Google AdWords

I got an interesting piece of mail today--it was a $100 credit from Google to use their "adwords" to advertise my business. What makes me happiest is that unlike all the other promotions I've met recently, I don't have to sign my credit card away to use it. I mean, I like to play games on pogo.com. Pogo links to some kind of money game site run by the Gameshow Network, I think. Anyway, you can earn points to use at their store without a credit card...BUT you can only redeem the points with your card. I don't like that. 'Course, I also don't like that pogo lets you earn tokens, but you can only use the tokens to buy stuff to clutter your avitar. It costs real money to buy the gems that let you really upgrade your games. It seems to me that by the time someone has earned, say, 1 million tokens, pogo has earned more than enough money in ad revenue to pay for the benefits of one gem ten times over (if not more).

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of allowing ad revenue to pay for free quality media products--televison, movies, games. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of time watching ads to pay for my entertainment. But I'm annoyed by sites like pogo that offer you a worthless product (clothes for my avitar) when a valuable product could be easily traded. But it's not like I'm a heartless taker--I've been a member of pogo for like 2 years and still need 150,000 tokens to reach 1 million and I think 1 million tokens is a good price for a gem.
Anyway, since I don't have a business, I've made up a small add to maybe entice someone to visit this blog. If you're here because of Google, "Hi!". Welcome. I hope you stay awhile and feel free to comment.

Gosh, if I get very popular, I may have to make an effort to write something every day (that does seem to increase my viewership). I honestly have no idea how anyone comes to read my blog (well, there is that whole "audience" page on my dashboard, but it still doesn't explain what makes a person stop by. Hello Russia!!)

Anywho, if you are here and not sure why, check out my "labels" section--I try to label everything that I've written, so it's more than likely I've written something you'll find interesting.

P.S. Thank-you Google. Earlier I complained about how Amazon no longer easily links to books that I'm recommending (my shameless way to maybe make a buck, though 3 years of blogging has netted me an entire penny in adsense earnings :-)). Well, there's now a way...never mind. I just fiddled with it and they ain't selling books. I'm not going to push shoes or electronics, so guess that's a bust. Yo Google! Some people do read who hang out online! Get with the program!

"and I" vs. "and ME"

Okay, I'm not a very good "Grammar Nazi"--my spoken English is terrible and my written vocabulary isn't very consistent. But there are a few rules I've learned and two really annoy me when they're used improperly (but I will only correct them in the written word--verbally it's too difficult and you just come across as an ass because 9 times out of 10 the person thinks they've said one thing when they've really said something else--trust me, I'm that person).

The first is e.g. vs i.e.--the Oatmeal web-comic is the best place to learn the difference, though I'll give you my rule of thumb:

e.g. is used in exchange of "for example".
i.e. is use in exchange of "in other words".

The second is "and I" vs. "and me". I don't know who the idiot was who decided to teach children that proper English is "and I" in all cases, but I was surprised when a teacher in high school had to re-teach this. 'Course, I didn't learn 90% of grammar until I took Spanish. Anyway. The REAL rule is that the noun for yourself comes last always--the choice is determined by the nature of the sentence.

If you were to say "Henry and I are going to the store" that would be correct because without Henry, you would say "I am going to the store". The alternative would be you saying "Me am going to the store."

And on the flip side you would say "That toy belongs to Henry and me"--because you would never say "That toy belongs to I".

I personally normally speak improperly because I'd rather use the correct noun than place the words in the correct order. Anyway, I cringe whenever I hear an improper usage. But then I'm the girl who made a new friend in 9th grade when I gently told him that I wasn't sure that he was using words correctly in English class. His method was to use a 5 dollar word when a 1 dollar word would suffice at the expense that the sentence no longer made sense. By the end of high school he'd outgrown it and was actually a pretty smart guy.

The moral of this story? Read a lot and speak from your heart. Use words that you know and say them the way you feel comfortable. But don't use words and concepts that are foreign to you but you think will make you sound smarter. Trust me--no one has ever wondered if I was intelligent even though I can barely remember the name of the object I'm talking about. Real intelligence is more than the words coming out of your mouth--it's your ability to show that you actually know what your talking about. And realize: if you continue to try and fake your intelligence, those around you can tell and may laugh behind your back.

