Because I want to pontificate, too

Book List 2011

2011-09-15T19:29:00.002-05:00

Instead of writing an actual blog, I'm just going to post my book list for 2011. I know. CREATIVE. Whatever, I'm busy doing other things. Like reading, evidently.

I'm feeling too lazy right now to write out actual impressions, so I'm just going to highlight in BLUE books I REALLY liked and I'm going to highlight in RED books I did not like, or which I thought were weird/tedious. I'd say that the rest of the books at the very least kept my interest, and by-and-large I enjoyed them.

1. The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Milan Kundara)
2. Brideshead Revisited (Evelyn Waugh)

3. The Year of the Flood (Margaret Atwood)

4.    Oryx and Crake (Margaret Atwood)
5.    Shanghai Girls (Lisa See)
6.    The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (John Boyne)

7. The Good Mother (Sue Miller)

8. Blankets (Craig Thompson)
9. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

10. The Thief of Time (John Boyne)

11. Innocence (Kathleen Tessard)
12. Runaway (Alice Munro)
13. Dune (Frank Herbert)

14. The Unit (Ninni Holmqvist)

15. Saving CeeCee Honeycutt (Beth Hoffman)
16. The Day the Falls Stood Still (Cathy Buchanin)
17. Little Women (Louisa May Alcott)
18. The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (Carson McCullers)
19. While I was Gone (Sue Miller)

20. East of Eden (John Steinbeck)

21. Outlander (Diana Gabaldon)
22. The Girl Who Played with Fire (Stieg Larson)
23. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest (Stieg Larson)
24. Alice I Have Been (Melanie Benjamin)

25. The Wasp Factory (Iain Banks)

26. The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger)

27. Foreign Affair (Alison Laurie)

28. Eating the Dinosaur (Chuck Klosterman)

29. Killing Yourself to Live (Chuck Klosterman)

30. Night (Elie Wiesel)

31. The Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins)

32. Catching Fire (Suzanne Collins)

33. Mockingjay (Suzanne Collins)

34. Dragon Prince (Melanie Rawn)
35. The Star Scroll (Melanie Rawn)
36. Sunrunner's Fire (Melanie Rawn)
37. Heart and Soul (Maeve Binchy)

38. The Adderall Diaries (Stephen Elliot)

39. How to Bake a Perfect Life (Barbara O'Neal)
40. Zeitoun (Dave Eggers)
41. The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (Stephanie Meyer)

42. A Discovery of Witches (Debora Harkness)

43. A Dance With Dragons (George R.R. Martin)
44. Sula (Toni Morrison)
45. Time of My Life: A Novel (Allison Winn Scotch)
46. Freedom (Jonathan Franzen)

Hate...Zak...

2011-02-26T23:00:00.000-06:00

So I haven't been blogging primarily because I really haven't been motivated. It's winter. I hibernate. Also, my creative outlets have been funneled into making felt creations and improperly constructed knitted scarves. Well. One scarf.

However, I do think it's worthwhile that I highlight what has come to be one of my greatest sources of entertainment and joy: Ghost Adventures.

Let me be clear, while I'm super interested in ghosts and spirits, if I actually encountered something paranormal I would probably shit myself. I mean, I actually resist the need to urinate in the middle of the night because I'm scared to get out of the safety of my bed. When nature's call forces me to get up, when I'm finished I actually run from the bathroom and leap into bed as quickly as possible. I leap because it seems likely something could possibly grab my ankles if I was to just step into the bed like a normal adult. True. Story.

Point being, I'm a huge pussy and I totally should not be watching this show because it only feeds into the pit of fear I feel in my stomach when I am forced to walk into a dark room unaccompanied. The other day I could hear the kitchen door to the basement inexplicably swinging back and forth, which I immediately attributed to a ghostly presence. Since Pat wasn't home I just made Selma hunker in bed with me because I wasn't going looking for trouble. My ridiculous reaction just reinforces that I'm clearly not mentally or emotionally stable enough to handle Ghost Adventures. Yet I have to watch it because it's just. that. awesome.

What makes it awesome? First of all, the ghost hunters are kind of hilarious. Zak is the primary focus of the show, acting as the narrator and ring leader. He is brawny and intense. He is also kind of bossy and sometimes his exuberance in the face of possible paranormal activity embarrasses me for him. When the were on Poveglia Island (um, the scariest island EVER) Zak was "possessed," which was a little too much for me but I've tried to forgive, forget and move forward. He even pisses the ghosts off and in multiple episodes they have recorded scary EVPs (electronic voice phenomenon, for those of you who aren't dbags like me) that say things like, "KILL...ZAK" or "gonna get Zak." The paranormal entities know what is UP and they are having NONE of it.

Nick and Aaron are secondary "characters," but since it's basically just the three of them walking around in haunted buildings in the dark, they play a pretty prominent role in the show. From what I can tell Nick seems kind of deep and spiritual, which makes me like him but also makes him slightly boring. My favorite is Aaron, who is comically nervous about the ghost hunting. Even though he's clearly uncomfortable when the ghosts start making their presence known, Zak is always making him go and, like, stand by himself in the haunted morgue where the nurse who was pregnant with the married doctor's baby hung herself. On one hand I feel sorry for him, but on the other hand it's hilarious.

So, anyway, the Ghost Adventures crew travels to these haunted location where they are locked in and then they walk around in the dark with their night-vision cameras and tape recorders and harass entities into communicating with them.

Now when I went on the Haunted Alton ghost tour (Yes. I did.) the ghost tour guide was super critical of my beloved Ghost Adventures crew, specifically because they "antagonize" the ghosts. Now, I guess everyone should be respected, even spirits, but whatever. Do you know why I like Ghost Adventures ten times more than Syfy's Ghost Hunters? Because shit happens on Ghost Adventures.

I don't like watching an hour-long show where people quietly walk around a location and ask benign questions. I want to watch Zak walk in and yell, "DID YOU KILL THOSE LITTLE KIDS HERE, YOU BASTARD?!? COME AND PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE!" That's about 100% more interesting.

Also awesome are the wild speculations that Zak wil make. For example, the camera will show an "orb" (manifestation of a presence in the form of a ball of energy. gawd, duh.) and Zak's voiceover won't just say, "The unexplainable ball of light appeared to touch Nick's leg." He'll say, "What appears to be an orb touched Nick's leg--was this the presence of Nancy, the little girl who died of TB in this hospital and who is said to haunt the sanitarium reaching out to Nick for comfort??" And it's like, well, when you put it that way of COURSE it's dead Nancy's ghost reaching out for comfort. That's the only logical conclusion.

Patrick makes fun of me because he believes that the show is bullshit and everything is being manipulated, which okay, think that if you want to ruin the FUN. As far as I am concerned they seem super believable. Frankly, I get all keyed up thinking that they really are capturing those EVPs, or they really did see a shadow person, or have inexplicable scratches from what clearly could only come from an angry spirit lashing out. That's what makes it interesting--the thought that they aren't con artists and this is all REAL.

Like, if they aren't just manipulating the tapes, then where ARE those voices coming from?? What WAS that shadow walking down the hall in the seemingly empty building?? How did that super heavy door slam even though there is no breeze and no one else was in the building??? Why did the television/radio just randomly turn on, or that chair randomly move and fall over? That shit just doesn't normally happen. I mean, how often does your television or radio just turn on by itself, or a chair that is ostensibly stable fall over? Pretty much never. Hi, it's GHOSTS. Obviously.

The awesomeness of this show is rivaled only by MTV's Fear, which aired around 2000/2001 and was amazeballs.

Basically, MTV would take a group of young adults to a haunted location. Once there they would have to complete certain creeptastic tasks with the goal of ultimately winning a cash prize if they complete their objectives. There would always be someone who was a total badass, and someone who was a total pussy who couldn't even get out 10 feet from the safe house before stroking out. I always felt for that person because that would TOTAL be me, but they also pissed me off because I knew that the person who was the hardass of the group would resignedly take their place in the electric chair for the next four hours because he/she really needed the money for college.

The most awesome part about Fear was that the show's producers started to figure out that the lure of cold hard cash would prompt most teens/twenty-somethings to overcome even the most terrifying of obstacles. So in the first season the participants would have to, like, go stand in the most haunted room for a half-hour in total silence, which was scary but doable. By the final season the participants would have to walk out to the haunted cemetery and be buried alive for, like, 12 hours or something without any outside communication in order to win the cash. I mean, the whole situation was a complete mind-fuck and I. Loved. It.

Anyway, I clearly just proved that I am a gullible creep. But that's okay. Go watch Ghost Adventures now. I am trying to support viewership so it's not cancelled.

What I read in 2010

2011-01-05T08:43:00.000-06:00

In the future, I'm going to try and write out the books as I read them, but whatever. Here's what I read in 2010. Clearly some of these were easy reads for mindless enjoyment (Charlaine Harris, wOOt), but I tried to challenge myself to read some novels I wouldn't normally have chosen (Hi, The Road? Plodding through that book was like torture.).

I made a note by the books I really liked, and some that I really didn't.

The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood *This book kind of made me nervous that one day my choices would be taken away from me and I'd just be used for breeding purposes, but I liked it a lot, anyway.
The Help - Kathryn Stocket *I know some people didn't like/were offended by this book but I really enjoyed the story.
The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake - Aimee Bender *I was thrown off by the name, but ultimately this book had a really cool plot and I was engrossed from the very beginning.
The Magicians - Lev Grossman *Very good. I enjoyed that there were fantasy aspects incorporated into the book without completely dorking out. Think Harry Potter but actually for adults (there is cursing and sex-yay!)
Water For Elephants - Sara Gruen *I initially refused to read this book because I thought it was a non-fiction tale about elephants in the circus circa 1904. I couldn't believe so many people were into a book about that. I have no idea why I thought that, because CLEARLY the plot isn't about that at all. It is very good.
Eat, Pray, Love - Elizabeth Gilbert *I also refused to read this book for awhile because I thought it was a touchy-feel-y self-help book--it isn't. Aside from the fact I think Elizabeth Gilbert is clearly plagued by first world problems, I really enjoyed this book--particularly reading about her time in Italy (I was hungry for the first 1/3 of the book) and Indonesia.
The Thorn Birds - Colleen McCullough *Classic! So much tragedy.
American Wife - Curtis Sittenfield
Naturally Thin - Bethenney Frankel *I highly recommend this for people who would like to develop and maintain a more stable, healthy attitude toward their diet.
1984 - George Orwell *I found this kind of difficult to get through because it's clearly not a book I'd normally read, but I was glad I made myself do it.
The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton - Jane Smiley *I did like this book, but I guess I felt like something was missing...I was never drawn into the story. I just read it and thought, "Well. That was nice."
Kitchen Confidential - Anthony Bourdain *As much as I like Anthony Bourdain, I found it difficult to get through this book. I was interested...but just not that interested. Apparently.
We Were the Mulvaneys - Joyce Carol Oates *Okay, I really did like this book but DISCLAIMER: THIS BOOK IS RIDICULOUSLY DEPRESSING.
The True and Outstanding Adventures of the Hunt Sisters - Elisabeth Robinson *So sweet, really funny, but also sad.
The Girls Guide to Hunting and Fishing - Melissa Bank
A Confederate Yankee in King Arthur's Court - Mark Twain *Great read. I really had to concentrate to not skim over the archaic language, though.
The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffengger *eh
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle - David Wroblenski *Good, but gawd, so depressing
His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife & The Ember Spyglass - Philip Pullman *Really good. Much better than the movie. May be offensive if you are Catholic.
Game of Thrones - George R. R. Martin *The George R. R. Martin books are really awesome fantasy books. Very long, but once you start reading them it's hard to stop. HBO is going to have a series based on the first book beginning early winter. Highly recommend even if you wouldn't normally read a book like this.
A Clash of Kings - George R. R. Martin
A Storm of Swords - George R. R. Martin
A Feast for Crows - George R. R. Martin
Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs - Chuck Klosterman *Hilar
The Host - Stephanie Meyer *Since she wrote Twilight, I was really surprised to be impressed by the concept of this book. It was really interesting and I have to say that I couldn't put the book down. I'd definitely recommend it.
The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society - Mary Ann Shaffer *My mom gave me this and I thought it'd be stupid because of the name, but it wasn't. Takes place after WWII. On one hand it's very sweet, but since pertains to war is also sad.
The Man of My Dreams - Curtis Sittenfield *Just okay
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Superfreakanomics - Steven Levitt *I liked this much better than Freakanomics, but I'm not sure why
The Wild Things - Dave Eggers
The Elegance of the Hedgehog - Muriel Barbery *I found this difficult to get through. So. French.
Suite Francaise - Irene Nemirovsky *Very good. Didn't leave me with a very good feeling about the French, though.
The Lost Symbol - Dan Brown
The Crowning Glory of Calla Lily Ponder - Rebecca Wells *This book was super sweet, but also made me sob. Like most of her books it takes place down south and the characters are lovably eccentric in way that is only acceptable if the person hails from below the Mason-Dixon line.
Otherwise Engaged - Suzanne Finnamore *I find this book hilarious, though I may be the only one. I read it at least once a year.
The Hour I First Believed - Wally Lamb *I don't even remember reading this book (which doesn't bode well). I looked it up to remind myself and holy. shit. This book is damn depressing.
Julie and Julia - Julie Powell *I liked this book, but I didn't particularly appreciate her constant disparaging remarks about Republicans. It was like, God, get over it Julie Powell. Just tell me about your experience making beef bourguignon.
Official Book Club Selection - Kathy Griffin *I love Kathy, but I expected a little bit more. It started slow, but I got into it eventually. It's not all hilarity and penis jokes--there is some serious aspects to the book as well.
Your Better Not Cry - Stories For Christmas - Augusten Burroughs
Fall On Your Knees - Anne-Marie Macdonald
Lottery - Patricia Wood *Uplifting, but I wasn't a huge fan.
The Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follett
Witch and Wizard - James Patterson
Bite Me: A Love Story - Christopher Moore
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - Stieg Larsson
The Dexter Series (All) - Jeff Lindsay *If you like Dexter, you'll like the books. They loosely follow the series plotline, but becomes increasingly different the further you get into the book series.
Percy Jackson and the Olympians 1 - 6 - Rick Riordan *I read these because my friend lent them to us and while I'll say they were fun to read, they are clearly written for tweens. No Harry Potter situation where you feel like it's social acceptable to be reading a "children's book"--these were actually children's books.
Harper Connelly Novel: Grave Surprise - Charlaine Harris *I liked this series until the last one or two books because I was unable to reconcile a plot twist that I found kind of grody.
Harper Connelly Novel: A Nice Cold Grave - Charlaine Harris
Harper Connelly Novel: Grave Sight - Charlaine Harris
Harper Connelly Novel: Grave Secret - Charlaine Harris
Sookie Stackhouse Novel: Dead In The Family - Charlaine Harris
Shakespeares Landlord - Charlaine Harris
The Almost Moon - Alice Sebold *I did not like this book. I thought it was inherently creepy and just could not get over it.
Nanny Returns - Emma McLaughlin
The Virgin's Lover - Philippa Gregory *I clearly like me some Philippa Gregory--Hi, books about ye olde England? Sign me up. But I can't say I was a huge fan of any of these books, save The Boleyn Inheritance.
The Favored Child - Philippa Gregory
Fallen Skies - Philippa Gregory
The Boleyn Inheritance - Philippa Gregory
The White Queen - Philippa Gregory
Wideacre - Philippa Gregory (This book is super disturbing on many different levels)
The Road - Cormac McCarthy (I effing hated this book)

Way to go kid

2010-09-29T15:37:00.000-05:00

Now, I don't have a kid, so I may be off base on this. However, I think it's hilarious when proud parents on Facebook applaud their child's "graduation" from preschool or, like, second grade.

Now, I do "get" it. They are your offspring. You love them and applaud every milestone. Also, they are kids. Unless they are prodigies, all they really have going for them is school-related progress until they join a sport or discover a hobby of some type. So you support them in the one arena where "success" is actually measured (kind of).

However: It's preschool. Is this even a real accomplishment? Do you even get GRADED in preschool? I thought you just played, took naps and ate those depressing generic vanilla sandwich cookies that I've only been given at school, day care or church functions.

Who knows, maybe preschool is challenging. Like most things, I guess I should assume that any fun associated with preschool has been sucked out over time (Like basically everything awesome that I got to do, but now kids can't because it's dangerous. Ha ha, you're younger, but we had more fun and I managed to escape childhood without losing an eye, a limb or my life!).

But really? It's kindergarten. Unless they had an acknowledged learning disorder, if my kid didn't pass kindergarten/preschool I'd be fucking PISSED. It's one thing to hype you child's graduation from high school or college, but elementary school? Really?

Frankly, this may be why kids are so goddamn spoiled and think everything they do is awesome. Because they are being told they are awesome even when they aren't being awesome, but instead just meeting what should really be the status quo.

I don't think my parents ever congratulated ME on advancing to the next grade. Why? Because I goddamn better have. It's elementary school, not medical school.

Anyway, angry parents don't shake your fist at me in anger. I'm sure when I have a kid I'll be all "yay, my kid excelled...or did exactly what they were supposed to do, but whatever! Yay!!" Until that time, though, I reserve the right to be amused.

Enough with the almonds

2010-09-18T19:28:00.000-05:00

Dear healthy living Web sites/blogs/magazines,

Stop telling me to eat almonds as a healthful snack alternative. I don't care what you say, that shit doesn't make me feel full. It just doesn't. I don't care how awesomely healthful they are, I'm sick of almonds. Find a new wonder food.

Please try not to be creepy

2010-08-25T12:00:00.000-05:00

So last night Pat woke me from my sleep by grasping my hand and intoning: "Someone died."

I was all, "Whaaa...What happened?"

Pat: "Someone died."

Then HE rolled over and kind of giggled, and went back to sleep. I swear to God, it was the effing creepiest thing ever. Not only did he 1. wake me from deep slumber, he 2. made me so nervous I was wide awake contemplating whether or not his subconscious was on point and someone did die.

Dude, don't get all poltergeist-y on my ass in the middle of the night.

I am still scared of the dark and frequently refuse to go to the restroom before dawn simply because I don't want to get out of the bed, which is where Pat is, who is clearly the only barrier between me and whatever is NOT in the bed. By unknowingly being a weirdo, he's upsetting the balance of power.

Boo-Hoo

2010-08-16T19:56:00.000-05:00

Um, to all those people in professions who get "summer break": I do not feel bad that your summer vacation is coming to an end.

Initially I felt obliged to feel sorry for you, but then I realized, "Wait. I don't get a break. I just have to work all year long." So I have absolutely no sympathy that your built-in summer vaca is coming to an end.

Awkwardness Magnified

2010-08-12T11:51:00.000-05:00

So I just went to use the restroom. I attempted to go into the second stall, only to thrust the door into the skull of a moderately old woman. She didn't even have time to hold up her hand, so it literally flung open and bounced violently off her head.

I don't know about you, but walking in on someone in the restroom fills me with misguided embarrassment. I was acutely mortified, particularly by the strength of the impact, and apologized profusely as I closed the door. I contemplated fleeing the restroom so I didn't have to walk to the next stall and pee next to the woman I just assaulted; however, that seemed silly since CLEARLY I had to use the restroom. So I reluctantly moved two stalls down and tried to pee as fast as I could in an attempt to leave before I'd have to make eye contact with her.

Oddly, the woman apparently felt compelled to make conversation. I think she felt bad that she forgot to lock the stall, so she apologized to me for that. Then she continued yelling questions and commentary at me over the stall door. "Where do you work? What do you do there? Where is that office? Brr, it's so cold in here! Is it cold in your office?" I was all, "Is this really happening right now?"

Like, when someone walks in on me in the restroom I experience two emotions: 1. embarrassment that I am a dumbass and didn't lock the door, 2. annoyance that they walked in on me, even though it was clearly my fault.

One inclination I do not have is a urgency to make friends with the person who just saw me in a pseudo-compromised position.

Disorientation and aggravation Also: A possum movement

2010-07-16T09:47:00.000-05:00

Clearly I need to incorporate Vegas rules into my non-Vegas life (hydrate, eat, pace yourself, be aware of your surroundings). If I did that then I wouldn't be sitting here feeling extremely weird because I chose to drink three glasses of shiraz and then top it off with two glasses of chardonnay (Presumably my thought process was that I'd be easing out of the night by switching from the red wine to the white wine. Idiot.).

Additionally, I wouldn't have consumed such large quantities of alcohol while only nourishing myself with two Asian chicken wings, the accompanying slivers of lettuce that came with the wings, and a couple tiny pita squares dabbed with hummus. I think I did manage to hydrate fairly well, which is the reason I have a tiny creepy hangover instead of a full-fledged monster hangover. Oh, and I ate a shit-ton of hamburger helper when I got home (which, eating does not count unless its PRIOR to the alcohol consumption).

Needless to say I feel super. pretty. this morning.

Also, what is UP with people walking in the goddamn street. Today on my drive to work there was YET ANOTHER woman walking in the street, only this time she was hauling along her dog and her baby stroller. Presumably she was in the street because there is more room to spread out and better accommodate her entourage. However, I would argue that there is more room in the street because THAT'S WHERE THE CARS DRIVE.

The walking in the street phenomenon is becoming more and more prevalent and it's pissing me off.

Another thing that I was thinking about this morning was that I've recently been made aware of what appears to be an underground contingent of people who really support possums? I bring this up because my sister recently posted on Facebook that there is a possum living under my parents' deck. My first reaction: possums are fucking gross and I wouldn't want a possum under MY porch. I posted something to that effect on her Facebook. In response were several posts of what I can only describe as strongly pro-possum in nature.

Being weirded out that people exist who aren't completely grossed out by these animals, I conducted an extremely brief and completely unreliable Google search,whereupon I quickly discovered that there are a LOT of people who feel strongly that possums are kind of awesome and we should give them a break.

In less than 5 minutes I learned that 1. The possum probably will not attack you. 2. The only reason the possum would attack you is because you are being an asshole and cornered them. Subsequently they became threatened. In other words, you brought it upon yourself. 3. If they do attack you, they will not give your rabies. 4. Possums are actually less dangerous that raccoons, despite the fact that we all want to believe raccoons are loveable rascals due to their hilarious masked face and non-possum, more cute appearance. 5. Possums really just want to be left alone. We should accommodate this. 6. There is an animal control gimmick that has permeated the greater human consciousness which is why most people think possums are fucking gross--do not buy into this gimmick!!!

Here's my thing. I don't care that possum wants to be left alone. You know what? I want to be left alone. I also don't care that possums won't give me rabies and most likely won't attack me. I don't care that the possum is misunderstood and actually can be quite nice under most circumstances.

Look. Possums are fugly. As my sister accurately said, they are fugly and muppet-like (in a not lovable way). They creep me the fuck out with their narrow, toothy faces and long rat-like tail. I have not fallen victim to an animal control agenda. I HAVE EYES.

Ahh!!! Do not come near me.

