Sorry for the lack of posts, Shakers. My computer’s been down for about 24 hours while we were working on the office. And we’re still…not…done. Sigh. A few more hours tonight, and we'll both collapse into a giant heap of radiating pain and dripping sweat.
Yesterday, I had to carry all of our books out of the office so we could move the shelves to lay the carpet, and now I’m in the process of carrying them all back into the office. And let me tell you, it a damn lotta books. I have now officially declared reading overrated!
Hope you’re having a wonderful holiday, and I’ll see you tomorrow!
(Btw, I left the key to the bar under the front door mat, so if anyone would like to take up bartending duties, please feel free. Remember, drinks are always on the house and McEwan’s Scotch Ale is on tap...)
Happy Memorial Day
check out
Pach at Firedoglake: Memorial Day Truth: There is no 'War on Terror'
The Dark Wraith: A Comment on Massacre
Maha: Memorial Day
Also, blogwhore it if you've got it.
Actual Headlines
Actual Headline #1: Michael Jackson visits Tokyo orphanage. Okay, there’s nothing obvious or ironic about that headline. It just made me feel a bit nauseous. Although, I guess a country that sells the used panties of schoolgirls in vending machines and Michael Jackson are a perfect match.
(I’m just kidding—I love you Japan! But keep Michael away from your orphans. No, seriously.)
Actual Headline #2: AP Poll: Survey finds a nation in a hurry. Yeah, the AP did a poll to find out that Americans are “impatient,” “demanding,” and “want it all NOW.” What a fucking shocker. Wait for their next mind-blowing survey when they discover that Americans have short attention sp— Hey look! Something shiny!
I feel like a quote out of context
But some rock songs really are conservative — and there are more of them than you might think. Last year, I asked readers of National Review Online to nominate conservative rock songs. Hundreds of suggestions poured in. I’ve sifted through them all, downloaded scores of mp3s, and puzzled over a lot of lyrics. What follows is a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs of all time, as determined by me and a few others.Words fail me.
Well, maybe not entirely- I mean, come on. How desperate do you have to be to argue that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is pro-conservative? It’s like claiming 1984 is pro-totalitarian, simply because Big Brother wins in the end. Acknowledging the futility of struggling against the system isn’t the same thing as celebrating that system, and only a fool would think so.
This arrogant need to interpret content in a manner that simply reinforces one’s own beliefs, regardless of the original work’s complexities, typifies the rest of the list; it’s a telling indictment of the conservative ideology as a whole. Any political philosophy that requires its followers to value blind adherence over rationality is useless, and while the original ideas behind conservatism may have some merit, modern conservatism is simply a sharp stick for people so terrified of color that they’d rather blind the world than admit they can see.
Anyway, it's a hilarious article. And informative as well; I never realized that not getting what you want, but trying and finding and sometimes getting what you need, was a Conservative Value.
The World Rejoices!
This can only mean that world peace, the end of starvation, cures for all disease, and a reversal of the aging process are right around the corner:
"The night of May 27, 2006 in Namibia, Africa, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt welcomed their daughter Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt. No further information is being given," publicist Cindy Guagenti said in a statement.Hallelujah! A child has been brought unto the world who will save us all.
An interesting wind blows in Chicago
More than30 of Chicago’s 50 city council members have already signed on to a proposal that would make Chicago the first city to require large retailers to pay their employees a living wage.
The bill would affect only stores that have at least 75,000 square feet and are operated by companies with at least $1 billion in annual sales, allowing smaller retailers to continue with the state minimum wage of $6.50 an hour.That means Wal-Mart, for example, would be required to pay its employees $10 “at least $10 an hour plus $3 an hour in benefits” if it wanted to open a store within city limits.
Proponents of the proposed ordinance say it will help “preserve the middle class.” Dissenters are worried that it will prevent retailers from coming into the city and providing much-needed jobs.
"Don't let me be the experiment," said Emma Mitts, the alderwoman in the poor and mainly African-American neighborhood of Austin on the West Side, where the city's first Wal-Mart is scheduled to open this year. "Not at a time when my community needs these jobs so badly."So Wal-Mart says a wage law wouldn’t affect their plans for one store, but would it for others? That’s a big unanswered question. Another is whether the ordinance can pass legal muster, which its drafters believe it can.
