anyway. Like other losers out there I worked out the arithmetic to see what's what. Here are my results, including my email to my friend Meghan, in all it's shittily written glory.

so. i did my lil spreadsheet. i wanted to know which animals were a waste of life and should be sold off. space is precious on the farm, each little square represents potential profits and XPs. when you get competitive and want to maintain your edge (aka: more XPs) you need to be smart. and to be smart you need data. my conclusions, free of charge:

to make money: calves! a square (area of land the size of a plowed plot) can hold 16 calves, times 80 coins per day = 1,280 coins per day in pure profits (assuming the calf was gifted to you).

regulars cows, on the other hand, should be killed off on a massive scale. if we could slaughter them for meat i would and i would enjoy steak for a very long time. you can only fit four of these suckers into a square and they earn between 6 and 18 coins a day, meaning their total daily profit ranges from 24-72. this is paltry and not worth the effort to click the pink buttons. the best bet with this dudes is the cow house. if you sell all but the alien and pink cows, and fill the house w/ alien and pink ones then that is acceptable. the house takes up approx. 2 squares (weird shape/size) so that means 10 aliens/pinks per square for a total per day profit of 180 coins. not great. but it makes their lives worth saving.

seeing as how it's not possible to have a whole farm of calves (22 square x 22 square farm x 16 calves per square = 7,744 calves. that's a lot of fucking pink dots to click) it's best to balance with crops. to maximize money (and XPs) go with blackberries. these little juicy nuggets of pure ferengi-friendly profit bring almost 250 coins per day per plot of land, as well as almost 6 XPs per day! however, and this is a big however, you must be dedicated to make these morsels of berry goodness worth your while: in order to fully rape the land and seed of their potential you have to metiulously time your harvests and plantings ever 4 hours. you want to sleep, you say? well, sleep is fine but only if you go 4 hours at a time! the turn over on these is 6x's/day. so. let me ask you: how obsessed are you?

for the more reasonable among us i recommend peas. i love peas. they go great in all sorts of dishes from chicken pot pie to bow ties with creamy, garlic cheese sauce (mmm!). they also reap a hefty amount of profit and XPs, ringing in at 191 coins and 3 XPs for a mere one harvest per day. if you want to maximize XPs i would recommend pattypan squash - but only if you can do a harvest/seed every 16 hours like clockwork.

trees: they kind of suck. ornament trees pack a good bang for your buck but i don't think you can buy them anymore so it's a moot point. i will keep the trees because they take up space along the edge where i don't have enough room to plow, but i am not going to go nuts with them b/c they're a PITA.

i hope my professional analysis of farmville crops and animals has helped to demystify the various decisions which you are required to make. you seem to go for the prettiness over any of the boring numbers which is great. but someone who started playing way after me is ahead of me and im getting pissed and competitive and I MUST EXCEL.

Now I just need to figure out how to get this spreadsheet to display nicely in a post.

2009-12-23T14:09:00.009-05:00

First, I should mention this should be renamed the "Discursive Quarterly" or something. I shall try harder, for the benefit of my own brain's ramblings, to start posting again. My ego is not so bloated that I think anyone really reads this..."Discursive Drivel." Anyway.

A lot of articles online are for pure entertainment. They aren't really informative and are quite general. I am talking about things like "What every man secretly thinks about his girlfriend" or "Do this one thing at work and you'll get a promotion". Stupid junk, but entertaining for some. The irony isn't lost on me that what I post on this blog probably falls into that category except for the one saving grace: I am here to discuss and express. My goal is a vibrant two-way conversation, not to simply preach or pretend I know all sorts of stuff (I don't pretend because I might think I really know it, but I'm always open to others' ideas). For whatever reason I find myself over on msn.com - which is home to much of this crap. The holidays are especially prone to this writing. A pair of articles caught my eye and I started to read one entitled "The Upside of Being Single for the Holidays". I figured I have experience in that department and now that I am engaged, wanted to read what the author had to say so as to compare my own experience and reflect.

It basically goes like this: Author was a delusional young woman who thought having a partner during the holidays would be a romantic, movie-like experience full of magical, perfect (blech), moments. Then she married someone, someone she presumably likes, and realized that life isn't that way. Her examples of "reality" are quite depressing. I believe she is trying to be funny but really - is she making it all up? Or are those really her experiences? Because if they are, she is depressing.

Partnered-Up Holiday Pitfall Example 1: Picking out a tree.

Author discusses picking out a tree. Her hubby likes sparse trees, she likes them lush. They proceed to argue. This seems to lessen her enjoyment of the holidays. Well, of course it does. You two sound like stubborn, petty children in a power struggle. It's a fucking tree. If a somewhat silly, Pagan tradition of killing a tree to cover it in glittery ornaments is worth an argument to you then go for it. Trust me, I get it: he loves lots of crap on pizza, you're a purist. The solution is to split the difference. Get half toppings, half cheese. Get a tree in the middle. Or alternate yearly (he picks during odd-year Christmases, you pick evens). It's a compromise. Didn't anyone ever tell you that was a major part of marriage...? Having to consider your husband's likes and needs doesn't stop just because it's the Christmas season (in fact, I'd go so far as to say you ought to be more willing to give into him. Get some generous Christmas cheer going on.).

Partnered-Up Holiday Pitfall Example 2: Buying gifts for him and his family is expensive and tricky = it sucks.

This is less of an issue about having a man and more an issue of being mature enough to set boundaries and not stretch yourself too thin. Author complains she spent nearly $900 last year on gifts (no mention that these were for her own kids - just for friends and her and her spouse's extended families). If I were a millionaire I'd surely go all-out and buy stuff for all 25 of my first cousins and their parents. But, alas, I can barely pay my bills. So when Christmas rolls around I don't feel anxiety that I suddenly have twice as many things to buy because I have a fiance. I buy all the gifts I normally buy (mom, sister, brother, etc.) and slap his name on the card. He does the same. Think about it: if I did it Author's way I'd essentially double my Christmas spending bill. This is absurd. Likewise, our families buy us "joint gifts" (for the most part). If his uncle was going to spend, say, $30 on Dave for Christmas he still does but it's a restaurant GC instead of something else random. We get to get money towards a nice meal and his uncle doesn't overdo it. If that doesn't work then suggest a Secret Santa. Everyone buys (and gets) one really, really nice present. And if that still doesn't work, then just give people cards. If 20 of my cousins expected gifts from me I'd probably excommunicate myself from the family (or else I'd be homeless) let alone his cousins who I have never met once in my life.

Then she says how having to buy presents is fun, except for buying them for her husband. Who seems to be a bit ungrateful and awfully boring. She bought him a sat radio. July rolled around and he never opened it. Are these people married, or living on different planets? Men aren't from Mars, and women aren't from Venus, but this couple sure seems hell-bent on trying to make things as difficult on themselves as possible. Ask for a fucking list of gift ideas. Or, have the grace to say "Honey, it's been a few weeks and I've noticed you don't seem that into X. Here's the receipt. Go find something that you really love!!" And mean it. I keep all my reciepts and I try hard to buy him things I think he'll enjoy. But I realize the future happiness of our relationship doesn't depend on my ability to figure out exactly which bit of technojunk Dave craves most, especially when his "gift ideas" email was really quite lame and brief. I do my best, give them up with enthusiasm and if he doesn't love them it's NBD. We can still have some nice Overnight French Toast, Strata and mimosas which I make with the following proportions: 90% Extra Dry Champagne and 10% O.J.

Then comes her idea of "the ultimate December disappointment": when your S.O gives you a shite Christmas gift. Let's think about the reasons for why this is a letdown for women. A) Women live in a fantasy world and set unrealistic expectations for their men. Okay there isn't a B, that about sums it up. Listen: this isn't a romance novel. Most men aren't all that observant. They don't get hints. If you want something TELL HIM. Don't use his gift-giving detective skills as some kind of test to measure his love for you. Of course, if your guy doesn't try at all and gives you a huge piece of crap that you could never ever like (example: Christian rock CD to an atheist, or Bacon of the Month Club membership to a vegan) then that might be a sign he is either mentally challenged or a little too self-involved. But if he puts forth a bit of effort and is excited about what he is giving you, but just happens to strike out: get over it. He loves you. He tried to make you happy. Don't be a cunt, please? It is Christmas after all so go whip up a batch of those mimosas I mentioned earlier and you might soften up a bit.

At the end she quickly mentions all the reasons why being single is good: shopping until all hours, hanging out with your GFs, and getting to roll around in all the cash you save not buying presents for him and his family like some kind of cross-gendered Scrooge McDuck. Really? Because I spend time with people other than my fiance and so does he. And we enjoy it and enjoy the ability to miss each other a little bit. I also would much rather do just about anything than shop until I drop , but if I hadn't finished my shopping I know he would not start giving me shit because I stayed at the mall until 10 PM. Who gets mad like that? Ughhh.

Conclusion: no need to make a big deal out of stupid shit with simple, reasonable solutions. The things mentioned in the article aren't earth-shattering signs of a doomed relationship. They're signs of a slightly immature person who has absolutely no ability to logically reason her way through a problem without sulking or fighting. I also don't try to insult the intelligence and emotions of single people by coming up with truly pathetic arguments about why they should be grateful for being single. She ends it by saying they should spoil themselves silly and, in not so many words, hope they have a man next Christmas. Wow. What an uplifting article: you're miserably alone so go buy yourself stuff and keep your fingers crossed.

I have one for you: Be grateful you're single and not stuck in some demented relationship with a whiny twit that sounds about as much fun as humping a cactus. It's frustrating that this woman tries to pawn off her seemingly really limited life experience off as some kind of Revelation. Lady: stop writing. It's not funny or witty. It hurts my brain much like a 3 hour episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, full of bitchin' 'n complainin', would.

I don't have a perfect relationship by any means but I put forth the effort to be fair and loving. When I was single I thoroughly enjoyed my time exclusively with my family. I could bake pies with my mom and watch (and repeat all the lines aloud) to Home Alone with my sister and attempt to get my teenage brother to say more than 10 words to me. I could go over to my favorite Aunt's house and go on random errands with her. I had more time to help my nana. Now that I have Dave I still do those things but less frequently. He and I make the time to pay attention to each other and talk through whatever is bothering us without bickering or turning it into something personally offensive. My time with family is more precious - but I have MORE family that loves to see me and it's really cool. And I have to say that knowing I'll wake up on Christmas morning next to him is the most exciting thing I've come across yet.

2009-09-30T12:50:00.005-04:00

Scott A. Gagnon is a Level 3 sex offender and has already served time in jail. Level 3 = most likely to offend again. He seems like a really great guy. This is his RAP sheet, from Fox Boston:

Last week he got busted for trying to pick up a prostitute in Haverhill. Then a few days later he attacks a woman jogging on Plum Island in Ipswich. This guys is clearly the scum of the earth, more so than even Roman Polanski (vom!). But I can't help but think: if he had gotten with the hooker, might he have not attacked the woman jogger? Might he have gotten his fix and been less tempted? Maybe this was his way to self-soothe and control his impulses?

Just a bunch of speculation. Who knows.

This is a bad man; Gagnon should be put behind bars for the rest of his life. But maybe, if people insist we let level 3 offender be out in the world with the rest of us, giving them an outlet can keep them from attacking people? It sounds crass but I'm serious. If he could set up some sicko fantasy with some willing participant could it keep these beasts at bay?

I'm being antagonistic on purpose. I realize this is far more complex than I am making it out to be.

2009-09-29T15:13:00.002-04:00

...and so romantic!

Also, why did people wear suits to test out weird inventions that involve unstable surfaces floating in water?

From 30 Dumb Inventions at LIFE.com.

2009-09-24T11:22:00.000-04:00

Risottos are one of my favorite things to make. They're delicious. Seem fancier than they really are. They're versatile. And it's one of the few things that I can make significantly better than a restaurant. Never order risotto at a restaurant unless you're at an absurdly high end place that will actually make it fresh with the patience and attention is needs in order to be good (and even then, risotto's pretty cheap to make at home so I wouldn't pay someone else $25 to do it. For $25 you can buy enough supplies to feed 15 people this recipe.). As the weather starts to cool off I can finally look forward to bring this back into my rotation. It's pure, delightful comfort.

If you've never attempted risotto because of preconceptions that they're hard to make - no need to fear any longer. I'm here to tell you it's quite easy to do. First, a few things to know...

Risotto consists of
- Arborio (risotto) rice (Buy this in the smallest quantity possible so it's fresh when you use it.)
- A liquid, usually chicken/vegetable stock, as well as a little wine
- A fat and some freshly grated Parmesan for richness and consistency
- Flavoring elements (spices, add-ins like veggies, prosciutto)

You need to know two things about cooking risotto:
- The arborio needs to be quickly toasted before you start adding liquid
- You cannot, under any circumstances, leave the stove for more than 10 seconds when you're making risotto. You must stir it constantly and keep a vigilant eye, while adding broth to it every couple of minutes. This is *NOT HARD* from a technical standpoint. It's just time consuming. If you have ADHD or children who cannot be trusted to be alone for 20 minutes, don't make this without taking your Adderol or plopping the kids in front of Wall-E.