Frankly, I don't want raccoons near me. I don't want squirrels near me. If a rabbit walked up to me, I would be leery. I don't want any wild animal near me, or for that matter, any domesticated animal that I do not know personally or that is not cute.

Why are there so many people concerned with other people's possum dislike? It's not like they are going EXTINCT and we all need to actively work to save the rare and elusive possum. It's not a fucking, you know, California Condor or tiger or some shit.

At any rate, I just thought it was interesting that there are so many people who become indignant when faced with possum antipathy.

Driving me crazy

2010-05-27T09:36:00.000-05:00

I always try to go to bed earlier than Pat. Not only do I like to read myself to sleep, he is one of those people who MUST have the television on before he can slumber. Naturally I hate having the television on when I'm trying to go to sleep because the programming distracts me with interesting plot-lines, making it difficult for me to doze off. Additionally, often Patrick watches Law & Order SVU so not only am I kept awake, the last thing I am processing before I fall asleep is a violent criminal sex act.

Also, I consider going to bed Amy-Selma time, because that's the only time that I'm not actually doing something for her that that she acts like she likes me. She always comes up and lays next to me while I read and she is usually super quiet and cute (even though Pat has recently complained that her kiln-like heat makes his side of the bed less inviting. Oops!). I don't often associate relaxation with Selma, so I like to relish it while I can.

However, I've noticed that every night when Pat gets into bed he stomps around, throws his clothes on the floor, climbs into bed and then he'll inevitably thrash around, yanking all the covers off me. Then, he'll say "What's...going...on here..." in a confused, yet semi-accusatory, tone. As though I have purposely arranged the sheets and bedding in an unsatisfactory way in order to antagonize him with the bedding disorderliness.

Here's the thing: I pretty much stay in one place when I sleep. I don't yank covers. I don't twist covers. I'm happy just to have the bedding gently lay over me and provide my slumbering body with warmth. When I wake up in the morning I climb out of bed, then push the cover back, thus preserving my side of the bed for the coming evening.

Guess which side is mine.

Now on the total OPPOSITE end of the spectrum, is Patrick. Every morning after I wake him up, he'll lay there for another 10 minutes in a pseudo-comatose state after he confiscates alllll the covers and manipulates a sort of cocoon around himself. Then Selma will creepily sketch into the bed and make herself comfortable next to him by twisting and kneading the bedding into a confusing mass where she can slumber comfortably. Then when he finally wakes up he THRASHES around and heaves himself up, throwing all the bed clothes asunder.

Point being, I have nothing to do with the unsatisfactory state of bedtime affairs, yet I feel very put on the spot every evening.

We should think about this in more depth

2010-05-19T13:47:00.003-05:00

I recently was writing a press release for one of my senators who sponsored legislation to ban convicted sexual offenders from Illinois' public parks.

As I wrote the release, I began contemplating how people convicted of illegal sexual contact/actions basically can't go anywhere because, you know, they are creepy and did something mind-bogglingly fucked up, and as a result the whole world shuns them. That led me to consider that, essentially, the idea behind banning sex offenders from, well, everywhere, hinges on our belief there is a possibility, if not a likelihood, that they are going to re-offend.

Why, then, are we letting them out at all?

Basically we are saying, okay you are free but you aren't welcome anywhere because you are 1. basically rejected by society, and 2. society recognizes that it's unlikely that you were "cured" of your inclinations so we want you under lock and key and, basically, away from temptation, i.e. kids, women, people, etc.

I get that some people serve their sentence, thereby paying their debt to society and will be released and go forth and do no wrong. But it seems like there is pretty serious doubt regarding the likelihood of the rehabilitating these people

Isn't it creepy when you think about it this way?

Also, does anyone really feel good about all these sex offender prohibitions, anyway? I mean, these people weren't deterred by the severe crime of molesting or raping someone. Requiring them to remain 200 feet (or whatever, I don't know) from a playground or school doesn't make me feel really reassured.

The great TP challenge

2010-05-18T12:38:00.000-05:00

The other day on Facebook I saw one of my sorority sisters lament the fact that her husband will not replace the empty toilet paper dispenser. Her TP woes were met with complete affirmation and hilarity from numerous women because, duh, this is a universal problem.

Personally I've never dated ANYONE who will remove the empty toilet paper roll and actually replace it with a full roll. As my friend noted, they may put the roll on TOP of the dispenser, or on the floor, or on the sink next to the dispenser, but it seldom makes it where it should go.

Naturally Pat is a chronic offender in this capacity, so I decided to conduct an impromptu test to see how long it takes him to replace the empty toilet paper dispenser. Luckily we ran out of toilet paper that morning so I could begin at once.

We ran out of TP at approximately 7:30 a.m. on April 25. However, this is at approximately 9:24 pm:

Note the t.v. remote on top of the toilet paper. He actually lifted up the remote, pulled out the paper, took the tp, and then replaced it. Sigh.

Several days later:

Now it is on top of the dispenser, so accessibility had become an issue. However, TP placement still proves too much for him!

Awesomely, this continued for about two weeks. He was playing into my plan perfectly!! I stopped documenting my "experiment" because I kept forgetting to bring my phone up to covertly take pictures, and also it because evident that he was not going to change the toilet paper.

I actually thought I could maybe keep this going for YEARS and possibly get on the Today Show as one of their more lighthearted segments. I think Matt Lauer and Meredith would get a huge kick out of this.

Unfortunately, I forgot that the cleaning lady would come and actually put the toilet paper in its proper place in the dispenser, and it seemed too weird to take it OUT of it's proper place just to continue the experiment, even if Pat wasn't the person who placed it. I conflicted, like that would be cheating.

Thus my awesome experiment only lasted about a week and half. Though I will say that I was not disappointed in how those few days played out--I do know my husband pretty well.

Your blog sucks? Why do people like you so much?

2010-05-17T11:39:00.004-05:00

Okay, so my bff and I talk about this on a creepily regular basis. We tend to over-analyze.

Unless you are Amish and shun technology, most people know that there are millions and millions of people in the world who have established blogs. Naturally most of these people think their blog rocks, and feel strongly that they have something important to say.

Sometimes I agree and I also think their blog rocks. Sometimes I can take it or leave it. I mean, different strokes for different folks. I'm sure some people think the dumb shit I put on here is kind of funny and other people think I'm a huge d-bag. Whatever. That's life. Either way, I assume that most people, like me, just like to write, like to share experiences, like to do something easy yet creative, and a blog is a good outlet for that.

And then there are other times when I think the blog is so f-ing lame I follow it just so I can see what the blogger is writing about and so I can subsequently get fired up about how GD retarded it is.

My irritation is further fueled by all the other people reading the blog who are weighing in about how awesome it is. Then I get confused by how people can so easily accept what I find so sucky, to be awesome. This further exacerbates my completely irrational annoyance.

These blogs have about a billion followers who constantly reinforce how "awesome" the blogger is ("You are the BEST, xoxo!!" shoot me in the fucking head). And I'm all, "But wait, doesn't anyone else get that this is retarded? Stop encouraging this."

Seriously, nothing drives me crazier and yet I can't stop myself from checking the blog, which will inevitably just make me think "UGH, YOU SUCK SO BAD."

It's the same with Facebook. I have numerous Facebook "friends," who are really just people I kind of knew once, awhile ago, and I don't really know why I keep them around because every time I see a status update I'm all, "UGH, you are a goddamn mess, what is the matter with you?"

All I want to do is write them a message that basically says, "I know you think you rock, but really you don't and you shouldn't be posting that crazy shizzy on a social forum. I know no one has told you that because social norms discourage this type of confrontation, but really? STFU."

I half keep them as "friends" and wait until he or she posts a status update which is supposed to be witty or ironic, but which is really just drives me crazy for no good reason. Then I'll get all worked up, all over again. I know. It's ridiculous.

I recognize that this probably makes me a huge asshole, but I can't help it. Seriously, looking at these shitty blogs is a compulsion. I know at least one other person who does this, but it's my best friend so I don't think that counts. Do other people do this, or is it just us?

Orange Dreamsicle Cake

2010-05-15T15:41:00.009-05:00

Pat loved this orange dreamsicle cake that I used to be able to purchase in box form. Even being a box cake, naturally it was f-ing annoying to make because there were multiple steps, involving baking, cooling, and mixing of multiple substances, and many bowls. Needless to say it made a huge mess.

Then Duncan Hines or whoever made the box mix discontinued it because I guess most people didn't love their significant other enough to make the world's most annoying box cake mix.

Like this, but not?

That said, I do love my husband enough to make the cake for him. AWWW. (No seriously. His disappointment at the loss of the orange dreamsicle was kind of heartbreaking. He searched for the orange dreamsicle for months in hopes that it was just out-of-stock, but of course it WASN'T. I think he even searched ONLINE to try and find ebay orange dreamsicle, but couldn't. Sigh.)

So, I went searching for a recipe so I can grudgingly re-create his beloved orange dreamsicle cake (which he just calls "the orange dreamsicle.")

I found one recipe and the entire cake was made from scratch, including hand squeezed oranges and hand-whipped cream. I mean, it was good but it took, like, six hours to make and it is just CAKE.

Luckily, I recently found another recipe on cdkitchen.com that's less of a hassle and it's GD amazing. Seriously. It was so good I ate two pieces a day because I couldn't help myself.

Ta-da!

Orange Dreamsicle Cake

Ingredients

2 eggs

1 regular sized vanilla cake mix

1 can orange soda

2 packages orange jell-o

1 package instant vanilla pudding mix

1 cup milk

2 cups water

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

8 oz cool whip topping

Directions

Mix cake mix with orange soda and eggs. Spray cake pan with pan. The recipe calls for one 9 x 13 cake pan, but I think I used two 9 in rounds. I don't know. They were round.

Bake 20 - 30 minutes at 350 degrees.

When cake is done, poke holes in cake with fork.

Mix 1 package orange jello in 1 cup of hot water until dissolved.

Add 1 cup cold water. Pour over cake. Refrigerate 2 hours.

(The directions don't tell you this, but you should probably take the cake OUT of the pan before adding the jello mixture. I didn't and the orange stuff is sticky and made it a GD hassle to get them out of the pan later. Oops! So I take them out and then put them on regular plates and THEN pour the jello mixture over the cakes.)

Mix vanilla pudding mix and other pack of jello together (dry). Add 1 cup of milk and 1 tsp vanilla. Mix well. Blend in thawed coll whip. Frosting!

Needless to say, keep the cake refridgerated. Duh.

Facebook has many pitfalls

2010-05-15T14:48:00.002-05:00

Facebook makes me nervous as hell. Initially it was fun because the only people on it were my college/high school/largely non-professional friends and acquaintances. Or "professional" friends, with whom I can be "non-professional."

While I wouldn't post super innapropriate pictures, I didn't worry when I put up pictures of some alcohol-fueled hijinks with Beth making inappropriate gestures in the background (let's face it--Beth and I are really the only people who do that in my group of friends).

Then, slowly, Facebook has become this dual professional/social forum. People that I know in a strictly professional capacity ask to be my friend and I feel obligated to reluctantly accept because this is now how people interact, send messages, find information. And it's not that I don't LIKE some of these people, it's just that I don't necessarily want them to know what's going on in my life at any given time. Of course you can block people, but like many slutty teenage girls now know, that's not always entirely reliable.

At one point I complained about this shift and someone at work began to explain to me why this was happening, the professional implication, outreach possibilities, etc. I was all, yeah I am not retarded. I get why this is happening. I just don't like it. And in fact I kind of want to de-friend you now for feeling the need to explain something so obvious to me.

Additionally, something that I also find hilarious is the friending/defriending process. The other day I found that I was "defriended" by a very casual acquaintance. Now, I don't care that she defriended me. Frankly her constant status updates were fing annoying and I don't even know WHEN I was defriended--it could have been two months ago.

I just find it odd that someone would care enough to go through and defriend people. Now I'm not saying that I haven't had a couple cocktails, been annoyed and self-righteously deleted someone (I swear I'm an adult and not a tween). But when not under the influence of devil's brew, I could care less about deleting people I'm random, non-professional acquaintances with.

I mean, it's Facebook. I'm friends with a lot of people that I don't actually TALK to. Like, someone I went to grade school with who I haven't seen in at least 20 years just asked to be my facebook friend. It was kind of cool. We aren't "friends," but I don't know...It's not like I'm picking only those people who I'd invite into my lifeboat. It's supposed to be a SOCIAL FORUM. Just be social and stop taking it all so seriously.

However, I'm also conflicted because I do not add anyone who 1. I actively hated at one point in my life or 2. I have never known, i.e. a stranger. That said, there is this one girl on my Facebook who works around the Capitol, but I have no idea who she is. I don't remember adding her? I certainly didn't ask to "friend" her. But now I feel weird de-friending her because on one hand, does it matter? But on the other hand, I don't know her at all.

Actually, when Facebooks' trashy cousin, MySpace, was all the rage, my friend was friend-rejected by someone who had apparently carried tons of pent-up rage and angst against her. The girl really relished the feeling of satisfaction that she got out of telling my friend how much she disliked her since high school. Now, my friend was freaked out by this girl's vengeance.

On one hand, I totally agree. Like, there is definitely a loser aspect to that kind of attitude. There are a handful of people from high school who were huge bi-otches to me. I don't dwell on it. I assume they are living mediocre lives. I guess I hope they are happy. Honestly, I just don't care. Whatever, you were assholes and you can go fuck yourselves, but I don't care about you?

That said, if any of these people asked to be my Facebook friend I'd be like, uh, you were a huge see-you-next-tuesday to me for no good reason, and on numerous occasions ruined my day and wreaked havoc on my tenuous teenage self-esteem. So, no, you can't be my fucking Facebook friend.

One social networking site, so many conflicting feeling.

Please don't cheat on me emotionally

2010-04-27T20:11:00.001-05:00

Last night we were watching Mad Men, which is an awesome show, but the main character is a cheating fool. Don Draper is always cheating. I'm not sure if it's some commentary on male-female relations in the 50s/60s (I'm sketchy on the timelime), or it's just because Don Draper is kind of a dick, or it just makes for a good story line, or what. Probably all of that.

Either way, Pat and I were talking about Don cheating last night, which led me to ponder how often women (women are the only people who say shit like this) say, "An emotional affair is so much worse than a physical affair. I think I could accept an affair based completely on sexual attraction, but once someone was involved with someone mentally...I could never get over that."

To which I say, um, really? As far as I'm concerned that is CRAZY TALK. No. Now, both situations would piss me the fuck off, but as far as I'm concerned nothing would fill me full of white-hot rage more quickly than finding out my husband actually had sexual relations with another woman.

Now, if I found out he was "cheating," i.e. some other woman listened to him pour out his heart, and supported him while he laid bare his hopes and dreams or whatever the hell people do when they cheat "emotionally," it would piss me off. I'd also think that he was a huge pussy. Like, you really have to sneak around behind my back just to find someone who will listen to you whine? Give me a break. Deal with your bullshit like the rest of us do: by suppressing our emotions and drinking.

That said, I'd handle that SUBSTANTIALLY better than I would handle any type of physical contact.

In that instance I wouldn't just be annoyed that he was an emotional wreck in need of support, I'd also have to think, "Ew, you have touched another person in an intimate way." How is that not FAR worse?

I just don't understand this at all. I suppose emotional cheating would be worse if you were super concerned about the fact that your significant other found something so lacking in what you provided emotionally that they had to seek that connection somewhere else. In response I say, eff that.

I didn't marry a 17 year old girl. I married a DUDE. I will listen to you while you complain about work, and you can cry at the death of a loved one, and when watching movies about war or dogs dying. That's it. Emotional cheating is bullshit, and frankly I imagine that guys only "emotionally cheat" as a pretense, with the ultimate goal being sex.

At any rate, I just do not understand this. Maybe it's because I've never been with anyone who is desperately seeking to share their innermost feelings, but I really can't imagine being LESS concerned about penis-vagina contact than I am about an intense discussions over coffee at Starbucks.

I'm married to Pig Pen

2010-04-26T13:52:00.001-05:00

It's Pat's birthday, so I figure it's only appropriate to post about him. HAPPY BIRTHDAY HONEY!! What better way to celebrate his 37 years than to post a tongue-in-cheek blog about him!

Okay soooo I never dated the .5 percent of the male population who is actual clean. I always dated men who, to some degree or another, are messy and disorganized. That said, Patrick by far takes the cake. I love him dearly, but if I wasn't here, I'm pretty sure he would just wander around in filth and disarray.

Artist's rendering

When I leave for just one night, I come home to a kitchen piled high with dishes, cups (Because you can't just drink out of the SAME cup. You must have a new glass each time. And then leave the half-full glass sitting somewhere for me/the dog to randomly knock over), crumbs and sticky residue covering the counter.

Real life depiction. Unseen: empty dishwasher to immediate left

There will be a clothes trail where I can tell exactly where he began to shed his clothes, and then where he went seeking new attire.

There will be free ads and newspaper strewn across the table, and the ever-present bags of candy and accompanying wrappers will be all over the couch. Always.

If you know Patrick, you know he is obsessed with candy. If we lived in a world before fluoride, he'd be completely fucked. I'm sure his teeth would literally fall out of his head due to the excessive sugar intake. Aside from setting into motion what I fear will become adult onset diabetes, this means that our home is littered with candy wrappers. In some instances, I've literally watched him open the candy wrapper and then drop it on the floor, step over it and walk away.
...

???

I can't begin to calculate how much of my life has been dedicated over the last several years to picking up tiny, discarded pieces of plastic and then cleaning up the little piles of sugar left in the bottom of the candy bag, which inevitable got upended and spilled all over our couch cushions.

The candy container. It is loved ever-so-much.

Additionally, the clothes hamper is the source of both amusement and irritation. The amusement due to the fact that Pat was the one who INSISTED we get the wicker hampers to begin with. Avid proponent of brown, wicker hampers. He had to have 'em. Literally, he talked about clothes hampers for at least four months and had a really definitive idea of what hamper he wanted and turned his nose up at all inferior hampers.

Pre-hamper we just had a plastic bin in the closet. For the most part he could manage to throw his clothes into it because he didn't have to make the additional effort to open the hamper. I knew the opening was a critical step to the whole hamper process that would prove difficult for Patrick. And I was right!!

Needless to say, when we saw the perfect hamper set he immediately snatched it up, brought it home and then proceeded to pile all his clothes on top of it. Now the hampers are totally neglected and he just steps out of his clothes, changes in that spot and walks away.

Every evening I come home, pick up the clothes that he slept in off the floor in the bathroom (where he left them that morning, after I went to work) and I gather up the clothes that he worked in from the bed/floor/top of the hamper/in between the couch cushions (where he left him between the time he got home and I got home), and put them in the hamper.

Evidence. Selma doesn't get it either.
Note the morning's discarded clothing in the background. Sigh.

So. Knew. That. Would. Happen.

The most recent, and possibly most disgusting, transgression dawned with the introduction of the fish tank to our home.

Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the fish tank to begin with. He brought it home after a long Sunday that I spent cleaning the entire house, and which he spent dicking around with Jeremiah eating at Red Lobster, perusing TJ Maxx, and apparently buying fish tanks.

I was anti-tank primarily because we have no good place to put a fish tank. Our house is not large. In my opinion we are at capacity as it is. I try and maintain SOME order which directly hinges on a pseudo-minimalistic existence, so the fish tank really wreaked havoc with my OCD tendencies that are already being strained due to the constant (yet sllllllooooowwww) home improvement process that has taken over our home.

Additionally, I suspected that eventually I would be the one cleaning the fish tank and caring for the fish. Since I didn't really care about the fish to begin with, I adamantly refused to take care of them in a kind of a perverse, "it's-the-principle" way. However, I admit that as of now he has retained pretty serious ownership over the fish tank. In fact, he's kind of creepily possessive of the fish tank.

At any rate, when he first got the tank he was super excited to get fish. Duh, obviously that is the most exciting part. Every day he would call me over to assess the tanks "cloudiness," look at the fish, watch them chase each other, watch him feed them. He was like Lenny, but with fish.

Needless to say, eventually all the "cool" fish died. It was a sad day for Patrick. I was largely ambivalent, as my family went through a multi-month fish kill spree when I was in my tweens. PetSmart allows a 14 day time period where if your fish dies, you can bring in your receipt and the old, dead fish in and replace it with a new, live, unsuspecting fish, for free. My mom took to freezing them and getting a new fish from the reluctant PetSmart employee. Jaded.

At any rate, I was under the impression that the tank had been cleaned, the fish "buried" and once he addressed the chemical imbalance a whole new slew of fish friends would be introduced to the tank.

Over the next few days I began to complain of a smell. Not sure what it was. Mentioned it a couple times. Having been a bachelor and generally dirty person for most of his 36 years, Pat was unfazed and didn't contribute to identifying and ridding our home of the unpleasant odor. It took me about three days until I figure it out: He had taken out the dead fish, put them in a bucket in the living room and then walked. away.

Left the dead fish. In the bucket. In the living room. Dead. Smelly. Days. Upon. Days.

It was horrifying. Naturally I was so weirded out that he would leave fish cadavers in our living room I announced that I was thoroughly grossed out and I wanted him to clean out the bucket. I told him that I was taking the fish outside for him to properly dispose of. Needless to say after a week of the dead fish continuing to fester on the back porch I gave in and just cleaned out the bucket.

But the point of the story is: gross. I'm married to this person. That said, we haven't been married for all that long so I accept this all in a bemused, he's-lovably-messy-aw-that's-precious way. I'll report back to you in a couple years and we'll see if I feel the same way...

I didn't think I was a lush, but maybe I am

2010-04-25T21:03:00.000-05:00

The other night I was laying on the couch by Patrick, and I was drinking water out of a clear plastic water bottle. It wasn't "water."It was actual H2O.

Pat asked me what I was drinking, and because it was 10:30 at night and that seemed to me to be a random question (obviously mistakenly) because I knew that he was gearing up to take the bottle from me and drink all the liquid in container, thus leaving me parched. If history is any indicator he would gladly drink whatever was in my cup, regardless of what it was, with few exceptions.

So I jokingly said, "It's vodka." I even laughed a little bit to indicate that I was being facetious and OBVIOUSLY I wouldn't be drinking vodka out of a plastic sports bottle at 10:30 on a random Wednesday night.

Me.

He took the bottle from me, SNIFFED IT, and only then took a TENTATIVE sip. Fo reals. Because it somehow seemed possible that I might actually be boozing it up, knocking back some vodka out of the same pink sports bottle that I drink my protein shakes out of every day.

I don't know what this means, but it does make me wonder wtf he thinks of me. I need to cut back on the Charles Shaw.

I'm a bag lady

2010-04-23T08:53:00.000-05:00

Why is it that the rainy days are the ones where I randomly decide to carry five million things with me to work, so I'm totally encumbered with stuff?

So today I have my big purse, my tote bag--that I really didn't even NEED because the only thing in it that I actually require is my iPhone cord which could have totally been shoved in my ginormous purse--my insulated coffee cup and Pat's enormous umbrella that I have managed to secure for my own use.