…John Bisio, a spokesman for Wal-Mart…said such a wage law would not affect plans for the Austin store.
Some 9,000 people have applied for about 400 jobs at the store in the Austin neighborhood, Mr. Bisio said, even though the opening is more than three months away.
I’m really of two minds about this proposal. In the sense that it protects employees of “Big Box” retailers, and would provide a disincentive for them to come into any old community and drive smaller retailers out of business, I’m all for it. It’s a very nice way of protecting the workers and many of the single-store retailers that make the North Side of Chicago such a great place to live—and own a business.
In the sense that none of those concerns, aside from employee protections, really apply to the South Side and parts of the West Side of Chicago, which are mostly minority communities without many employment options or many independent retailers, I’m rather skeptical. The residents of those neighborhoods are equally in need of a living wage and benefits, but if it were a choice between $6.50 an hour and no job at all, that’s not much of a choice, is it?
That said, Illinois’ higher-than-federally mandated minimum wage hasn’t put a dent in the growth of Big Box retailers all over the state. So maybe this wouldn’t, either. Santa Fe has the highest minimum wage in the nation, at $9.50/hour, and although a study by the Employment Policies Institute found it had realized all the worst-case scenarios (“the higher wage rate actually including increased unemployment and reduced work hours among the city's least-skilled and least-educated employees -- the very individuals that wage hikes are supposed to help”), the EPI perhaps isn’t exactly as independent as they’d have us believe. Santa Fe, even with their high minimum wage, has a Home Depot, an Office Depot, a Best Buy, and at least two Wal-Marts, according to the Yellow Pages. Of course, I don’t know what parts of town they’re in, nor when they were built.
Like I said, I’m really of two minds about it—but I’m leaning toward thinking that the evidence seems to suggest the potential benefits outweigh any potential downsides.
What do you think?
(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)
Home
When Mr. Shakes and I bought our house two years ago, we knew it was going to take a lot of work to make it the home we wanted. It wasn’t in disrepair, but it was decorated in a style that not remotely our own, including lots of wallpaper. Lots and lots and lots of flowery wallpaper. The kitchen alone featured three different flowery wallpapers on one wall.
So, we expected a lot of work. But oh…my…god. The work we’ve done. The previous owner hadn’t properly prepared the walls with an undercoat, so as we removed the wallpaper, after scoring it, DIF-ing it, and steaming it, it was bringing the plaster off with it in chunks, leaving us with the task of rebuilding every wall in the house: plastering, sanding, finishing, the works. Part of the problem was that the previous owner had also added some extra-strength glue to the wallpaper backing, so it was damn stuck to the walls. Taking it down meant pulling off teensy shred after teensy shred. Destroyed walls, and mounds of little bits of paper. It was, suffice it to say, a nightmare.
After that, we set to tearing out the carpets on the ground level, so Mr. Shakes could install hardwood floors. He nailed in over 1,800 nails by hand, because after buying the wood, we were too broke to rent a nail gun! They turned out beautifully—and give him some serious bragging rights.
Matilda admires the hard wood floors.
Then came what should have been some easy stuff—replacing light fixtures, window dressings, that sort of thing—except I got laid off, and we had no money. So we did instead the little bits we could, which was basically just some painting here and there. But it made a big difference, and we started to see progress emerging from the chaos.
Loft now:
This weekend, we’re back at work. Our credit card limit got raised, so we were finally able to purchase some carpet to put into the guest room and office. The office has been bare floorboards for months and months; Mr. Shakes is pulling the nasty old carpet out of the guest room right now—and, at his request, I’m doing the most helpful thing I can do at the moment: Stay out of the way.
It’s taking so long. It feels like we’ve been living in a construction site for two years, but we’re getting there. Slowly but surely. We’re almost home.
in which I am the anti-Craft
So last night I mentioned that I have a pics of my anti-craftness where I am icing a bunny cake and the damn thing looks more like I skinned a rabbit and put it on a platter. So, I found the pictures and I thought I'd share them so you can enjoy a chuckle at my expense. :-) Enjoy your holiday weekend.
The story behind this is that my mom called me up shortly before Easter of 2004 and said: "I want you to bring a cake for easter brunch".Me: A cake? What kind?
Mom: Jell-o cake would be nice.
Me: Ok.
Mom: Hey, why don't you make it a bunny cake?