Here is a great recipe for this time of year - Butternut Squash Risotto. Serves about 3 people as a generously portioned side dish.
- 1-2 cups butternut squash, cut up into smallish pieces (a little bigger than a grape)
- A large shallot, diced
- A few tablespoons olive oil
- 1 cup arborio rice - I like the Rice Select brand, it's a domestic rice and works great for me
- 1/2 cup white wine
- 4 cups chicken stock (I get something low sodium) - put in a pot and heat up over med-low. You will probably use a little less. But you don't want to be caught with too little.
- 1/2 cup grated parm
- 1 tbls. butter
- 1/2 tsp. both cinnamon and nutmeg (adjust to your taste)
- Sea salt, freshed ground black pepper

1. Cover bottom of a big pot with some olive oil and heat over med-high. Add shallot and squash. Cook for about 5 minutes or until shallot is translucent (the squash will not be done).
2. Dump in the arborio rice and brown, stirring most of the time. If the mixture seems dry add some more oil or some butter. You don't want it swimming, but nor do you want it to stick to the bottom/burn/be dry. Turn stove down to medium.
3. Dump in the wine. Deglaze a little if you must. Cook for about 3 minutes or until wine is absorbed. Stir the entire time.
4. Start ladling in the broth, about 1/2-1 cup at a time. STIR STIR STIR. Don't stop stirring!! Add more broth every 3-4 minutes, or as needed. "Needed" means the liquid from last addition is almost completely absorbed. You repeat this process for about 15-20 minutes. I would use a timer if you are unsure.
5. Add spices/salt/pepper around 12 minutes during an addition of liquid.
6. ARE YOU SICK OF STIRRING YET?? This is why I alway have a glass of wine when I'm making risotto. It also helps to be ambidextrous and/or keep a boyfriend on hand (esp. if he's going to get to eat it).

I usually use about 3.5 cups of broth and am close to the 20 minute mark. It should be thick and stick to your spoon, but in a creamy way. The rice should have a slight bite but not be hard. The only way to figure this out is to scoop a bit out and try it.

6. Add cheese and butter. Stir this in. Taste for seasoning.

The risotto goes great with a simplly seasoned chicken cutlet or can stand on its own as a warming comfort food during the fall and winter.

Mangia!

2009-09-22T19:14:00.017-04:00

This post is...what the title says. It is an acknowledgment of a friendship which has ended.

I became friends with Christina (C) in middle school. We were close throughout high school and into college. I did notice little things along the way, e.g: I would listen to her troubles and provide her with the comfort and sympathy she needed, but when I would talk about my things she would listen with a glazed-over expression and give the occasional "that sucks". Then there were snide comments under her breath, if I mispronounced a word or something her reaction was akin to me confiding I had just skinned baby rabbits for laughs. I could ignore that stuff.

I also ignored her attempt to undermine my friendship with Meghan. The three of us were all close. One time I went to the movies with a guy who Meghan liked and had hooked up with. Admittedly, this wasn't the best decision on my part. At the time I figured it wasn't a big deal because the kid was stalking me online and I knew him from childhood. We saw Peter Pan. I drove him home after.

C goes on to divulge this "betrayal" to Meghan, sprinkling in her own embellishments which played on Meghan's insecurities (just typical girl ones). These embellishments were actually out right bullshit - she insinuated, fairly directly, that he and I slept together. This obviously created a major rift in my relationship with Meghan - who didn't believe me. C's encouraging words certainly didn't help. Meanwhile she is pretending to referee this war, which occurred mainly via IM one night freshman year of college. Little did I know that she wasn't being the unbiased ref which she appeared as she was actually feeding the fire by telling semi-truths to both sides making Meghan and myself appear spectacularly shitty to the other.

Meghan and I put all these pieces together several months later and had a huge ah-hah moment. I never said anything but I kept this sneaky-bitch move in the back of my mind. For the record: Meghan is currently what some might consider my BFFL. Yup. I'm 12.

Fast forward to, I believe, two years ago. It was summer. We were all living at home. C had a college friend up to visit. She seemed decent enough. That, is, until the second night the three of us hung out. See, what I didn't know was that I was being set up. C doesn't like me and I am convinced she never really did. I have no idea how she managed to be my friends considering the unsaid animosity she hosted towards me.
Let me do a aside here. Once upon a time I thought my parents were infallible and I was unable to separate their ideas from my own. Often times I would agree with what they said and it would come out of my mouth at some point. Being young and a slightly dumb these ideas wouldn't be well backed by any kind of thoughtful logic or evidence. This stuff would end up regurgitated in a really half-assed way. Also, my dad is kind of a douche so some of the stuff I said was douchey.

Believe it or not, over the years I've been able to develop my own identity and no longer believe everything that my parents do. I know - it's quite shocking, actually, that a 24 year old person is different, and thinks differently, than the 16 year old version of herself. Over time I have changed a great deal, and for the better.

My father has a temper which I believe is fueled by some degree of Bi-Polar Disorder and possibly Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I am no shrink but he fits the bill of each and at the very least you can get an impression of his personality. I thought the way he behaved was normal: imperious; egotistical; incapable of accepting defeat or that his ideas aren't shared by all and that they aren't gospel. He is quite miserable and I don't really talk to him. I used to act like him in some regards until I realized he is 1) an ass 2) painful to be around a lot of the time 3) abnormal. So I made a conscious effort to change not just my behavior but my actual thought-processes. I no longer react in the same way that I used to and I've since ripped my mind wide the fuck open. Life is so much happier!

C never understood this or saw it. She thinks I am the same person I was forever ago. She also would hear one thing and immediately process it in a narrow way and draw incorrect conclusions. The big, ugly example I will use here: If I disagreed with Israeli policy, or said something to the effect that other socially-defined groups of people that were mass murdered should get recognition in an attempt to fully understand the wrongs of humans....well, that made me an Anti-Semite in her eyes. I didn't say "Palestinians should kill all Jews!" or deny the Holocaust. All I ever wanted was to examine history more comprehensively. When we think of mass murder the go-to is the Holocaust. Jewish organizations, being of a very strong and close knit (and highly educated) community have kept the memory of these horrors alive. I find this necessary and good. BUT: I don't always like how it happens to overshadow the deaths of other people who were slaughtered for no reason. The Purges. The Rape of Nanjing. The Dresden Firebombings (No. It wasn't tactical.). I don't assign greater value to the life of someone because s/he is of a certain religion and therefore any death of an innocent is equally tragic in my eyes. There have been many examples of systematic killings of groups and I think we need to look at them all.

So anyway. Here I am holding these views and all she gets from it is that I hate Jewish people and wish death upon Israel. Listening. Comp. Fail. Her friend Kenna is up. Kenna is hotheaded and has a big mouth - I don't mean that in a bad way. See, I have a pretty big mouth. C does not. Which is why she outsourced her secret beef against me to Kenna; she doesn't want to do her own dirty work. Tricky.

Here we are, gathered in C's mom's kitchen. And suddenly Kenna says something to the effect of how "she gives money to the motherland" which she mentioned to be Israel. Okay...? I have no idea what we were talking about but I was confused. It was random as all get out. I asked if she was Jewish. No. "So why do you give money?" "because it's our duty" or something like that. Again, uhh, okay? Whatever floats your boat tootles. (She is adopted from Asia and was raised Christian. Again. It was random.)

The conversation somehow takes a nosedive into a death spiral, with Kenna guiding it the whole time. She says that all Germans are responsible for the Holocaust. I've heard this all before; my 5th grade teacher, Ms. Brodie, actually said something like this to me. I ask her why she feels this way. She just does. I say my grandparents were in Germany during WWII and that they were not involved in killing Jewish people (my grandmother lived in a small, isolated village above a restaurant and my grandfather was fighting for the Nazi regime - in Russia. He was captured and sent to a POW camp in Virgina.).

I understand this is difficult topic. I intend to post on guilt as a reducible construct, collective guilt and groupthink which I view through a highly skeptical lens. Kenna, and apparently C, are on the "irreducible" side of the fence and assign responsibility of mass murder to anyone who could be considered a member of the greater group. Again, this is a totally different topic that I want to get to, maybe this week, as it is something that deserves a well laid out argument (this isn't stuff I take lightly and argue based on emotion alone.). Because I recognize this is a hard, personal thing for many people I try to tread lightly.

Then this chick starts getting really agitated. I am saying how I don't agree my grandparents have blood on their hands - but apparently not only do they, but so do I. I could keep going with a detailed account of both sides but the gist is this: I was upset this stranger was *yelling* that my grandparents were Jew killers and that I need to beg forgiveness from Jews - because she insisted they knew what was going on and inaction is as bad as actually perpetrating crimes. I'm their descendant so I am guilty, too. If this is true then we're all guilty of the death of every single person in Darfur. I really don't buy it. (Is she going to hop on a plane to Africa, toting a few AR-15s so she can then sneak across conflict territory to personally defend targeted groups? No. She isn't and she hasn't. Hypocrite.)

Meanwhile, C is sitting in a chair laughing hysterically. Manically, actually. She thinks it's the best thing she's ever seen. I was so confused. I now realize the whole thing was a set up: she wanted Kenna to teach me a lesson. To level me. Knock me off my high horse, or whatever her twisted mind wanted to call it. C somehow felt my opinions were astray and since she is too unable to have an uncomfortable conversation where there might be disagreement she had her midget friend on T do it. She went so far as to prep her friend how to do it: by attacking my personal beliefs and my family. I mean how much more personal does it get than accusing you of murder and hating an entire ethnic/religious group? So brilliant, because if it's personal I'm more likely to get upset and not be able to argue well. Then I'd end up looking like an idiot, and what? Apologize for being an "Anti-Semite"? Good plan! Let's all hug and go down to the bar! Ugh.

If C had a problem with me she should have talked to me about it. But if she even for a second thought about who I was and saw how much I grew over the years I doubt she would have needed to go to such low depths at all. If she was a decent friend she'd have realized I didn't need to be taught a lesson in moral philosophy or WWII history - a lot of her assertions were based on half-formed ideas I spouted as a 15 year old.

As sad as it makes me that someone I once called a friend needed to "hire" another person to try to maliciously break me down it makes me sadder that she obviously checked out of the friendship years ago. Had she merely paid attention a little bit it would have been obvious.

The day after the whole thing I talked to her on the phone and let her know I was upset. She dismissed it with a half-hearted apology. I stopped talking to her after that. There were a few sporadic times when we talked and I invited her over to pre-game before our 5 year high school reunion. Nothing. Maybe it's for the best as I doubt any conversation would get very far.

This came to mind in the days following:

And that's my deeply personal post.

2009-09-21T18:52:00.004-04:00

My camera kind of sucks. It's a Nikon and I think about 4 mega pixels or so but I can't tell you much more than that because I haven't looked at it in at least a year. It was a Christmas present three or four years ago. I was so psyched out of my mind to have a digital camera. The thing itself seems decent so my conclusion is that I am terrible at using it.

Generally, I stumble around for about 10 minutes with a new piece of technology (be it my new laptop with Vista on it, or a new mobile) and then start to figure it out. But no matter how hard I try with my camera I can't take a decent fing picture. Not of myself. Not of my animals. Not of my man. Friends. Inanimate objects. Whatever it is, I cannot capture it in a picture.

So. Now that I am about to go on vacation in one month I think it's a good time to 1) figure out how the fuck to use my geedee camera or 2) if it's really the camera, and not its semi-technologically-retarded owner, I shall buy a new one.

And that is all. Oh and p.s: the thing that set this off is the fact I wanted to update my picture on this blog but alas, I have no good, recent pictures of myself because my camera is never used. Because I wanted a new one up A.S.A.P I settled on a piss poor picture of me taken with my shite mobile phone a few weeks ago. (I also kinda hate having my picture taken but that is another issue.)

I hereby commit to either learning how to use my camera better or finding one that isn't a huge POS. I texted this idea to Dave so it's now a group effort.

2009-09-19T09:43:00.010-04:00

I love the Star Trek episodes where they casually mention to humans from the past that there is no poverty, hunger, sickness or war on their modern earth. It's so hopeful. So happy. Roddenberry was an optimist and believed that we humans would overcome our banalities and elevate ourselves above such terrible notions as greed, hate and selfishness.

Maybe someday we'll get there. Today, we will not. And I am okay with it because I really want to make two frivolous purchases and the idea of the day (someday soon I hope) when I'll get these things is very exciting. Go consumerism! Weird factoid: both things I want happen to be Japanese.

photo from the shop of elizabethkelly on etsy.com

The first is an obi type belt (click the link above to see more). It's really hot. I would like to wear it with a pair of perfectly fitting jeans, a fitted top and nice heels. Maybe red heels? Lots of eyeliner. Dark lipstick. Japanese vamp. Nice! Reasonably priced, too, considering it's a rather large belt. Aside: I find belts to be incredibly overpriced. Sure, a nice leather belt might be expensive. But if you go to Express their very cool and stylish belts are at least $30 for plastic. Wtf. Get ovaaa yourself, Express.