I'm juggling all this shit, and because I'm a disorganized wreck to begin with, every bag is filled with crap so receipts are falling out and my iPhone charger cord is trailing behind me and my sunglasses are poking out and getting ready to fall and get scratched and I'm frantically trying to poke it all back in because I don't want to litter, and I know that if something falls I have to pick it up and gravity coupled with the heavy bags will make me stumble.

Then I get out of the car, and my bag keeps falling down my arm because my shoulder is all slippery because for SOME reason I've decided to wear a scarf even though it's 62 degrees and muggy out. And then I'm trying to hold my bags and open the world's largest umbrella, which is stupid because I still have to get out my coffee mug from the holder in the car, but the umbrella is too big and I keep getting hung up by it as I try to lean in to grab the mug, which is the one without the handle so I can't even slip my index finger through that and grab it. So I have to set it all down, lunge in, grab the mug, coffee is sloshing everywhere. Then I realize I have left my id tag in the car, so I have to repeat that whole process over again, with the bags and the mug and the huge umbrella, grab the ID tag so I don't give the guards an excuse to "wand" me, which they will because I'm wearing my red heels and those always set off the alarm because of the metal in the heel.

If it was 72 and sunny I'd be carrying one tiny purse and be totally pulled together, but because it's raining I naturally decide to make the whole experience that much more miserable.

Also, I realized that I'm basically a bag lady, but without the street smarts or the shopping cart. Being a bag lady is hard!

Hey, they are called sidewalks

2010-04-18T11:22:00.000-05:00

Why is everyone in my neighborhood shunning the sidewalk, and instead walking in the STREET? Today alone I've been annoyed but at least two people who irrationally chose to play chicken with the MKX, instead of walking on the sidewalk where they belong.

I will own you.

This morning this woman was running with her dog right down the middle of the road. I thought she'd move OVER to the side of the road since I am in a vehicle and 1. could smoosh her and 2. it's the polite thing to do. Well, she's obviously a wretched selfish bi-otch because she did not move over and instead I had to slow to a crawl and go into the other lane so I didn't actually cause her bodily harm. The she looked at ME all crazy like I was the asshole which pissed me off like no other. NO. I was where I was supposed to be. I'M in a CAR.

Then on the way home this guy was running in the street, but backwards? It was confusing and obviously part of some type of training that I've never been privy to. But at any rate, hello. Do not run BACKWARDS down the street. Idiot. In fact, I may or may not have yelled "Do not run BACKWARDS down the street" out my open window.

Now occasionally I will walk in the road when I'm walking Selma, but only briefly and only when someone else is walking their dog down the sidewalk and I don't want MY dog to maul their dog. It's a public service, basically.

What is wrong with people? Why would you do this? I don't understand. As far as I'm concerned it's selfish and they should be punished for their self-involvement.

Hey hater, you live on earth, too

2010-04-16T08:12:00.001-05:00

Okay, so I only think about this because there's this one dude who I always see on Facebook who is constantly raging against anything that has to do with the environment, global warming, saving planet earth, etc. I mean, seriously, nothing gets him going faster than to mention that you heard that the polar ice caps are melting which may or may not be leading to the death of innocent polar bears. The rage that is incited by simply mentioning global warming is mind-boggling. And hilarious! Essentially, it makes me want to talk about the dire impact of global warming basically every day just so I potentially incite a response.

But he's not alone. I have noticed that a lot of people get really heated about the concept of global warming, and are extremely critical of efforts to not harm our environment. My question is, why do people have such strong reaction to the fact that some people believe in global warming?

Like, I don't know a ton about global warming, but if science-y people are saying that the earth is getting warmer, than I'll probably go with the flow and believe it is. Okay science person, thanks for the depressing information that most likely won't impact me. I'm not going to argue with the science guy/girl and try to disprove something that I assume many, more qualified people have spent time studying.

Additionally, who cares if there isn't global warming on the scale that some people suggest? I mean, I think we'd all agree that human beings have been pumping some pretty toxic shit into the environment for some time. I don't even know how someone would argue that people aren't negatively impacting the environment.

"And on the eighth day, God created the Pacific Trash Vortex..."

So what skin off your back is it to TRY to give Mother Nature a break? And even if you don't want to do something crazy-liberal like recycling, is it necessary to hate on people who don't mind dedicating a couple of seconds to wash out their aluminum can and toss it in a recycling bin? Like, what difference does it really make to YOU that some people are concerned that we are hurting our Earth and trying in their own small way to rectify it?

No, dude, this is totally natural.

I mean, I guess that it may chap your ass if you think that this is all a bunch of bullshit, then you see tax dollars going to finance environmental programs. But I don't really see why people get all bent out of shape at the fact that philosophically other people care about the environment.

No, you are not dreaming this

2010-04-16T08:06:00.000-05:00

Every morning I go in to wake Patrick up (let's not even get started on why or how this became my obligation).

And every morning I shake him gently and say,"It's eight."

And every morning he is completely disoriented and says, "WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON." As though this same scenario hasn't played out hundreds of times before (it has).

Like I'm going to wake him up and say, "Hey, it's 7:15. Just so you know. Go back to sleep. I'll be back in 45 minutes."

Um, politicians are elected

2010-04-13T21:20:00.002-05:00

I don't really understand why the public gets all pissed off about incumbents and their well-known ability to ingratiate themselves into a seat and remain there indefinitely.

Okay, so I GET it, but here's the thing--why are you getting all pissed off at the incumbent or the elected official. Key word: elected.

Here's the thing angry Letters to the Editor writers, these people are elected. They have every right to continue to run for office, and getting all pissed off at them for continuing to stick with their comfy political position to which they've ingratiated themselves kind of isn't their fault.

They. Were. Elected.

The Illinois public is pissed off--and rightfully so--but they are the ones who continue to elect the same ole story. They did it with Blagojevich, and they'll probably do it in November with Quinn who has pretty much shown himself to be a miserable leader incapable of sticking to his guns and getting shizzy done. They already failed in the primary by choosing Quinn over Hynes, who I personally thought was a maniacal genius. His advertisements were evil, yet hilarious.

Dr. Evil. He's like Dan Hynes, but not as Comptroller-y.

At any rate, I get that you feel disenfranchised, but these people don't just will themselves into office. The voting public goes into the polling both and selects them. So, really, irate citizen? STFU.

Additionally, I personally feel that it's kind of ignorant to rage against incumbents as a general rule. There is something to be said for institutional knowledge and political savvy.

It's one thing when there is a puppet master who controls all aspects of state government to the detriment of Illinois as a whole; however, I know elected officials who have been around for decades, understand legislation and truly are in Springfield working in the best interests of their respective communities.

Additionally, I've been thinking about this forever, but is ANYONE freaked out about what happened with Scott Lee Cohen? Um, HELLO. He was ELECTED to be the Democrat candidate for Lt. Governor despite the fact that he was obviously a terrible person.

I'm basically a terrible person.

I'm not saying that this guy should be in a position where he could potentially be the governor of Illinois (thought it seems like he may actually know how to get shit done, unlike the Quinnster). However, doesn't anyone find it wrong that Democrat leaders were like, "Um, shit. How did this happen?" and then basically strong-armed him into dropping out of the race?

That doesn't seem very Democratic to me, somehow. He was ELECTED by the idiots of Illinois. Maybe he would have been Illinois' newest lovable scofflaw. Now we'll never know...Also, if you can force a real asshole like Cohen to drop out, how could you not get Blago to do jump off a bridge for the six or seven years he was screwing up our state?

You're Invited to the Inaugural St. Jude Kentucky Derby Party!

2010-04-13T09:39:00.001-05:00

I've been helping organize the inaugural St. Jude Kentucky Derby Party, a fundraiser to benefit St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. This will be the first St. Jude fundraiser in Springfield—so we are trying to make it a big success!

I think most people are familiar with St. Jude but if you aren’t, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, located in Memphis, Tennessee, is one of the world's premier centers for research and treatment of catastrophic diseases in children, primarily pediatric cancers.

St. Jude treats children from all over the world who are living with cancer at no cost to their families, no matter their insurance or economic status. St. Jude even subsidizes transportation, lodging, and meal expenses while the child is being treated in Memphis.

The event is scheduled for Friday, April 23, 2010 at 7 pm at the Inn at 835. There will be hors d’oeuvres, auctions and you get to wear a big hat. Mint juleps in official Kentucky Derby glasses will also be available. The cost is $75 for an individual ticket and $125 for a couples ticket.

If you would like to purchase tickets or donate, you can visit www.stjude.org/kentuckyderbyparty. You can learn more about St. Jude’s by visiting the Web site at http://www.stjude.org/.

Note that the event's theme is the Kentucky Derby--as a Kentucky native I think that's very exciting!

Thank you for your consideration!

Amy

No one cares that you are single

2010-02-10T18:18:00.001-06:00

Sooo, I heart me some Sex and the City. The antics are hilarious, the clothes are fun, and at some level the women seem relatable and accessible (even though they OB-viously weren't).

However, I was recently watching reruns on HBO and became really turned off by the program, specifically by how needy they all are. REALLY, you spend THAT MUCH TIME worrying about finding a man? Discussing and dissecting men? The more I considered it, the more depressing it became. It was all so desperate and creepy. And to be honest, that's the one thing about the show I never really could relate to--and it seems to be one aspect of the program that is super prevalent and annoying among so many women.

Why doesn't Big want to be with me? Wahhhhh

I've realized recently that there are women who really sit around and significant amounts of time and energy focused on 1. what men want, 2. how to get a man, and 3. telling themselves that they are perfect the way they are and they shouldn't change for any man. Um, really? Here's my thought: Men don't want women/girls who do that shit. Why? Because you come off as needy and immature.
No one likes neediness or insecurity. It's pretty much one of the most unattractive (and most obvious) things you notice about people when you first start dating (right after you assess whether they are, you know, actually unattractive).

Additionally, stop worrying about what men want. You know what the men who are worth wanting are looking for? Someone who is intelligent, cool, confident, funny, moderately attractive, doesn't act clingy, doesn't embarrass them in front of their friends by acting like a harpy or a dumbass, and who will deal with their shit.

But women who sit around and obsess about how a guy looked at them, or read deeply into how their love interest signed off on their email conversation, usually do not fit that bill. Sorry. Don't try and play weird little mind games. Don't call them excessively. Don't obsess when they don't call you as much as you think they should.

Men. Don't. Like. That.

I mean, some do, but those are few and far between (and I find usually men who do those things become relegated to the "friend" category, much to their chagrin).

Additionally, I found it really interesting how the Sex and the City women were so disparaging when talking about people in relationships. And actually, in the past I've noticed some single people do this--the self-awareness that they aren't in a relationship, which manifests in really awkward, competitive, and off-putting ways.

The women on SATC would get all huffy when ancillary married characters, or people in long-term relationships ever talked about, well, being in the relationship. Their mortgage. Their kids. Remodeling. I don't know. Whatever. Things you end up inadvertently talking about when you are involved with another person day in and day out.

These characters were portrayed as super lame, obnoxious and/or not compassionate. At one point it is suggested that these characters were acting like a-holes on PURPOSE to make single Miranda feel sad about her single status. Really? How disengaged IS this show? Um, I can't imagine that many married/engaged/couples in real life would try to make their single friends feel insecure when they are talking about the new tile in the downstairs bathroom. It's just probably the thing that's consuming time, energy and money that week.

What? You don't like my acerbic tongue and judgey, holier-than-thou-attitude?

And, undoubtedly the SATC girls would downplay something like tiling the bathroom as incredibly mundane and unbelievable ("She used to be a party animal! Now she spends Friday night tiling!"). I find that mindset offensive as well. I mean, I'm not saying that it's NOT lame. It is. But sometimes you JUST have to spend a weekend doing something that isn't fun. And for a good chunk of the population, that's life. So back off, Samantha. You get pissy if people judge you for being a good-time gal, so please lay off the overwhelming majority of the population who don't wear $800 shoes, who don't speak in double entendres and who have to spend their Saturdays building retaining walls and washing their windows.

I think this is a mindset that SATC helped advance, in addition to female sexual freedom and some interesting fashion trends. Sure it's awesome to celebrate female independence, but to do so by tearing other people's choices down? I don't think that's the best way to build yourself up.

My thought? Hi, get over yourself. Really. No one cares that you are single. No one thinks your an old maid. No one is JUDGING you. It's hard to meet normal people. We all know that. You'll get yours eventually--or you won't. Either way, honestly, no one is that invested in your relationship woes aside from yourself and possibly an older female relative. People have shit going on in their lives that reaches far beyond caring about judging other people for not being in a relationship and essentially walking down a different life path. If those are the people YOU choose to have in your life then that's weird. And your fault.

Additionally, it may be boring to hear about the landscaping that your relation-shipped pals have been doing, but do you really think it's super interesting for them to dissect last night's date with you 897897 times? Or piece together exactly when your relationship went downhill (for the third time)? I have to tell you--not particularly. It was probably interesting initially, but now I am over it. And that's not a comment on how I feel about your relationship status, that is a commentary on my attention span and self-absorption level (short/relatively high).

But I patiently listen to my friends--single or not--because they are my friends. And I love them. And I know it's important to just be there. I don't know why married people, or people in long-term relationships, don't deserve that same respect and support.Oh because I'm getting it from my significant other? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure. When I can tear him away from Holmes on Homes and get him to actually pay attention to whatever it is that I'm trying to talk to him about.

Another thing I've noticed that sometimes women do, which was definitely echoed on Sex and the City, is blame their single status on their "independence" and "success." For example, I have had women on numerous occasions say to me: "Men just don't want to date me because they are too intimidated of me and my career" or "My independence scares people away."

First of all, if I'm in a relationship when you say that to me, that signals to ME that MY career is not at ALL intimidating. That I am just unsuccessful enough that men will still date me. Lucky me!! Thanks!! I'm so glad I'm so needy and dependent on a man in my life so I don't scare them away with my self-sufficiency!

I am glad you basically went out of your way to try and make me feel shitty about myself in order to reassure yourself. That was awesome.

Also, let's be honest--your job is not why men won't date you. If it is, it's because you are annoyingly consumed with your job and it's off-putting in some way. Or you made them feel uncomfortable by asserting how awesome and successful and independent you are. Here's the thing, I don't think that makes the men feel emasculated--that makes you look kind of full of yourself.

And no one likes that.

Apparently Republicans are mean

2010-01-27T18:36:00.004-06:00

Constantly, constantly I feel defensive about my Republican ties. I'm just sick of being swept up in the widely accepted stereotype that Republicans are hard-hearted a-holes who don't understand, who don't care.

Oh you got me, my liberal friends! I definitely don't care about the men, women and children living in poverty. I don't care about those Americans with developmental disabilities. The elderly. Can't pay for your medical treatment? Well get a job deadbeat. Pull yourself up by your boot strings. Screw you, environment! I can't wait to drill the hell out of the Alaskan wilderness for some liquid gold! I'm going to go kick a puppy now and later I'll spend some time counting my money and bitching about illegal immigration. Of course, yes, that is exactly what I am thinking.

Naturally this post (and my irritation) was instigated by something. A recent column in the Sun-Times included these statements from the director of Misericordia, a Chicago facility that provides all manner of support to children and adults with developmental disabilities.

"I think what's happening at Misericordia should be happening not only in the state of Illinois but throughout the whole country," she said. "We're a human service. Sometimes I get nervous when government people are talking and they never mention human services . . . If you can judge a country or state by how they treat their most vulnerable people, we have to look at that seriously. Misericordia could be a witness to the country of what can happen when people come together to make a difference."

Valid.

The columnist's response:

She brings up a vital, overlooked point. We're so terrified by the economic downtown, and so convinced by our Republican friends that government is evil, that taxes are wasteful evil, and that human services are wasteful evil bestowed on the undeserving, we forget that every state and every county and every city and every town in this country is full of people who need a little help, or a lot of help.

WTF? Why you gotta go there?

First of all, we live in Illinois. Although some people are running around saying that the era of Democrat political dominance may be shuddering to a halt, we live in the land of Barack. Um, Republicans haven't convinced anyone in Illinois of anything in quite some time. If we had, maybe we wouldn't boast a state debt that has exceeded $10 billion, and budget problems that rank among the worst in the nation. Oh, and Blagojevich. We wouldn't have Blagojevich. But I digress.

"I was elected. Twice!"

But, really? Is that what most Republicans are saying? I mean. I don't know a whole lot of Republicans who say government is evil. That taxes are evil. That human services are a wasteful evil. I mean, give me a BREAK.

Maybe I've been known to comment that we should really consider how we spend our tax dollars. That we should spend within our means. Implement changes that could streamline government and reduce our overhead.

That in certain situations and circumstances our government--as much of a well-oiled, faultless machine as it may be (...)---shouldn't be involved so intimately in our lives.

That throwing money at the problem may not necessarily be the answer, if you don't implement some type of system of oversight and reform.

That if we are going to finance expensive, expansive government programs, we should make sure we are implementing the program in a way that is the most effective and economical.

That before we dedicate billions of dollars to any government program our government leaders have an obligation to take their time and consider all the pros and cons. To really have a grasp of how the program will impact our nation now, but how it will impact our nation in the future.

I mean, maybe that makes me a big unfeeling jerk, but I just kind of consider it commonsense.

Of course no one cares that a bunch of Republicans are being stigmatized and stereotyped, and I don't blame you. But I do get kind of huffy about being lumped in with all the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world. And I think it's completely disingenuous to say that Republicans believe--and are trying to advance the notion--that "human services are a wasteful evil bestowed on the undeserving." Yikes.

There are plenty of other groups in this world who would get their panties in a bunch if you assumed the actions and statements made by certain individuals or subsets should be applied to the collective whole, so I feel that my indignation is completely valid.

You know, I shake my head when all my wacky Republican friends spout off about the "liberal media," but I have to say it's comments like that one that reinforces their paranoia.

Innocent until proven guilty...or not

2010-01-26T18:57:00.000-06:00

You know what’s interesting? How people assume vehement denial is compelling evidence of guilt.

Here’s the thing. I do understand where people are coming from on this one. I suppose if someone gets irrationally defensive when confronted, that does seem indicative of a guilty conscience. However, you know how I react when someone accuses me of something I didn’t do?

I vehemently deny any guilt and get pissed off.

I hear this all the time. “Well he/she just got so angry and defensive, I knew something had to be up.”

Really? Because in a previous life I was in a relationship where I was constantly being accused of cheating. Was I? NO. How did I react? Not well.

It wasn't me

At first I’d try to laugh it off, but that didn’t work.

I’d try to reason with him. Not effective.

What was effective? Freaking the fuck out on him, getting all pissed off and insisting I didn't do anything, and then declaring he was a "psycho."

Here's the thing, people don't like to be accused of anything. Just because they are innocent doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is going to passively accept accusations of guilt. In fact, personally I get about 10 times more aggravated when I'm accused of doing something I didn't do.

If I'm guilty I mainly just inwardly swear, compose myself and then start lying.

It's something to think about, anyway.

Wait. We are not related.

2010-01-26T09:04:00.000-06:00

You know what I think is sweet, but also super weird? How Italian Americans will randomly refer to their friends as family members. Maybe other groups do this, but I've only experienced it with Italians.

It's basically the most confusing thing ever. When I was dating my ex-boyfriend I'd be introduced to "cousins," who would introduce me to "brothers" and "nephews." Were they related? NO. Did I assume they were for, in some cases, years? YES.

When I questioned Tony about this he really couldn't explain why, he simply stated that it was an "Italian thing." Well obviously, because while I love my BFF I don't randomly walk around and tell people she's my COUSIN. Because she's NOT.

I was reminded about this today when I was listening to Howard Stern and next month's Miss Howard T.V. (...) was talking about her "sister." Naturally Howard has a lot of inappropriate questions to ask about the sister, at which point it is inevitably is revealed that the girl is not in fact her sister, but is her best friend. When asked why she refers to the girl as her sister, her response: "It's just easier that way."

Really?

Because in my opinion that adds unnecessary complications, particularly when people start to figure out that you are in no way related and question why you unnecessarily referred to her as your sister instead of simply saying, "This is my best friend." I've never found that to be particularly difficult.

Me: This is my friend, Beth.

Other Person: Oh, nice to meet you Beth.

Beth: Nice to meet you.

That's how it goes. Not:

Me: This is my friend, Beth.

Other Person: Oh, really? I just naturally assumed she was your sister.

Me: Oh, nope, just a friend!

Other Person: Are you sure? I really think she's probably definitely your sister. Or maybe a cousin.

That pretty much never happens.

Juror Number 2

2010-01-25T17:50:00.002-06:00

So recently I got called in for jury duty, which I was initially kind of excited for because I'm an enormous tool. I've always wondered what it was like to be on a jury that has to consider a really high-profile crime. I read The Runaway Jury. I know what's up.

Anyway, naturally I did not get placed on a high profile case. Instead I was to consider an alleged retail theft where the defendant allegedly walked into County Market, walked to the liquor aisle, removed a case of beer, then walked out, got in his car and left.

When the attorneys began to lay out the case my initial reaction was, "um, how did this even get to this point?" Not only were we all wasting a ton of time over a case of beer, but the prosecution had a store video tape of the entire theft, there was an eyewitness who had gone to high school with the defendant and identified him as the person who walked out of the store. Oh, and the parking lot camera showed someone get into the car registered to him and drive away. So initially I was like, "how the eff are they going to prove he DIDN'T do that. OB-viously he's super guilty." (worst. juror. ever.)

Apparently the state's attorney must have figured I would be like that, because naturally I was picked to be on the jury. At that time my excitement was replaced with irritation at being selected because I had a brutal head cold and just wanted to curl up at home and be miserable. I did not want to go sit inside the Sangamon County courthouse and decide whether or not some dude stole a case of beer from a local grocery store. Because let's all be honest here, I could care less whether or not he stole a case of beer from County Market. It's built into their overhead. Whatever. However, it quickly became obvious that it was a great opportunity to observe idiots of their respective comfort zones and in a position of (questionable) power.

Summary: This was the perfect setting for people to be really obnoxious. And since everyone was being their perfect selves, there were the 2 or 3 jurors who kept interjecting with completely erroneous commentary and observations.

This one guy was all hung up by the fact that when the defendant walked out of the store there appeared to be a receipt in his hand. So that juror kept interrupting everyone to say, "I'M NOT CONVINCED HE DIDN'T PAY FOR THE DAMN BEER." I was like, "DUDE WE HAVE THE WHOLE TAPE OF HIS EVERY MOVE. HE WAS IN AND OUT OF THE STORE IN 1 MINUTE AND 32 SECONDS. HE DIDN'T PAY FOR THE FREAKING BEER."

Let's put this in perspective. It's a case about stolen beer. The cops and County Market aren't going to edit the video of him paying for the beer just to unnecessarily convict someone of retail theft. This isn't OJ, man. No one is out to "get him." But for some reason everyone wanted to talk about the mystery receipt for, like, 25 minutes.