But also remember, saying "I don't know" is a sign of intelligence, not weakness, but only when you make an effort to learn more.

US vs. EU

It was interesting to see the economy report on the news tonight. When France elected a Socialist leader, it caused 401Ks to drop drastically. This made the news show the difference in what the US government did to help the economy afloat in 2008 vs. what the EU governments did.

While the US had the bailout and increased government spending, England, France, and Germany chose to cut what they could only. Today, the US is as much out of trouble as it really could be while the big three are facing double dip recessions and/or high unemployment.

Looks like 10 points to the Democrats.

Catch-22

So, as you may have figured, I'm a big fan of the Dark-Hunter series right now (and when I become a fan, I tend to obsess for the time being). Though this thought came to me while reading these books, the idea transends all books really.

There's a catch-22 in the writing world. One of my complaints about the Dark-Hunters is the anti-climatic endings since Kenyon really is just writing romance novels. (Thank God she's learned to write fight scenes!!!!) While reading the site on TV tropes (you REALLY need to go there if you love to read or write or watch movies/television) it's pointed out how the Gods will solve all the unsolvable problems in the end--the ultimate get-out-of-a-complicated-plot-free card. And this is where the catch-22 lies:

If the author uses the Gods to kill the big-baddie, I call it a cop out since the main characters didn't have to do any real work (besides the whole getting beat up 2 or 3 times in previous chapters). But then, if they didn't use the Gods, the complaint would be wondering why the Gods even exist. I guess the argument is that a good author can come up with an solution that satisfies everyone...please excuse me while I go laugh my butt off while rolling around on the floor. There's a reason why half the world loves Twilight while the rest of us cringe. And why some of the most amazing authors have their non-fans. You can't please everyone, so I guess authors have to decide which side of the catch they want to be on and go with it.

Hmm...now if only Congress could do that. 

Special Interests

I think that one of the biggest problems with modern politics is the question of what exactly a "Special Interest Group" is. Both sides complain about the special interests that support their opponents...which begs the obvious question of what exactly a special interest is and why is a group only a special interest when it's in support of the opposition.

Both sides have special interests. The NRA has vowed to do whatever it can to defeat Obama and the Catholic Church disagrees with Paul Ryan's budget plan to cut social programs while continuing to lower the taxes of the super rich. Doesn't it annoy you that on one side these groups are "Special Interests" while on the other they're merely "Concerned Citizens"?

Mad Men and George Romney

So, I'm days behind in my "Weird News" on Hulu. I just watched the clip where Mitt Romney's son complained about a line in an episode of "Mad Men" where his grandfather was called a clown. It got me thinking.

"Mad Men" is set in the 1960s. Back in the '60s, the Republicans were notorious for being anti-racial rights. So, if Romney was the pro-rights governer that his grandson proclaimed then he would have been considered a clown in the Republican party. And, me being a socially liberal educated woman (i.e. a slut), if I was George Romney's granddaughter, I would have stood up and proudly said "Hell's YES my grandfather was a clown and I'm happy that the 1960s Republican party no longer exists BECAUSE of clowns like my grandfather who didn't believe in the archaic notions that black people should be 'separate but equal'. He helped ring in the new age of the Republican Party...which you should vote for in November."

But "Grandson of George Romney" didn't go there. Instead he sounded whiney and un-informed about the world that his Grandfather existed. Maybe he needs to go watch a few dozen episodes of "All in the Family."

Castle

Hmm...So, I don't usually think of zombies as sexy, but day-am--Castle looked very yummy tonight :-D

Firelight (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

One of my penpals told me that one of her favorite websites is a "bloggy" thing about Christian women who are against feminism. And then there is the Pope who want to crack down on Nuns in America who are getting too feminist in their ways. In reading that blog, it's obvious that these women have no idea what real feminism is.