In other Japanese obsessions are their watches. First I'll just mention I am insanely jealous of the fact the Japanese have such a lavish selection of technology to choose from. The U.S has to be at least 12 months behind them in everything we have available. It's really maddening. Their phones are cooler. Their buildings are cooler. Futuristic stuff is awesome and the Japanese have plenty of it. Wahhh. For now I'll have to live with my enormous, ghetto En-V 2 and buy their shit online. The selection before you is from Tokyoflash.com. All the watches remind me of sci-fi movies/shows.

Option One: This one strikes me as slightly Empire Strikes Back. I mean. If a Stormtrooper had a day off from...uh, trooping?...he'd definitely wear this fine piece of time-telling lovliness. It would help him get to where he needs to be on time while looking very smart and urban. It's white. Sleek. A weird shape. And I am pretty sure you cannot actually tell the time with it. The interesting thing about this watch is the fact that it actually looks like a 1980's movie prop because it's slightly cartoonish/fake looking. So fucking cool.

Option Two:I am 100% positive this little nugget of joy provides Enterprise crewpeople access to their station controls when they are away from the bridge. In fact if this thing doesn't have a code (which of course would be pressing a series of orange and red lights) to land a spaceship then I'll be damned. By my calculations it appears to be approximately 23:38 hours on this watch? Maybe?! Who the f knows. I don't want to really tell time. I just want to satisfy my inner geek. And outer geek. Since it's not really a secret.

And finally, Option Three: Certainly you can guess what movie world this watch belongs to. If Neo needed to tell time in The Matrix this is what he'd wear. This one is my least favorite I think because it's not weird enough. However, it does lend itself to easier time-telling (12:15?) than the others. Check out the tokyoflash site for other really funky watches.

Okay. Time to stop delaying the inevitable and get my ass to Planet Fitness. Which I'd enjoy a lot more if I had to go to a different planet. It would look like Rubicun III. Minus the death penalty.

2009-09-18T08:21:00.005-04:00

First let's discuss BeautyFix. The high is exactly as great as I'd hoped. I visited the site and looked over the program: you pay $49 and get a package with nine new products to try. Most are full sized. I desperately needed some eye cream and I've been wanting to add a serum to my routine. Lo and behold, this quarter's fix contained both. The full sized eye cream (Cures by Avance goes for $50) and serum (Bliss The Youth as we Know it Concentrate goes for $70) alone make this a good deal. After I ordered my kit I would longingly look up each product on their websites and try to find reviews on MUA. When it finally came in the mail I was giddy as all sin.

My addiction was sated. For at least a whole week.

The eye cream works really well, maybe a little too well. A lot of wrinkle treatments work by plumping up your skin which temporarily fills-in the wrinkles; it seems Cures works this way. This product is a nice consistency and I like how it made my eye area soft. However, I don't really have wrinkles yet. When I woke up after using this I was puffy around the eye area. Verdict: it definitely works to fill things out, good texture, nicely moisturizing. I will continue to use it very sparingly to keep things from flaking as the weather turns blustery.

I love the Bliss serum. It goes on smoothly and sinks in right away. My skin feels soft and healthy after using it and it helps my moisturizer to sink in better. I use this in the AM under my SPF lotion. Also, I've been using Skinceuticals .5% Retinol. I was peeling like crazy yesterday and my skin has been irritated. This morning I did a gentle physical exfoliation and followed up with this serum and my night cream. My skin has calmed down significantly and isn't peeling!! Love this stuff. But it's mucho dinero and I'm not sure it's a Can't Live Without It product.

Other stuff in the Fix:
Decleor Instant Radiance Moisturizer: The stuff is pretty light and smells fresh. But there is no SPF in it, which would put this into the nighttime category for me. And why would I need a lotion for nighttime with shimmer in it? My pillow doesn't care if I look dewy. It's supposed to impart a glow but if I'm going to get a glow from my cream at night I want it to be from good hydrating properties. Totally a "meh". Maybe it would be good if I wash my face before doing going-out makeup when it's already dark? Dunno.
Juara Tamarind Tea Hydrating Toner: I love the theory of this...I'm all about antioxidants from tea and would like a toner to help sooth my skin from using the retinol. It was nice enough. It wasn't enough on its own to moisturize even on humid summer days. Perhaps this will work well pre-lotion in the winter for a little extra moisture oomph. Over all, not that excited about it. Not adding another product to my routine, and expense column in my budget, if it's not great.
Me! Bath, Shower Sherbet (in the lavender scent): It's hard for any product to conquer my love of my Sabon Vanilla Coconut Body Scrub - which is the best shit EVER. Also love the Patchouli Lavender scent. But here's the thing: the Sabon scrub is too good. It really does a bang up job of smoothing you out but sometimes less is more. The Me! Bath scrub is less scrubby than my Sabon scrub and it foams into a lovely lather. I use it every other day for maintenance. The scent is light and clean. Definitely glad I got to try this out and I will probably re-purchase. Even Dave likes it, especially when I use it to give him an exfoliating back massage in the shower :-)
pur~lise lip comfort: This is a petroleum-free lip balm with tons of oils in it. It is very moisturizing. It helped me with an accidental lip sunburn (Ah! The guilt!!). The true test will be in a few months when I'll fight the good fight against winter lips. For $22 I might not buy it again, but I will wait for winter and see how it stands up against my Nivea and Blistex.
SpaRitual Nail Laquer: Love the color. Hate the polish. I wanted this to be great because DBP, Formaldehyde and Toluene free nail color is important to me. But, alas, chemicals win. This stuff didn't try completely and it peeled off right away. One consideration: it was about 90 degrees and humid when I applied it so maybe it deserves a mulligan?
SpaRitual Instinctual Moisturizing Lotion: I liked this for my hands as it wasn't greasy. But for my body I like a little more grease (I love the Neutrogena Oil with Sesame in it.). It didn't really do anything and I also like body cream to have a little bit of a fragrance. Nothing overpowering and nothing that would prevent me from wearing perfume...but just a little something. There are plenty of really wonderful lotions you can get at CVS that cost less and usually can find a coupon to use. Yes, I don't always spend tons of money on everything beauty-related.

So this BeautyFix shite is awesome and I love it. One major complaint: When I was trying to sign up I got an error message from their site. I called their helpdesk and got a very friendly, albeit not very tech-saavy person to help me. She was able to make sure my order was processed correctly but she couldn't figure out how to get my log-in to work. See, I'd go to the site and put in my username/password which I set up then it would say I don't exist. Then I'd try to re-register with my email and it would say I'm already registered. Then I'd try to put in my email address to have my password sent to me and I'd be told, again, that I don't exist. Next time I do this I'll use another email address. But for now I am still frustrated because I cannot log into the website and redeem my $25 gift card and review products on glow.com.

Yesterday I swung by Macy's because it's my sister's birthday on Monday and she desperately need some Sepia Ink gel eyeliner. I taught her well. Obviously I got sucked into the new metallic cream shadows. Obviously one isn't enough. I ended up getting the dark blue color, Starry Night. It. Is. Gordj. Even though it's a work day I dared to try and pull it off. Luckily this stuff can go on light. Can't wait to wear it this weekend and build it up a little more dramatically. Bobbi almost never disappoints and I am very glad she is putting out some edgier stuff...which, since it's Bobbi, still manages to be elegant and easily manageable.

The two brushes I pictured up there are of the Ultra Fine Eyeliner and Cream Shadow brushes. I love them tons. Bobbi's brushes are my favorite of all the ones I've used.

I also ran out of foundation. I was interested in the Clinique Superbalanced mineral make up. However, the women working there were not interested in selling any to me. I really don't get it: when you go into a department store you are either stocked like a hawk on a mouse or treated like a germ. Yesterday I was a germ. Two women were working and each was helping a customer - but neither acknowledged me. They're busy working, okay I get it. After the two customers left one woman started organizing some product and another disappeared totally. I'm five foot ten and staring right at them - and they looked right at me. ??? Fuck 'em.

So I went over to Prescriptives and re-purchased mineral make up there. I had the All Skins before and it was good. Better than BM in my opinion but nothing fabulous. I was very glad I did this because I initially used Level One Cool but walked away with a Level One Medium Warm (or something like that - so confusing!!). But all it means is that I was wearing the wrong color and today I'm not. It looks great and my skin looks a lot less pasty!!

Pictures from bobbi brown's website.

2009-09-16T07:59:00.007-04:00

Historically, an engagement was a legally binding promise (in a time where there was no fairness for the sexes, this typically was only binding for the guys. Sucks.). If the guy reneged on his promise it was a breach of contract and the woman had legal recourse. (I haven't really researched this because it's out of date, but this probably has something to do with the fact that women were valued for virginity and after the engagement the dude would take her V-Card. Thereby making her basically devoid of all value in the world and she'd die of starvation. Alone in a gutter. As a social pariah.).

Today this common law tort isn't available in almost any state. Jilted brides and grooms be wary - making huge life changes and sacrifices before the I-Do's with someone with cold feet could leave you in a rough spot. In the State of Georgia people can sue ex-fiances if they can prove significant loss based on the promise to marry. See this article by "Lis on Law" at Fox.com on a recent case.

So, here you are. Engaged, happy as a clam, and your fiance breaks up with you. Then he wants the ring back. Do you have to give it back? In states where engagement is considered a legal contract you may be able to argue that failure to perform (get married) creates a breach and use this to your advantage. But as I've said, this law has been abolished in most places. Your next move is to check out your state's laws considering engagement ring gifts. Or, more specifically, that they are conditional gifts. When a gift is conditional, the ownership of the giftee is dependent upon some condition. In this case, the condition that the couple gets married. No marriage, no ring. In unconditional gift states this doesn't apply; if you give someone a ring then that's the end of it.

My lawyer, who is also my fiance, explained that gifts in general can always be conditional. But whether or not an engagement ring itself is conditional or unconditional is state-specific.

The reason all of this came up was because of an advice column I read by Amy Alkon. You can read the full bit here, on Creators, and this column will be available next week on her personsal site advicegoddess.com. Amy's basic gist was this: when you break up you give back the ring. The law isn't so clear, nor is my opinion. Obviously.

Some people aren't into the engagement ring thing. I understand this completely. Why should the woman be marked as taken and the man walk around without any obvious sign? Why should the man be responsible for this financial burden? Women work and have jobs and the point of marriage (for the people I associate with, anyway) isn't financial stability for the woman.

I happen to love jewelry and offered to help pay for my ring. I also asked D if he wanted an engagement ring (I thought this was an equalist option for someone who likes jewelry and wants both parties to be "marked"). Neither idea went over with D so I ended up with a beautiful sapphire ring that I love. I actually really like the idea of both wearing an engagement ring. And no, I don't think dudes should have to walk around with a 1 ct. solitaire princess-cut in platinum or something femme-y; let's ease into this new tradition I just made up and allow gender roles to linger for the time being.

Back to conditional gifts. If a guy gives a ring during a proposal, and it's accepted, and then he breaks it off then the condition (marriage) doesn't exist for the gift and the woman must give it back. But this doesn't make sense to me. HE broke it off, not her, so the condition doesn't exist not because she doesn't perform her end of the bargain. It was his decision to give the gift and his decision to call it off so I think she should do what she wants with the ring. Conversely, if he gives the ring and SHE calls it off then she should give it back, because she got this gift and decided not to perform.

I will try to think of stronger wording later. For now, it would just be fairer all around if both parties got rings, or no rings, and then in the event of calling off the engagement they both walk away and do what they want with the rings they have. This isn't just a ring - it symbolizes a decision to make a lifetime commitment. If your partner decides to break up with you, it doesn't mean you were also wanting to break up. It doesn't mean that you were any less committed to the relationship or marriage. In other words, if a giftor presents the giftee with an object to keep, based on some future condition, then the giftor reneges on his/her part of the condition I think the giftor yields his/her right to the object. If the giftee reneges, then the object should be returned. Don't give someone a gift if you will want it back!! Or, give them a gift after they do the thing.

2009-07-24T11:15:00.008-04:00

I got a new shipment of samples from Luckyscent - which I highly recommend if you're interested in smelling some great stuff. I had a really good experience at the store when I was out in L.A so I choose to buy samples through them, if they have what I want, over other places.

Loving Costes, as I knew I would. Loving Musc Bleu. Aria de Mare was nice, I liked it but didn't love it (marine can get too artificial for me!). But I doubt I'd pay that much for something that evaporates completely from my skin in 10 minutes. I have that problem with the Il Profumo line, it really kills me because I love everything in that company. Un Rose Chypre is everything we all want it to be after we inhale the reviews online. Andy does not disappoint his loyalists. If he started a revolution I'm pretty sure we'd all go along with it simply because we'd want to guarantee he kept churning out his magical potions.

Then there is Turquoise by Oliver Durbano. Even in the little tiny vial you can see that the juice is a pretty blue color. I have to say that when I smelled it, I was confused. I couldn't decide if I even liked it or not. What was this smell? It is metallic, at least on me. And it's definitely blue. Blue metal that is buffed to an intense shine. It's been 10 minutes and I still can't figure it out. It's not berry-ish, flowery, nothing like that. However it is starting to get a little richer as the screaming settles down - there is definitely something hiding behind the initial burst of blue metal. I think that I'd wear this just because it's so weird to me and totally brings my mind away from reality. It does not make me think of the stone turquoise. There is something earthy and natural about that stone to me (perhaps because it makes me think of turquoise jewelry being sold by Native Americans on the sides of roads in AZ. And there is something completely earthy about that.