Then this lab tech worker from Auburn was incredibly vocal and kept interjecting to share her point of view and talking over everyone. However, she kept saying things like, "You could tell he looked shifty when he walked into the store--you could TELL he was going to STEAL something," or "It looks like he's wearing a big suit in the courtroom to disguise himself!" She annoyed the shit out of me.

Give me a break. The guy was wasted, walked into County Market, took a case of beer and walked out. I'm guessing he didn't even think about it because he was drunk or something. He didn't have some MASTER PLAN, aside from his determination to obtain a case of Bud Light, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten into a car that's 1. registered to him and 2. HAS HIS NAME ON THE LICENSE PLATE. Idiot.

At any rate, unexpectedly we, the jury, ultimately found him "Not Guilty," not because we didn't all think he most likely DID take a case of beer from County Market, but because it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The poor state's attorney looked like he was about 12, and I thought he was going to cry when the verdict was returned.

I'm sure the defendant and his lawyer were thinking, "You SMUCKS, his face is RIGHT THERE, on the VIDEO TAPE." But you really couldn't definitively say it was him from the video footage. And it was just a case of beer. I mean. Boo-hoo, County Market. But it did take about an hour and a half of deliberations .I can't imagine being on a REAL case where someone was stabbed or murdered or something. Yikes.

Oh, and the defendents' ex-wife (who we all agreed wasn't a very credible witness). She testified that his son, his friend "Marcus," and "other people" used his car all the time. Which I believed. So I don't know, I just kind of thought, what if it's this guy's kid, or his cousin or someone who justifiably looks like him? Even though it seems likely that it's him, I'm not going to find this guy guilty and cause him a huge headache over a case of beer. REASONABLE DOUBT.

So ultimately we were all annoyed because we really did think it probably was him, but we all felt enough doubt that we weren't comfortable finding him guilty. And it was over a case of beer, so we weren't letting an alleged rapist out to wander the streets or something (*crossing fingers*).

I can't wait for the next two years to go by so I can be on jury duty AGAIN.

Why are hoarders so messy?

2009-12-10T15:10:00.000-06:00

Hoarding is a simultaneously interesting/horrifying concept.

My best friend posted a blog about hoarders not too long ago, which I would like to link to because it was hilarious. Unfortunately, the blog had to be discontinued so I can't do that (RIP Faux Trixie).

Basically, the crux of her blog was that hoarding mind-boggling. Agreed! That said, whenever I watch Hoarders on A & E, the thing I want to know is: Why are hoarders so messy and dirty?

Like...okay, so you need to collect stuff and/or you can't part with your possessions. In a way, that does make sense to me.

But why do you need to just throw everything on the floor? Or let it accumulate on the couch or on the floor of the kids' bedrooms? Why do you not clean the 987897 dishes in the sink or resting on the counter? What does that have to do with hoarding?

I'm not trying to be an asshole. I just wonder if that is part of their hoarding compulsion. Maybe they just get so overwhelmed with all their crap they just set it down wherever. But why couldn't they buy shelves to display all their collectibles or rotted pumpkins or whatever? Or maybe some Rubbermaid containers where they could stow everything away, so it's not just on the floor or spilling out all over the place.

See? This is how I would hoard shit.

It seems that a serious part of the issue is that they need to have their stuff around them and they can't part with it. But wouldn't they feel better knowing that it's okay and resting on their shelving unit?

**I want to note that when I looked up "hoarding" on bing.com, I was struck by the fact that a majority of the photographs depicted homes and rooms that resembled Patrick's basement prior to the time I took up residence. Sca-ry.

Nice things people do (that are actually annoying)

2009-12-09T08:45:00.002-06:00

Look, I know you are just trying to be nice. But if I am more than 7 feet from the door you are holding open from me, just don't worry about it. It actually increases my inconvenience because now I have to awkwardly shuffle more quickly toward the door so as not to further inconvenience you. That is not helpful. In fact I'd prefer you to just not have held the door in the first place, because now I have to engage with you at some level and it's not even 8:30 yet and I just really am not up to interacting right now.

Also, I have noticed that these door holders occasionally act put out if I don't move quickly enough to the proffered door. Um, no. That was YOUR choice. I was just ambling toward the door at my normal pace when you decided to be "nice" and hold the door open without any encouragement or solicitation on my part. If you are going to initiate the door holding to begin with, don't act like a martyr about it.

**This happened to me AGAIN in the evening, only this time the guy started when I was at LEAST 15 feet away and actually exhaled in an irritated manner when I didn't get there quickly enough even though I started trotting towards the door. THAT'S NOT CHRISTMAS-Y.

No, I do not want to go to Cape Town

2009-11-18T16:45:00.009-06:00

Okay, if you know me at all, you know I do not want to go to Africa. Actually that is not quite true. I would LOVE to go to Africa if it wasn't so dangerous because it is filled with insects, animals, terrain and climate that can easily kill you.

Everyone is always telling me how awesome Africa is and how I should go there, and then they make me feel guilty when I don't express immediate excitement about doing that. You know what. No. I don't want to. Maybe I AM an asshole, but don't try and convince me that I would love to go on a safari. You know, I think dangerous wild animals can be pretty cute and I would love to see some in this capacity:

Dreaming about this, undoubtedly

You know what that sounds good until this happens. Or this. Or this.

I will state for the record that I feel the exact same way about South America, Central America, the Middle East, certain parts of Florida/Louisiana/Texas, as well as Detroit and specific areas of most Metropolitan areas. (**ALSO: Arkansas!! Forgot the first time. Don't want to go there. Ever.)

Sorry, walking around in a volatile environment doesn't sound fun to me.

I feel the same way about scuba diving. Fuck. No. I get that the ocean is majestic and that YOU want to go gawk at the coral and get up close and personal manta rays, but I don't. I like to sit beside the ocean and frolic in the surf. I like to observe it's beauty from the sand or from the balcony of my four star hotel.

Why? Because the ocean is filled with crazy shit. Not only do we have no idea what is lurking in the depths of the ocean, have you seen some of the things we do know about?

HOLY SHIT IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A SCIENCE FICTION NIGHTMARE.

Just knowing something like this exists is blowing my mind.

Also, what about this:

Umm, nice try, Pat. You'll never get me down there.

Another thing that people always say they want to do that I have no interest in: Hot air balloon ride.

So, I agree it looks pretty. However, it also looks unsubstantial. What if the fire thingy gets out of control?

This did not have a good outcome.

I'm not getting in that thing. Much like Falcon, I would also hide in the attic if someone suggested we take a hot air balloon ride.

Not only does it seem dangerous--um, boorrrinnggg. I would be up there for 10 minutes and then start thinking, "So much scenery. When can I come down? What am I supposed to do? Is there something to drink? Should I drink?" So many conflicting emotions.

And these are just a couple of examples of things that I have no interest in doing, that for some reason people get all judgey. Um, why do you care? Does it impact your life if I choose to be sheltered in some very specific and--in my opinion--semi-valid ways. You know what, maybe I am missing out because I'm a huge pussy, but that's really more MY problem than it is YOUR problem. So sorry I'm irrational.

[You do realize that I'm now going to drown in my bathtub, or be suffocated by a kitten sleeping on my face, or be the first homicide victim in 100 years in America's safest town, or something.]

This may or may not be the face of an a-hole

2009-11-09T13:14:00.019-06:00

Sooo, Selma has a lot of personality. Naturally we love her and dote on her, and I suspect her coddling was going on loooonnnggg before I came into the picture, thus why she is barely controllable and pays absolutely no attention to instruction or discipline.

When you consider her wayward personality, combined with her willfullness and lack of any sort of serious repercussions for her actions, you get a bad dog. I mean, a loving, joyous dog who just wants to force love on you, but a bad dog nonetheless.

So, recently we took Selma to get a personality test because we may have to board her while we gone on a mini-trip. This posing a huge issue because 1. Patrick really internalizes her feelings of insecurity and sadness and wants to board her at the doggie Four Seasons, and 2. because Selma is so neurotic I'm afraid she's going to come home and punish us all by ripping our new trim off the wall and demolishing our new french doors.

[This happened before when Pat and I started dating. It was a very expensive manifestation of her insecurity, since we had to replace two custom order french doors. The cost only went up when we had to purchase the doggie Prozac that we dosed her with for a year in an attempt to "mellow her out."]

That said, our car is full, and we can't fit her in there, so today Pat and I took her out to a possible boarding facility to get her personality tested. I suspected before this even happened that the experience would be embarrassing because Selma is aggressively dominant when it comes to other dogs. [Actually she is also mortifyingly shitty when it comes to our neighbors (sorry Kelly and company!).

She was particularly mean to the bearded fellow who used to live in the white house next door. He was terrified of her and needless to say it caused some tension. But, anyway, it's some innate animal behavior territory I-Don't-Know-What, but she's all snarly and assholey to the neighbors.]

Needless to say we took her to the facility and it took less than 10 minutes for them to determine that she's a huge asshole who can't place nice. The weimaraner who they tried to introduce her was loving and friendly, but Selma was having none of it. Pat and I hid in the other room and cringed as we heard the facility owner yell "SELMA NO."

Over. And. Over.

She also took a huge dump in the middle of the floor, which I was also slightly embarrassed about because I feel that in some way that only adds to the perception that we are barely competent as dog owners. Thus, REJECTED. Sigh, so now it's likely that she's going to have to go to dog penitentiary for a couple days. It's literally a four by four cell.

Pat's horrified because in addition to the space constraints, you know what they don't have there?

The dog water fountain: This is what Selma drinks out of.

Patrick bought it because he thought she should have filtered water. Obviously I shouldn't even have to say this, but most the time WE don't have filtered water. We could if we weren't too lazy to fill up the Brita pitcher, but that's neither here nor there. The dog water fountain is ridiculous. And naturally she is all about it--except for a couple instances where she has opted for the toilet instead of the dog water fountain, which was awesome in it's irony.

Selma is going to be roughing it hard core.

You know what they are also not going to do for her in the dog clink? Tuck her in at night. Give her 657487 treats. Tell her how awesome she is all the time.

So, while we are sad for Selma, I think this is a lesson that we can all learn from: If you do not play nice with strangers there will be backlash.

Wow, you like blogs

2009-11-06T16:50:00.000-06:00

You know what I find interesting? When I randomly stumble onto someone's blog site and they have posted a list of all 9878687908098 blogs they "love". Really? You really visit ALL those blogs on a semi-regular basis? I call bullshit. If that was the case, when would have time to work, eat, go to happy hour or watch reality television? THERE IS NO WAY. I'm on to you. Liar.

Maxi dresses aren't made of gold

2009-11-06T16:45:00.002-06:00

Dear Macy's, I'm annoyed that today whilst browsing I came across a $95, no-lable, rayon/poly maxi dress. There was no lining. It wasn't some expensive brand, that even though it's ridiculous, it would make a little more sense as to why a FUNNEL OF NON-CLINGING CLOTH is almost $100.

This is ridiculous. I heart me some maxi-dresses. I got one at Bogart's when I was in college and I still wear the shit out of it. I like shapeless, form-hiding garments. But I've noticed that these maxi-dresses are kind of expensive considering I find it really hard to believe that they were in any way difficult or expensive to make and produce, and I think that's bogus. Amy

Instead of being an asshole, formulate your question better

2009-11-05T23:00:00.001-06:00

I've noticed something that some of my least favorite people do (thus contributing to the many factors that make them my least favorite people) that really annoys me.

Okay, they will approach me with a question. Because they don't have a firm grasp of what it is they are asking and/or the implication of their inquiry, I am confused.

I then ask them to clarify what they are asking me, encouraging a more succinct explanation of their question. It is at this point that the questioner, because he/she is incredibly arrogant and douchey, will then act as though I'M incredibly stupid for not understanding the question.

He/She will then proceed to repeat the same ill-formed question in a really exxxaaggeerrratteeddd way, in an attempt to make ME feel stupid for not being able to read their mind and instinctively formulate the answer to their query.

You know what? Then don't ask me your fucking question. Sorry it takes me longer than 2.2 seconds to process what it is that you are asking me. If you're so smart, then you should have figured it out yourself instead of bothering me with a confusing question and then offending me by acting frustrated by my inability to immediately respond with the world's most perfect answer.

Another thing I don't like is when I say something and then in the next breath the person I'm talking to will repeat what I've just said as though it's a brilliant insight. And I'm like, "yes. exactly. Like what I just said to you."

WTF?

This happens to me ALL the time. I've found that this is about 99.9 percent more likely to happen during conversations I'm having with men. Here is a tip: Instead of blanking out during what I'm saying because you're impatiently waiting for your turn to open your pie hole, actually LISTEN to what I'm saying. I may actually be saying something relevant and/or compelling.

I am delicate. ALSO: Murphy's Law at play...

2009-08-20T15:05:00.013-05:00

I apparently drank too much last night, because I woke up with a terrible hangover. This is happening with increasing frequency as I get older. Not only are the hangovers--as promised by my older, more worldly friends--more horrible, but I've also noticed that I can't predict how I'm going to feel the next day. Used to I could definitely go to bed knowing that I would either be 1. fine or 2. a trainwreck. It was pretty easy to guess how the next day would turn out. With the passage of time I've found that my hangover foresight is iffy at best. A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to drink and dish with my favorite, Irish, curly-haired person. We had a good time, drank approximately two bottles of wine over the course of 5 hours and then went to bed at a reasonable time. Inexplicably, I was sick as a dog the next day. So. Sick. Additionally, this was extremely untimely as I had several work-related obligations that I had to attend to. My constant nausea and thumping head made that virtually impossible until noon when the hangover abruptly subsided. Compare this two a week later when I had several friends over for cocktails. We drank copious amounts of Charles Shaw, other wine (red and white) and champagne. Also, I was up until at least two gabbing away. The next day I felt fine. Good, even. I was extremely productive and did not suffer, despite the fact that I know I drank significantly more on that random Tuesday at home than I did when I was in Chicago. Most recently, i.e. today, I have been bitch slapped by a massive hangover that has me feeling nauseated and head-achy ALL. DAY. LONG. In my estimation I think I drank 4 - 5 draft beers over the course of 4.5 hours. Doesn't that seem STRANGE? Why? Why am I still hungover? I drank draft Miller Light, not MOONSHINE. And, naturally, because I am oddly hungover today, it's been impossible for me to realize my goal of getting into my pajamas and curling up to watch the L Word, spending my day moving minimally and crying at the never-ending drama presented by my favorite group of fictional fancy LA lesbians. Instead I had to get up at 7 and drive Pat to the car wash to get his car detailed, before high-tailing it back to work so he could make an 8 a.m. meeting. I then attempted to sneak home to become a shell of a person. Once arriving at home I walk in to discover that although I had literally let Selma out 40 minutes prior, she had opted to crap on our kitchen floor as opposed to outside, where she was obviously supposed to. Poo and strong antibacterial cleaning products do not ease hangover symptoms. I finally was able to crawl into bed, but then after an hour I realized that I had two work-related obligations that I had to fulfill AND Pat was demanding use of the ONE remaining car. Initially I thought he could just pick me up after he was done with whatever he needed the car for, thus giving me another hour or so to try and recover. However, he wasn't going to be able to pick me back up for another four hours, so I had to immediately leave with him so he could drop me off at work so I could tackle what absolutely HAD to be done today. So after one good hour, I was dropped off at work where I quickly addressed my necessary work duties. That took me approximately an hour. Nothing else was pressing, so I was excited by the prospect that I would possibly be able to leave within the hour. One of my extremely nice co-workers tactfully noted that I obviously wasn't feeling up-to-par and offered take me home; however, I had asked one of our new interns to work on a time-consuming, annoying project for me. I had to explain to him what it is that he was supposed to do before I could leave. Naturally he was at lunch, so I had to wait until he got back to explain this to him. As I'm waiting, I get a call from someone in the car the intern was in. This person explained that the intern would be late because the driver was just involved in a low-impact car collision. Though everyone was fine, obviously filling out the necessary police report, exchanging information, insurance papers, etc. is time consuming. Eventually, Pat and the intern both get back to work. I briefly become excited, but then Pat told me that upon returning to work he had an email from his boss asking for some information that apparently befuddled Patrick. He was supposed to call me when he figured out what his boss wants. That took about 1.5 hours of waiting for Pat to get done with whatever he is doing, so I could take him to pick up his newly-detailed car so I could then go home without having to worry about later picking him up. I'm was just waiting and suffering silently when I developed hiccups for the first time in...a year? Longer? Being hungover and having the hiccups is about as shitty as you imagine it would be. Seriously, it was the longest day in recent memory. Why did all these things happen TODAY, as opposed to almost every single other day of the year when I'm NOT hungover? Oh and I finally asked Pat if he was finished, at which point he informed me that he'd been waiting on me (even though I specifically told him to call me when he was done with whatever he was looking for). Murphy's law realized!!! That said I'm really excited to curl up with my non-diet Coke, totinos pizza and bob evans mac and cheese. Yes. That is what I'm eating because I still feel like crap and it's 5:30. Four/Five. Miller. Lights.

People love their Macs

2009-07-21T19:03:00.008-05:00

I posted a Facebook status update the other day expressing my irritation with our computer. It is a Mac that Patrick insisted we get ostensibly because it is "user friendly," "won't crash" and "safer". I received a lot of feedback on this particular update, which I found interesting. So I wrote a blog. I was kind of scared to post this because I fear they will rise up and destroy me, because people who love Mac, reallllly love it. In fact, I've found that in many instances people feel more strongly about their computers than I feel about, basically...anything. I find this both hilarious and innately annoying. Here's the thing. I don't like my computer. I've had this thing for seven months and I still can't operate it with any confidence. I also have a MacBook. I don't like it either. Why? Because things are confusing and in the wrong places. Patrick told me that it would look the same, but it does not. He was misinformed or was telling me whatever it would take for me to agree to let him get this particular computer. Probably both. It is different. It does not look the same. I have to click around all over the place to find my saved Word documents, Excel files, etc. etc. Also Word doesn't look normal. It looks different and I don't like it. Why did we get Mac computers? Oh because Patrick wanted them because they are shiny and expensive. He rattled off a bunch of reasons that are probably valid, but you know that he wanted the computer because he thought it was cool in theory. He never even USES the computer except to order power tools and look up prices on fancy cars in other states that he wants to buy. I will admit that the computer hasn't crashed, but since I'm usually only use this computer to make pithy statements on Facebook, it's safe to say I'm not pushing the machine to it's limits. But at the same time, my work computer never crashes and I constantly have tons of different programs and documents open all the time. So I don't have that complaint. Additionally, my identity hasn't been stolen since getting the Mac but then again the only time my identity was truly in jeopardy was when I actually responded to a hacker inquiry by giving them my social security number. Oops. (Yes, I am a dumbass. It took me approximately 7 seconds after I hit send to realize that there is no way Bank of America would send me an email asking me for my SSN. I immediately contacted the proper authorities and to date no one as assumed my identity. Yay!). At any rate, my main beef is that everyone rambles on and on about how awesome and easy to use their Mac is. Well, I don't think it is. Sorry. I use a non-Mac computer every day. I use a multitude of different computer programs. I'm not computer illiterate. I'm certainly not a computer GENIUS, but by and large I can figure out my way around my Dell with no problem. There IS a difference between Macs and non-Macs. That difference is I don't know what I'm doing when I'm using my Mac, and since I am not trying to do a lot, I have come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with that. Case in point, I've never had to refer to any DIRECTIONS to know how to access something on a non-Mac. It's very commonsense. I know exactly where everything is, and it didn't take me a six month learning curve to figure it out. But really? This all goes back to: I don't WANT to figure this out. I don't WANT to learn how to use the computer. I want to KNOW what I am doing so I don't get frustrated and annoyed. This all said, this post is pointless. Basically, this was just me providing myself with an opportunity to be annoyed that it occasionally takes me more than .5 seconds to find what I'm looking for when using my computer.

Thanks for your help. Not

2009-07-13T19:17:00.002-05:00

So the end of my walk with Selma, which was relatively uneventful, ended on a sour note. A women was walking her two, not cute dogs. I had seen them walking on the other side of the street, because the one dog was straining at the leash and dragging her along and she was a very unpleasant looking person. In my world this means that 1. her dog is a rogue and things could get very ugly if it interacts with Selma (who is a bully and an asshole) and 2. if that happened it'd probably be really bad because she doesn't look like the type to shrug that situation off. After assessing the situation, I tried to walk as quickly as possible to avoid the woman. Though she usually only goes into full stroke-out mode around cats, I never know what will set Selma off and I didn't want to deal with her embarrassing reaction which involves whining, barking, growling aggressively and straining at the leash, while I try and hold her back, while I commandingly say, "Stop. NO. BAD SELMA. NO." Naturally, Selma sensed my discomfort, and even though I had managed to put a good 20 feet between me and the woman and her two dogs, Selma still started freaking out. We went through her normal schizo routine, with her pulling me back and she bopped around in a frenzy of excitement. Well, as this is happening, even though it is her dogs that my dog is obviously freaking out about, the woman continues to keep up her quick pace behind us. And I'm thinking, "hey, lady, slow the eff down so I can distract her and get around the corner. Don't RACE to meet up with me. My dog will kick your dogs' asses. It will be unpleasant for everyone." Like, in the rare instances where it isn't my dog that is being an asshole, I will slow down and let the barky dog go ahead of me and get calmed down to avoid any negative interaction. I don't purposely walk up to it with my dog to further agitate it. Idiot. So I finally reached the corner to my street. I was walking in the street, while the woman was walking on the sidewalk. I had purposely done this in hopes that this would put even more distance between the woman and her dogs. Of course, this did not work in the way that I hoped. Even though I was obviously trying to turn the corner and make a break for it so my dog would calm down and stop barking at her like an asshole, what does she do? She decided to launch herself into the street so it's even more difficult for me to drag the dog away because she is standing between us and the direction we are headed. So she's right there and I'm in the street as Selma is freaking out. So then I get annoyed because she has made the whole situation even worse, and in my opinion didn't show particularly good judgment. So I say, "Maybe you should just wait and I'll get her away." So she finally stops and lets me pass, but when I get 10 feet away she then she decided to weigh in and tell me that I should "yank" the leash and tell her "no" and say her name. Naturally I'm frazzled from the dog, annoyed, and I'm having none of it. I turn on her. I was like, "um, do you really think I've never done that?" Really. Because that's OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST THING I DO. and have always done. Sorry I inherited a dog that was spoiled and pampered and allowed to run rampant, and as a sad commentary to how terrible she used to act, she's actually MUCH better now (tear). I was so annoyed. I mean, sorry my dog was barking aggressively at your dogs, but really? Exercise commonsense. When dogs bark aggressively at me I purposely do all I can to AVOID interaction. Not force it.