It's not a bunch of wild women burning their bras, sleeping around, and acting like heathens, which is what they seem to think. Yes, those are symbols, but for the most part, they're pointless and most feminist women will say that while it's our RIGHT to do such things, they don't make us CEOs or whatever our hearts desire are.

Real feminism is what's portrayed in this show--strong women able to do for themselves without a man. Real feminism takes the life that those Christian women want and makes it practical. Having a loving husband, taking care of loved children, but only when we choose, not because it's expected of us. And doing what we want because we CAN, not being forced to act in a certain way because that's what's expected of us.

One of the biggest complaints you can read in the comments section is that these women are teaching their daughters to be servants to their husbands. They're automatic defense is that they aren't servants, but partners where the husband has the ultimate say (debate that as you wish). But first and foremost, they say that they would support whatever life choices that their daughters make. If that is true, then those mothers are the biggest feminists in the world--because if their daughter came up to them and said that she's going to be the next President of the US, then that mother is going to do everything in her power to make sure that it happens.

Again, debate amongst yourselves as to whether these mothers are serious about their commitment to supporting their daughters decisions--the last article I read was on how mothers should teach their...children or was it just daughters?...to not follow their dreams, but to follow what Jesus wants them to do. My argument, and one many women agreed with, was that how can a human (who most Christians will agree are sinful and flawed) can sit there and tell their child that their dreams AREN'T sent by God.

More Favorite Quotes

(Since I can only post 200 characters of labels.)

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
--Maya Angelou

"Death should be a celebration. Like a birthday. I want to go up like a rocket when my time comes, and fall down in a cloud of stars, and hear everyone go: ahh!"
--Joanne Harris

"I not only use all the brains that I have, but all I can borrow."
--Woodrow Wilson

"I let out a battle cry. Sure, a lot of people might have mistaken it for a sudden yelp of unmanly fear, but trust me. It was a battle cry."
--Jim Butcher, My Big Fat Supernatural Wedding

"I don't want to live in a world where the strong rule and the weak cower. I'd rather make a place where things are a little quieter. Where trolls stay the hell under their bridges and where elves don't come swooping out to snatch children from the cradles. Where vampires respect the limits, and where the faeries mind their p's and q's. My name is Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden. Conjure by it at your own risk. When things get strange, when what goes bump in the night flicks on the lights, when no ne else can help you, give me a call, I'm in the book."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front

"I think that men aught to treat women like something other than weaker men with breasts."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front
[yes: we're definitely not weaker, and more importantly, we're smarter :-)]

"It came charging toward me, several hundred pounds of angry-looking monster, and I did the only thing any reasonable wizard could have done. I turned and ran like hell."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"Hope is a force of nature. Don't let anyone tell you different."
--Jim Butcher, Changes

"Christ, Dresden! You almost got me killed!"
"Don't be a baby. You're fine."
Thomas frowned at me. "You at least could have told me!"
"I did tell you," I said. "I told you at Mac's that I'd give you a ride home, but that I had to run an errand first."
Thomas scowled. "An errand is getting a tank of gas or picking up a carton of milk or something. It is not getting chased by flying purple pyromaniac gorillas hurling incendiary poo."
--Jim Butcher, Blood Rites

Favorite Quotes

"Apocalypse is a frame of mind." [Nicodemus] said then. "A belief. A surrender to inevitability. It is a despair for the future. It is the death of hope."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
--Robert Frost

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
--Oscar Wilde

"Insanity is doing the same thing, overandover again, but expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
--Mark Twain

"There's more magic in a baby's first giggle than in any firestorm a wizard can conjure up, and don't let anyone tell you any different."
--Jim Butcher, Fool Moon

"Bow ties are cool."
--Steven Moffat

"Every now and then I like to do as I'm told, just to confuse people."
--Tamora Pierce, Melting Stones

Plato's "The Cave"

I really liked this story when we discussed it in the "Scientific Revolution" course I took a couple years ago. I'm liking it even more as I watch this "Hallmark Hall of Fame" program called "Firelight"--it's about girls in a correctional facility. I think that the story is a great one to use for this--everyone's a prisoner until they start asking questions and expanding their world.