The Diva Plava Laguna would wear this.

2009-07-24T07:56:00.003-04:00

...why people try to domesticate wild animals: because they're so effing cute when they're wee things.

If this guy wasn't going to grow up and eat my face off I'd totally have a coupla little bebba wolves.

Cutest thing I've seen in a while, though:

Aww.

2009-07-22T13:03:00.013-04:00

This is one long SOB. Its length is directly proportionate to the level of frustration I've experienced over the past few weeks.

I know they're "just trying to help" and "just trying to be supportive". But really, everyone: stop.

When it comes to weddings we all have our own opinions. Mostly because it's a major life event that we've all thought about at some point during our adult lives. Maybe marriage isn't your thing, but you also know that in your hypothetical wedding you'd never want X or Y. Opinions - we can't not have them.

Meanwhile, a lot of adults around me have already had weddings. With experience comes some great advice and some awesome ideas. Unfortunately, what I am finding, is that most people can't separate their opinions from their advice/ideas. Some people around me aren't even really trying very hard to keep their opinions to themselves and can't possibly comprehend that I might not think the same way about stuff. What is important to D and me might not be important to someone else. I thought that was obv, no?

When having general wedding-related conversations with people it quickly veers off the path of "helpful idea brain storming" into "you need to do this exactly how I say." WTF? We're payin' for the damned thing and it's our wedding, not anyone else's. If someone wants my advice or opinion I'll give it to them but I won't tell them "No you MUST have a cocktail hour!!!" I didn't think everything had to be uniform across the board. I thought it was okay to mix it up.

For example, I envision a laid-back reception where people can mingle and eat and drink freely without structured cocktail/dinner/dancing time. We also didn't really want to spend money on a dj, as D already has professional dj equipment. We are happy with the idea of plugging an ipod up to his speakers. That idea was fucking LAMBASTED by no fewer than THREE people. Again. WTF?! Sure, a dj can help move the party along but I went to a wedding two weeks ago that didn't have a dj and it was a wonderful time! People danced. The moon didn't fall out of the sky and the devil didn't rise up from hell. It was FINE.

All these opinion-pushers, who are all much older than D and me and about 3 tax brackets higher, shoot down our ideas which are more or less out of practicality. If someone handed us$50,000 to use just on a wedding we could do it. And it would be fucking great. And we'd probably have a dj. But, alas, the budget (including dress and rings) is more around the "less than 10k" range. No one seems to support the idea of a home-made wedding. I've been told that I simply cannot do my own flowers. The next person who tells me what I can or can't do at our wedding is going to get the bill handed to them. I have to have a florist do all my flowers...? Okay, cool; you're paying for it! Everyone keeps talking about "the best wedding they ever went to". Yeah, sure, it's great to reach for the stars but seriously? If I put that pressure on myself not only would I have to take out a jumbo loan but I'd probably wind up in one of those clinics they stick celebs in when they have mental breakdowns (I can barely put on a mother's day brunch without crying at least once when the food prep ends up taking triple the time I thought it would. I love entertaining...but for like 5 people or less at a time, unless it's just beer and pizza.). So don't tell me I have to do "this this and this" because that's how So and So's wedding was. Cause yanno what? If people are happy and feel like dancing to what D and I put on the iPod they will. And have fun, too. You can't force people to have a good time. I want people to have a wonderful time at the wedding but I refuse to delusion myself with this b.s. idea that if I follow your formula they will. We'll provide booze + music that we love and if that = a fucking awesome party, well, that's fucking awesome. But I won't lose sleep over it. And both of our 401ks thank me for it.

I'm not a wedding-y person. I never dreamed of my wedding growing up (but trust me, I've mentally designed my dream home, ever day, for the past 5 years). I would be happy with eloping (No. Really. I would. And I'd have it broadcast live for any family/friends who want to watch.). But alas, the other half of this wedding-duo wants a wedding and I'll admit that it would be hurtful to my family if we eloped. So now I'm charged with planning a wedding, when I don't really have actual wedding ideas except for a general feeling that I know I want the wedding to have. Feelings like, will we still be able to pay the mortgage afterward? That the dress I wear is flattering and doesn't cause me to feel like exchanging vows is a business transaction (yeah, that's right. I fucking hate white wedding dresses. The big con nowadays is that "white symbolizes joy". That's just so people don't have to be honest with themselves that they're simply following a formerly very sexist tradition. You like tradition? Cool - just embrace your choice. You don't wear a white dress just because you think white is a joyous color. To me it's just easy on the eye. It's airy. I love white in moderate amounts. But it's no surprise why movies use certain colors to bring viewers to certain conclusions. It's because white traditionally symbolizes purity. Duh! Don't try to pass it off that white is just a joyous color and that everyone singularly agrees with that. Because when I'm feeling joyous I wear PINK. Or AQUA. Or YELLOW. And lots, and lots of BLING. The tradition doesn't speak to me, I don't care for its symbolism or history. That's just me, though.). I want the wedding to be honest to who Dave and I are. I'm not "pure" - I don't go to church and I say "fuck" way to much for me to even be allowed inside one. I don't like stuffy. I like fancy but in small doses (like, a really fancy chandelier in an otherwise streamlined room). It pains me that in trying to be honest all I'm getting from people is a bunch of flack (obviously no one bothers Dave because everyone assumes he isn't involved at all. I told him that if he wanted a wedding reception that he had to do at least 50% of the planning. Teamwork would be sweet on this and it makes a lot of philosophical sense, too. Otherwise it was the town hall and a nice dinner).

You'd think I was suggesting a hoe-down and mud wrestling, or Playboy Bunnies to be serving food, or that we wanted to have a funeral themed reception and that I wear a dress like Morticia Adams. (though, don't those sound like fun they could be weddings?). We're just trying to keep costs under control and have a simple, relaxing, pleasant wedding. If that means having it during the afternoon, not at night, to save $1,500 on a reception site so be it (yeah someone said it HAD to be at night). If that means having beer-and-wine-only in order to be able to give guests an open bar then so be it. If that means an ipod over a dj to save another $1,000 so be it (the savings in those three things alone is a 2 week honeymoon in Italy, FYI.).

So. Stop pushing opinions on me and bossing me around. I welcome open, loving, advice and fun conversations. I would love HELP planning. Want to be helpful? Find me the names of 10 reliable caterers with good reviews. Or find a dress that isn't white yet is elegant, feminine and less than $1,000. Did you find a cute wedding blog with tons of fun, special ideas that we can use? Shoot me the URL! Otherwise you'll just make me feel:

Overwhelmed
Doubting my own choices (will my marriage really be worse off if we don't have a sit down dinner and intricate seating plan? If you hate talking to Uncle Fester, don't talk to him, cause I'm not going to force you to sit next to him. Which I personally think is really nice of me.)
Like if I don't do it their way, they're just going to bitch about it. Like each little detail other people are freaking out over (and I'm not) somehow affects them negatively in some huge, fundamental way from which they'll never recover. Are you five fucking years old? No? So why are you whining to me about my wedding?

That's why it's awesome we all get to have our own weddings.

New rule: If I want your advice, I'll ask for it!

2009-07-10T10:04:00.012-04:00

I've been burning the candle at both ends this week. We all do it sometimes - there are weeks when we have nothing going on, then others where it seems like every old friend and random social events make their way to the forefront.

There was a cookout last Friday. Then Saturday was the 4th, obviously that entailed drinking all day, being out in the sun and watching fireworks. Sunday I don't even know what I did, but I remember crashing at 9:30 PM. Monday night I went to the gym. Tuesday night I went out with my mom and sister. Wednesday I had to go to a wedding (how financially prudent of them!). Last night I met up with a college friend for dinner. Now we're back to Friday and I'm going out with D tonight.

Not only am I a complete glutton this week but I have a cold - who gets a cold in July?!

When I have weeks like this it is hard to stay organized because by the time I get home I'm ready for bed. (By organized I mean planning meals ahead and cooking wholesome foods at home...which I make extra of to bring for lunch the next day...and then I generally work out 4 times per week. This week has made a JOKE of my wanna-be-healthy lifestyle.). Just because I'm run down with a cold doesn't mean I have to look the part.

Here are some tips for looking good with ease when you're pressed for time and feeling run down. This will be your new bedtime routine for when you are running on fumes.

Step 1: Before you read another word go get a big ass glass of water. Chug it. Refill it, and then come back to the computer.

Got your second glass of water? Good. Some people like to tout the "8 Glasses a Day Wisdom" as a buncha baloney. I disagree because I know I feel better when I'm hydrated. When I'm not hydrated I feel lightheaded. When my guy, D, is dehydrated his face ages 5 years. It's freakish how much he reacts to his water intake! So just drink water.

2: Exfoliate. This doesn't take any more time or effort than washing your face (provided your washing technique is more sophisticated than just getting your face wet in the shower). I like this product by Clean&Clear. You use it in the shower. Everyone has at least 5 minutes for a shower. As the theory goes, the steamy heat from the shower environment allows the product to work itself into your dirty-whore pores. You slather on a thick layer, let it sit there for one minute to work chemically, then gently massage for physical exfoliation. I use this time to shave my legs and even use a little exfoliator on my knees and elbows.

3. Moisturize. Moisturized skin just looks smoother and healthier. Dry, ashy skin makes you look like shit. Not to mention it adds at least a few years to your face. After your shower slather your face with an AHA (Alpha Hydroxy Acids) lotion. AHA works by helping to slough off extra skin. Clean&Clear has a complimentary product to go with their in-shower facial scrub. The label says it uses "purifying fruit acids" - which probably means they use some sort of citric acid/malic acid combination as a main ingredient. By working off extra layers of dead skin it loosens congestion and help clear your pores. Dead skin cells are jagged and rough, while newer layers of skin are smooth. The rougher/jagged cells appear to the eye as being dull while smooth skin looks naturally luminous and younger. Some AHA products are touted to reduce the appearance of wrinkles with continued use. This is the same idea behind retinol products. AHAs and retinols are great for a glowing complexion and are the only weapon we have to really combat blackheads.

While I don't recommend going overboard by piggybacking the use of both a physical and chemical exfolitant, the C&C one is pretty mild. It doesn't irritate my normally-sensitive skin. I know I sound like I'm trying to plus C&C but I just happen to enjoy the pairing of these two products. Which isn't surprising since they're meant to work together. You should really use an AHA every night for full effect. FYI: You need to use a good SPF when using any kind of AHA or retinol.

4. Self-tan. You won't look orange, I promise, so long as you're willing to experiment. Every woman who gives a hoot about beauty products should have at least one standby tanning product that she can trust. If you're new to the game try a gradual tanner, like this one from L'Occitane. The formulation is on the thin-side, so be aware. Allow your moisturizer to seep in for a good 10 minutes then work several pumps of tanner into your face. Long, even strokes. Work it up to your hairline (I like to have my hair in a headband for this), over your jaw and well down your neck, into your chest area. One coat of this probably will have zero effect on you...so I would encourage, during your week of hellishness, to check out a legit tanner. I've had success with facial tanners from Lancome, Clinique and Estee Lauder. Pick one. They're all really similar in my opinion, not one stands out as being a super star. Remember to WASH YOUR HANDS!

5. At this point, assuming you're almost ready for bed, pop two Advil PMs. I don't think this is the healthiest thing, and you shouldn't do it often, but these are desperate times. If you know you react badly to these don't take them. But I find I sleep better when I take these during weeks I am stressed out and busy. Right now I have a cold/cough. I actually take a little promethazine with codine. I'm out like a light for 7.5 hours straight as soon as my head hits the pillow. Brill stuff. Only cough syrup that ACTUALLY works. It is important, when you're having a hectic week, to try and sleep as much as you can. By taking care of your skin and using self tanner your morning routine should be greatly pared down.

In the AM...

6. Make up. Use warm water and a facecloth to gently wash your face. Pat dry. Follow with tinted moisturizer mixed with some bronze-ish liquid. I like the Keihl's tinted moisturizer because it leaves my skin a little dewy, plus Clinique Up-Lighting Liquid Illuminator. This stuff is great. I dab some of each (2:1 ratio of tinted moisturizer:Illuminator) all over my face and blend it all in really well. Make sure to dab some of this under your eye area. For those with really horrendous under eye circles you might want to use a little concealer. If you have greasy skin put a little powder on, like BM Mineral Veil. Follow with some light highlighter shadow from crease to brown and mascara and you're good to go. The whole process takes me about 4 minutes. I am simultaneously taking alternate sips of water and coffee.

7. Wear a cute outfit. This doesn't have to mean a dress and heels. But I always manage to put on a colorful scarf. It brightens your face instantly.

The short version for you:
1. Water
2. Exfoliate
3. Moisturize
4. Self-tan
5. SLEEP!
6. Skin brightening, 4 minute make-up routine
7. Cute accessory or outfit.

