Yes, I know, a long long time between posts.
I finished the month of November with a week in London and St Albans visiting friends and having a much-appreciated break from work. I bopped around various pubs, restaurants, and coffee shops, catching up with people I haven't seen in almost eighteen months - a perfect vacation, really. The weather in London was typical for the time of year - a bit cold, a bit rainy, but not really too bad at all. All in all, a brilliant trip full of rugby, beer, fantastic food (yum, sausage rolls again!!), wonderful friends, quaint tea shops, the english countryside, a visit to the bank (boo to HSBC!), and, of course, a tasty curry enjoyed whilst watching Have I Got News for You. Fan-tabulous.
I did manage a bit of culture while there, visiting the Tate Modern to see the Mark Rothko exhibition with Lynn. I wasn't convinced at first - the murals are large canvases in dark rectangles of red, orangey-red, brown, blue, and black (usually only two of these colours at a time, though....) but as we moved through the rooms I started to like the works. I found the darkest works - reddish-black on black - to be quite soothing as they took a bit of looking to discern the layers of colours. When we went back through the biggest of the exhibit rooms, which housed the murals that appeared in the Four Seasons restaurant, I found the huge red canvases with their grey and black rectangles had really grown on me.
It was back to Minnesota on the last day of November and back to work the next day. And then on the 2nd of December I arrived back home to the park&ride to discover that my lovely Jeep had been stolen. A bit of a shock, to say the least. However, yesterday I received a call from the police saying they'd found my Jeep abandoned in a parking lot about 30 miles south of where I live. It is now safely in an impound lot there and I'm going to collect it on the weekend. The police couldn't tell me if it would start, but they did say no windows had been smashed and most surprisingly, the ignition/steering column hadn't been torn apart (leaving me to wonder how the bastards started it). Hopefully it will be running and even more hopefully the lousy theives didn't bother to steal my non-valuable belongings.
Next week I'm off to New York to meet up with Mom and GraceAnn (my sister for those of you who might not know). We'll spend the 23rd/24th in NYC, then head to Connecticut to spend the 25th at Mom's house, then back to NYC on the 26th. GraceAnn and I are leaving on the 26th for Saginaw where we'll join the Manor family for some pegs & jokers, margaritas, and general fun times.
Then it's back to work on the 29th and getting ready for the end of the year. I'm still trying to figure out how I can get to the Inaguration in January but I might have to give up that plan and just kick back here with a couple bottles of champagne and some friends and watch it all on the teevee machine.
Have a good weekend. Cheers!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
I hate people
SOME BASTARD STOLE MY JEEP TODAY.
IF YOU ARE READING THIS AND YOU ARE THE BASTARD WHO STOLE MY JEEP PUT IT BACK YOU ASSHOLE. IT IS MINE NOT YOURS AND NOW I HAVE TO WALK TO THE BUS AND IT IS COLDER THAN HELL OUT BECAUSE IT IS DECEMBER IN MINNESOTA.
:(
IF YOU ARE READING THIS AND YOU ARE THE BASTARD WHO STOLE MY JEEP PUT IT BACK YOU ASSHOLE. IT IS MINE NOT YOURS AND NOW I HAVE TO WALK TO THE BUS AND IT IS COLDER THAN HELL OUT BECAUSE IT IS DECEMBER IN MINNESOTA.
:(
Monday, November 10, 2008
Why I will never sleep again
So last night I'm in bed, fast asleep, and I hear a bit of scuttling from behind the wall. I'm not suprised or concerned; since the weather is getting colder the little animals run up and down the walls OUTSIDE sometimes.
And yet, the scuttling and scratching grew louder. and closer. AND SCARIER. And at TWO IN THE FREAKING MORNING I am woken by a loud thud and VERY CLOSE LOUD SCUTTLING. And as I put on my light and specs, I see a GIANT SQUIRREL SCOOT INTO THE BATHROOM. And it is not the only one!!!
I jumped out of bed and slammed the door to the bath, trapping the bath squirrel (who later drowned in the toilet: Mary 1, Squirrel Army 0). Then I grabbed some clothes and my handbag and ran from my flat. (Ok, Mary 1, Squirrel Army 1).
I drove to a friend's house (who is even lovelier for not being way pissed off at me for rocking up at two-thirty in the morning and crashing on her couch) and stayed there. I phoned the 24 hour maintenance hotline and was told "Oh, sorry, animal invasions are not on our list of things to bother with. Even in the middle of the night, when it is 20 degrees F outside and you have had to flee." Thanks, maintenance hotline bastards. I hope squirrels get in your house too. And eat all your pretzels.