The fire fighting program that is also a key part of the plot is also a great idea. Normally I think Hallmark is too sappy for me, but I highly recommend this episode. However, they could seriously afford to lose the Hallmark commercials, but then I'm probably not in their target audience, which is actually kinda sad. I mean, who would really benefit from watching a program on troubled girls learning to be independent, self-sufficient, and not a bane on society? Troubled girls, right? Well, I don't think that troubled girls would sit through sappy commerials that kinda make me want to puke. The girls can relate to the bad girls in the episode--I highly doubt that they can relate to the loving families and sentimental BS (no offense) in the commercials.

Still, leave the commercials out and maybe they'd be a good week-end movie at the local young ladies correctional facility.

Lobbyists

(That word looks funny...just saying.)

I propose that lobbyists stay out of Washington. Oh don't look at me that way, you know that the world would be a much better place if lobbyists had to stay away from our representatives. Now, don't get me wrong. I think lobbyists are great for teaching our representatives about the issues that are important to their constituents, but the whole "wining and dining" and he who has the most money wins situation is ridiculous. This is why I've come up with the following proposition:

Professional lobbyists cannot speak with representatives or their assistants. Instead, they must submit video and written pamphlets for their requests. There can be no phone calls, dinners, or other favors. This puts all issues onto the same playing field.

Professional lobbyists can instead transfer their persuasive powers to the public sphere since I see no problem with individual citizens talking with their representatives about the issues that are important to them.

I think that this simple proposition would greatly increase transparency in government.

Romney

Romney said something interesting the other day. He was asked if he or Obama was funnier (because of his possible appearance on SNL) and he didn't know him personally to be able to make a judgment. This got me thinking.

I propose that at some point during any campaign, all the candidates (fringe or not) regardless of their party affiliation, eat dinner together. It should be completely private, media free, and in neutral territory.

I think that 90% of the hateful speech is made during the campaign because they're making assumptions about the other. I mean heck, how well do the Republican candidates know each other personally? And they know Obama even less. Maybe if they got to know each other without a camera catching all the soundbites, they might understand eachother's positions a little be a little more progressive, instead of reductive.

Biggest Loser Week 16

Well, that was an interesting way to start the episode. I'd really like to know who exactly got wind of the "leak", who leaked it, and whether it was even true. Because it really wouldn't surprise me if one of the contestants wanted to make up something to stir up some controversy (Condra) and it got out of hand. What I can't believe is that 2 contestants actually left--I figured that it was obvious that they'd either all stay or all go. I'd seriously be pissed if I left thinking that everyone was going with me and no one did.

I also am pretty surprised by the numbers the contetants are putting up this week--they're huge! Weirdness.

Secret Service in Trouble

First off, I have no problem with our government workers taking a break every once in awhile. This means that the President can go spend the afternoon on the golf course and if Secret Service guys want to spend the night with a legal prostitute, fine.

I can kind of see the problem of counter-intelligence, but then, ANYONE could break their supposed shell. Are they supposed to live in a bubble? If there was evidence that they'd let vital information leak, I could see freaking out, but really? The reaction they're having right now is BIGGER than when some CIA guy leaves his laptop on the Metro. We need to understand that they're human and if they decide to pick up prostitutes or get drunk after spending 8,10,12 hours DOING THEIR JOB, then so be it. If they're spending their own money and not shirking their duties, let them.

"Stand Your Ground"

I haven't commented yet on the Trayvon Martin case because I haven't felt that it's my place to do so. But after listening to what the NRA had to say on the Today show this week. They apparently want to expand the "Stand Your Ground" laws. I have a problem with Zimmerman's probable defense--that it was self denfense because he was standing his ground. Well, honey, wasn't Martin standing his ground when he defended himself from a man that was following him? If the NRA had their way, Martin would have been carrying a gun himself and the situation would have been reversed with Zimmerman as the dead man...and then we wouldn't care because it'd be just another case of a "rogue black man killing someone."