2009-06-30T10:03:00.002-04:00

I'd like to examen the nitty gritty of hate crime. Or at least, the nitty gritty as far as what I can read on wikipedia. My resources are limited. The previous post was generalized and theoretical, now I'll take a look at what the Hate Crime laws are attempting to do, why the government wants to implement them and why I think it's a bunch of stinking, steaming cow dung.

According to wiki,

A "hate crime" can take two forms: "hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. The second kind is hate speech, which is speech defined as crime.

I discussed the way hate crime law plays out in my previous post. Why is the government going down this road?

Hate crime, as a concept, isn't new. Minority groups have been ostracized from general society and genocides have been committed against them. Blacks were shipped in from Africa like they were animals and used as slaves. Japanese soldiers slaughtered and raped Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking. There is slaughter against ethnic groups right now in Sudan. For the larger society to accept and perpetrate these horrors against smaller groups is morally wrong - but not because hate itself is morally wrong, but because the actions against them are. They'd be wrong regardless of motivation (which I discuss in the previous post). Sometimes the hate is more subtle - it's intimidation and harassment, not genocide. But still - isn't harassment wrong regardless of why the harasser is doing it?

A major factor behind hate crime legislation is the claim that hate crimes have uniquely devastating affect on the victims. This is an expert issues by the Attorney General of Ontario. It sums up the theories well.

effects on people - psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

effect on the targeted group - generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

effect on other vulnerable groups - ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.

effect on society as a whole - the stimulation of divisions in society, which would be an abomination against concepts like harmony and equality in multicultural society.

The general claim here is that hate crimes, driven by bias against particular minority characteristics, are particularly damaging to the victims psychologically. When the majority group preaches angrily at the minority group it causes them to become wary, even scared. This obviously springs up from the days when some preachings of lies and hatred could lead to mob hysteria and lynchings. But is that relevant today?

In many ways I think it's not relevant. People tend to be more educated today than in the past. Post 9/11 people didn't run around lynching their Muslim neighbors - but people surely make fun of Islam in cartoons, just as they make fun of the Pope and the president. The potential for intense fear of the unknown still exists but I feel that my fellow Americans have progressed nicely. Gays aren't pariahs in most areas of the country anymore - which is a big change from just a decade ago. Some people will always have big mouths and say nasty things but overall there's been a great shift in the general attitude towards each other's differences. Also, incitement to riot is against the law. And like my general attitude towards hate crime, the reason behind the riot is less important than the riot (the crime that already exists) itself. A riot because the rioters hate people who love pizza versus a riot because the rioters are drunk idiots who want to burn cars because The Sox won the series is irrelevant.

While I think the government has a duty to protect its citizens from the harm of others (lest we promote vigilantism) speech and motive aren't dangers in and of themselves. People can choose to agree with hurtful ideas or not but we will not eliminate hate because of some laws about motive. It's far better to educate the citizenry and promote community by encouraging inter-cultural learning than to simply ban bigotry.

Unless, of course, we all take Prozium. Then all our problems will just melt away.

2009-06-30T09:57:00.002-04:00

This is a repost of an item from last November, with new edits.

Disclaimer: this is the biggest rambling mess I've ever posted.

As a society we've punished criminals from our inception. Our justice system has developed over time and continues to do so; societal mores and opinions change and it's of the utmost importance our justice system's structure is able to reflect that. If it didn't it would become irrelevant and ineffective.

Once upon a time women could not legally own property. Blacks (and women) couldn't vote. Interracial marriage was illegal. Gays still can't get married. Perhaps someday, if gays can marry, we'll reflect back and think of how silly we were to judge another person's orientation as being unnatural - as if we're qualified (psychologist-biologist-geneticists) to make such judgments (I do think that gay-marriage-opposers, at the root, oppose it because they think gayness is badddd). After all, much of the arguments used to support laws that acted to prohibit blacks from voting and women from owning land stood strongly behind the idea that "it isn't natural." "That is the way of things."

A current development in our laws reflect a sort of over compensation for wrongs of the past propelled by the P.C Police (PCP - heh, they could use some). These are called hate crime laws. Hate crime laws attempt to do something no laws have done before - punish people for their motive behind the crimes they commit. Here is an example of one heinous murder (from the NYTimes), motivated by hatred towards gays. There are plenty of others if you want to read up.

We look at intent all the time - it's called mens rea, or the state of one's mind. Because our system takes intent into consideration, you won't get sent away for Murder 1 if your car slips on black ice, goes into an out of control spin, and kills someone. It's called an accident. You didn't intend to slide on the ice. Or maybe you did because you're a real sick fuck and maybe you'll be found out or maybe you'll get away with murder. Bottom line: we use intent to shade in the areas of grey in crimes.

But what if you DID mean to slip on ice (don't pick on the logistics of this scenario - I realize that you can't see black ice which is why this can't happen. Just go with it?). Let's say you ARE a sicko. You fully intended on sliding on that ice and slamming your 100 ton SUV into that bitch who stole your husband! Mwuhaha you are smart and tricky! But not smarter than the police.

The accident just didn't sit right with them and they investigated. They found a funny little coincidence - your husband was more upset about the dead woman than his injured wife. He breaks down in tears. Admits the affair to the cops. Now they're really suspicious. Snoop around a little. They've got motive: You hated that woman and wanted her gone. Snoop around some more - corner you, question you and show you some of the nifty information they've got on you. Now you break down in tears. Admit you did it on purpose - malicious intent. You're busted. Because you killed someone on purpose it's not on accident. The cops care why you did it (MOTIVE - hatred, jealousy, irrational anger) because it helped them solve their case. But when you get your day in front of a judge and 12 fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of MA they don't send you to jail for hating on that ho. They send you to jail because you did it on purpose (INTENT - you wanted her dead) and society doesn't look fondly upon murderers - even if she was a ho who had unprotected sex with your husband who then passed her syph on to you. (P.S: this scenario was inspired by a real life work-story from Krissy) That's gotta suck. But the law doesn't then add "premeditated hate crime" to your judgment. You hated her. But being a man stealing ho isn't an accepted genetic trait that is protected by "hate crime" laws. Your hatred isn't the right kind of hatred to alter your sentencing structure - nope, you merely get life in prison.

Historically, the law was pretty clear about all this. We care about intent (you did it on purpose versus it was an accident). We care about motive insofar as it aids the investigation of the crime but we don't prosecute the motive. I mean - when you're dead you're dead (right? Different blog topic...). Why is killing someone randomly ("Hey I think I'm going to kill some random person today!") less awful than killing someone because you're a super bigot ("Hey I think I'm going to kill a homo today!"). Both seem equally as evil in my book. Aren't both equally as hateful towards human life? Aren't both victims equally dead?

Hate crime laws have changed this. The very nature of our legal system's look at motive is changing. Killing a person out of "hate" (hate against minorities) is given more weight, that person's death is worse, than killing for another reason. Being a psycho killer (ba ba ba ba, ba ba ba ba baaaaa) who kills for pleasure is BETTER...MORE ACCEPTABLE...than killing someone because you hate black people or gay people or some other minority group.

Random Segue: As a general rule I'm not into hating people for simply existing. I hate individuals for things they've specifically done to me. Overall, however, I don't just sit and stew about how much I hate an entire group of people over some uncontrollable factor of their DNA. Doesn't really get me anywhere and to date I have not found any evidence that supports any notion that such hatred is beneficial to me in anyway. (If EVERY person with black hair and yellow, pointy teeth committed at least one murder in his/her life I'd have a good reason to stay away from people with black hair or nubby teeth. But there's no fact of this kind.) Just in case you're all into twisting people's words out of context and want to slap a "hater" label on me - like I'm against hate crime legislation because I want to go around being a bigot. Get over yourself.

Hate laws are in full swing. A tragic murder is not just a tragic murder.

As a society I think we need to learn the facts so that our ignorance doesn't breed hate. Knowing that talking to a gay person won't give you AIDS or make you gay is important information everyone needs to have - information that at one time, I'm sure people didn't have. If you're told otherwise your entire life wouldn't you avoid them, too? The ignorance needs to stop so that people can develop their own opinions. Boycotting racist cartoons was a great start (and here and here). At one time people were ok with depicting black people as monkey-like animals who act like hooligans - not just for jokey entertainment but as a legitimate, perfectly okay depiction. That all said, if I want to produce outrageous cartoons that will offend masses of people and laugh at them, why can't I? It was the networks' decisions to not air that shit because people would never turn on those stations. It wasn't Them (gov.) telling the networks they can't air the programs - even if the social mores reflect that even white people are offended by it. No matter how unpalatable our society thinks those cartoons may be the government's duty isn't to regulate what we watch.

Legislating laws to distinguish motive and give weight to some crimes over others seems like a huge stray from our legal roots and is an egregious error in determining what the changing social norms (not hating black people and gay people) require of the law. It is on par with outlawing those videos from being in distribution (you'll notice they're on youtube. I'm talking about the government blocking them from there, too.)

The idea of the government dictating my ability to hate someone - or more accurately, dictate specific types of hate - is hugely offensive and doesn't seem to jibe with my interpretation of my freedom of speech. By considering your actual motivations it is effectively subjecting your feelings to government approval. If the first amendment protects speech our forefathers most certainly would have assumed our thoughts be protected, too. I support some speech regulation (libel/slander, threats to do harm, etc.) but not of truth. But again this isn't "speech" it's motivation - or thought. Hate crime laws tell you how to think. It's telling you that some thoughts - motivations - are illicit. An evil act itself, which is already punishable by law, isn't enough. Perhaps it isn't yet illicit to just think "I hate purple people", but if you kill someone because s/he is purple that crime is punished differently because purple people are a minority (such a minority I'm not sure they exist). The legal system is essentially saying: you can't kill people. But if you kill people whilst thinking bad things about their skin color it's even worse. WHY?

Random segue# 2, my case for why "motivation = thought": motivation, in criminal law, can be used to help prosecute a case (or lack thereof to help defend). Motivation is an explanation of the development of the intent to commit the action. Okay but where does motivation come from? Your life. Your experiences (hubby cheating, etc.). Everything that happens around/to you that creates this climactic breakthrough in your emotions and thought pattern - the conclusion that you plan to do evil. Intent is the decision. Motive is the entire thought process behind that decision. The why; the very essence of your being in that moment of desperate hate. That might sound dramatic - but isn't murder pretty fucking dramatic? This couldn't happen if you were dead or lobotomized. You have to think to have a motive. Intent implies conscious decision making, while this is also "thinking" it's not necessarily a complex compilation of motivations, it's either "I wanted to do harm" or "I didn't want to do harm." On purpose versus on accident. That's a clear distinction that doesn't mess with the intricate thought processes behind motive.

But not everyone actually kills, do they? You could be the burned spouse and fill with rage and think thoughts you never thought you'd think. But you don't, for whatever reason, go through with them. Your motive still exists, doesn't it? Husband still cheated. You're still getting tossed to the curb. It still hurts. You're still just as angry. And yet, you aren't driven to kill, when the same exact circumstances would cause another to do so. The motive exists regardless. Something else exists, in addition to the reasons for a crime, that gets a person to do the act. Therefore how can you prosecute "motive" when the motive itself may not have lead to the crime. Intent did. Lots of people hate gays but they don't kill them or write mean things on their homes. Prosecuting motive is weak. I've putted around with these ideas for a single day and already see holes in any semblance of logic they've developed to defend their shredding of our rights and their creation of ignorant, idiotic laws.

The most hate-crime obsessed country might by Sweden. In an article from The Local it discusses a study on hate crimes in Sweden.

Three of four reported hate crimes are xenophobic or racially motivated, according to a new report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet).
The report also shows that illegal threats and harassment are the most common types of hate crime. Last year, almost 5,900 hate crimes (crimes with the intention of offending the victim) were reported in Sweden.

I do think these statistics are useful - there's nothing wrong in simply evaluating motive...whether something is motivated by minority hatred or otherwise. But really - hate crime are defined as "crimes with the intention of offending the victim"? REALLY?!

Aren't all crimes offensive? And don't people intend to be offensive at least several times a day? Don't fat people get offended at people staring at them while they eat their McDonald's - the stares make them uncomfortable - right? Causing discomfort is offensive - right? How about when you're pissed off at someone and you insult their new haircut or mention that they've gained a few lbs.? It's childish but effective. If you're raped in a parking lot is it somehow comforting and somehow less offensive to know that the rapist did that to you because he was a sociopath, and not because he also hates Jews? I'm pretty sure that victims of violent crimes won't be comforted by knowing they were harmed "just cuz" and not due to their religion or skin color.

2009-06-29T15:38:00.017-04:00

It's a fact: I like things that are overpriced ripoffs. I also love decorating and can't wait to build a home someday, including within its walls all the things I've fallen in love with over the years. For me to be able to build this dream home I may have to involve myself with less-than-reputable financial schemes, such as prositution. Here is a glimpse into the world of home decor that, for now, I'll just gaze at longingly from afar. A quick warning: a lot of the stuff might make you think I'm a 45 year old male sci-fi nerd who lives in his mother's basement. I am in fact a 24 year old female sci-fi nerd who lives in her mother's guest room. And yes - this dream home would be preferably located in a luxurious, utopian space colony with panoramic views of the entire planet.