So today the building manager informs me of the death of the bath squirrel (Yay!) but that they have 1) not been able to find the other squirrels and 2) they can't find where they might have come in. So building management's position is "oh, well, one dead squirrel in the toilet is okay, come on back and live here" whereas my position is "NEVER AGAIN IN THAT HOUSE IN THE NIGHT TIME." I'm sure we'll come to some reconciliation. But probably not tonight.
So if I ring you up in the middle of the night and come live on your sofa, this is why.
And yet, the scuttling and scratching grew louder. and closer. AND SCARIER. And at TWO IN THE FREAKING MORNING I am woken by a loud thud and VERY CLOSE LOUD SCUTTLING. And as I put on my light and specs, I see a GIANT SQUIRREL SCOOT INTO THE BATHROOM. And it is not the only one!!!
I jumped out of bed and slammed the door to the bath, trapping the bath squirrel (who later drowned in the toilet: Mary 1, Squirrel Army 0). Then I grabbed some clothes and my handbag and ran from my flat. (Ok, Mary 1, Squirrel Army 1).
I drove to a friend's house (who is even lovelier for not being way pissed off at me for rocking up at two-thirty in the morning and crashing on her couch) and stayed there. I phoned the 24 hour maintenance hotline and was told "Oh, sorry, animal invasions are not on our list of things to bother with. Even in the middle of the night, when it is 20 degrees F outside and you have had to flee." Thanks, maintenance hotline bastards. I hope squirrels get in your house too. And eat all your pretzels.
So today the building manager informs me of the death of the bath squirrel (Yay!) but that they have 1) not been able to find the other squirrels and 2) they can't find where they might have come in. So building management's position is "oh, well, one dead squirrel in the toilet is okay, come on back and live here" whereas my position is "NEVER AGAIN IN THAT HOUSE IN THE NIGHT TIME." I'm sure we'll come to some reconciliation. But probably not tonight.
So if I ring you up in the middle of the night and come live on your sofa, this is why.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Look What We Did
I have far too many things to say right now so I'll just say this:
America, yes we can and yes we did.
America, yes we can and yes we did.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
shut up, Shut Up, SHUT UP.
Am I the only person who thinks this sounds like a middle-schooler apologising after getting into a cat-fight with her BFF in the hallway over the quarterback of the football team?
This commercial, hastily slapped together in the kerfuffle following Ms. Bachmann's appearance on Hardball where she channeled Joe McCarthy and suggested an investigation of the American-ness of members of Congress, has been running at a rate of about three hundred showings per hour in Minnesota.
Here is the Hardball clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT01mC9xSA
And the "apology": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_VRUHStOg
Just for the record, if I were voting in your district, Ms. Bachmann, I'd be voting for someone with a good head on his/her shoulders. I could not give a s**t about your heart. And stop making it sound like liberal government and "liberty and freedom" are mutually exclusive. They aren't, and your head knows it. Pass the message on to your heart.
This commercial, hastily slapped together in the kerfuffle following Ms. Bachmann's appearance on Hardball where she channeled Joe McCarthy and suggested an investigation of the American-ness of members of Congress, has been running at a rate of about three hundred showings per hour in Minnesota.
Here is the Hardball clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT01mC9xSA
And the "apology": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_VRUHStOg
Just for the record, if I were voting in your district, Ms. Bachmann, I'd be voting for someone with a good head on his/her shoulders. I could not give a s**t about your heart. And stop making it sound like liberal government and "liberty and freedom" are mutually exclusive. They aren't, and your head knows it. Pass the message on to your heart.
Weakest Defense Ever?
And yet, probably not.
I have just read an article in the 27th October issue of "Feedstuffs" (a trade publication for the commodities industry) in which the authour of an op-ed uses the book of Genesis, from the Old Testament of the Bible, as a defense against California's Prop 2. Really. I am NOT kidding. And oh, how I wish I were.
Mr. Loos, authour of the article "Some Questions Deserve Answers" poses the thesis that "what we are failing to address is the ethics of animal agriculture" - a thesis that sounds relevant on the surface and one which would invite thoughtful, rational discourse. He continues, however, by arguing that "The 'Genesis' book of the Bible gave man dominion over animals and it is our ethical responsibility to find the best and most efficient methhods possible to convert those natural resources in to human consumable products."
I hope my cat never wanders into Mr. Loos's yard.