All shootings should be investigated fully. I support any and all "Castle" laws because when someone decides to enter another's home unwelcomed and warned, then it's their own fault for getting shot. But I think that we should encourage people to do like the woman did a few months ago: she was on the phone with 911 when she warned the men she shot, repeatedly that she had a gun and was going to use it.

But outside of the home, there's no real way to know what was happening when the shooting happened. The gunman can lie, so there needs to be an investigation in all cases. It seems to me that the police used the law to be lax in their investigation, which is a severe problem.

Big Oil

This is important. I know that you've all seen the comercials recently about how Obama is against Big Oil because he won't let them drill off shore or up in Alaska or whereever they want to put their tankers, and how this is hurting the economy because gas prices are just increasing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's what you really need to understand.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. This is more a matter of common sense in action.

What Big Oil wants is the rights to own said tracts of land and sea. Currently, all the land they want belongs to the government (and therefore technically everyone) for them to do with as they see fit. Yes, there may or may not be oil, coal, natural gas, the Holy Grail, located under the ground, but that is beside the point. What Big Oil/Natural Gas/Coal/Catholic Church want government to do is to let them be the sole owner of those lands so that they can do what they want to, when they want. This includes, but isn't limited to, keeping their competators from owning the land and removing the resources.

What you need to look out for is what exactly the plans are of the companies that want to use the land. The key phrase is whether they are actively planning to drill or if it's just "exploration". I have no qualms about drilling when the drilling is going to happen within the next 5 years because that's how long it takes to build a platform. But VA's Governor is trying desperately to "open Virginia's coast to off-shore drilling"--which since there's a pretty hefty wait before any oil will come up, I can't help but wonder how this drilling will help TODAY to bring down gas prices. Unless it's bringing down gas prices because some company knows that when they need it, they'll have that much supply waiting for them.

I challenge you to find out something. I want you to know how much land and sea area BP, Shell, and Exxon currently own but are not drilling. Separately, how many acres do they have that have the pumps currently in place, but aren't pumping even though they haven't been exhausted. Do these companies REALLY need access to more acreage or are they out to get something that will hurt their competators and therefore our economy.

Politics and Family

My dad and his brothers are all variously politically interested. There's the hard core economic conservative (who is too anti-democrat for his own good, in my opinion), there's the, I guess you'd call it, social justice guy, there's the slightly left leaning moderate (my dad), and the slightly right leaning moderate. One of the uncles had a house warming party this afternoon and the boys, being the only ones in attendance, got into the political discussions that their mother and sisters usually stop. I actually enjoy listening to the debates because the two "wingers" are very passionate while the moderates have their bullet points of, well, moderation. You can hear all the sides of the role of government argument without leaving the combination of Mother and Father DNA.

It's no wonder that I ended up, politically, where I did. And since I'm a product of the slightly left moderate primarily, I can't help but disagree with the right winger on a few key points, which I shall share here. I love my uncle, but he's too narrow minded when it comes to taxes and government.

For instance, he blames Obama. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. When my left-ish uncle blames Congress for the current economic climate, he blames Obama for supposedly signing off personally on companies like Solendra. (Point 1: I don't like using one example to describe everything--it makes a person look uninformed if they cannot name a fair few examples (of anything) and be comfortable saying that this is a majority of cases). I pointed out that at least the money was getting spent, which, since this is my dad's biggest gripe, is a good thing. The rebuttal was that the money went into the pockets of a few rich, which is debatable since I'm sure there were a few engineers involved who took a paycheck at some point before they went out of business. It is shallow-minded to ignore the role of Congress since Congressmen will throw the President under the bus if they don't like him and that it isn't the President's job to write laws, so you really can't get mad at a man who has no control when a budget with who knows what comes onto his desk at the last possible moment. Granted, we need a president who is going to walk into congress, stand at the podium, show a video of a group of kindergarteners solving problems, and explain why calling Congress a bunch of children because they can't work together is insulting to the children. (Much like calling murderers animals is insulting to animals since animals do not kill for vengence or anything more than defense or food.)