First, lets start with the heart of the home, the kitchen. Sleek cabinets of warm, exotic wood; back-lit glass; chrome accents; huge center island; beverage center; induction cooktop. I love the designs of Moda Cucina, check out the gallery, photo 6. Delectable meals prepared in this kitchen would be enjoyed around a Saarinen table. Maybe it's not very original, but the classic, simple design can't be beat. And for the record, nothing on Design Within Reach dot com is within anybody's reach. Unless they want the table and absolutely no food to put on it, or a house to put it in. Poseurs!

There will be a generous sprinkling of Schonbek pendant lights and chandeliers. If my kitchen and table are iconic examples of utilitarian functionality then my lighting will be the epitome of over the top, in yo face blingbling bodaciousness.

Moving to the upstairs quarters, I'll be freshening up in my fancy schmancy tub. Hopefully it comes big enough for two people, tubbing is a favorite pasttime of D and me. I highly recommend weekly tubs, accompanied by candles, bubbles, wine and some music by Bebel Gilberto or slower stuff by Brazilian Girls (you'll probably recognize Lazy Lover, it was in a random commercial). Crappy video of it...

Your relationship will improve tenfold. You don't need to thank me but donations will be accepted. The tub of sci-fi dreams:

If this relationship-renewing trick doesn't work out for me in the long run I'll get this, the most amazing solo-tub. Ever:

When it's time to retire for the night I'll curl up in my Lomme pod bed. If I need some encouragement to relax I can activate one of the lighting schemes or listen to soothing music. Ideally, this bed would also maintain the perfect body temperture of both myself and D - as we can never, ever agree on what is too hot or too cold for sleeping.

2009-06-25T12:55:00.004-04:00

Savanna Redding was 13 years old, an eighth grader, when she was caught popping a prescription strength ibuprofen (the equivalent of two Advils). I remember being 13. I was immensely insecure. My sexuality was as advanced as dancing with a guy I had a crush on. Once. I also got killer cramps - they were so bad that I would be light headed and throw up. The only thing that helped was lots and lots of Motrin and a heating pad. Chances are, if a 13 year old has a double dose of ibuprofen it's for really bad menstral cramps.

Redding popped the pill and was asked to go to the V.P's office. Her bag was searched. Nothing. Then she was made to go to the nurse's office where she was made to strip down to her under garments and forced to move them to the side, exposing her private areas. Nothing. She then had to shake out her underwear for them (because, yanno, if I had to hide something that would be later ingested, my genitals is the first place I'd put it.).

This is, in my opinion, sexual assault. The vice principal should be fired and charged with sexual assault on a minor.

Why? 1) There was no reasonable suspicion. The defence for the school claimed that, since the search of the backpack came up clean, it was obvious that the next place to check would be the girl's underwear. Huge gap in logic, there. 2) She's a minor, and the persons conducting the search are in no way representative of the law. I'm sure certain rights to conduct searches are permitted to school faculty but if someone is being strip searched and having their genitalia exposed a same-sex police office AND a PARENT should be present.

This is an out of control abuse of power upon someone who the law absolutely considers a child. Many 13 year olds have explored their own sexuality but this is completely different. It's humiliating and unjustly castigating. If someone IS hiding a pill, is it worth subjecting them to such treatment necessary? No. Hiding a pill, or any drugs, on your person doesn't warrant an immediate nude search without the presence of an officer and parent. It's like having your hand cut off for stealing a loaf of bread.

Other solutions: put her on probation. Schools have idiotic zero tolerance regulations that leave zero room for comprehensive thought and situational assessments. Drones. Keep an eye on her and call her parents. A strip search shouldn't be the immediate go-to response!! Again - steal bread lose body part.

So the mother and Savannah bring the case to court. Nothin'. And nothin' again until they reach the Supreme Court of all the land. In fact the courts decided that the school officials have immunity in cases like this because there's so much disagreement on the subject. Well, I'm glad we can't agree not to strip kids down and search their privates for no reason, without parental consent. Why don't we just hand our young drug rebels over to this chick?

And bingo - it takes the top judicial body in the country to recognize that no one should have any immunity to this kind of thing. The school shouldn't protected - sure it has every right to ensure its students aren't doing drugs there but there has to be some THOUGHT to the reaction. You can't just dehumanize and humiliate kids like this.

From MSNBC:

"...last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable. "Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said."

You go Ginsburg.

2009-06-22T10:13:00.010-04:00

Yeah - I get it, already. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace. If I log into facebook on my work computer, and my overseer has keyloggers on my computer and tracks my username/password to log in an snoop around I probably don't have a strong civil liberty case. (Even though I should, because that example steps way over my line. Work email - like Outlook that is being hosted on their servers - is another thing altogether and I think it's fine for them to snoop around in there. But gmail? Eff you.) I'm not well versed on the laws of privacy, but I assume that, even if the law wanted to protect me, I waived away all my civil liberties by joining the working world and signing the required documents from my "Welcome Packet". Welcome to...we don't really care what you think? Welcome to...you're working Christmas Day and until 10 PM Friday night, right? Welcome to...if you'd rather be unemployed don't the door hit you in your ass on the way out? Bottom line: I'm already employed and once you're on their turf the game's in their favor.

Oh crap, I guess I should throw in a disclaimer: All statements made by author are for entertainment purposely only and are in no way directly related to any individual or corporation. They in no way represent the author's actual feelings about a single entity, which employs the author or otherwise. Any insinuations made by reader are inaccurate, I assure you.

This story came to my attention last week, but I decided to comment on it after reading about it again on Consumerist. As part of the background check on job applicants in the city of Bozeman, MT, you must also include usernames and passwords to websites like facebook, youtube and gmail.

Let's just start with the obvious: The people who run Bozeman are unfulfilled perverts who are barely capable of controlling their more bane impulses. If they weren't such sick fucks they wouldn't want to read my emails to my fiance - the typical "can't wait to do XYZ to you on Friday night"...the kind of stuff that keeps relationships stable and healthy.

You** really want to know that I like watching pirated posts of Star Trek on youtube? Will you judge me based on the advice I give to my younger sister? Do you really deserve to know my medical concerns? Does it make you hot to know you could change my relationship status to "single" and cause an uproar of "YOU BROKE UP's?!?!?!" among my friends...and my fiance...? Want to fuck with my status? Maybe you'll figure out if I prefer to drink red or white. Or maybe you'll think I'm mentally unstable and have me committed to protect me from myself because I watched an Air music video containing clips from the Virgin Suicides. Is that too morose for you? Because, people running Bozeman, I am sure you have a scale of judgement for each nugget of information you unearth from my various website accounts (let's just pretend I'm applying to work for their town so my 1st person diatribe makes more sense...).

With my google account they'll be able to view your search history. You really need to know that I googled "yeast infection" or "how to remove cat vomit from a rug" or something equally as embarassing and private to feel fully confident in me as a potential employee? I'll help you out: You don't.

I fully understand the importance of ensuring the person you're about to hire isn't an ex-con who robbed an old woman at gunpoint, or touched a child inappropriately, or killed someone, etc. These things typically indicate mental disturbance of the kind that can't be undone. Probably antisocial personality disorder. If I were a sociopath I wouldn't hire me, because I'd probably have no qualms doing really mean things to you and the company, and I might even get away with it. If I had four DUI's that might also indicate an inability to control myself with substances. Fine. I can't argue you need to know if I have these big red flags in my past. But you, imaginary old boss man at the imaginary job I am applying to, don't need to see pictures of me with my friends. The internet isn't "private" but I do everything I can to ensure that my photos are seen only by the people I intend.

If this kind of rule becomes standard in the world of employment it will effectively remove any line separating what we do outside the office. I believe it is a shitty conclusion to think that our personal lives should be of interest to any employer. As long as we aren't going around committing crimes regularly, as far as I am concerned, you have no place snooping around. If this be comes standard practice no one will have any choice but to either submit to the unreasonable demands of employers or be unemployed. Hm, be poor, or have my privacy raped. Great options.

This opens up a floodgate of highly subjective judgments. Will there be a formula on how to opine over photos? Like, if you're in a bathing suit at the beach alone, that is okay. But if you're in a bathing suit while also drinking a Bud Light Lime and there are hot dudes in the picture then - well, you're basically a whore, right? And that would make the company look bad...Or you tell a friend you are excited to attend her upcoming gay marriage. If your potential boss is a staunch Christian does s/he get to not hire you for supporting something they personally deem to be immoral? It's such shite.

You** = general "you", as in "vosotros" in strict reference to make believe, evil corporation or other employer in the sky attempting to violate people's very American right to privacy through coersion, chiefly, by offering only one alternative to privacy violation: joblessness. Example of "you" = town government of Bozeman, MT.

2009-06-18T16:43:00.003-04:00

Sebastian Tellier is a little weird. But I'm weird. He kinda looks like Jesus, but I think that might be intentional...? "Roche" is one of my top 10 favorite songs of all time. Like most of the music I'm into, it has a ton of bass which you probably won't get out of this youtube vid. D/L it off of iTunes and play it off a good stereo. The whole album, Sexuality, is awesome. Tellier is also awesome because he likes women in tight workout clothes - since my Lulus are my absolute favorite things to wear in the whole wide world, I think he and I would hit it off; on why he named a song "Sexual Sportswear":

When questioned on the two seemingly strangely juxtaposed words in the title, Tellier replied: "In my own sexual fantasies I always think about women in sportswear. I like women in sports pants and prefer peeling them off women to lifting up their skirts."

Next up is Yelle. Julie Budet is the woman behind Yelle. Upbeat. Funky. Electronic, of course. Love it.

It wouldn't be a complete lineup without mentioning Air, an all time favorite. Haunting, like a lot of the music I love. You might remember the music from Virgin Suicides - they did the whole soundtrack. (Yeah, I know this song's in English but they're French.)

Morgan Geist isn't French but I love him and he needs an honorable mention (but French people will like him, based on my observations of French electronica. So that counts). My favorite song is City of Smoke and Flame, which you can listen to on his myspace page. This is the song "Ruthless City":

2009-06-16T08:18:00.009-04:00

Again, this whole post is one giant spoiler for the sequel, Catching Fire, to Suzanne Collins's Hunger Games (HG). Catching Fire (CF) is slated for release on September 1st. I was very fortunate to get an Advanced Reader's Copy, thanks to someone's amazing mother.

If you haven't read HG go get it immediately and do nothing else but read it. In CF Katniss and Peeta are sent back into the Arena for the Quarter Quell, a special, themed, version of the HG which is held every 25 years. They're particularly perilous and supposed to make the people of Panem extra thankful for everything the dystopian communistic dictator in the Capitol has done for them (like making sure they're always on the verge of starvation, cold and worked to the bone.). The theme for the 75th Quarter Quell is that two living tributes from each district are to reenter. The make sure the people know that no one is safe from the grips of the Capitol.

Meanwhile, unrest throughout the land increases. People are unhappy with the status quo. Katniss's defiance against the Capitol during the 74th Games, when she and Peeta attempted a double suicide (either they both left the Games alive or neither did) was a spark. Her mockingjay pin, worn during the games, became a symbol among the people for freedom and rebellion. Since the districts are divided and heavily guarded it was hard for Katniss to learn of uprisings in the other districts but she puts it all together. Once she is in the Arena she and Peeta are clueless about an alliance among several victors. Haymitch and Heavensbee, outside the arena in a hovercraft from District 13 (remember: D13 was blown off the map a few years ago and everyone thought it was destroyed), are the brains behind it.

The alliance tries to keep Katniss alive because she is the image of the rebellion. The people need her. And they keep Peeta alive because Katniss would stop fighting for her own life if Peeta was dead (her goal being to get him out alive). Strange crap happens inside the arena with the other tributes...The readers put together the puzzle pieces along with Katniss. At times I got mad because I thought she was being dense, like when one of the morphling addicts throws herself in front of Peeta and is basically ripped apart by a muttation monkey. Why the eff would a competitor sacrifice her own life for a person she's supposed to kill? Huh?! And this was after the sexy tribute jumps out to fetch Peeta from the ocean, and then the old woman commits suicide when it becomes apparent that she, Peeta, Katniss and Sexy (I forget his name...and the book's at home. Begins with an F.) can't all escape the poisonous acid fog.

Why do these folks want Peeta to live? Then Johanna, who Katniss cannot stand and who cannot stand Katniss, emerges with Nuts and Volts - the two tributes that Katniss adamantly wanted to forge an alliance with. Johanna announced that she brought them for Katniss - why?! She reveals that it was the only way to get Katniss to form an alliance. Why?? Haymitch told her to do it!!

At that point I didn't really know what was up. I wouldn't have figured it out, but Katniss's paranoia leads her to really weird conclusions. Granted, they're in an arena where the point is to kill each other. But if people are killing themselves in order for Peeta to live and risking their lives to do things for Katniss - I would at least entertain other conclusions. I'd be vigilant but c'mon Katniss. Something is seriously going on. The chick's got cajones but she is, like, afraid to speak her mind eloquently. Talking is not her thing. This bothers me because I'd put an arrow to someone's temple and be like "Yo punk ass bitch, wtf. Tell me what is going on or I skewer your grey matter." Wouldn't you love to hear Katniss actually put her rebellious attitude to some good use and extract information from these folks? Shit woulda been a LOT easier.