(silence)
Me: What?
Mom: You know, a bunny cake. Ears. Whiskers. Bow tie.
Me: Are you serious?
Mom: Why wouldn't I be?
(silence)
Me: You're doing this because we don't really celebrate Easter, aren't you?
Mom: (laughs)
Me: Ok then.
I resolved that if she wanted a bunny cake, she'll get a damn bunny cake. Heh. Maybe if I had any skill in cake decorating. Unfortunately, the sole picture of the final product has gone missing. When my laptop died a month or so ago, it took all my (stupidly) non-backed up images with it. I cannot find the cd that had the picture on it, I fear it was a victim of the Junk Genocide that occured with our recent(ish) move. But, here are the pictures John took of me in the midst of "decorating" it:
If I looked oddly proportioned, it's because I was 7 months pregnant with my third kiddo. And I promise you, if you ever come eat at my house, I won't lick my fingers when I make you your food. Honest.
Waiting for the end of the world
You’re reading this on your computer screen (if not, get out of my head), which requires electricity and a lot of complicated circuit boards and wires and still smaller wires to run. I think. Anyway, we can all agree that being able to use a machine like this proves you aren’t living in the Dark Ages, at least not in the historical sense.
Apparently, some people haven’t got the message yet:
With 06/06/06 looming (June 6, 2006), authorities in some cities are worrying prophecy theorists or hate groups might read something ominous into the date and use it as an excuse to stir tension. Some expectant mothers are making birthing appointments to ensure they avoid the date, according to the Sunday Times in London.Marvellous. I’ll give you that the hate group thing may be a legitimate concern; but then, hate groups are always a legitimate concern. What really gets me are the “prophecy theorists” who might “stir tension.” Damn those book-cooks! They’ve had their Da Vinci jumble, wasn’t that enough? Must they take their suspiciously vague and impossible to prove paranoia to the easily swayed masses?
Also nice to hear that expectant mothers are trying to delay (or hasten) their pregnancies. Look, if the sixth of this year really was, for some damn fool reason, the evilest day ever, I’m willing to bet that Satan would be able to override modern medicine to get that all important Anti-Christ in under the wire. Or better- the Morningstar is a tricky sonofabitch, I’ll bet he’ll slip his spawn in on some unrelated date simply to mess with us. “Oh, Luke, I thank God every day that we were able to induce you on the first. Unlike that Damien brat down the block. His mother lets him wear purple, can you believe it? He simply must be evil. Now, finish your lamb’s blood, and maybe you can help me find what happened to your nanny…”
I suppose there’s something to be said for trying to bring some suspense into your life by believing in the unseen, but it's just so exasperatingly arbitrary to assume a group of numbers other than your credit rating will have any real influence over your life. I’m going to tentatively assume that this Yahoo article is a bit of under-the-radar marketing for the upcoming Omen remake, but it’s a hoot regardless.
Still, Ann Coulter’s new book is coming out on the sixth, so I guess it won’t be an entirely evil-free day…
Friday Night Virtual Pub
Come in, belly up to the bar, and tell us a story. Have a drink and leave a link, if you like.
McEwan’s Scotch Ale is always on tap, but we serve just about anything. Name your poison.
Drinks, as always, are on the house.
(Stolen, with permission, from The Heretik, occasional proprietor of Lefty’s Bar.)
QoTD: please go away
Insipired by comments in the No Tampons For The Pope thread:
What ads would you be happy with never seeing again?
For me: the Burger King "eat like a man" commericals, the Welch's grape juice kid commericals, and pretty much all medicine commericals. They bug me.
Hmm
Someone has complained to Blogger about ARAVOSISblog, which is “written and maintained by John Aravosis' ego, Johnny A-List.” Personally, I think it’s a nifty little site, but I guess not everyone agrees, since someone is mad enough about it to ask Blogger to delete it.
I can’t imagine who it could be, but whoever it is, I bet he’s a big girl.
(Hat tip to Gideon.)
Best Correction Ever
“In a May 25, 2006 article describing Georgetown University faculty opposition to a teaching appointment for Douglas J. Feith, former Bush Administration undersecretary of defense for policy planning and analysis, the Times noted that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, top commander of the Iraq invasion, once referred to Mr. Feith as ‘the stupidest guy on the face of the earth.’