And I'm going to write this now before I forget: Romney, working for Bane Capital bought failing companies and either turned them around or eased them out of business. So it's okay for business to work properly under him, but not in the case of when government is involved? The rule of business is that many businesses will fail. Period, end of statement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But if government uses their self-imposed rules to choose which businesses to support, and said businesses fail, it's suddenly a problem? It's like telling government that they can only fund sure-things, but every gambler (and investor) knows that there's no such thing as a sure-thing. I don't know how my uncle feels about governmental investments, but by the previous logic, he shouldn't support any. That includes investing ANY money in schools, roads, or anything since there's no garantee that it will work out the way that it was intended. My libertarian self can agree with this ideology, but my, dare I say it, smart self, says that that is ridiculous.

And that brings us to point number two. The three not right wingers are in favor of a government which encourages the super-rich to spend their money. My left-leaning father is in favor of an 80% tax bracket with deductibles a mile long, much like we had until Reagan. I can agree with this (though we disagree where the top bracket should start), but of course, my uncle says that it's not government's job to point industry towards the future (hence his opposition to Solendra). The three others say that this is EXACTLY what the point of government is. I mean, the guy who is heading one of the space-adventure companies thanks NASA because without them, there would be no industry. And what if we were to wait until the last possible moment to seek energy independence because THAT is when there will be economic incentive to do so? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Because gas skyrocketed in the 1970s and we made how much advancement until the government stepped in with incentives?

The market (which isn't capitalist and you wouldn't want a capitalist market) can only go so far. Look at how the automobile industry squashed electric cars until the government was like "hey, why aren't you doing this?" Can you imagine where electric cars will be in 100 years? Now imagine where they'd be if we'd spent the past 100 years inovating them instead of sweeping them under the rug.

Week of the Fire

Sheesh--this week has been fire week in this "city" (there are technically 7+ cities). First we had the jet crash (I know you heard about that), then a medical tower caught fire on Monday or Tuesday. Then yesterday the local news was hijacked by a 4 alarm, 5 houses involved fire. Someone was finally killed (that's the amazing part of all those stories--no fatalities) when 2 senior citizens perished in a condo fire this morning.

Fires, and shootings, are common enough stories on our local news, and there's rarely a day that passes without either or both. But we don't normally have so many big fires (apartment fires and larger). Normally they're single family homes where fatalities are relative to the number of working smoke detectors in the home. 

Robert Kennedy

I cannot believe that that man is trying to make his case look like he's a good dad just doing the right thing. Jerk!

For those who don't know, he's going to court because he assaulted two nurses who tried to stop him when he attempted to take his 3 day old son out of the hospital without proper permission.

He gave a press conference yesterday and didn't even address the serious issue of babies being kidnapped from hospitals because of nurses who assumed that the person carrying the child past them had permission. In a world where the complaint is that there are too few nurses working too many hours and are making too many mistakes, shouldn't a parent be THANKING each and every nurse that asks if the person has permission to remove the child?

My dad told me that fathers aren't even offered a wristband like mothers have. If to many fathers are inconvienced by nurses asking the same questions, then maybe this could be an alternative, though the mother should be the one to decide whether he gets a band or not. But my dad said that he never had a problem because he only took me and my brother through the halls when he was also walking with my mom. And yes--the nurses would periodically match mother to baby via the bracelets.

I hope that Kennedy gets the biggest punishment possible to send a message to stupid, and dare I say arrogant, fathers (and really anyone else) who think they are above these rules. They may seem like stupid rules when you aren't the one breaking them, but if someone tried to abduct your child you'd be thanking the nurses who otherwise were 'annoying' you.

Amazon and Blogger

So, what happened with the ability to create links to books available on Amazon.com? I mean, I'm having a love/hate relationship with Amazon right now, but it would be nice to make a buck or two from Amazon for linking to a book that someone already cares to buy. Now all I can find is a wonkey widget that is more a pain in the butt to create than I think it's worth (but it exists if you care to look through some of my favorite books).

I love Amazon because they have the simplist system for selling books (the only thing that I am selling at the moment) and I don't have pay a hosting fee (my problem with ebay and etsy).