2009-06-11T15:31:00.008-05:00

Let me just tell you about how much I do not care about the “clout list” at U of I. I love how all these politicians are really getting on the horn about addressing this “issue”. My feeling about this fucking clout list is: who gives a shit. You know what? ADDRESS THE STATE’S NON-EXISTENT BUDGET AND MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT. First of all, let’s think about some of the most prestigious universities in the United States, which I’d say include Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, University of Chicago, etc. etc. Obviously the vast majority of the students who attend these schools are intelligent. However, I’m also guessing that some (most? many?) of the students who are admitted come from good, wealthy, influential families. I’m guessing that they aren't all dumb, but that their admission to these schools is anted up by the fact that their mommies and daddies are incredibly wealthy and contribute a lot to these schools (Hi, G-Dub???) not only financially, but in terms of exposure, prestige, power, etc. These contributions enable these schools to attract and retain the notable professors and administrators that entice the best and the brightest students to apply and subsequently matriculate there. Now, I get these are private schools, but I don’t see what the big deal is for public schools to operate the same way. Taxpayer dollars, yeah yeah. Whatever. As a U of I graduate, as far as I’m concerned, if there are athletes with a 19 ACT and a C grade point average getting in, and affirmative action is ushering in students with less than stellar grades and test scores, then an A student with a 28 ACT whose parents ask their state lawmaker to call and inquire about why their seemingly bright kid didn’t get in, which could possibly get them on a list to be considered, well, that doesn’t bother me. If the affirmative action kids and the athletes are going to get in, then I don’t care if a rich kid with enterprising parents finagles his or her way into U of I. In the same way that a star athlete benefits the school in ways that aren’t academic, a rich kid with a love for his or her Alma mater may also benefit the school through donations, publicity, etc. etc. But aside from the fact that I’m apparently shady and don’t see what the big deal is with using influence as a means to an end (I’ve been apparently hanging around with too many Chicago politicians), I just don’t get why this is so SHOCKING. Get real, people. You mean you didn’t just ASSUME this was going on? WE LIVE IN ILLINOIS. Our former governor tried to strong-arm a children's hospital. ... And aside from that, the world revolves around people twisting arms, using influence and dumb rich/influential people getting ahead while hardworking, intelligent, low-income people have to scramble just to get by. Of course this isn’t right, but it is reality. Why is every really so taken aback?

Stop passing the buck

2009-06-08T22:06:00.008-05:00

Illinois is in a state of disarray. I hope you know this, but you probably don't which is really what prompted me to write this blog in the first place.

I'm getting really sick and tired of the state's editorial boards, letters to the editor, columnists, etc. who have been encouraging the public to "keep on top of the lawmakers!" to ensure the people aren't further disenfranchised by the shady politicians in Springfield who are frivolously spending their money, and who are romping unchecked through the Statehouse spending, spending, spending.

You know what I say? THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS. THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO OVERWHELMINGLY RE-ELECTED ROD BLAGOJEVICH IN 2006, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD DONE MOST OF THE SHADY SHIT THAT ULTIMATELY GOT HIM KICKED OUT OF OFFICE PRIOR TO THAT ELECTION.

You know what I want to tell the editorial boards? I don't feel one bit bad for the people of Illinois. We all have to take ownership over the position that we are in. We choose the people that are elected to office. I voted for Bush. I take ownership for that. He did not make good choices. I thought September 11 threw him off, but really it was his bloodlust for Iraq. And possibly a low I.Q. But I digress.

Similarly, the people of Illinois overwhelming elected Rod Blagojevich and the Democrat majority who helped him drive Illinois into the ground. TWICE. They should be encouraged to take ownership of that, and actually do some research into who they are electing. Demand more from their leaders. Become invested in "the process"--NOT encouraged to point fingers and place blame.

Eff you, Illinoisans. You brought upon your "disenfranchisement" because you paid no attention to what is actually going on in Illinois, fell in love with Barack Obama and decided that you heart Democrats because they seem nicer and more lovable than Republicans. You did no research, you voted a straight Democrat ticket, and re-elected the incumbents who were part of the problem.

HAVE FUN WHEN YOUR INCOME TAXES GO UP FIFTY PERCENT. And since businesses, small and large, will likely see their taxes increase too, have fun purchasing...anything. They are just going to pass those costs on to the people of Illinois--or lay off workers and reduce benefits, which is awesome in a recession. Oh, and then when they slap you with that service tax they've been floating, good luck with that. Everything is going to be more expensive for YOU.

The people chose who they wanted to represent them, and they got what they deserve. For all the crazy shit that has been going on in Springfield, it's the people who have ultimately permitted the shenanigans to continue. Either by re-electing the most serious offenders, or through their obvious disinterest and ambivalence--which gives these elected officials the confidence to continue doing the very things that these editorial boards and columnists are complaining about.

Take some ownership. You may be disgusted, but becoming disengaged certainly isn't going to do anything to solve the problem. Stop passing the buck.

Pre-teen academic celebrations are stupid

2009-05-30T09:53:00.001-05:00

You know what's stupid? 8th Grade graduation. Um, you still have to go to school next year, idiots. What are you celebrating?

O.M.G.

2009-04-29T16:50:00.002-05:00

Holy shit, Pam Anderson. WTF is going on with your face?

Excuse me, butt no

2009-04-29T15:13:00.003-05:00

Dear Kim Kardashian, We refuse to believe that you are a size 2. Sincerely, Everyone

J.Crew is expensive

2009-04-24T15:08:00.002-05:00

Okay, I like Michelle Obama a LOT. I watched her addressing small children this morning and she was so sweet that it made me cry (because I'm fucking ridiculous). However, I am really annoyed by this whole furor over her apparel choices, and how "down-to-earth" she is because she wears J.Crew. Now, I used to like J.Crew but I've been anti-J.Crew for the last couple years because it's ridiculously and unnecessarily EXPENSIVE. Seriously. There are $210+ eyelet dresses for sale on J.Crew. That's ridiculous. Or this. Or this?? I seriously stroke out over this shit because it's so ridiculous and for some reason I take it personally. Okay, the outfit that she wore on Leno cost $338. I'm sorry, but a cardigan, a top, and a skirt for the average citizen does NOT cost that much. That is a LOT of money. And then people stroked out over that cardigan she wore in London. Um, that cardigan costs $298. Hello, our income far exceeds to median income for American households and I cannot IMAGINE purchasing a $298 CARDIGAN. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that is normal. And the thing is, she's the FIRST LADY. She obviously is supposed to look beautiful and put together, so it makes sense that she would be wearing a $298 cardigan. If I was on Jay Leno I'm sure I'd wear a $338 outfit, too. However, don't tell me how "in touch" Michelle Obama is with the average person based on her desire to rock J.Crew clothing, because while most people have probably HEARD of J.Crew, I'm guessing most people can't relate to a reality where you purchase a $298 cardigan.

Thank you Orange County

2009-04-23T19:39:00.003-05:00

So far, Orange County spawned two of my favorite guilty pleasures, both of which are reality television phenomenons: The Hills and The Real Housewives of Orange County (or as I like to refer to it TRHOC). Tonight, however, I'd like to briefly focus on The Hills and give props to LC who impressed me numerous times when catching up on the new season's first three episodes. Now, most people wouldn't assume that LC would be hardcore, but she kind of is because she basically just says whatever she thinks, but still is relatively nice about it. She just lays shit on the line and is like, "so there" and then just shrugs. She doesn't care. Look at Heidi. Heidi did her dirty so she turned all their mutual friends against, and now Heidi is clamoring to be accepted in the inner circle, which LC is clearly not having. Additionally, LC's not taking any shit anymore, as evidenced when she basically went off on Stephanie for bringing Heidi to her birthday party to begin with (so justified). Stephanie, stop trying to make her be friends with Heidi. LC doesn't want to be friends with Heidi and I'm getting the impression that I'm not the only one that thinks it's kind of weird that Stephanie is so invested in reigniting the tumultuous and emotionally draining relationship. Give me a break. At any rate, the highlight of the first season for me was when LC walked up to Lo and Stephanie at her own birthday party which creepy, doe-eyed Heidi crashed and asked, "So who invited Heidi to my party?" To which shady/weird Stephenie responded, "Lo..." and LC looked at her and said, "I know Lo didn't invited her. I was just being nice." Passive aggressiveness at it's finest! Love it. I laughed almost as hard as the conversation between Heido and Lo, whereby Lo basically told Heidi that she needs to move on and as the camera panned away Lo's face was so filled with exasperation and incredulity that someone could be that...pathetic. She would probably flash the same look if she saw that I actually took time to write such an inane blog. Don't judge.

Laws are disturbing

2009-03-26T16:16:00.003-06:00

Usually I find myself thinking, "God, there are so many laws, do Illinois lawmakers REALLY need to introduce 6,500+ new ones?" The reality is that often, no, they probably don't. But what's really disturbing is when I come across a bill and think, "holy shit, up until this point no one thought it was necessary to create a law discouraging and/or preventing people from doing this. So this has just been going on. Unchallenged. Oops."

Twitter this

2009-03-26T12:55:00.007-06:00

So at work we’ve been making significant strides into the world of multimedia and social networking—trying to find new, innovative ways to both connect our senators with the public and maximize their exposure. It’s hard to tell how successful we’ve been (though hopefully we’ve been at least moderately successful), but I think that it’s obvious that social networking, “twittering,” blogging, etc. is the up-and-coming mode of communication.

On Wednesday I went to a presentation specifically focused on how to utilize Facebook and Twitter in the political/legislative realm. I’m not sure I actually learned anything new, but simply attending the presentation filled me with a sense of productivity and initiative.

The presentation moderator explained that on Capitol Hill, congressmen and women are constantly “tweeting” and Facebooking as a way to stay in touch with their constituents back home. She mentioned that during both Barack Obama’s inauguration and the non-State of the Union, members of Congress were feverishly crouched over their Blackberries and iPhone’s twittering away, capturing the moment 140 characters at a time.

At first I thought, wow that is really cool. What an interesting way to convey a unique and timely perspective. However, my initial reaction quickly segued into: How sad. Really. The first African American President of our country is being sworn into office ( and regardless of your political affiliation, that’s an undeniably momentous occasion) or preparing to address Congress and the United States’ public on the state of our union—which is obviously in crisis—and our federal representatives are twittering their faces off.

Could they really be absorbing the moment? Truly taking in what is going on around them? I find that hard to believe.

Obviously I love my social networking. I think it’s great. I like to read what my friends are doing or thinking at any given time. I like to see what people I haven’t seen in 15 to 20 years are up to. I like to post hilarious and inappropriate pictures of myself and my friends (but I've had to stop because of the annoying influx of work colleagues and professional superiors to Facebook).

But I think there is a fine line between utilizing these services in a positive way and letting these services consume our lives. I’ve been known to take pictures with friends and jokingly comment, “That’s a Facebook-er!” Obviously tongue-in-cheek, but still telling.

All of this is at the forefront of our minds! Don’t you find it strange that some people would first think to announce a momentous experience in their lives via Facebook? A new child? A marriage? Engagement? Significant other? New job or new home? A new pet?

It’s a great way to spread information, but is that the direction things are headed? Instead of an excited phone call to mom and dad, a “tweet” that is heavy on exclamation points?

Are we going to start judging our quality of life and inter-personal relationships by the number of Facebook “friends" we have?

I know that when e-mail and instant messenger were becoming increasing popular there was widespread concern that we would all become non-social, computer-addicted robot-people who avoided social interaction in lieu of expressionless, non-verbal communication. Needless to say that didn’t happen. Computers and the World Wide Web have enriched all of our lives, and transformed the ease in which we communicate.

But I just feel like there is something kind of depressing about this whole phenomenon.

I know I probably come off as stodgy and regressive, and I’m not. It’s just something I was thinking about.

Whoa

2009-03-26T08:30:00.000-06:00

Every now and then, because she is incredibly needy and/or possessive, Selma will stand right behind me without me realizing she is there. I will then fall backwards over her as though we are actually living in a sitcom. This just occurred.

The Real Housewives are tore up*

2009-03-22T22:03:00.001-06:00

So I'm fascinated by both of the Real Housewives of Orange County/New York City shows on Bravo. However, after watching the first season of the New York ensemble, I have to say that I think those women are pretty freakin' hard.

Honestly, as much money as they have and they still walk around looking like bag women? I don't care if you have a $150 haircut, a $1,500 hand bag or you are wearing an $8,000 dress; when your hair is stringy and nappy (probably because you have an eating disorder so you can be a size 0) and you are hoofing around like a freaking fish wife, all the class you supposedly have goes right out the window.

There is one episode where one woman's mother is sitting with her legs splayed out like a MAN during a private dress fitting where her daughter is trying on very expensive gowns. NO. My mom may be wearing Talbot's but at least she knows how to keep her knees together in public. Gross.

Additionally, their constant chatter about "society" and "money" makes me ridiculously uncomfortable. As far as I'm concerned you just do not talk about money with perfect strangers, nor do you discuss your overwhelming drive to be someone who is considered more important than everyone else around you. Apparently they are so wealthy and important that they don't even have to pretend that status isn't important to them, unlike us middle class-ers, who are expected to act disaffected and totally fine with the ho-hum place we hold in the social hierarchy.

I will say that the youngest woman, who is arguably NOT a housewife (though I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt considering the whole Jo and Slade debacle, wherein Jo was essentially just shacking up and they eventually broke up and she has gone on to be a "singer" and "entertainer") is pretty down-to-earth and has hilarious insights into the ridiculous things that the New York elite say and do.

Next week Bethenny and the new one are going to get into a pissing match. They had a minor catfight this week, so I'm excited. I've actually enjoyed Ramona a little more this season, even though she is bat-shit crazy and I believe considers herself a "cougar"--which if I ever hear someone who isn't on television use that term I'll fucking freak out.

Happy viewing!!

*I actually wrote this a year ago, but seeing as how Bravo has recently brought the Real Housewives of NYC back, I believe this is still relevant.

Work is annoying.

2009-03-01T14:00:00.001-06:00

Often I hear people I work with say, "Oh, I hate work. It's so unfulfilling. I thought I'd be doing something more worthwhile." Etc. etc.

Here's my thing: It's work. Most people don't get to work at a job that's "fun" and "fulfilling." That may be harsh, but it's true. People work to make money to buy lots of stuff they don't need, as well as a few things that they do (shelter, heat, cable television, food, etc., etc.)

I really think that people who get to work in jobs that they actually love either probably didn't really have to work to begin with, so they get to do something fun like open a boutique or volunteer and do charity fund raising or something.

OR it's someone who works their ASS off, and due to the sheer time and effort they dedicate to their job they DESERVE to love what they do. I have to say, I don't know that many people who are consistently, 24/7 working their asses off. Most people amble in, do what is required and leave as soon as possible.

Additionally, let's be real here people. It's WORK. If it was FUN and you really wanted to do it, people wouldn't PAY you to be here. I work only because I need to work to have money to live and then to do the fun things I want to do when I am not working.

Am I totally FULFILLED by my job? For the most part I like what I do. I like the people I work with. I guess I could find a job I like more, but frankly the only thing I really don't like about my job is the fact that I want to make more money, but I don't feel like I'm getting the shaft—I just am a spendthrift and like to buy stuff, and therefore would like to make more money. That's really all on me and my lack of restraint.

At any rate, I don't look to my job to fulfill me. I look to the people I associate with, my family and friends, to enrich my life.

Now that is not to say I don't get that hating your job really sucks. But as a mid-to-low level bureaucrat did you really thing you'd be blown away by the daily grind? I certainly didn't. But I'm not going to sit around and bitch and moan because my JOB isn't EXCITING.

You're a state worker, not an astronaut. Give me a break.

My kid reads good

2009-02-21T15:54:00.002-06:00

So I'm driving home and I see this soccer mom with bumper sticker plastered on the back of her SUV that says, "My Child is an Accelerated Reader at Virden Middle School." Now, I find this fascinating. We've all seen the "My Child is an Honor Student blah, blah, blah," bumper sticker, but this is a whole new benchmark of student achievement. How "accelerated" of a reader does your child have to be for you to obtain that bumper sticker? Additionally, is this necessary? I mean, if my child was an accelerated reader at...HARVARD, then sure, I guess I'd semi-permanently plaster something to that effect on the back of my vehicle. But, c'mon. It's Virden. Sorry Virden, but I went to Athens so I'm well within my right to question your accelerated reading program. Also, isn't this kind of a shaft for all the kids on the honor role? What the hell. They had the monopoly on the bumper sticker for so long, and now they apparently have some serious competition from the accelerated readers. As a former honor roll student (often HIGH or SUPERIOR honor roll student) AND lifelong accelerated reader, I don't like this.

People hate Jesus

2009-02-20T13:55:00.001-06:00

Jesus may be the son of God, but Obama wins again! Check out the results of this poll: Obama beats out Jesus as America's hero February 19, 2009 SUN-TIMES STAFF ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Americans named President Obama as their No. 1 hero, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, in a new Harris poll. Others in the top 10, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa. People were asked whom they admired enough to call their heroes. Those surveyed were not shown a list of people to choose from. The Harris Poll was conducted online among a sample of 2,634 U.S. adults by Harris Interactive. This question was first asked in a Harris Poll in 2001. In that survey Jesus Christ was the hero mentioned most often, followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa. The biggest changes upwards on this list into the top 10 since 2001, apart from Barack Obama, were: — George W. Bush was rated only 19th in July 2001, when he had been president for six months, and is now number 5 on the list. — John McCain, who was not in the top 20 in 2001, is now number 7. — Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who landed his jet safely in the Hudson River, is ranked number 9. Heroes who were in the top 10 in 2001 who have fallen sharply this year include: — Colin Powell, who was number 3 and is now number 16. — John Wayne, who was number 8 and has dropped out of the top 20. — Michael Jordan, who was number 9 and is no longer in the top 20. — Mother Teresa, who was number 5 and is now number 10. Now. I'm not particularly religious. But it's kind of scary when a human supersedes the SELF-PROCLAIMED SON OF GOD in the "hero" category. I don't dispute Barack Obama is goddamn impressive. But, like, Jesus underwent lashes and crucification, burial and (maybe? Sorry God.) resurrection for our sins so that we could all go to heaven and not burn in hell... Of course if you don't believe in Jesus...Or God...then I guess this doesn't really apply to you because you have bigger things to hash out before you and G-O-D are squared up. Also, I take issue with Captain "Sully." What he did was awesome, and I'm glad he saved all those people. But he didn't do it just out of the goodness of his HEART. He had something invested in not crashing, too. I.e., also continuing to live. So while I will give him a tip of my hat, I'm not going to say he's HERO-worthy. Well, maybe if you are a pilot. Or were on the plane. Or knew someone on that plane. Or the neighborhood where the plane could have crashed and devastated the surrounding area and people living there. Okay, maybe he is a hero.

You are not protecting me*

2009-02-16T14:33:00.003-06:00

I'm pretty sure I have previously expressed my frustrations with the Capitol police crew. Needless to say there is alot that can be said about them. One observation that immediately springs to mind is they don't actually "guard" anything. I mean, they stand around in front of metal detectors wielding guns with the pretense of authority, but would I bank on them to save my life? That was a rhetorical question, the answer to which is: No. Fucking. Way. For one, they sit so far back from the doors that anyone could come in and cap their asses before they even had time to look up from their Illinois Times. Newsflash: gun-toting crazy people with a vendetta to take out some state lawmakers/workers aren't going to submit their person to a metal detector. However, it's highly likely that they will being shooting in your direction the minute they enter the building. Secondly, today I brandished Patrick's state i.d because I forgot mine at home. I did this because I know that they don't really look at the i.d.s and I would be allowed to enter the building without a hitch. Needless to say that everyone was being their perfect selves this morning and the 19 year old guard sitting at the desk didn't question it. Now I know I don't look like a six foot tall man with facial hair and a shit-eating grin. Just because I have a little plastic card holder with some sort of i.d. in it that I confidently flash as I hurriedly enter the building, it doesn't mean that I actually work here, jackass. Thank God no one actually wants to do damage to the state Capitol or its ugly stepsister Stratton Building because they certainly could wreak some havoc without much thought or preparation. Additionally, I would like to express my frustrations with the "guards" who I have walked by almost every day for the last four years, yet still stand and accost me every time I walk in or out of the building and they can't see my i.d. This is particularly annoying when I have nothing in my hands and I'm wearing a fitted dress which makes it more than obvious that I am concealing nothing of any danger to myself or my fellow state workers. "Oh yeah, I totally have a pipe bomb stashed in the sleeve of my ¾-length black cardigan! BUSTED." Okay fuckers. I literally walked out of this building five minutes ago. You saw me come in this morning WITH my i.d. Do you really need to aggressively approach me and demand to see identification as though you seriously consider me a suspect in some ex-sorority girl state worker terrorist cell to take down Illinois state government? When I put it that way doesn't it sound ridiculous? Yes—almost as ridiculous as making me walk through a metal detector and submit to an intense "wanding" even though I have already walked by them four times with my i.d. at the ready. Also. When it is winter and I forget my i.d. but graciously submit to the metal detector without prodding, PLEASE don't pilfer through my receipt-stuffed purse or wand me. When I tell you, "it's probably my boots," and then point to my 3 inch heels, then just trust that it's the boots (particularly because we've been through this scenario UMPTEEN TIMES). *This is an old, yet still relevant, post. I am putting this up closer to the front because I still think about this at least twice a week.

NEWSFLASH

2009-02-10T15:16:00.001-06:00

Newsflash: Women don't like it when you stare at them with unwavering intensity. In fact, it makes them incredibly uncomfortable.

So if you're a dude, who stares, then stop. Because it's creepy and inappropriate.

UPDATE!!! Bicycles Aren't Cars II

2009-02-08T14:58:00.002-06:00

TThis letter was in the Chicago Sun-Times , written by Dean Schott, outreach director for the League of Illinois Bicyclists. It is annoying. I intend to let him make his point, which I will then rebut (NOTE: Rebuttals can be based solely on emotion; there is no requirement that my statements be grounded in fact):

10 paths to making bicycling safer

What you should know about roadway safety and crashes

(Excuse me, but I know what I need to know about roadway safety and crashes, which is that bicyclists wouldn't get into crashes on roads with motor vehicles if they acknowledged that two wheels and some adrenaline is no match for the power contained in a ton of metal and an engine prepared to shuttle me across terrain at upwards of 80 mph)

Here are 10 things you should know about bicycles, safety and crashes:

(NO. IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFORM TO THE NEEDS AND WANTS OF BICYCLISTS).

1. Illinois law states bicycles are legal vehicles on the road. Despite the law, some motorists insist that bicycles belong only on sidewalks or should be restricted to paths. The problem: Sidewalks and paths don't go everywhere bicyclists need to go. Bicyclists are more visible and safer, particularly at intersections, if they ride in the road.

(For some reason I was under the mistaken impression that bicyclists HAD to be in the road and it was illegal for them to be on the sidewalk. This is interesting to me. My feeling is, okay, when there isn't a sidewalk then use the road. But when there is, use the sidewalk. Unless I'm on the sidewalk, then fuck off.)

2. Helmets should be worn by children and adults to prevent or reduce injuries and save lives.

(Ummmm. no.)

3. ''Accident'' means the mishap was unavoidable, and no one was to blame. Traffic safety experts say most crashes involving motorists and bicyclists are avoidable and can be prevented through better training and being alert. ''Crash, collision or mishap'' are more accurate than ''accident.''