He continues, variously arguing that Prop 2 proponents are in favour of creating "greater gaps in the social classes" (because products become more expensive), that animal rights activists are domestic terrorists (one hopes Senator Obama is not a free-range chicken fan - I can see the attack ads now....there'd be feathers everywhere!!), and that there is hypocrisy inherent in supporting Prop 2 but still consuming animal products, including meat, leather, and medical products.
I'm possibly giving Mr. Loos too much credit by even commenting on his ridiculous article. He returns at several times to the idea that supporters of Prop 2 are irresponsible citizens because they do not focus on feeding "as many people in the world" as we can, although he offers no comment on other factors that influence global hunger - tariffs, corrupt government practices, etc.
I am certainly a proponent of ending global hunger. I do not think that this goal is mutually exclusive from humane animal treatment, however. Mr. Loos seems to miss the point completely - but perhaps he is paid by the column inch and decided to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and just see what stuck.
And really, beginning your argument with the Bible? I just don't really know what to say.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: VOTE PROP 2 on TUESDAY
Check out http://www.joetrippi.com/ for excellent discussion of Prop 2.
I have just read an article in the 27th October issue of "Feedstuffs" (a trade publication for the commodities industry) in which the authour of an op-ed uses the book of Genesis, from the Old Testament of the Bible, as a defense against California's Prop 2. Really. I am NOT kidding. And oh, how I wish I were.
Mr. Loos, authour of the article "Some Questions Deserve Answers" poses the thesis that "what we are failing to address is the ethics of animal agriculture" - a thesis that sounds relevant on the surface and one which would invite thoughtful, rational discourse. He continues, however, by arguing that "The 'Genesis' book of the Bible gave man dominion over animals and it is our ethical responsibility to find the best and most efficient methhods possible to convert those natural resources in to human consumable products."
I hope my cat never wanders into Mr. Loos's yard.
He continues, variously arguing that Prop 2 proponents are in favour of creating "greater gaps in the social classes" (because products become more expensive), that animal rights activists are domestic terrorists (one hopes Senator Obama is not a free-range chicken fan - I can see the attack ads now....there'd be feathers everywhere!!), and that there is hypocrisy inherent in supporting Prop 2 but still consuming animal products, including meat, leather, and medical products.
I'm possibly giving Mr. Loos too much credit by even commenting on his ridiculous article. He returns at several times to the idea that supporters of Prop 2 are irresponsible citizens because they do not focus on feeding "as many people in the world" as we can, although he offers no comment on other factors that influence global hunger - tariffs, corrupt government practices, etc.
I am certainly a proponent of ending global hunger. I do not think that this goal is mutually exclusive from humane animal treatment, however. Mr. Loos seems to miss the point completely - but perhaps he is paid by the column inch and decided to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and just see what stuck.
And really, beginning your argument with the Bible? I just don't really know what to say.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: VOTE PROP 2 on TUESDAY
Check out http://www.joetrippi.com/ for excellent discussion of Prop 2.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Use the Internets....
Look it up on The Google, people!
How is it that so many people are still so uninformed? I'm not talking about folks who have to work two jobs to pay the electric bills, or people who don't vote and don't care, but educated, intelligent (supposedly) people who are interested in the current election (or current events, or anything at all for that matter).
An example:
Billy (not his real name) confronted me earlier this week with a story he'd just seen online and he wanted me to defend Senator Obama - or he wanted me to fail trying. Apparently Billy had read on The Drudge Report, that bastion of indisputable truth, that Senator Obama favoured redistributionist practices. I hadn't seen the article, which was apparently accompanied by a short audio clip of Senator Obama on a WBEZ programme seven years ago. I couldn't respond to Billy's assertion that my pick for president favoured socialism (which delighted Billy to no end) but it didn't feel quite right.
Back at my desk, I Googled the story and was quickly directed to the WBEZ site, where the producer of Oddessy, the show in question, had posted a VERY short (about 200 word) comment on the story. It seems that the original programme had been mashed up, with sections of the comments made by Senator Obama taken rather out of context (shocking!) and posted on YouTube and the Drudge Report. I read a large section of the trasncript, enough to realise that the comments were taken very much out of context (Sen Obama argued for access to equal education and the "redistribution" of funds that would lead to equality).
Armed with this information, I dropped Billy a short note and included the link to the WBEZ site. I asked Billy to have a quick read and re-think his opinion on the story.
He didn't.
He outright refused to read the 200 words - he couldn't be asked to take five minutes to read the truth, straight from the producers mouth. His view was that while The Drudge Report might not be right, WBEZ might be un-truthful as well. I pointed out the transcript, readily available online, and the full radio programme - but no, Billy was interested in taking the time. And he was pretty sure my side was lying.