Then something happens near the end that made me yell at the book: two non-alliance tributes approach to kill Katniss and Johanna. Johanna pushes Katniss down and tells her to stay down, then she slashes her arm open and leaves. Katniss's thoughts are "she turned on me!". Uh, hello. If she wanted to kill you she easily coulda done it ten times over. The first thing I thought was TRACKING CHIP...the one they put in her arm before dropping her into the arean...Johanna took it out. It was IMMEDIATELY obvious to me. Even if it wasn't to Katniss - couldn't she check out the wound and figure it out? That part made me annoyed with her.

The climax brings us to the moment of revelation: Volts's weapon of choice - wire he developed himself - was to be used to essentially short-circuit the force field surrounding the arena. Since Heavensbee, the Game Maker, is in on the rebellion, he ensure that this could be done. It works. The force field collapses and Katniss is scooped up by Haymitch and Heavensbee into the hovercraft.

If I were Katniss I'd want to know what was going on but I understand why Haymitch kept her in the dark. Katniss didn't know who scooped her into the hovercraft - she thought it was the game makers. She went looking for Peeta with plans to kill him with a syringe in order to save him from torture. Instead she finds Haymitch, Heavensbee and Sexy talking. Haymitch goes something like "You and syringes against the capital? That's why we don't let you make the plans." I definitely lol'ed. The thing is, Katniss couldn't know. She's conflicted and stubborn. Sure, once she makes up her mind about something she follows through and is totally bad ass about it. But she wasn't sure about this rebellion (she is a kid for chrissakes, after all). If she did know what was up she probably would have tried to take matters into her own hands, instead of listening to the people trying to organize the rebellion. She probably woulda done something dumb! I love Katniss but...it's Katniss. Haymitch is right :-)

I cannot wait for book three. We're going to District 13! Will they be an advanced underground society?! Did the two women Katniss found in the woods ever make it to D13? Will she and Gale be together and will Peeta be ok? I love Peeta and hope he doesn't die and that he has a good life.

2009-05-20T10:51:00.003-04:00

Gardenia. Tuberose. Tiare flower. Orange blossom. Jasmine.

These are the flowers that can cause my head to pop off my neck in a fit of headache-y pain. I can handle gardenia sometimes, when it's mixed with woods and produces a cooler feelings, a creamier feeling. But mostly these flowers scream at me. By that I mean they have a high pitched screech to them, like nails on a chalk board, that grates on me in a sharp metallic way that I can taste in the back of my mouth. It's just badness all around. I never smelled the powder or carnal-ness (both things I liked) because the sharpness was too much.

Fracas, by Robert Piguet, is "the ultimate tuberose". It's the go-to example of a classic tuberose perfume and for a long time I couldn't go near it with a ten foot pole. Then something weird happened to me last week. It was warm and springy and I needed something new on my wrist. I reached for my packet of RP samples and dabbed on some Fracas. Not bad - it wasn't screeching. It was loud, for a small dab pack quite a sillage punch.

Today is the third day in the past week and a half I've worn Fracas. I am the type where, though I like my fragrance to "match" my outfit, I like to rebel a little sometimes. Ergo, I chose to wear fracas with sweatpants one night. Today I'm wearing it with simple kakhis and light aqua top. I don't feel it is out of place on me - but it does make me feel more feminine, a little prettier. The fragrance, however, most certainly is a statement in and of itself. You could wear it to a gala in a ball gown and it would be perfectly appropriate. It would also pair well with a tight black dress and stilettos. Red lipstick. I think I could run the country wearing Fracas, and I could also host the most smashing party every with this emanating from my pulse points. I went from hating this fragrance the last time I smelled it (and let me tell you, I tried to love it and give it quite a few sniffs over the years) to now wanting to buy a whole bottle.

I don't think I'm a heady white convert but there is a place in my collection for this creamy, lush, warm floral. She might need her own shelf, though.

2009-05-14T08:39:00.005-04:00

Even if you don't watch Jon & Kate Plus 8 (henceforth: JK8) you know the deal: Jon has been accused of cheating on Kate.

First reaction: cheating = bad. If you're in a committed relationship you're committed to dealing with the infinite layers of emotions and ideas intertwined between you and the other person. What that means is this: few things are straightforward. Few people are actual sex addicts. Few people have some degree of Narcissistic Personality disorder, which causes them 1) to not actually have the capacity to give a shit about someone else 2) think that they're entitled to cheat; that cheating isn't morally repugnant b/c they're AWESOME. Instead, the majority of cheaters are caught up in a complex web of disappointment, anger, resentment, denial and some feeling of rising indignation that makes them think "Goddammit I deserve happiness!" (and they find that happiness with someone who isn't their spouse). Of course I don't actually know any of this for sure, these are just my crackpot theories On Life. Which is what blogs are for.

I've been a fan of JK8 since its inception. It was total chaos, almost stressful to observe. And yet they had a system that worked for them and in spite of their crazed existence everyone seemed well adjusted and happy.

Then it all changed. Kate became increasingly, drastically more critical of Jon. She doesn't even looked embarrassed anymore when she's putting him down constantly on national t.v. I have to turn the station now - sometimes uncomfortable things are enticing to gawkers but this was painful. He'd sit there and look at the camera with a super sad face as Kate criticized EVERYTHING. He does absolutely nothing correctly. She castises him like he's one of the kids. I stopped watching the show after the episode where she tracked him down in the house and ripped him a new one because he went to Home Depot and forgot to bring the coupon to buy something. He ended up paying an extra few bucks on something. She ranted and raved about how they can't afford to forget coupons with eight kids. Like, really? Lady - Jon isn't a fucktard. It was a mistake that he made because you were on his ass to finish a household project and he rushed to HD to get a part. Tell him he forgot the coupon and figure out if there is a way one of you can go back to HD and return/rebuy the item to save the $3 you'll spend in gas driving back and forth again.

When a man is hyper critical and controlling of his wife and her every move we call it emotional abuse. When a wife does it she's just a bitch. I don't think Jon has NPD. I don't think he's a crazed sex addict. I don't think he's just plain morally corrupt. If he did in fact have an affair he did it to escape the constant denigrating remarks and emotional combat being waged by Kate. As I've discussed on this blog before this doesn't negate the morally repugnant act of cheating on your wife, mother of your eight kids. It simply gives weight to each partner's wrongdoings to the other. Both are to blame in these situations for failing to fulfill their promises to each other as husband and wife. Both contribuated to fucking up the relationship.

That said, this family was kind of on a collision course. Her controlling behavior should have been a red flag warning: she needed a break (and so did he!). They needed to have time away from the kids and each other. It's hard to be nice to the only other adult you see everyday when you're constantly tired and stressed to the max. It's easy to step over the line and see the other person as simply another body in the way of getting things done instead of your partner.

This is all prompted by this little blog entry by Meredith O'Brien. She says

This deconstructing of the wives' motives and actions and whether they "made" their husbands stray, what good is it doing for anyone? The vitriol is being directed at the wrong people.

I gotta say, I disagree with Ms. O'Brien. I don't know exactly what she's referring to (I didn't watch the interviews on t.v.) but it's pretty obvious: she's pissed that a cheated-on wife would have blame placed on her. Should the husband have cheated? NO! Is he a loser? YES! But...SHE is a loser, too. She was a shitty wife. Both partners in this situation bear responsibility for the degradation of the marriage.

Jon, as a caring and attentive partner should have seen his wife's slow downward spiral - her change in behavior doens't necessarily mean she's a huge C U Next Tuesday. It means she needed HELP! He does help but she needed different help. She needed a neutral party to talk to, to vent to. She needed a night off from dinner, bedtime, screaming kids duty. And most importantly, she needed to have these nights off and not feel wracked with guilt. (P.S: the same goes for Jon here, too - he also needed time but I'm focusing on her issues right now). She needed to hang out with a girl friend and relax with a drink and talk about anything but kids and marriage. Basically: she needed to decompress and see herself as a person independent of being a mother and wife. Losing yourself so completely is a one-way ticket to misery for anyone. After Jon and Kate got their own brains back on track they needed serious couple-only time to remember what possessed them to have a herd of kids in the first place.

Defensive women who think criticizing a wife in a shitty marriage is wrong need to stuff it. Jon isn't an abusive, self important sleezebag and Kate is far from being on top of her game as a wife (which is understandable, which is why I discussed time-out nights above).

Bottom line: This kind of cheating spouse scenario is the kind we have to look at the big picture. When both partners fail straying is easier, sometimes it's even a certainty. They both ignored the red flags in her behavior change and stress. She needed a loving intervension and a break! She was too miserable to realize she was hurting the man she married. It's sad, really. I hope they can manage to pull through this because this is the one kind of affair that could be overcome.

2009-05-04T12:13:00.008-04:00

I'm late on this. But I didn't hear about this until yesterday afternoon. The information came to me via text from Meghan while I was, ironically, in Concord viewing the North Bridge, at which one of the first battles of the Revolutionary War occurred. It was a standoff between Redcoats and Minutemen, who were ticked about unfair taxation and recent dispatch of 4,000 British soldiers into the towns of Massachusetts, sent to remove all ammunition and weaponry from the colonists, by royal decree, in an attempt to squelch further rebellion after the Boston Tea Party.

We know how that ended. Let's conjure up that independence of mind and mistrust of omnipotent governments who attempt to dominate its people with military power.

In a 36-0 vote on April 28th 2009 the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill which, during a "public health crisis" such as an outbreak of disease, can be enacted. It allows "authorities" (coppers in hazmat suits? Or men with AK-47s and a black bag for your head?) to enter your home, without cause or suspision, to "investigate" (wtf does that mean? REALLY.). It allows for the quarantine of individuals - what kind of individuals? Individuals who were positiviely tested for the disease, or anybody suspected of having it (or being a loud mouth)?

Let me translate this from Bullshitian into Gretchinian. If, during an outbreak of a disease, the government of MA feels like taking complete control of every living human within its borders, it can. The government can come into your house for absolutely no reason - who will question them when there is a killer virus running amok? You? Okay great - you're gonna be taken then.

Think about it, if there is no rule requiring reasonable suspision that removes any sort of check and balance: they can simply enter your home and make up a reason later ("Your neighbor said you were sick." "I could hear coughing from outside." etc.). Currently, if the coppers want to bust you on something it's slightly more difficult: they need a reason to suspect you're doing something illegal then get permission in the form of a warrant to enter your home. This isn't even about upholding the law; illegal vs. illegal. This bill is an open-door policy to every militant vampire out there. No long will you be able to keep the vamps out by refusing to let them in.

Now they're in your house. You aren't sick. But who cares - this is all about unproveable, evidence-free "suspcision". So they take you. And your kid. And husband. Your dog will die of starvation. You will probably be split up. You will be taken to one of several FEMA emergency camps which recently acquired thousands of nearly destruction proof boxes that are identical in size and shape to coffins. Of course we're told these camps don't exist or aren't in use. Which is why they're sending shipments of coffins to them. And which is why so many trucks drive in and out of the Cape Cod FEMA camp everyday. Circumstantial evidence laced with a heavy dose of paranoia? Perhaps. But the facts are starting to favor my opinion.

You're in a camp. You weren't sick before but now it's only a matter of time. You are alone, separated, scared and there are shoot to kill orders in place to prevent "the infected" from escaping.

Certainly seems awfully enticing, doesn't it? Just release a vial of toxin of a highly contagious virus that'll spread like a California wildfire. And Presto. Complete control over each human.

To me, in such a pandemic, it would make perfect sense to enact a quarantine where people stay in their homes. The government could then drop off water, MREs and basic supplies to each road. That's the kind of plan and expense the governments of each state should prepare for - not ordering coffins. (and P.S: if people are dying in massive numbers of disease wouldn't make sense to burn the bodies instead of further risking the possible spread of infection?)

2009-05-01T14:52:00.002-04:00

Big decisions in life are sometimes really easy. Too easy. Like, when I walked on to the lot of my VW dealer and one week later had a new Passat.

I can be such a fucking impulse shopper.

Luckily the car turned out to be a fairly good decision and blame the hastiness on being young, naive and inexperienced. Since then I've vowed to be more thorough with research and a lot less quick to buy something (except for the Star Trek t-shirt I bought for the movie premiere). It's working out, I suppose - I haven't wracked up credit card debt and have been steadily socking away as much into savings as I can. Phew. Learned that lesson.

But now I need, and WANT, a new notebook. I have a 4.5 year old IBM ThinkPad (now Lenovo). It's find for surfing the web and listening to iTunes. It won't cut it for The Sims 3, which is being released in June. I played The Sims 2, with a few expansion packs, on my current computer and it wasn't awesome but it wasn't horrible. It definitely got bogged down at times and it would run super hot. But that's what happens when it's a rainy Saturday and you have an all-day game marathon. The computer didn't quite meet the gaming requirements and therefore I always felt the experience wasn't as good as it could have been.