(I halfway agree with this statement; however it should be written like this "Traffic safety experts say most crashes involving motorists and bicyclists are avoidable if the bicyclists stay out of heavy traffic and don't act like douchebags while maneuvering on Illinois' roadways.")

4. Crashes involving child bicyclists typically are caused by the bicyclists, such as riding out of a residential driveway, alley or side street without first looking, failing to stop at stop signs or traffic lights and making left turns without first looking over the shoulder for approaching traffic and signaling. With training, these crashes can be prevented.

(Assholes.)

5. Crashes involving adult bicyclists typically are caused by motorists, such as failing to yield when turning in front of bicyclists and failing to yield at stop signs and traffic lights. The exception: bicyclists riding against the flow of traffic.

(YES. BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T ADHERE TO THE RULES OF THE ROAD AND WE AREN'T EXPECTING A BIKE TO SHOOT OUT OF NOWHERE AND ACROSS AN INTERSECTION. You can't pick and choose whether you are a 1. motorist or 2. a pedestrian on a whim, jackasses.)

6. Excessive speed by motorists is a leading cause of crashes and a major factor in the seriousness of a motorist-bicyclist crash.

(That's the chance you take by getting on what amounts to a bunch of metal rods and two flimsy rubber tires and thrusting yourself into traffic with actual vehicles.

Not to mention this is a stupid comment because I would wager that excessive speed by motorists is probably a major factor in the seriousness of many non-bicycle-related crashes. Duh.)

7. Distractions and drowsiness make drivers as crash-prone as driving drunk. While drunken driving gets reported, other risky actions -- using a cell phone, eating, doing makeup -- are rarely reported.

(?)

8. ''I didn't see him'' is a common response by motorists after a crash and often means a driver was not paying attention to the road.

(WHAT? Wrong.)

9. Many bicyclists do not ride on roads because of their fear of getting hit from behind by a car. For a bicyclist to be safe, a motorist should allow at least 3 feet of space when passing -- more if the car is traveling faster.

(These individuals should be applauded because this is a valid fear. They COULD get hit by a car. I'm surprised more don't. Additionally, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Why should I adjust the way I drive in traffic with people who aren't on bikes just to accommodate some tree hugger's fear of getting rear-ended?)

10. Bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated like other vehicles on the road. Bicyclists have fewer crashes when they obey traffic laws and follow driving conventions: observing the right-of-way, being in the proper lane and intersection positions, signaling and being predictable.

(YES. He's making some sense. However, it's virtually impossible for bicyclists to act like other vehicles because they aren't. other. vehicles...)

Everyone gets where they're going safely when everyone shares the road and shows patience and courtesy.

Shut up. Tool.

Manufacturers reinforce that people are stupid

2009-02-07T15:04:00.002-06:00

I noticed yesterday that on my ear phones the manufacturing/product design company has made the effort to specifically designate which ear phone goes in the right ear "R" and which ear phone goes in the left ear "L."

My response: Really?

Additionally, these aren't the ear "buds" where I could obviously see someone putting an ear phone for the right ear into the left ear accidentally--not that it would really matter.

No.

These hook AROUND your year. So if put it in the wrong way you can't...hear...the music...Because then the sound would either be emitting outwards.

OR maybe you COULD hear the music, but that only be possible if you place the ear phones around the front of your ear. Like a huge douche.

And let's be reallll honest here, folks. Most people aren't using discmans or walkmans--we're operating with iPods and newfangled technologies.

So. These people have figured out iTunes, but can't figure out the proper headphone placement without direction? That's ridiculous.

Additionally, if you put them incorrectly the first time and realize immediately (presumably) that you have done so, how difficult is it to just...take them out of your ears? And switch them?

Now, I'm pretty pleased with the circumstances of modern day life, which seemingly pander to the needs and wants, or even just potential needs and wants, of all walks of life. But is there ever a moment when you just think, "I'm almost offended by the fact that there is an entity out there which assumes I am just stupid enough to not 'figure out' how to use a pair of ear phones?"

And the reality is, that obviously someone HAS been just that dumb, which is why I would guess they had to designate this to begin with.

I just want to be one of the cool kids

2009-01-30T20:17:00.003-06:00

So, I wanted a blog, too.

It seems like anyone can just set up a blog site and start spouting off their opinion, so needless to say I needed to get in on THAT. I'm vocal.

Actually I thought about this after getting all riled up while creepily stalking the blog of someone Beth knows. I don't know why I go to this blog because to be honest I disagree with 70 percent of the things the moderator writes, and I get all worked up about it. Until tonight I managed to refrain from writing a disagreeable response to her posts.

But that was until the Jessica Simpson post.

Most people who know me, know how I feel about [most] celebrities' physical appearance. My stance being: I hold them to a much higher standard than, say, myself. Or my friends.

Why? Because my friends are not celebrities.

My friends are bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers and employed at a variety of other positions where, to be honest, I'm not sure what they do (ahem, Kathy). These are not jobs that they obtained by having huge breasts and tiny waists (although my friends are all very attractive so I'm sure that didn't hurt). They got these jobs because they are very intelligent, hardworking, capable women, and spent many years going to school to earn the degrees necessary to be employable in these positions.

As you may be aware, Jessica Simpson recently received some backlash because it appeared as though she had gained some weight.

As any good sister would, her lovably toolish sister, Ashlee, came to her defense saying:

"All women come in different shapes, size, and forms and just because you're a celebrity, there shouldn't be a different standard."

WRONG.

I will now articulate my position on this matter here, as I did in this stranger's blog. She agreed with Ashlee and then went on to relate this to how there is a double standard for men and women, and women get screwed because they have to leave up to this standardized ideal of what beauty is , while men get to be fat and unattractive and slide by on their personalities. Blah blah blah. Yes, it's true, it's unfair, but life isn't fair so pluck your eyebrows and resist those doughnuts, ladies.

This is why I disagree with her. This is not about the ongoing inequities between men and women. This is about how everyone wants celebrities to be attractive because they get paid shit tons of money to be more attractive that normal people. They can also be pseudo-retarded and act like assholes. But they get away with it because they are hot.

I like Jessica Simpson. I like Ashlee Simpson. I stood by Ashlee after the SNL debacle and defiantly listened to "Pieces of Me" 8786 times in a row even after the world shunned her as a talentless poser. To be honest, I think Jessica still looks beautiful even if she has gained 5 pounds and may have to transition to a size - gasp - 4. It also blows my mind that so much attention was paid to her more curvy physique.

However, such is the way of the world.

Jessica Simpson IS held to a higher standard of physical beauty because she is a celebrity and she made her way in the celebrity world using her buxom good looks. She may be a great singer, but let's be real--Jessica Simpson became famous because she was hot and her dad whored her out to MTV and the parasitic hoards of paparazzi.

I get really annoyed when celebrities have a fat day, it gets commented on and they get pouty and self-righteous (I'm looking at you, JLH). It's part of being a celebrity.

For every crappy picture of Jessica Simpson, she's had 98798789 pictures of her looking gorgeous and everyone telling her how awesome she is. So, no, I do not feel terribly bad for Jessica Simpson.

Jessica Simpson isn't a celebrity because she's SMART. The woman became internationally known because she's hot and, more accurately, because no one could comprehend her confusion over WHETHER CHICKEN OF THE SEA WAS TUNA, OR CHICKEN.

If a celebrity clawed his or her way into the public eye by relying heavily on a personal trainer and a fastidious beauty regimen doesn't want to be held to a different standard of beauty, and can't handle the backlash that comes with being a celebrity, then they shouldn't use their looks as a tool to get them where they want to be, i.e. rich and famous.

Of course no one holds ME to a higher standard of beauty. I am a state worker. My job is not to go on stage every night in a spangled dress and big hair and look hot.

That is Jessica Simpson's job.

It's your job to serve me

2009-01-18T15:47:00.001-06:00

I have had a number of people in the service industry express extreme irritation when I use change. Admittedly, it takes a little longer to count out the change, than just to hand them a five dollar bill, BUT it takes no longer to count out the change than it would to run a debit or credit card. And frankly I don't care HOW long it takes me to count out my change, I can pay in pennies if I want to. CHANGE IS LEGITIMATE CURRENCY. And, is the check-out girl at Shop n Save's time really that precious? Regardless of how quickly I pay, she is still going to be standing there until her shift is up. WTF.

So you don't want to get cervical cancer

2008-12-18T15:26:00.003-06:00

I just want to weigh in on this whole HPV vaccination.

Frankly, the whole debate REALLY irritates me because IT CAN PREVENT WOMEN FROM CONTRACTING CERVICAL CANCER.

Now I KNOW there are people that say, "well, it's just too new of a vaccine. I don't think it should be distributed yet." Well here's the thing. Personally, I would much rather take that negligible risk, than to contract a virus that we know is out there and which will infect 80% of women by the time they turn 50.

Of course I do not believe this should be a mandate, but that's just because I don't like people telling me what I should do with my body. However, I do believe this vaccine should be offered to all girls. BECAUSE IT CAN PREVENT THEM FROM DEVELOPING CERVICAL CANCER.

Additionally, I've heard people get all bent out of shape because the vaccine was developed for women and not mean. You know what, I don't CARE that it's just for women and not for men.

Of all the things that I get pissed off about regarding the gender dynamics in this country, this is not one of them. I mean, someone has to get the vaccine. They made it for women because, frankly, it is the women whose cervixes are all whacked out by this disease. The dudes don't know they are passing this along, or messing with their bodily functions, so they just aren't invested. Really, I don't really see the point in getting indignant over this issue. Frankly, I'm more pissed off at the fact I make 80 cents to every man's dollar. Give me my money, I'll take the shot, whatever, that's fine.

What REALLY irks me is when I hear people discuss this and say things like, "this will just encourage kids to have sex." What? No. That's crazy. Since the dawn of time kids have had sex. If the threat of HIV, herpes, and pregnancy isn't enough to put all of us off having sex, then let's be real here people—it's just going to happen regardless of what should be happening and when it should be happening.

The only difference is that NOW they don't have a sexually transmitted disease that at the very least could make their life more difficult, but at the very worst could kill them.

Finally, I'd like to throw it out there that I feel pretty confident saying that if this was a sexually transmitted disease that only attacked men's testes, this debate wouldn't be nearly as intense.

Everyone would be like, "inoculate him sooner! Save the baby maker!"

Annoying.

I'll give you a tip

2008-12-09T15:10:00.002-06:00

It's starting to bother me how everyone in the service industry now expects a tip for doing their job. Even if they don't necessarily expect it, they still set out a sad yet hopeful little cup with "Tips. Thanks," written all jankily in ballpoint pen on the side.

Now I've worked in the service industry. As a waitress I depended on tips because until I earned my tips, I was only making between $2 - $3.50 an hour.

HOWEVER, the cashier at Starbucks, for example, is making at least minimum wage. The line cook at the cafeteria downstairs is making at least minimum wage. The check out person at the shop down the street is making at least minimum wage.

Point being, why the HELL should I give you a tip just for doing your job? Frankly it's a little off-putting that they even expect the tip. Of course I tip my waitresses, bartenders, my hair stylist, etc. But I get a little huffy about silent solicitations from other service providers.

I don't hand Sen. Burzynski a press release and then hold out my hand for a $1. That's ridiculous. Why? Because I'm being PAID to write the freaking press release. And I'm sure these people think, well, I don't make very much. Well, I think that too. But I certainly don't encourage tipping as a way to supplement my income.

I just think that this is an increasingly prevelant situation that should not go without a comment.

Recipe for Hateraid

2008-11-18T15:30:00.000-06:00

Beth and I figured out the recipe today. Actually, I figured it out, but she was an integral part of the process, nonetheless.

As with a martini, you get to choose between two options. However, instead of gin or vodka, you have your pick of "hate" or "disgust."

Once you determine your preference, you add a touch of dry vermouth and top it off with a twist of "self-loathing."

That, my friends, is how you make hateraid.

Hilarious

2008-11-15T15:12:00.001-06:00

Okay, one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone gets into the elevator and pushes a button for a floor that has already been pushed before--hello, the fucking button is LIT UP. It's been TAKEN CARE OF. You don't have the magic button-pushing power that truly allows the elevator to take off (Naturally I do this all the time).

At any rate, this women gets on the elevator today and pushes the button for the 11th floor which--you guessed it--had already been pushed. BUT. She gets busted out.

This women looks at her and goes, "Girl, why'd you do that? You know that damn button already been pushed." It was priceless because she wasn't being mean, but she definitely admonished her in front of an elevator full of people.

That's a lot for someone to handle on a Monday.

Obviously, I loved every second of the exchange; however, I would have been ridiculously pissed if she had done that to me.

I reserve the right to do all the things that I judge other people for doing.

Sharkariffic

2008-11-10T15:52:00.001-06:00

So I'm watching a Shark Week special, because who doesn't love Shark Week? It's educational, it's exciting, it's sharks. Also, Entourage doesn't come on for another hour and I'm wasting time. At any rate, I've always wondered why the scientists feel compelled to justify why sharks attack humans. I'm assuming it's because they either 1. truly believe what they are saying or 2. are executing "damage control" in an effort to convince the public that sharks don't really want to eat you, they are just confusing you with a seal or a mackeral or something. To which I say, um, I don't care. That's like telling someone a gun isn't loaded, pointing it at them, and killing them because *oops* you made a mistake. That doesn't make that person any less dead, so whatever Discovery Channel. Next time come up with an explanation that actually reassures me. My guess is that it's probably a little bit of both, and while I understand that, I think there is a much simpler explanation. Sharks have been around millions of years. They are finely tuned survivors and, as a result, killers. I don't get why everyone is so amazed when there are stories of shark attacks and resultant killings. Hello, it's a fucking shark. Is that really shocking? Their goal is to survive which they do by eating. Why do we have to convince ourselves that it was only by accident that they killed or attacked a swimmer in Florida or wherever? I mean, I pretty much believe that the sharks didn't just go after these poor people by accident, but I don't hold that against the sharks. That's what they do. Also, FYI, the Bull Shark can apparently live for three to four years in fresh water, and have been spotted far upstream in the Mississippi River. Isn't that disconcerting? How would you like to be floating along and come across a huge shark? GREAT. I know it's nerdy, and has a high probability of sounding creepy. I just think that that sharks get a bad rap. Also, when watching the Real World/Road Rules challenge, I can't help but wonder: why are these people so fucking stupid? Why do they keep voting the weakest teams into exile? If they had their thinking caps on, they would vote the more adept teams into exile, because wouldn't you rather go against a weak team at the end?

I hope you fall off your high horse

2008-09-01T14:17:00.002-05:00

I get really sick of people who shove their opinions and beliefs down the throats of those people with whom they are forced to co-exist. Not so much FRIENDS, but more like work colleagues and random acquaintances. Particularly those opinions that are political/moral in nature, i.e. the "most likely to offend" kind of opinions.

Look, I honestly don't fucking care what you believe as long as you're not trying to make ME believe it. I know I'll write little blogs ranting and/or complaining about things, but YOU choose to read the blogs. I don't send an email out to 100 of my closest co-workers about how I feel about bicyclists in Chicago. And even if I did, at least that would be somewhat amusing (if not confusing) as opposed to inciting irritation and anger.

I don't need people randomly assaulting me with their opinions on homosexuality, abortion, parental consent, religion, and so on and so forth. That's great that you believe that, based on whatever you choose to base your beliefs and opinions on. But unless we stumble into the conversation, I just don't need to know.

Also, if you choose to ante up your opinion without me actually inquiring, then don't get all fucking huffy when I respectfully disagree with you. And I don't appreciate it when people insinuate that I'm some type of asshole or completely misinformed when I do NOT agree with their personal opinion about something. I don't question your ideology, so don't criticize mine.

Additionally, please don't feel compelled to try and "explain" to me why I am "wrong" and you are "right." Why can't people just let you have your OWN opinion--regardless of how ignorant or misguided they perceive it to be? I think a lot of opinions are fucking stupid, but I don't go around to people who I disagree with and imply their stances suck ass.

I know people who will point blank ask your opinion on something, then when you respond, they will act all shocked when it doesn't coincide with THEIR opinion and then aggressively question you on your perspective. SHUT UP. I don't need to justify myself to anyone, let alone people I am barely acquaintances with.

Naturally, working in a politically-affiliated field this happens virtually every day.

Springfield drivers suck ass

2008-08-20T14:15:00.002-05:00

One. When at a stoplight, why does it take everyone so freaking long to "go" when the light turns green? Seriously. IT'S GREEN. DRIVE. Don't leisurely hit the gas and slllloooowwwllllyyyy speed up as you chit-chat to your wife/husband about the new restaurant on Veterans. I see your attention wavering; you are distracted and annoying me.

Two. You can turn right on red unless otherwise posted. Do it.

Three. Don't be "nice" if you arrive at the stop sign before me. You have the right of way. Go before me. That is what you are supposed to do.

What you should not do is wave me ahead of you just to be "nice." No, that creates confusion and ultimately slows down what should be a very easy, uncomplicated process.

Do you think I ever come to a stop sign before someone and then indicate to them that they can go before me? No way. It's my turn. In this way I eliminate confusion.

Four. Drive faster.

Five. Don't stop in the middle of the road and talk to someone through your respective windows. Hi, people are trying to drive.

If you get caught at a light and happen to know the person in the next lane, that's great. However, when the light turns green, you should immediately cease talking and drive. The people behind you don't care about whatever it is you're yacking about. We just want to get to Target or work or wherever it is that we are trying to go.

Hey! Matt Lauer!! WTF?

2008-03-16T14:11:00.001-06:00

FYI to the producers of the Today Show:

The trials and tribulations of the American Idol cast is not news. You do not need to dedicate an entire segment to recap what happened on American Idol the night before.

You know what, if you watch American Idol but you happened to miss the action the night before, well then too goddamn bad. You obviously aren’t THAT dedicated of a fan, now are you?

In any event, if you want to know what happened, watch E! or go check out the blogs. Become invested in Bravo or VH1 reality television where you can be certain that they will have a rerun of your favorite show approximately every other hour. The Today Show shouldn’t have to pander to the American public’s ongoing infatuation with American Idol.

I have never understood this. One minute Meradith is interviewing a Presidential hopeful, then she and Matt are blorbing away about who got the boot the night before. WTF.

Also, the Today Show is on NBC, and American Idol is on Fox. Are they in some way affiliated? What does the Today Show gain by advertising American Idol?

The $4,000 Vag

2008-03-15T14:09:00.002-06:00

So being as how there is nothing NOT interesting about the Governor of New York getting busted for soliciting a call girl and then taking her across state lines to bang her, I think this story merits a blog.

Namely, how this girl gets paid $4,000+ for a couple hours of putting up with this guy and letting him put his penis in her. Hell, most girls do that virtually for free and don’t get anything!

After viewing some pictures of her, there are some in which I can say she is very attractive.

And some where she isn’t (aggh!).

Now I’m not Heidi Fleiss, but I think this pay scale is a little ridiculous. I could see paying, oh, $800 to have sex with her. I think that would be reasonable--I mean if you are placing a value on sexual favors.

Additionally, over time the media is reporting that he allegedly spent $80k on pussy. Are you KIDDING me? That’s ridiculous, and more than slightly disturbing. How would you feel if you found out your husband was not only doing you dirty by hittin it with prostitutes, but that he spent eighty. Thousand. Dollars. On vagina.

I guess the moral of the story is, if you are an important public figure, just don’t hire a call girl. Someone will find out. OR: It’s not the fact that it’s immoral, it’s the fact that you may get caught. OR: I’m in the wrong business. Screw you state government.

Oh Britney...

2008-03-01T14:11:00.002-06:00

What. The. Fuck.

Okay, one, why does anyone even sell something that looks like this? This is ridiculous. And what pisses me off even more is that it probably EXPENSIVE.

Two, why did she tie it like that? what? NO. Just tie it behind your neck. The straps are to hold your ugly dress up, not to double as a fabric choker.

Finally, if you ARE going to wear this, I don't think black hotpants are an appropriate under-garment. I'm not sure what is. But not black hot pants.

The thing is, although I'm a little bit concerned about the see-through front creating a coverage issue, it's not a terrible dress.

Britney Spears has just always had a way of taking apparel that may be somewhat salvagable and doing irreparable damage to the ensemble (and everyone's eyes, good taste and sense of decency). Even before she took a, ahem, turn for the worst.

Poor thing.

Damn, J-Love

2008-02-25T14:13:00.002-06:00

So it was recently brought to my attention that Jennifer Love Hewitt has packed on some lbs. Of course the tabloids LOVE to post pictures of celebrity cellulite all over the place, and people love to hate on beautiful people because they are jealous strokes.

However, inevitably someone always says, "poor celebrity. That's so sad that her/his ass fat is posted on every celebrity blog and readily accessible for the public to ridicule and mock."

To this I say: pshaw.

Oh right, boo hoo. Poor Jennifer Love Hewitt. I'm so sad that as she frolicked around on the beaches of Hawaii the paparazzi (who follow her around because she's famous) took an unappealing picture of her. So sad.

Now, I'm not making fun of her gaining weight. But I'm not going to sit around and feel sorry for Jennifer Love freaking Hewitt.

Whatever, she got to look smoking hot for years and years longer than the average person. So now she is a little more "normal," than she was before. So sorry that for a couple weeks she has to walk around feeling like 99% of women feel every single day. Of their lives.

All she has to do is get back in the gym, trim up and then walk around looking skinny in front of a bunch of photographers. Then there will be a big story about how she's anorexic and all will be right in the world.

Additionally, she is a celebrity. And let's be honest, most celebrities aren't really "artists." Primarily what they have going for them is their appearance. Like Britney Spears at the VMA's, for example, when she looked out of shape and disoriented. I did feel bad that people made SUCH a big deal about how she is "fat."

Well, no. Britney Spears isn't "fat." She actually looks commendably good for popping out two kids in a row and slurping down frappacinos and cheetohs like it's her job. I mean, if she was in SPRINGFIELD she'd be ridiculously hot and sought after.

But she's not in Springfield. And she's not just a mom with two kids. She's Britney Spears. A "pop star." People expect her to look a certain way. Particularly when making her big "come back" and opting to wear lingerie as she stumbled dreamily across the stage in front of millions of people.

Before I could at least rationalize her ridiculous wealth and popularity by thinking, "she's not much of a singer, but she looks pretty and she is entertaining to watch." Now it's just like, "whoa, she's just as crazy and unattractive as the rest of us--more so! Where is MY $600,000 a month?"

At any rate, after a couple intense conversations about celebrity weight gain, I felt the need to articulate this.

People are fucking crazy

2008-02-17T15:16:00.001-06:00

Yeah they are. Cra-zy. Two examples:

1. The woman in the Thompson Center who looked to be in her mid-thirties and seemingly normal, who walked up to the elevators yesterday and stood in front of them and waved her hands frantically. Oh yes, she was attempting to compel them to open by sheer mind force.

It made me incredibly uncomfortable to watch, and I was a little nervous that I misinterpreted what she was doing, so I simple said, "Oh, I pushed the button"--As though it was totally rational for her to attempt to draw the elevator to her by waving her hands in the air, but there was simply no need because I had already pushed the button.