I dislike Amazon because they're fighting on-line sales tax to the detrement to the community (they're fighting VA's lawmakers by threatening to not move here unless they get like 5 years exemption from sales tax--a tax exemption that other on-line retailers will not get--at least the law they're fighting there will benefit all on-line retailers...while making it cheaper to do business online rather than with a brick and motar).

And on Amazon, I don't understad sellers who sell for $0.01--I mean, are they trying to make it impossible for people like me to make a buck or two? For instance, I have books that I paid $7.99 for. I read them and now want to turn them over. They're in great shape and I think $5 is a fair price, but they'll never sell because I have 100 books to compete with, selling for $0.01. This means that their turn over is so high that they can still make a profit selling books for less than $1.00 (you pay $4.00 and Amazon takes $1.50, the post office takes another $1.50)--it makes you wonder where their supply comes from that the books cost, what, $0.20 wholesale.

I don't buy $0.01 books. I'd rather pay $3 for the book, plus the $3.99 for shipping, plus tax, and know that I'm not funding something that I don't even know what it is. I guess the assumption is that they are brick and mortar stores that also sell their inventory on Amazon, but if so, what store doesn't have it's own website? GoogleSites makes setting up one easy, so there's really no excuse in today's economy. Heck, if I owned a small bookstore, I'd sell on Amazon, too, and probably at a reduced price so that with shipping costs the prices are comparable, and just pull books off the shelf when they sell online. I think that that's what it's supposed to be (besides people like me who have books that they just want to get rid of), but random people with access to very cheap books, who take advantage of Amazon's storage facilities, now open "bookstores" which may or may not be contributing to the demise of the brick and mortar bookstores that we know and love.

And before I hear from the complaint department, I use the library primarily. I've only bought books on Amazon during college for class (and saved a ton rather than the campus bookstore). And when I do buy books I like to buy used.

So, I ask you to take an extra minute or two and see who you're buying from. If it seems fishy that they'd sell for $0.01, even though they have thousands of positive reviews, maybe you should buy from someone else.

Duggar House

For the most part, I like the Duggar family. There are much worse families in the world and for those who play the "they're brainwashing the kids" card, please remember that you yourself were brainwashed by your parents. You didn't come out of the womb thinking what you think; you were influenced by your parents from day one. They made you the person you are whether you were following in their footsteps or rebelling for all it's worth. So there.

What I don't like about their house is that the guest suite is located where you can only access it through the laundry room. The way they go through clothes, that seems like a terrible oversight. It's no wonder that Grandma Duggar does laundry every time she visits--she can't get to her room without tripping over 3 piles, probably.

Probably the only thing I don't really like about the way the kids are raised is that they are so dependent on people other than the two parents to care for the children. My grandmother (who had 8 kids) and my dad and aunts and uncles on that side say that that's the way kids were raised, with the older ones looking after the younger ones and the chores (my youngest uncle complains that he was left with all the chores when the older ones moved out). But I think that that is completely different from the way the Duggars do things because it doesn't appear to be voluntary. I mean, the kids are obviously willing and it doesn't seem to be much of an opposition (is that the right word?), but it just seems like the girls do more raising than is fair, even split between so many of them. I don't know if any of the women in my family watch the show, but I think that if they did they'd say that they weren't faced with as much without mom stepping in. But there was a reason my grandmother had my grandfather get a vasectomy on the ship when she did (though Uncle Paul being a premie also had a big part of that).

Colbert Shoutout

I'm digging Colbert's guest last night who ranked UVA with MIT as the best in Humanities education...and Colbert knew his "Wahoo-Wa"! [End Brag]

And if you care, the guest is Richard Hearst who wrote: We're losing our minds

The 700 Club

Umm...okay, that makes no sense. The co-host (i.e. not Pat Robertson) just said that the incentive she uses to get motivated to excercise/eat healthier is her pocket book. But they started the show complaining about over taxation and such. Does that mean that she would agree to the government putting a tax onto junk food? Because those ideas seem contradictary.