So now the big question is: what computer meets the game specs of S3 to maximize the game and doesn't cost $2k? Well, for a while there I was pretty obsessed with Macs. I was on the verge of crossing over into Mac land from a life long PC habit.

Close but no cigarillo. Enter: alienware. Not having a single friend who "plays games" I had only heard the named mentioned in passing. I didn't know anything about this producer of high end PCs aimed specifically at the gaming niche until my 16 year old brother recommended it.

And they look fucking AWESOME.

Not only is their logo an alien head that glows (nerd alert: doesn't get better than a glowing alien logo) but you can load up a highly-reviewed notebook with a 2.4 GH Intel processor (upgrade from a 2.1 GH) and a 256 MG NVIDIA graphics card (base) and still come in under $1,300. That's less than a summer class! Did I mention the ALIEN?! It also won't burn my legs when this thing sits on my lap for hours as my ass fuses to my IKEA chair.

Performance aside, it also has customizable lighting schemes. From the backlit keyboard to the Alien icon on the exterior you can set the mood. You can have all the parts be different colors or have a uniform look. If I was feeling particularly Cylon I'd go with straight red.

So as my quest to research notebooks continues it will be marred by my partiality towards the awesome alienware Area-51 m15x (or m17x. Not sure if an extra 2 in. is worth $200).

Did I mention you also get a customized nameplate on the bottom that says your name in Roman letters AND IN ALIEN LETTERS?!?

2009-04-23T07:13:00.007-04:00

I've mentioned this before: I'm a total. Product. Junkie. Perfume, shampoo/conditioner, lotions, potions, makeup, facial masks. You name and I've tried it, or I want to try it but am too poor to get my grubby hands on it. I got a few things on Sephora.com because of a sale promo they had going on. I got a bronzer, eyeliner and a lipstick, as well as three fragrance samples and a mascara sample.

Latest obsession, via my Sephora order: Too Faced - Caribbean in a Compact (in "Sun Bunny"). My face is glowing and healthy. I used a little self-tanner last night, which, given the level of paleness I am able to achieve by wearing SPF 30 on my face all year, merely takes the edge off. It makes me look less corpse-like. When I woke up I applied some of my Prescriptives All Skins mineral foundation. Twirled my bronzer brush in the bronzer to blend the colors and then swept it across my cheekbones (apples to hairline) with a lightish touch, then across my forehead, nose and chin. A tad more over my neck and chest to even it all out. The I put a pop of NARS in Desire on the apples of my cheeks, all the time blending these things so there aren't harsh lines (which you can get with any blush or bronzer if you're heavy handed. It's not that hard to turn yourself into a clown.). The stuff has a shimmer to it, but it's office appropriate. I will dress it up with some highligher on Saturday when it's gonna be 80 degrees! I can't wait to light the grill and make margaritas!!

I followed up with the sample of BADgal mascara (Benefit). I am not impressed. The brush is the regular size, but the wand itself it shortened, so I'm confident I got the full effect despite being sample sized. I found the brush to be bulky and I couldn't really build nice lashes. FYI: My lashes are blonde - like white blonde. They do the Tilda Swilton thing. Except, unlike Swilton, I actually love thick lush lashes. I will give BADgal another try or two, as I rarely give up on a product after the first shot (if I did, I'd never have discovered my current H.G mascara - Lancome's Fatale. Which is hard to use but worth the initial frustration to master its application.). Until then, I give this dos thumbs down.

I swept on a coat of shu uemura Rouge Unlimited Pink Collection in PK 343. It's a pale, matte baby pink, but opaque, lipstick. The effect might be a little much for some people but for some reason I've always loved baby pink lips. I think it looks great alone, and it will look awesome with some gloss over it. I don't usually wear actual lipstick as I am a terrible lip-rubber-togetherer, so I basically force it to absorb into my lips within 10 minutes. But for those 10 minutes I love looking at my lips. I will most definitely get another Rouge Unlimited Pink Collection lippie. PK 369 and 312 have my attention. And P.S: I love the clear tube. It's well suited for my futuristic tastes.

The eyeliner I got is a Cream Shaper in Starry Plumb from Clinique. I haven't used it yet but I'm sure I'll like it. Their liners are good. Nothing earth shattering but solid picks. They go on smoothly, no tugging. The colors are pretty and they're richly pigmented. Sharpen well.

Of the perfume samps I tried Ralph Lauren's Notorious. I wasn't anticipating anything spectacular and I was right (oh the curses of perfume snobbery). It reminded me of a much sweetened up Coco Madamoiselle in the opening. It gets really boring from there. It's a standard, modern day perfume (re: blandish. Smells like a lot of other things. Not truly artful. Meh.).

And there you have it, my latest beauty buys.

2009-04-06T08:19:00.004-04:00

The International Fragrance Association is a self-important, uninformed, irrational group of tyrannical beasts that all probably smell of rancid cat piss and sweaty crotch.

Just thought we'd start things off on a mature and cordial note. I needed to get that out of my system.

I have two little cousins who have severe tree nut allergies. Their mother fastidiously checks labels to ensure she doesn't unwittingly hand her kids something that could kill them. It's not that hard since most companies take the precaution to label whether or not their product might contain nuts. She knows, for example, that Papa Gino's is a nut free chain - because she asked and they told her as much. They can eat all the pepperoni pizza from Papa G's without fear. It's called being proactive, informed and not expecting a governmental body to regulate the world into submission.

I, on the other hand, do not have a nut allergy. I sprinkle toasted hazelnuts atop my roasted butternut squash. I throw a handful of walnuts atop my morning's oatmeal. One of my top three favorite candy bars is Snickers (right next to Reece's b.p Cups and Milky Ways). But if my little cousins are coming over for a holiday I am sure to not cross-contaminate food, or select a menu that avoids tree nuts all together. Rocket science it is not. Common sense it is (shout out to Yoda). My aunt is very allergic to bees - to the point she could die from too many stings. Shall we kill every single bee on the planet because some people are dealthly allergic to them? Or, more to the tune of the IFRA's method: shall we breed bees to have no stingers and ensure the absolute extinction of natural-born bees? Personally, I quite like the idea of never being stung again but the concept reeks of sci-fi freakishness, in a bad way (because I am a sci-fi freak, in a good way.)

Why am I talking about nut allergies for the second post in a row? Because the IFRA is killing perfume. If a commonly used ingredient in perfume was, say, cyanide, I could see the use of regulating it. Cyanide is a deadly chemical, in certain amounts and capacities, that is said to smell like bitter almonds. Let's say one squirt of Parfum de Almande Cyanide is fine for your health. But three or more sprays will kill you. Should this ingredient be regulated? Yes - since it would be lethal for 100% of the population (imagine inhaling Hydrogen Cyanide disolved into the fragrance each time you spray it on yourself. Yes, it's too volatile and boils at 79 degrees. Just go with me on this?). Majority rules. Plus death is slightly more horrific than a case of dermatitis - which is a fancy word for a rash. Should all things latex be outlawed? Or, instead, should you avoid latex gloves and condoms, and let the rest of the population use what works best for them?

I've been trying to do research on perfume allergies. The test for fragrance allergies is a regular skin test where the potential allergan used is a mixture of several common perfume ingredients, known as a Fragrance Mix. An alleric reaction to the mix is irritated skin. Haven't read anything about someone going into anaphylactic shock, thought I'm sure the possibility exists.

Overall I am disgusted by the IFRA. Their power is real: if a perfume manufacturer doesn't subscribe to the IFRA's standards they can be subjected to punishment by the EU.

The IFRA is refers to themselves as being part of "the industry." Wrong, they aren't part of the perfume industry. They're the perfume world's arch nemisis. The IFRA is Lex Luthor. Let's get one thing straight: perfume and toxic cleaning products aren't the same thing. Perfume is an art that is benign to the majority of the population. Clorox bleach kills AIDS. Should these be regulated in an identical manner? No. Likewise, if you drink bleach you'll probably die. But you can still buy it and use it according to the instructions. But say you have a particular sensitivity to bleach. What do you do? Perhaps you wear gloves. Or perhaps you use a non-bleach product. The real industry doesn't put deadly chemicals into perfume - especially now that there is a huge throw back to true perfume artistry, using the finest natural ingredients we can safely harvest without harming animals and the environment. And if they did, and I knew it was deadly, I'd probably avoid that perfume much like I avoid downing a bottle of Tylanol or stabbing myself in the heart with a knife. Common sense, yanno?

I'll avoid sweeping generalizations about the citizens of the E.U and the U.S and our docile submissiveness towards our governments' recent trend towards pure Big Brotherhood. It absolutely sickens me when nasty regulatory bodies step in, waving around their wand full of totalitarian pixie dust. I'll try really hard to keep this simple and unoffensive (hah!!! I love offensive. You frakking frakkers. This can be the pro-perfume blog for the young and rebellious. Not the adult and polite.) This is about individual freedom to make choices for ourselves regarding our health. The danger of dermatitis from perfume is 1) statistically unlikely 2) not actually a deadly condition 3) affects the person who applies the fragrance, not a bystander (who may have a reaction, but it would be sneezing, not a rash).

If anything, their investigative findings should reveal a need for proper labeling. This empowers perfume lovers and wearers to see if there is an ingredient to which s/he is allergic and refrain from using it. Meanwhile, those of us who aren't allergic to citrus oils and oakmoss can continue to wear our summer and cypre favorites.

2009-04-03T08:46:00.003-04:00

The time has come for a mother frakking rebellion. I know only two people read this blog and I can't make a difference alone but I must post about this. It could affect the lives of several thousand insane, obsessive perfume freaks. I know a few women who might just go into a catatonic state if things keep going this way.

My friends, the perfume industry has been, over the past several years, subjected to a totalitarian dictatorship and its unethical, harsh regulations. Perfumes aren't a new invention - but the science of man made molecules certainly is. Before this science all perfumes contained only naturally found elements. Ambergris, a secretion from a sperm whale. Civet, a musk that was once extracted from the gland of an African cat. Both are now chemically created. Which is fine with me because killing animals for their glands to make perfume isn't right - but why to lemons need protecting? And oak moss? It's from lichens growing on oak trees for frakssakes. If I'm not being clear: they regulatory bodies are forbidding perfumes from containing any natural ingredient that could potentially cause an allergy.

Enter: Big Bro. The "I know what's best for you" crew. The "I'm just trying to protect you" brigade. Industry regulators wants to, essentially, bar all natural ingredients from perfumes as people have the potential to be allergic. I like The Non-Blonde's comparison: If you're allergic to peanuts, don't buy a Snickers bar. And don't expect me to go without a Snickers if the craving arises. (And just to be fair, this blog was inspired by her post. I feel like everyone and anyone who cares about perfume needs to talk about this.)

So in no time flat, classic perfumes that have graced the pulse points of women for decades are being reformulated. In some cases fragranaces are reformulated so they're in pace with the times - tastes change over time. The 80's were big, in your face scents (Obsession). Today it's Light Blue and rancid sugar water with the names of barely legal celebrities on the label. It's no wonder that when Robert Piguet wanted to re-release his revered Visa there was tweaking (but that tweaking was phenom!). More often than not the reformulations smell like shite and nothing like they're supposed to. Fragrances should transport you. They're pieces of art. They tell a story. If you rip pages out of Of Mice and Men you might just think Lennie is a monster that should be locked away, instead of crying out for someone to help him. Likewise, when you take the natural citrus oils and replace it with a synth molecule you might get Lysol or Pledge, which is exactly what The Non-Blonde believes happend to Annick Goutal's Eau d’Hadrien.

The world of perfumery is being destroyed, one ingredient at a time. What if artists were no longer allowed to use the color green? Would paintings never express the wonder of a natural landscape? Could you never take a photo of Tuscany? (P.S, check out Ilva's other pics and her food blog!) Or what if minor scales were outlawed? Would we no longer have the haunting beauty of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor?

It just doesn't make sense to do this. I don't know how to help stop it. I am mad and sad at the same time! I guess it's all the more reason to spend in ordinate amounts of money to get as many much-wanted frags into my collection before they're destroyed by the regulatory bodies.

Offense Committed

Date of Conviction

Rape of Child with Force

Assault with Intent to Commit Rape

3 Counts Rape

2009-04-01T06:59:00.003-04:00

Last night I was ready to crawl into bed, absolutely blastedly tired. I grab the corner of the covers and throw them back only to reveal 10 or so little plastic spiders jump up at me. I had a good scare and thought "why would Dave do that??" - It's April Fool's today! Duhhh.

So now I just logged into gmail and there is this thing called "auto pilot" they're demonstrating. You adjust the various settings and it'll automatically respond for you. I'm thinking this is a bad idea. What if someone asks you to meet for dinner and the auto-pilot agrees - only you don't know you're on for dinner because you didn't really read the email. The examples of "auto response" were funny and I thought "ohh aren't those folks at google such little comics!" I was still taking it seriously at that point. I didn't realize the whole entire thing was a joke until I was done reading the whole page. Check it out in your gmail and see for yourself.

If anyone has any more good April's Fools jokes you should play it on me, because no matter how hard I try I get tricked every time! I am by far one of the most gullible folks I know.