She looked extremely relieved and said "thank you." Then she pushed, like, three buttons on the way up before getting off on the 14th floor. WTF.

2. The business man who was agressively talking to himself on LaSalle today.

At first I thought he had some type of phone headset, but no. He was having a conversation with himself.

I averted my gaze quickly.

The "Edgewater Slasher" taught me a valuable lesson: Even crazy people don't want people to look at them as though the ARE crazy, even if they obviously are. They want respect, too, apparently.

Also, I want to give a shout out to the enormous woman who cut in front of me in the elevator, and then refused to get off the elevator even though we ALL knew it was her bulk that put the elevator over the weight capacity causing it to refuse to move. THANKS! I had only been waiting for approximately 5 minutes longer than you had been waiting!

You are not getting thinner

2008-02-01T14:12:00.002-06:00

I discovered my newest irritation at the gym the other day.

I currently have a health club contract with Cardinal Fitness, and I really enjoy the facility. It's clean and the machines are new and well cared for. There are many, many televisions available for my work-out distraction. The staff is friendly. And most enticing--It's really, really cheap.

Needless to say I was sold. However, so were a lot of other people.

Now, not to be a huge bitch, but nothing pisses me of more than when some fatass monopolizes a treadmill for 45+ minutes walking at an excruciatingly slow pace. NO. GO. FUCKING. FASTER. They have to know they are burning maybe 100 calories (Literally--I keep tabs as I seethe with anger while waiting for a machine).

What is even the freaking point? If that's you're "exercise" then just don't eat that one mid-day snack. Opt for water instead of that glass of juice. Don't put actual sugar in your coffee--use a Splenda.

Additionally, if you are able to actually concentrate on reading a book while working out, then I'm sorry, but you aren't working out hard enough. If you aren't sweating, then what's the effing point? If you are in some type of street apparel (jeans, khakis, flannel shirt, loafers, etc.) that is not appropriate gym-wear and you should not be able to hog the machine.

Usually all the half-hearted work-out people have given up on their New Year's resolution by now and are back to blorbing around. I don't understand...

You know your dog is spoiled when...

2007-10-11T14:37:00.002-05:00

SHE REFUSES TO EAT GENERIC CHEESE. What. The. Fuck. OH yeah. It's Kraft singles all the way, apparently. This morning she was having absolutely NONE of the Schnuck's brand. She literally put it in her mouth, rolled it around, looked at me like I was a huge asshole and then spit it out. Of course now the balance of power has been totally destroyed because in order to get her to eat her much-needed anti-depressant (don't even ask...) I have to get her to eat the pill, so now I'm wrapping them in little pieces of bologna and naturally she will never want to return to the stupid cheese, Kraft or not. She's full of trickery so I would almost guess that her whole ploy was to spit out the cheese to get the bologna, but how could she ever anticipate that I would substitute the bologna for cheese? I've never done that before. Additionally, I also discovered that she won't even eat the name brand cheese once it falls on the floor. Um, five second rule. Even I do that, I mean, depending on the cleanliness of the floor and the circumstances. It's bad when your pets are more refined than you.

Get this article

2007-10-03T14:30:00.001-05:00

Right thing pays off CHA | Some critics howl over programs that reward poor for keeping a job, paying the rent on time or getting a GED Chicago Sun-Times BY KATE N. GROSSMAN It looks suspiciously like your standard "to do" list. 1. Pay rent on time 2. Volunteer at church 3. Keep a job for three months. For poor families on Chicago's Near West Side, it's also a potential rewards list. Over three years, 260 adults and children who have mastered such tasks have earned $56,000 worth of new clothes, bikes, summer camp tuition, televisions, house supplies and cash for rent. Welcome to the latest front in the war against poverty: paying people to do the right thing. "This is getting my kids ready for the real world, where they can reward themselves with a check from a job," said Evette Clark. Over two years, grades for her five school-age children have shot up, earning them 1,250 points. Each point is worth a dollar, to be redeemed for gift cards or rent and utility payments. "This is a push in the right direction," said Clark. Chicago's small program, based at a new Chicago Housing Authority mixed-income community near the United Center, is one of the first of its kind in the United States. This fall, New York City is taking it to the next level, starting the first large-scale cash rewards program in the United States. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's privately financed program will pay 2,500 poor families up to $5,000 a year to keep a job, attend parent-teacher conferences and go to regular medical checkups. Another 9,000 kids who score well on standardized tests will also earn cash. Some critics are aghast, saying society shouldn't pay poor people to meet their basic obligations. "Introducing cash rewards for conduct that is simply part of what it means to be a conscientious parent or student is no way to inculcate a more functional value system," Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor for a journal at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. Goals get harder But proponents call this a commonsense way to change behavior. They cite successful rewards programs across the developing world, including Mexico. That 10-year-old program has led to higher school attendance rates and less malnutrition and illness. About 25 percent of the population is enrolled. "I can see how this could rub people the wrong way, but I'm honestly amazed at what we spend in this country and don't get results," said Toby Herr, who created the rewards program funded by the MacArthur Foundation and others. Herr directs a nationally recognized employment program, Project Match. "So I'm pretty pragmatic," he said. "If kids are getting to school on time, parents are doing more than they were doing, if things are looking up, then why not?" Herr's program hasn't been evaluated, but the anecdotal evidence is promising. Nearly 60 percent of the 440 people who set goals over the last three years have met at least one. Among heads of the households, it's nearly 80 percent. May save cash in long run And the rewards aren't give-aways. People write three-month plans, and each accomplishment must be verified. Once a task is mastered, a harder goal is set. Signing up for a GED high school equivalency class gets you five points. Getting that GED brings home 50 points. And, experts note, it's not just the individuals who benefit. "If you ask people the question: should we pay people $600 to graduate high school, that will likely elicit a negative response," said Jeffrey Grogger, a University of Chicago professor of urban policy. "Ifyou tell them graduating high school greatly reduces the odds that we'll spend $35,000 a year down the line for prison, I think the answer would be different." But what about the larger causes of poverty, a colleague asks? "This assumes they're poor because of what they're not doing, rather than acknowledging inequalities based on education, employment and housing," said Evelyn Brodkin, a U. of C. political scientist. For now, Evette Clark and others in Chicago's program are sure of one thing: The rewards work for them. They know some look askance at cash rewards, but they insist the payoff will come. "They'll continue doing good," Clark said of her children. "The program is designed to get you on your feet, and once you're there, there's no reason to fall back." okay. Wow. I mean, I'm glad this program is apparently working. HOWEVER, I'm going to take this opportunity to interject that this is BULLSHIT and another example of how people who work hard and do the right thing get NOTHING, while other people are allowed to fuck up over and over and over again, and then when they finally do the right thing everyone is so excited they get mad kudos. NO. You should just do the right thing because that is part of being a productive member of society. You should pay your rent because that is what adults do. You should hold a steady job because as a human being you should have self-respect and value your ability to be responsible. You should do these things because you have children who you love, and care for, and who you realize look to you as an EXAMPLE of what they should be when they grow up. Case in point: "This is getting my kids ready for the real world, where they can reward themselves with a check from a job," said Evette Clark. What? NO. A work check is not a REWARD. It is something you have EARNED from WORKING. Not because you are simply entitled to it or it is something that you thought you would do that day because you need some extra cash, you WORK so you can have MONEY to buy the necessities of LIFE. To be self-sufficient, and not be forced to depend on other people. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's privately financed program will pay 2,500 poor families up to $5,000 a year to keep a job, attend parent-teacher conferences and go to regular medical checkups. Another 9,000 kids who score well on standardized tests will also earn cash. AGGHHH!!! $5,000 a year to "keep a job….and go to regular medical checkups???" Are you kidding me???? WTF. Isn't the incentive of keeping a job financial stability? If you need more encouragement than that then that's fucking ridiculous. This article enrages me on so many levels, perhaps stemming back to grade school when other kids would get paid to get "A's" and "B's," when A's and B's were simply expected of me. When I didn't perform adequately at school I didn't NOT get my $5, I was GROUNDED and BERATED. There was no tangible reward for doing well. My "reward" is that I didn't get a haranguing and a massive guilt trip from my harpy, pro-education parents. What really irks me is that we need programs like this to prompt people to do the right thing so they can semi-improve their lives and hopefully will pull it together so that the rest of us don't have to support them for longer than necessary. "This assumes they're poor because of what they're not doing, rather than acknowledging inequalities based on education, employment and housing," said Evelyn Brodkin, a U. of C. political scientist. Okay, I understand the necessity of, and I am totally for financial assistance programs. There are many people who genuinely need help and are eager to use that support to better themselves. I understand that. But what really bothers me about this whole deal is that obviously these people have the capacity to work and pay rent and go to the doctor and so on and so forth; they are just choosing not to, as evidenced by the fact that when they are given an incentive to work they do so willingly. I can see needing assistance while you look for a job and until you get your feet on the ground, but being paid to work? That blows my mind. Amy's mind = BLOWN. The really annoying thing is that on one hand I'm totally indignant, but on the other hand it's obviously WORKING so I feel bad being a dick about it, particularly because I'm sure most of the people involved in the program are living in or on the cusp of poverty. I just think it's disheartening that people must be paid to work, or keep a job. What about pride? What about the satisfaction of doing the right thing because that's what you should do? Does anyone do anything anymore without expecting something in return?

Hero or Dumbass?

2007-09-24T15:24:00.002-05:00

The other day there was a story on the Today show about this boy scout in North Carolina who had wandered away from his troop on a camping trip and-NATURALLY-got lost in the North Carolina wilderness for, oh, four days or something.

So the thing is, everyone was fawning over this little dumbass.

"He's got tremendous life spirit!"

"He used his boy scout knowledge to save himself!" Yay!

No, fuck that.

This kid is a fucking idiot who walked away from safety and into the woods with no food, shelter or, apparently, any sense of direction. Just because he was "homesick." Consequently, hundreds of people had to stop what they were doing and go on a manhunt for his dumb ass.

Additionally, I'm guessing true boy scout "knowledge" doesn't advocate trekking off by yourself into the woods with only a vague notion of how to get where your going, and without sustenance, clean water and the appropriate gear. That's, like, the anti-boyscout.

This was a TWELVE year old. What the hell? At twelve I would know enough to not be a boyscout if I DIDN'T LIKE TO CAMP (and if I was a big pussy who got home sick), and if forced I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to remove myself from the situation by wandering aimlessly through the North Carolina wilderness. That's just ridiculous.

Life spirit my ass. If I was this kid's parent I'd be embarrassed and ridiculously pissed off by the situation as a whole. Just because he's lucky to be alive doesn't mean he should be PRAISED.

Idiots.

Here’s a stunner: Men tend to choose women based on looks

2007-09-04T14:20:00.002-05:00

SHOCK!! The Sun-Times is once again reporting the heavy-hitting news. At least the headline acknowledges the hefty "duh" factor of this article

Here's a stunner: Men tend to choose women based on looks

STUDY | Women's idea of their own beauty affects their choices

September 4, 2007

BY RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON -- Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.

''Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing,'' said Peter M. Todd of the cognitive science program at Indiana University.

Researchers led by Todd report today on their study involved 26 men and 20 women in Munich, Germany.

Participants ranged in ages from 26 to their early 40s and took part in ''speed dating,'' short meetings of three to seven minutes in which people chat, then move on to meet another dater.

In the study, participants were asked before the session to fill out a questionnaire about what they were looking for in a mate, listing such categories as wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, healthiness and attractiveness.

After the session, the researchers compared what the participants said they were looking for with the people they actually chose to ask for another date.

Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.

Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices.

The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.

''Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness,'' Todd said, ''because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them.''

But, he added, ''they didn't go lower. They knew what they could get and aimed for that level.''

So, it turns out, the women's attractiveness influenced the choices of the men and the women.

This is SO true. I refuse to go under my personal bar; however, I don't get ridiculous with my expectations. As long as you clean up nice and won't embarrass me in public, I'm good to go!

Guys are superficial. I will back that statement up with a comment that I heard the other day (from my future husband), "I don't want to date someone that doesn't care about looks--then what's the point of being attractive?"

LUCKIEST GIRL IN THE WORLD.

It’s not UIC’s fault your pregnant (for the FIFTH time)

2007-08-13T14:24:00.001-05:00

It's not UIC's fault you're preggers This is a two part-er. Read this article. Be filled with frustration and the insuppressible urge to voice your irritation, as I was. Birth-control costs soaring at colleges Pregnancies could rise now that law limits drugmaker incentives August 13, 2007 BY CYNDI LOZA Staff Reporter/cloza@suntimes.com Last spring, 20-year-old pre-med student Elizabeth Harris had only Costa Rica on her mind. She was hoping to wine and dine there while taking a few biology courses. But the Waukegan native and University of Illinois at Chicago junior had to skip her trip. Having gone off birth control, Harris found she was pregnant. She said she quit when the cost of her prescription at the UIC clinic more than doubled. "[The price] steered me away," said Harris. "I don't blame them [UIC], but I might not be in the situation I am in now." Health officials fear more students will stop using birth control when they return to school this fall and find skyrocketing costs at campus clinics. Price jumps from $15 to $35 Cost hikes across the country are a result of new federal regulations that removed incentives for drug makers to provide birth control at low cost to colleges. Harris encountered the increases when she wanted to continue with the NuvaRing, a monthly vaginal contraceptive, through UIC. She was shocked to find the new cost was $35, up from $15. Other schools cut some birth-control options altogether. Northeastern Illinois University spokeswoman Carolyn Bonner said that, as of January, the school no longer provided contraceptives such as Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo for $5, the NuvaRing for $3 or the patch for $30. The school now dispenses generic birth control pills for $12 a month instead. Some health officials fear students will be forced to rely on condoms, which may not be as effective. "When it's not planned sex, something like a condom may not be used," said Dr. Nandini Khatkhate, UIC medical director at Family Medicine Center. Harris would agree with the statement. She said that even though UIC provides free condoms she would only use them "once in a while." Other times she and her partner were feeling spontaneous and "it just happened," she explained. Denise Watkins, a nurse practitioner at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said she recommends using both hormonal contraceptives and male or female condoms. The condoms add protection from sexually transmitted diseases, she said. Low-income students hit hard The price increase in hormonal birth control can be traced to the Deficit Reduction Act signed by President Bush last year, aimed at reducing federal spending by $39 billion. The legislation made it more costly for drug makers to offer low-cost birth control to college clinics. Then the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued regulations that dropped college clinics from a list of agencies to which drug companies could sell discounted drugs. Harris, coming from a low-income home, said she cannot afford to pay so much more for birth control. She's not alone. UIC senior Omotayo Asunmo, 21, said she stopped using the pill regularly after the increase. Asunmo thinks students will probably find clinics other than university ones or use their parents' insurance. Though it may be economically difficult, other students wouldn't dream of going off their contraceptives. University of Chicago graduate student Rachel Watson, 31, said she would pay even if her pill went up to $50 a cycle. Contributing: David Newbart Okay. Comment one: The only "incentive" I need to use birth control is the reality that if I didn't, I could very possible become with child. And I don't want that. Thus I shell out the $20+ a month. Comment two: "Last spring, 20-year-old pre-med student Elizabeth Harris had only Costa Rica on her mind. She was hoping to wine and dine there while taking a few biology courses. This was followed quickly by Ms. Harris' statement: "[The price] steered me away," said Harris. "I don't blame them [UIC], but I might not be in the situation I am in now." Maybe if she spent less time contemplating her next cocktail in COSTA RICA, and more time figuring out how she can free up $35 extra bucks a month so she wouldn't get knocked up she "might not be in the situation" she is in now. I'm just saying. Comment three: I find it really fucking hard to believe that regardless of how low-income this girl is, she couldn't find some way to get on birth control. I am skeptical that this girl scrimps and saves every freaking penny she gets and puts it only toward life's necessities—which somehow does not include birth control. Well, I tell ya Elizabeth—caring for a CHILD is going to be a lot more expensive than the nuva ring. Also, why not just get a cheaper birth control...? This whole situation irritates me on so many different levels. I don't necessarily have contempt for her because she wasn't on birth control, I have contempt for her because she is trying to blame an INSTITUTION for what was essentially her responsibility. At what point does this become someone else's fault? Not only is she a 20 year-old college student, she's a PRE-MED student. OBVIOUSLY she should know the repercussions of sex without protection. Yet she made the conscious decision not to use birth control because it was too expensive, got knocked up and now she passes the buck to UIC? That's ridiculous. When I was an intern, had no health insurance and made a pittance, I drove my happy ass over to Planned Parenthood, paid for the stupid exam (which was $200 because I was at the TOP of their income bracket—HA), and then proceeded to pay them $30 every month for birth control because the assholes at Planned Parenthood didn't feel it necessary to tell me that I could just take my prescription over to Walgreens and get it for $15 cheaper. That's neither here nor there, but what is relevant is that at that point I certainly didn't WANT to pay $200 for the appointment or $30 every month for birth control. I didn't want to go to Planned Parenthood; it's depressing and the people were mean to me because I wasn't already pregnant and 14. But I sacked up and went because after weighing the odds, I decided I would rather have less money in the short term, than be responsible for ANOTHER HUMAN BEING in the long term.

At this point I'm going to give a shout out to Mary Mitchell who called this Elizabeth chick OUT today in her column.

Thank you Mary. I don't usually agree with you, but today you were the voice of reason and I salute you.

Time to enroll college women in Real Life 101

Birth control costly, a hassle? Kids not cheap, AIDS deadly

BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist

Young people who are fortunate enough to get into universities like UIC are supposed to be smart

But how ignorant is it for a young black woman to be photographed clutching a cell phone and a swollen belly complaining about not being able to afford the rising cost of birth control?

Did it ever occur to Elizabeth Harris, the young woman who appeared on page 8 in the Chicago Sun-Times, that maybe she should have gotten rid of her cell phone instead of stopping her birth control pills?

Black readers are likely to blame the newspaper for being "insensitive" for running the young woman's photo in the first place. Still, it's too easy to blame a reporter because a story leads to young black women being ridiculed on talk shows as "sexually irresponsible," because one of them was foolish enough to whine about making a bad decision.

Harris, a junior at UIC, is quoted in the story as saying the high cost of birth control "steered" her away from it.

"I don't blame them [UIC], but I might not be in the situation I am in now," she told the reporter.

The situation Harris is referring to is a situation that will last at least 18 years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars before the situation gets a job and starts taking full responsibility for the decisions he or she makes.

Thankfully, at least one student, 31-year-old Rachel Watson, told the reporter that she wouldn't dream of going off contraceptives.

The premise of Monday's story is that "pregnancies could rise" because the cost of some forms of birth control have more than doubled on college campuses. Instead of cutting corners elsewhere, senior Omotayo Asunmo said she stopped using the pill regularly.

No sense of mortality

Northeastern Illinois University no longer provides contraceptives such as Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo and the NuvaRing or patch and now will only provide generic birth control pills for $12 a month. At UIC, the cost of the NuvaRing went from $15 to $35, generic pills went from $7 to $25 and Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo went from $7 to $40. Contraceptives that once were dispensed free at the University of Illinois now cost $22 ($5 for generic pills).

Even more alarming is Harris' candid admission that, despite being able to get free condoms, she would only use them "once in a while," and that sex "just happened."

Her attitude is a stark reminder that young people do not have a sense of their own mortality.

According to the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African Americans are disproportionately affected by HIV infection and account for 55 percent of all HIV infections reported among people ages 13-24. And according to information from 33 states with long-term name-based HIV reporting, males made up 62 percent of the 17,824 people 13-24 years of age who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Thirty-eight percent were females.

Those numbers should make black women on college campuses stockpile condoms, let alone use them.

Health officials like the one cited in the contraceptive story are also part of the problem.

Dr. Nandini Khatkhate, UIC medical director at Family Medicine Center, is quoted as fearing that condoms may not be as effective as birth control when it's not "planned sex."

"Something like a condom may not be used," Khatkhate said.

What's this doctor talking about? Drunken binges? Sexual assaults? Her assessment may be realistic, but how about changing the reality?

Passing on a lesson

You may be asking by now, why I just didn't let Harris have her say.

Here's why: Because there's a point in every woman's life when she looks back and sighs. If she only knew then what she knows now, her life would have turned out entirely different. We then try to pass on hard-learned lessons to our daughters and granddaughters. So I'm not trying to embarrass Harris, I'm reminding her that while it may be an unfair expectation, she represents a lot of black women when she speaks out in the media.

The consequence of irresponsible sexual behavior today is a lifetime sentence. And, as in the past, a baby changes a young woman's life forever.

College students are not immature teenagers. They certainly shouldn't want to be portrayed in media as being victims of pharmaceutical companies and government regulations. These young women should be protecting themselves against HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies because they know better.

If they don't, they should keep their ignorance to themselves.

The only complaint I have about this article centers around her emphasis on black women.

Um, I'm sure there are plenty of promiscuous college girls of ALL races who will not be using birth control because the price increased.

They, too, are stupid.

BREAKING NEWS - MEN ARE SLUTTY

2007-06-14T14:43:00.001-05:00

Oh. Wait. That's not breaking news. Thanks Chicago Sun-Times for reporting the OBVIOUS. However, there are some interesting facts in the article that I find dubious at best. Sex study finds men far more likely to play the field NEW DATA | Nearly a third of males have had 15 or more partners BY DAVID CRARY NEW YORK -- How many sex partners have you had? The federal government says it has authoritative statistics, documenting that men are far more likely to play the field than women. A nationwide survey, using high-tech methods to solicit candid answers on sexual activit y and illegal drug use, finds that 29 percent of American men report having 15 or more female sexual partners in a lifetime, while only 9 percent of women report having sex with 15 or more men. (I find it really hard to believe that only NINE PERCENT of women have had sex with more than 15 men. And only 29 percent of men have? I mean, maybe I just hang around with really sexually "free" people, but I can't believe these statistics are correct. Additionally, aren't there more women in the world? So who are the extra 20 percent of men having all their additional sex with, then? The nine percent of women out there who have sex with more than 15 people?) The median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men was seven; the median number of male partners for women was four. (What?? I find this REALLY hard to believe. That's crazy. FOUR PEOPLE? That's the AVERAGE for women? LIARS. That's crazy. And men? Seven? Whatever. Nice try.) The survey, released Friday, is based on data from 1999 to 2002 for the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In previous versions of this survey, participants were asked questions in face-to-face interviews. The CDC thinks that caused underreporting of behaviors that might be viewed negatively (Um. Ya think? DUH. Who are these people?). This time, data was gathered from 6,237 adults, ages 20 to 59, in computer interviews. Among the findings: About 96 percent of U.S. adults have had sex. 16 percent of adults first had sex before age 15, while 15 percent abstained from sex until at least age 21. The proportion of adults who first had sex before age 15 was highest for non-Hispanic blacks (28 percent) compared with 14 percent for both Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites. 6 percent of blacks abstained from sex until age 21 or older, fewer than Mexican Americans (17 percent) or non-Hispanic whites (15 percent). Black men and women were more likely to report having 15 or more partners in a lifetime (46 percent and 13 percent, respectively) than other racial or ethnic groups. 26 percent of men and 17 percent of women have tried cocaine or other street drugs (not including marijuana). The survey did not include the homeless, prison inmates or other institutionalized adults (ooh, snap! Way to skew the results and be left out!). The questions about numbers of sexual partners specified straight relationships (ooh, tear! It's a sad day when we can't look past sexual orientation and question ALL people on their past sexual dalliances. When will the day come when gay and straight alike can open up to random statisticians about their past promiscuity? Sigh...). AP

Give me a break

2007-05-02T15:06:00.002-05:00

I saw this article today and it angered me:

150,000 march on Chicago

IMMIGRATION | Big crowd far exceeds expectations, as many participants cite last week's Little Village raid

May 2, 2007

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, DAVE NEWBART ANDRUMMANA HUSSAIN

Galvanized by a federal raid in Little Village last week, 150,000 flag-waving protesters headed for Grant Park on Tuesday, demanding an end to raids and deportations and seeking amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

Draped in American flags and chanting in many languages, members of immigrant support organizations, labor unions, gay and lesbian rights groups and socialist organizations marched in support of legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented people -- approximately 400,000 in Chicago -- living in the United States today.