“However, according to Gen. Franks' autobiography, American Soldier, what he actually called Mr. Feith was ‘the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.’ The Times regrets the error.”
— New York Times
(Passed on by Angelos. Oh, and yes, it's satire.)
A little blasphemy for your Friday afternoon…
If I hadn’t already long ago purchased my one-way ticket to hell, this would pretty much do the trick. Of course, I was raised by a Lutheran mother who is quite convinced that Jesus has a fabulous sense of humor, with which I agree, so basically, I couldn’t help but laugh. (Hat tip to Spudsy, who had to run off to the eye doctor and left the blaspheming to me; he found it at Dependable Renegade.)
Speaking of Lackluster Sorries…
More on Bush’s “contrition” for the mistakes he’s made at Crooks and Liars and The Left Coaster. I don’t think I’ll be spoiling either post for you if I mention that there are none too few people who feel it was a bullshit act. Huh.
Newsweek: Sorry for the spinster scaremongering 20 years ago
In 1986, Newsweek ran a cover story, complete with ominous graph, which claimed, infamously, that single women over 40 were more likely to be killed by a terrorist than ever get married. For those too young to remember it, it’s difficult to convey how widely that article reverberated. I was 12 at the time, and the closest I ever got to a copy of Newsweek was on a trip to the dentist, but I heard adults around me talking about for a long time afterwards. Now Newsweek has issued a mea culpa of sorts: “It turns out that getting married after age 40 wasn't quite as difficult as we once believed.”Rarely does a magazine story create the sort of firestorm sparked 20 years ago next week when NEWSWEEK reported on new demographic projections suggesting a rising number of women would never find a husband. Across the country, women reacted with anger, anxiety—and skepticism. The story reported that “white, college-educated women born in the mid-1950s who are still single at 30 have only a 20 percent chance of marrying. By the age of 35 the odds drop to 5 percent.” Much of the ire focused on a single, now infamous line: that a single 40-year-old woman is “more likely to be killed by a terrorist” than to ever marry, the odds of which the researchers put at 2.6 percent. The terrorist comparison wasn’t in the study, and it wasn’t actually true (though it apparently didn’t sound as inappropriate then as it does today, post 9/11). Months later, other demographers came out with new estimates suggesting a 40-year-old woman really had a 23 percent chance of marrying. Today, some researchers put the odds at more than 40 percent. Nevertheless, it quickly became entrenched in pop culture.
And stayed there—in spite of much of its content having been long discredited. Feminists (like Susan Faludi, as Amanda points out) called Newsweek on their dubious reporting, but the menacing lesson fixedly lingered. I’ve heard the terrorist reference invoked even in the last few years—sometimes even gleefully by women (in the mold of Caitlin Flanagan) and men who seem to revel in its fatalistic prophecy for strong, independent, well-education women. It was a convenient weapon to scare and scold women, and when it was proven wrong time and again, no one seemed to notice.
In the current article, Newsweek seems to take a rather too-cheerful view of their two-decades-old mistake. “Boy, we sure got that wrong—ha ha!” But it was a big thing to get wrong, and to leave uncorrected for so many years. I heard the “more likely to get killed by a terrorist than married after 40” thing when I was 12; I didn’t find out it was bullshit until my first year of college. I imagine there were women, young and old alike, who never found out in the interim that it just wasn’t bloody true.
I remember, as clear as it were yesterday, standing in a check-out line with my mom when I was maybe 15 and listening to two women in front of us, who were discussing whether one should leave her boyfriend. “I’m so tired of all the hitting and fighting and screaming, but I don’t know if I should leave him. I’m almost 40; I have a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist than getting married..” Living with a terrorist in the hopes he would one day pop the question was apparently more desirable than facing the odds you might be more likely to get popped by one.
Thinking back on that now, I wonder how many women stayed in bad relationships because they’d been told their odds were so long. With society reinforcing the notion that spinsterhood was a fate worse than death, and Newsweek selling them scare stories, it made for a powerful incentive to succumb to the notion that someone bad is still better than no one at all. It’s a dreadful thought to consider how many lives may have been affected by such a pernicious and flatly wrong assertion, infiltrating itself as the conventional wisdom free of the critiques found only in lesser-known journals. Twenty years is a heck of a long time to wait before issuing a retraction.
(More from LeMew.)