This shocks me. I don't know why; it certainly isn't the first time I've encountered this lack of interest in information (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Still President Bush).
BUT I AM STILL SHOCKED. That someone would CHOOSE to believe what he knows may not be true instead of taking a minute amount of time to do a quick fact check - to confirm or disabuse his original notions - absolutely f**king baffles me.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!
Seriously, send your answers. If we know what causes the problem, we can figure out how to fix it.
How is it that so many people are still so uninformed? I'm not talking about folks who have to work two jobs to pay the electric bills, or people who don't vote and don't care, but educated, intelligent (supposedly) people who are interested in the current election (or current events, or anything at all for that matter).
An example:
Billy (not his real name) confronted me earlier this week with a story he'd just seen online and he wanted me to defend Senator Obama - or he wanted me to fail trying. Apparently Billy had read on The Drudge Report, that bastion of indisputable truth, that Senator Obama favoured redistributionist practices. I hadn't seen the article, which was apparently accompanied by a short audio clip of Senator Obama on a WBEZ programme seven years ago. I couldn't respond to Billy's assertion that my pick for president favoured socialism (which delighted Billy to no end) but it didn't feel quite right.
Back at my desk, I Googled the story and was quickly directed to the WBEZ site, where the producer of Oddessy, the show in question, had posted a VERY short (about 200 word) comment on the story. It seems that the original programme had been mashed up, with sections of the comments made by Senator Obama taken rather out of context (shocking!) and posted on YouTube and the Drudge Report. I read a large section of the trasncript, enough to realise that the comments were taken very much out of context (Sen Obama argued for access to equal education and the "redistribution" of funds that would lead to equality).
Armed with this information, I dropped Billy a short note and included the link to the WBEZ site. I asked Billy to have a quick read and re-think his opinion on the story.
He didn't.
He outright refused to read the 200 words - he couldn't be asked to take five minutes to read the truth, straight from the producers mouth. His view was that while The Drudge Report might not be right, WBEZ might be un-truthful as well. I pointed out the transcript, readily available online, and the full radio programme - but no, Billy was interested in taking the time. And he was pretty sure my side was lying.
This shocks me. I don't know why; it certainly isn't the first time I've encountered this lack of interest in information (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Still President Bush).
BUT I AM STILL SHOCKED. That someone would CHOOSE to believe what he knows may not be true instead of taking a minute amount of time to do a quick fact check - to confirm or disabuse his original notions - absolutely f**king baffles me.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!
Seriously, send your answers. If we know what causes the problem, we can figure out how to fix it.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Because it would be **AWESOME** (updated)
My idea for a new olympic sport: Syncronised artistic pool volley shots
Teams of two wo/men standing on a court covered with water 2.5 feet deep.
While waiting for the serve, the receiving team has to twirl ribbons (artistically).
Both members of each team have to make identical movements while the ball is in play.
When one side loses the serve, the members of that team have to do a shot of the prominent liquor of the other team's country (Tequila, Ouzo, Grappa, Vodka, etc.)
Play is to 15 points, win by two, two of three sets, or when the other side passes out.
If anyone can figure out how to work some boxing and hurdles in there, I'm all ears.
********
From Kerry in the UK (pregnancy obviously gives one excellent ideas):
The winning team can not be declared the winner until their drunkest member (to be decided by court side breathalyser/blood test) has successfully vaulted a hurdle.
Everyone, including the audience must stay until this happens.
Teams of two wo/men standing on a court covered with water 2.5 feet deep.
While waiting for the serve, the receiving team has to twirl ribbons (artistically).
Both members of each team have to make identical movements while the ball is in play.
When one side loses the serve, the members of that team have to do a shot of the prominent liquor of the other team's country (Tequila, Ouzo, Grappa, Vodka, etc.)
Play is to 15 points, win by two, two of three sets, or when the other side passes out.
If anyone can figure out how to work some boxing and hurdles in there, I'm all ears.
********
From Kerry in the UK (pregnancy obviously gives one excellent ideas):
The winning team can not be declared the winner until their drunkest member (to be decided by court side breathalyser/blood test) has successfully vaulted a hurdle.
Everyone, including the audience must stay until this happens.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Why I Love Sports Metaphors
Hillary Clinton's pick in the Kentucky Derby, the filly Eight Belles, came in second, breaking two ankles in the process, and had to be euthanised.
I see Slate is in on the game: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/05/05/the-limits-of-the-eight-belles-metaphor.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)