With a crowd Chicago Police estimated at 150,000 -- 30 times more than organizers had hoped for when they applied for permits -- it was the largest such rally in the country Tuesday. The march stepped off from Union Park, 1501 W. Randolph.

Some said they had no plans to join the protest before last Tuesday's raid in the predominantly Hispanic Little Village neighborhood, which led to arrests of alleged leaders of a fraudulent document ring.

"We were outraged. We were terrorized," said Francisca Zarate, owner of Boulevard Music in the shopping center that was raided.

"They intimidated everybody. Our kids couldn't go to sleep because of people with guns."

The march turnout exceeded expectations but was far below last year's May 1 rally, when police estimated 400,000 were on hand in Chicago.

Two people were arrested for allegedly leaving graffiti on the route, though police couldn't say for sure if they were marchers. One person was hospitalized for nausea.

Smaller crowds gathered in Detroit, New York, Phoenix, Denver and Los Angeles.

The Chicago crowd included the diehard, the offbeat and the angry. One man wore speakers around his neck that constantly blared a car alarm. Another blew into a conch shell to answer chants. Others spent part of the march doing the wave.

Within the moving mass was a trailer carrying a 12-foot-tall crucified Statue of Liberty made of foam, cardboard and Bondo, the auto repair putty.

A few people burned in effigy a military figure emblazoned with the president's name; others nearly brought the procession to a halt as they railed against two anti-illegal immigration demonstrators who then were surrounded by some 40 police officers for protection.

In Grant Park, speaker after speaker addressed the crowd.

Among them was Mayor Daley, who said, "We welcome immigrants to our great city." He then told the cheering crowd to raise their flags and remain strong.

"Stand up. Be not afraid of those who oppose us," said the mayor, referring to immigrants as "our past, our present and our future.''

"I'm here to march for immigrants because they don't have rights," said Roberto Herrera, 50, of Cicero. "We need a law to document them because they don't have a voice or a vote."

Okay. Several thoughts on this article.

1. "demanding an end to raids and deportations and seeking amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens."

My initial reaction? YOU AREN'T LEGAL CITIZENS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE DEMANDS. That's ridiculous. You can't come over here ILLEGALLY and then start demanding things of the American government. I wouldn't go to France, stay there for awhile and then demand amnesty. Because that just isn't logical.

2. "A few people burned in effigy a military figure emblazoned with the president's name;

No matter how you feel about our president, he is STILL the president. YOU'RE HERE ILLEGALLY. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT ON HOW OUR GOVERNMENT IS RUN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T COME HERE. ILLEGALLY.

So you don't like Bush? Well, then go back to shitty Mexico and bitch to your own crappy president. In fact, instead of traversing here illegally and spending all this time and energy to try and make this country suit their needs and wants, why don't they rally in their OWN country and make demands of THEIR government.

3."I'm here to march for immigrants because they don't have rights," said Roberto Herrera, 50, of Cicero. "We need a law to document them because they don't have a voice or a vote."

Roberto, Roberto, Roberto...THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

Now, don't get me wrong. I feel for people whose country and life is so shitty that they have to leave their home, family and friends to come to our country and work shitty jobs, for long hours with little pay.

However. There is a price to pay for doing things illegally. In this case, the price is that they aren't American citizens and therefore aren't afforded the same rights and privileges as those of us fortunate enough to simply be born here, or who jumped through all the hoops necessary to obtain citizenship legally.

I think I may be ridiculous

2007-05-01T14:19:00.001-05:00

So, this couple had an amazing wedding on the Today Show, right? I mean, they got the works, everything was paid for--reception, rings, dresses, tuxes, etc. etc. etc. And it was all amazing quality and very expensive.

Naturally, because I'm a sucker and a douchebag, I cried when she walked down the aisle. And they did seem like a very happy, nice couple who were really excited to be married.

Yet I found myself thinking, this is great and all, but I wouldn't want to get married at 8 on a Friday morning. That would annoy the shit out of me.

What time did that girl get UP? I wouldn't want a breakfast reception. I don't care if it's at Tiffany's. NO. I wouldn't want NBC and America to pick my wedding dress. NO. Do you see how most people dress as they walk down the street? Scary.

Obviously I'm a huge asshole. Everything was flawless and everyone in the wedding party looked beautiful (well, some of the bridesmaids were kind of unfortunate looking, but you know what I mean).

But the reality is that I would rather not have that Nazi, Martha Stewart, hand-making my bouquet if it meant that I wouldn't be able to sleep in, get ready on my own terms, and get married without Meredith Veira and Matt Lauer making insincere quips with my soon-be-husband during commercial breaks.

Is this really crazy? Am I the most difficult to please person in the world, or does this make sense to someone else? Because as I was thinking about this today I was irrationally embarrassed that I actually had really strong feelings about the entire scenario.

Maybe it was just the idea of letting millions of random STRANGERS be intimately involved in what should be one of the most important days of your life just so you can have a fancy wedding. That bugged me.

I know everyone puts so much EMPHASIS on having a lavish wedding and having it be "perfect." But god--at what point does it get a little ridiculous? At what point does it become less about actually being married to someone, and more about throwing a really awesome party with sparkly, shiny decor?

And I'm a gypsy--I LOVE sparkly, shiny trinkets, so you know I'm really serious about this.

Anyways. Just had to get that off my chest.

NO.

2007-03-26T14:47:00.001-06:00

I was listening to NPR this morning. There was a story that focused on the plight of this tiny Mexican village which is losing money because the people from the village who traveled to America illegally to find work aren't being hired [because they are illegal immigrants].

Apparently this is becoming a problem throughout Mexico.

Now, I feel bad for these people. Really I do. I know I can't comprehend the poverty and shittiness of life that they endure, and that is a terrible thing.

However.

They are in America ILLEGALLY. The owners of the businesses aren't supposed to hire them. Nor do they WANT to hire them because if they get caught employing illegal immigrants their ass is on the line (hence the "problem.")

What bothers me is that the story was presented in a way that essentially said, "poor illegal immigrants. Those bastard Americans are adhering to the law and non-U.S. citizens are getting screwed over. That's so sad."

NO. I mean, it is sad, but that's the LAW.

THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE ILLEGALLY.

L.A. is all smoke and mirrors

2007-03-26T14:40:00.001-06:00

I was just thinking about how L.A. is known to be this very superficial place full of beautiful people who only care about how they look and how much much money they make, and how appearances are crucial and if you don't have a certain "look" or meet a virtually unattainable level of attractiveness then you are ostracized.

That being said, there are a LOT of fucking ugly people that celebrities surround themselves with. Have you ever noticed that? I have.

My question is: Are there just fewer ridiculously attractive people in L.A. than are portrayed by the media

do you think celebrities make a conscience decision to surround themselves with unattractive people so that they look significantly better by comparison?

Fuck you, where is my nicotine

2007-03-05T14:41:00.001-06:00

So. I am trying to stop smoking. So far I'm doing pretty well.

I'm not chewing any bullshit gum, or using any stupid patch. I'm doing it the old fashioned way--through sheer willpower (and by creating a mental competition between myself and Patrick, who is supposed to also be quitting in T-3 Days--I quit early to get the jump on him so that I win. Although I guess in this situation we BOTH win. Whatever.).

Until today I hadn't experienced any of the mood swings or irritability that I initially expected. It was actually pretty easy and I was feel pretty smug and satisfied with myself. I thought perhaps I possessed some type of self-control the likes of which is rarely seen in real life.

Wrong.

I should know better than that. I have virtually no self-control. The only thing that keeps me from doing many of the things I want to do but know I should resist is the fact that I'm a huge pussy and I'm afraid of getting caught doing them. Not guilt or self-betterment. No. Self-preservation and fear.

That said, right now I pretty much hate everyone and I'm really pissed off about everything.

Additionally, I feel very strongly that smoking would make that feeling go away.

People hate feminists

2007-02-19T15:30:00.001-06:00

I found this article today and was completely offended and disgusted. Interestingly, I spoke with Jeninne Lee-St. John before she wrote her article because one of my senators sponsored the law in Illinois.

Are women no longer adult enough to manage sex?

February 19, 2007

By Betsy Hart

"A Time Limit on Rape," a news story by Jeninne Lee-St. John in Time magazine, opens with this question: If a woman consents to sex with a man but then withdraws that consent during the sex act itself, can he still be convicted of rape and sentenced to prison if, essentially, he doesn't stop fast enough?

"The answer depends on where you live," Lee-St. John writes in answer to her own question. In seven states, she writes, courts "have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time, and if a man doesn't stop, he is committing rape."

My home state of Illinois is the first to pass legislation giving a woman that "protection." Gee, I feel so much safer now. I mean, there's a law!

Sheesh.

Feminists and "victim advocates" argue that without being able to change her mind and say "no" during sexual intercourse itself, "there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or realizes her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV," writes Lee-St. John. No recourse? Now, I'm not sure how they think a woman is going to suddenly get that latter piece of information only after sex has begun. But are these feminists really saying that all men are such incredible brutes they wouldn't stop, if they found their partner was uncomfortable for some reason, without the threat of prison? Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?

But more likely is that this is what many in the sisterhood want to think of men because it fits with the "man-bad, woman-good" theory of life they consistently project to the world.

In a complicated Maryland case that may soon make it to the state's highest court, a young man and woman both testified that she told him to stop during the sex act and that he did so within seconds, and without completion. What preceded those agreed-upon events is murky; what matters is that the jury asked the judge during deliberations, "Is it rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued?" The judge said it was for them to decide. (The defendant, who appealed that conviction to the state's Supreme Court, currently is serving a five-year prison sentence for rape.)

But the Maryland appellate court has essentially said no, once intercourse has begun with a woman's consent, it's too late to call it rape and put him in prison if he doesn't stop immediately. So now feminists are "inflamed," according to Lee-St. John. They say they will push to change the law if the high court doesn't strike down the appellate court ruling.

Huh?

To establish that a woman can fully and even enthusiastically agree to sexual intercourse and then in the middle of it, if she chooses differently, he must stop "immediately" or he goes to prison, does women no favors.

For one thing, as Lee-St. John notes, what qualifies as "immediately"? Can we really count on a law to be fully "protective" in the moment, anyway? The seduction game can be incredibly, even wonderfully, daring, complicated and nuanced. This shouldn't be a news flash. So should there be some officially sanctioned signal, or perhaps a notarized paper, she has on hand to show, "I really mean it! You've got two seconds"?

Talk about creating a tangled web.

Sadly, what the feminists are advocating here degrades the real crime of rape. And, it infantilizes women. At some point -- gasp -- we are responsible for the choices we make, and for managing the consequences of the choices we make. That's what's empowering. We women are grown-ups, aren't we?

I'm not sure. There used to be some generally accepted rules of engagement between civilized men and women. No, they weren't always followed, but they provided something of a known playing field.

Now we just involve the courts when a woman's sensibilities are offended because, like very young children, we can't possibly be expected to manage those offended sensibilities ourselves.

And that's what's considered "progress" for women.

Now.

The author writes: “My home state of Illinois is the first to pass legislation giving a woman that ‘protection.’ Gee, I feel so much safer now. I mean, there's a law!”

What, so we shouldn't pass the law to begin with because someone might not adhere to it? What kind of whacked out rationale is that? Newsflash asshole, we have laws because people keep finding new, f-ed up ways to hurt each other.

The portion of the article which really bothers me is her response to the assertion that: "there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or realizes her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV," writes Lee-St. John.

The author writes: “No recourse? Now, I'm not sure how they think a woman is going to suddenly get that latter piece of information only after sex has begun. But are these feminists really saying that all men are such incredible brutes they wouldn't stop, if they found their partner was uncomfortable for some reason, without the threat of prison? Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?”

Um, yes, that IS what they are saying. That there ARE some men out there that just don't stop even when you tell them not to, even men they knew, and thought were pretty nice guys. In fact, most people know the people who rape them. And that for them to not stop wrong. And that is rape. Why should a woman not be able to say "no" just because she initially said "yes"?

We can change our minds about so many things in life.

"Oh, actually, can I have ranch instead?"

"Oh, I'm sorry, I decided I didn't like this shirt."

But people think it is ridiculous for a woman to decide after the fact that she doesn't, in fact, want a penis inside her. Wow.

Additionally, her statement: “Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?”

What the fuck. That is ridiculous. So it's just "feminists" who are involved with shitty dudes who won't discontinue sexual intercourse when asked to do so by their partner.

I'm just so disgusted by this whole article. I didn't realize that my belief that I control what happens to my body hinged on a "men-bad, woman-good" sensibility. I just figured that was my right as a human being.

Now I see what this woman is saying, and I understand that this law could be abused. However, to assert that a woman isn't being "adult" or "responsible" for the choices she makes because she decides to opt out of sex after initial intercourse is shocking.

I thought progress for woman was being able to decide what, when and with whom you share your body. But I guess not.

Misplaced Priorities?

2007-01-05T14:57:00.003-06:00

I was thinking about this yesterday:

Why is it that so many people will have sex with someone without knowing their middle name (or without being entirely certain of their first or last name--let's be honest), knowing where the person is from, what their major was in college, etc. etc.

BUT

So very few of people will pick up a phone call from an unknown number?

No matter how drunk I am, picking up an unknown call never seems like a good idea. I cannot, unfortunately, say the same for sex.

Misplaced priorities? Just an observation...

It's Christmas you bastards

2006-12-18T15:38:00.000-06:00

I just want to comment that I have noticed a lot of Scrooges out and about this year. Usually people are filled with holiday cheer, and despite the hectic pace that accompanies the Christmas season, most people tend to be polite and friendly. Well, this year it's my observation that there are a lot of assholes running around out there. Look, you might be all "stressed out" about finding the perfect present, and you might "have to" get to the store before it closes to get your kid the newest toy they just have to have. I, however,am not stressed. And I am not rushing anywhere. I'm leisurely enjoying the Christmas lights and trying to embrace the season. Or that's what I was doing until you body checked me in Wal-Mart or came dangerously close to hitting me as you cut me off in the mall parking lot. Point being, don't harsh my mellow--or that of those around you--just because you are experiencing holiday stress. That's kind of not the point of the season.

Snowy Observation

2006-12-17T15:39:00.000-06:00

Now, don't get me wrong. I know there are plenty of people out there who unfortunately cannot afford a vehicle and have to make due. However, what I find completely bizarre is that I have seen umpteen people riding around on bikes following last Thursday's snow storm. Now, did I just not notice this before, or are there really an inordinately large number of people who are busting out their 1987 huffy for some reason, despite the fact that it has to be ridiculously cold and difficult to navigate at this time? This just baffles me because the last thing I would want to do is go hop on my ten speed and peddle off into the snowy, mid-western night. So why does Springfield remind me of the morning commute in Tokyo right now? Weird.

Snow sucks

2006-12-16T15:40:00.000-06:00

Okay, I know snow is "pretty," and everyone wants a "white Christmas," but screw that. I am over the snow. Unless it is a light dusting that occurs while I am curled up on my couch in front of a fireplace, and doesn't result in my losing power and getting stuck in my driveway for 3 days, then snow can kiss my ass. Also, everyone in Springfield: WE HAD A MAJOR WINTER STORM. Stop driving like idiots and running around on the ice-covered roads in the middle of the night. I drive an Ecplise. I have very little control over what I'm doing while driving in inclement weather, and if I can't see you and you are in my path, I will most likely hit you and potentially kill you. Now, that would really bum me out, but at the end of the day, who loses in that situation? YOU. Additionally--and this has nothing to do with snow--I am so tired of all the women who shop on Sundays and Saturdays. I don't know why they feel the need to take up the entire freaking aisle in Schnuck's while they decide whether to get name brand or store brand french cut green beans, but I DO know that it isn't necessary. MOVE OVER. When you see me hovering .3432 inches from you, that means I'm trying to look too, and it will only take me approximately .3 seconds to decide. MERRY CHRISTMAS ASSHOLES.

North Korea, stop sucking

2006-11-18T15:41:00.001-06:00

Do you know who pisses me off? North Korea. What the fuck. We are fucking around in the desert looking for Osama, while crazy ole Kim Jong-il is setting off nuclear weapons like firecrackers. And, no, it does not make me feel better that it is "only" as powerful as 550 pounds of TNT. Nice try, Tony Snow. Now the countries known to have nuclear weapons are: North Korea, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, France, the U.K., and America. I'm not happy with this power shift. Because I don't care how vigorously China condemns North Korea, I can just imagine their leaders sitting around in secret meeting rooms laughing their asses off about it. Take that America. And Russia? Don't even get me started on Russia. I obviously don't need to comment on Pakistan. Frankly, France is iffy, too. What's even more bizarre is that the country's government insists that their nuclear program is necessary to "deter an American invasion." Really? Really, North Korea? Yes. Please. Let us invade your shitty country so we can deal with your big bag of bullshit, in addition to the heaping pile of bullshit we already have on our plate. Give me a break. North Korea needs to calm down with the nuclear weapons and focus on its roughly 3 bazillion citizens who are starving to death. They need to overthrow Kim Jong's crazy ass so their government can stop playing with nuclear weapons, and start focus on important things. Like food, shelter, and economic development. The world as a collective whole needs to get their collect asses in gear. Crazy dictators with access to incredibly destructive weaponry are bad news.

I AM SO ANGRY

2006-08-24T15:48:00.002-05:00

I'm so pissed right now I'm literally shaking. So, I go to Gordman's to buy perfume, and I'm waiting in line. There are these two women in front of me with a ton of toys and clothes, and they've been there for awhile, but I see them talking to the check-out boy, so I assume he's checking them out. Then, the other cashier finishes up with a customer so I, naturally assuming that the women in front of me are being taken care of, walk up to her. She rings me up, I pay with cash, the whole exchange maybe takes, oh, two minutes. However, I hear the women behind me say something about how "rude" and "obnoxious" something is, but since the boy cashier is gone, I assume they are pissy about that. So I turn to leave, and the women behind me says: "So, don't you know how to wait in line." It then dawns on me that I have unintentionally cut in front of them and I am immediately mortified. Because who DOES that? I mean, I can be a bitch, but even I'm not that entitled. At any rate, I start apologizing profusely, "I'm so sorry, I didn't realize, I thought the (now non-existent) cashier was taking care of you, blah, blah, blah." I mean, I really am embarrassed and I really do feel bad. But this bitch is having none of it. She's literally like, "whatever, what the fuck." It is at this point I start to get pissed. I mean, c'mon lady. I've apologized, it was an accident. Give me a break. So then I ask, "Well, if you're so pissed, why didn't you say something." To which she just snorts and looks away. So I say, "No. Really. If it was that big of a deal, and you thought it was so rude, why didn't you just let me know?" Here's the thing. I understand why she was irritated. I would be irritated, too. But I have definitely been in similar situations where I was waiting in line and another customer accidentally got in front of me. In some situations, for example when they only had one item, I didn't even say anything. Who cares? It will take them a minute, why make them wait when I have so many more items? Other times I simple informed them that the line started "back there," but was nice about it. They didn't realize, why make a federal offense out of it? What irritates me is, if you are going to go out of your way to be bitchy about something like this, then have the balls to back it up. Don't be aggressive and confrontational if you aren't ready and willing to get it right back. And frankly, don't make it my fucking problem that you waited until I had CHECKED OUT and was LEAVING, to make a snide comment. If you had mustered up the gumption to simply tell me that you were next to begin with, we wouldn't be having this altercation right now. I think I'm so irritated because there was no closure to the situation. She just refused to explain why she didn't say anything. But I know why she didn't: because she would rather get all huffy and be a bitch about the situation, than simply politely tell me that she was, in fact, still waiting to check out. Fucking assholes.

It's FICTION, ASSHOLES

2006-07-25T15:51:00.001-05:00

Okay, so I read The Da Vinci Code, and I thought it was good. The plot was obviously interesting, although I did think that the author's writing skills left something to be desired. That said, I do understand why people are so intrigued by the premise of this book. However, IT IS FICITION. Why do people still INSIST on discussing this novel as though it is historical fact and should be referred to as such. Today I was listening to the radio and the deejay was talking about the Catholic church and how it is so archaic, blah blah blah. At any rate, he went on to say, "And if you believe the Da Vinci Code, you believe that the basis of the celibate clergy isn't even a basis of Christianity." WHAT? The Da Vinci Code is NOT the bible. It is not a guide to one's life, religious or otherwise. Sure some of the concepts included within the book have been debated by bible scholars and theologians, but that is the extent of it. After all the debate on this stupid book, why do we STILL have morons out there that insist upon deferring to the Da Vinci Code as though it is factually based? Idiots.

No.

2006-06-05T15:57:00.000-05:00

This was a letter to the editor in the Springfield Journal-Register: Please say, Excuse me I would ask runners, when they approach walkers from behind, to call out a simple excuse me just as a kindly alert. Rosemarie Coogan, Springfield You know what Rosemarie? No.

Contemplative

2006-06-01T15:58:00.000-05:00

I get so irritated when someone is having a shitty day so you try to express some sympathy for their plight and they say, "It's not your fault." Really? I mean, I know it's not my fault, I'm just trying to be nice. I could have said, "Wow, suck--but better you than me, I guess." Why do people say that?

I also hate it when people tell me to "smile." And of course it is someone that I don't even know, like gas station attendents or the cashier at Shop n Save. I mean, maybe there is a reason I'm not smiling.

Additionally, if I went around smiling all the time I think that would look super creepy.

Honestly, I get kind of weirded out by people that smile all the time, but I don't say, "hey, stop grinning you look like an asshole."

curious

2006-05-18T15:57:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about this earlier. I wonder if a "mojito" used to be known

simply as a "jito." Then one day after a long evening at happy hour someone said, "I need some mo' jitos!!" and it just caught on. That seems plausible to me.