First of I believe many passages from "The American metropolis, from Knickerbocker days to the present time; New York City life in all its various phases" by Frank Moss

There is a mysterious and startling lack of harmony between the constituents of the [New York] City's life. The people do not know their next-door neighbors, and are not concerned with what happens on the block next to theirs; and they bustle about their business without seeing or knowing vast secitons of the City that are directly affecting their social affairs, and indirectly touching all of their interests The City bounds forward under a general impulse of growth, leaping along the pathway of material progress with incredible speed; and yet its citizens, in large part, are indifferent to the concerns of their neighbors, and are oblivious to the advantage of mutual civic interest and popular combinations of civic effort.

Political organizers alone powerfully use the advantages of cooperation and coordination of popular forces for public purposes. Those who are unselfishly interested in the advancement of virtue and true prosperity have not yet learned to combine their large numbers and to pull together.

Is there a single trait, characteristic of the entire City, continuous through its history and dundamentally connected with its development? There is great philanthropy--in streaks; there is corruption--in places; there is old-time Americanism--in sections; there is Continental liberality--in spots all over; there is Puritanism--to match the LIberality; but the Spirit of Tolerance is New York's peculiar characteristic. This  spirit operates in all affairs--busniness, social, religious, political--and proceeds from an unconscious but all-controlling realization of the duty of minding our own business and letting other people mind theirs.

Tolerance was essential to the development of the commerce for which New York has always been preeminent. It was the natural outgrowth of the commercial spirit. Even in the strained relations arising from the "excise question," when one class of citizens parades tableax of LIberty, in tears, surounded by the Muses weeping because they cannot have free beer on Sunday, and another class demands that the liquor business shall be entirely extirpated--between these two extremes stands the conservative mass of citizens, who manage to see some claims on each side, to tolerate both sections of extremists, and to provide a middle course between them. This spirit of tolerance causes religious factions that have been making holy attempts to cut each other's throats on other continents, to live together, holding their religious services separately, but buying and selling, associating in political and other ways, and crossing the bloody line with intermarriages.

--written in 1897

Machine Gun Vegas

I'm happy with this concept. My feeling on the subject is that those heavy machine guns, assault rifles, etc. are fine to use on the gun range wherever it is. I'm against the owning of these guns because they're impractical at best for defense and hunting and otherwise a pointless, but deadly toy. My dad brought up the issue of "professional" gun users not wanting to use the rental at those gun ranges because they're not as accurate as their own guy would be and I've come up with another compromise--leave the guns at the range. The range should have a bare minimum of security that repels thiefs anyway, so they'd be responsible for the security of all those personal weapons.

I get that people want to feel big and bad with guns, but like I said, there's no person who can convince me that it's sane to want to own even one large weapon. Gun ranges should be the answer.

On historical fiction/non-fiction

I HATE it when I read something that is historically related and it leaves me wondering where truth ends and fiction begins. There is a distinct variety of historical writing:

*Non-fiction and has well documented resources. I like these and I respect them.

*Historical Fiction that mearly glances at the historical era. I enjoy these books for the most part since the history isn't a focus and it's more like "oh, this is set in 1840--there shouldn't be any automobiles". There is a general rule, but it doesn't need to be historically accurate.

*Historical Fiction that attempts to bridge history and fiction. This is where some gray area exists. If an author is creating a fictional world which just happens to exist within a historical era, then I don't mind a lack of references. Many of my favorite books "live" here--Catch 22, Briar Rose, Hospital Sketches, etc--they tackle well known events and don't try to change the status quo. Most importantly, they do not tackle real people. They serve to give a human element that non-fiction often can't. For example, memoires, biographies and autobiographies, while they do attempt this always run into the question of "is this true or are you trying to make yourself/the subject look as good/bad as possible?" Fiction avoids this because we know it's fake, but at the same time a great author can create a character that portrays a life that those who lived through the event can all look at and say "that was me".

*Historical novel that tries to humanize real people/events. This is essentially putting words into the mouths of, well, gods. I think that these authors should be tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. I know that there are historical scholars out there who will disagree with me on some books, saying that the author did a great job portraying whomever/whatever they're writing about. But I'm not a historical scholar. I have a great grasp for finding the B.S., but not much in terms of factual knowledge. I don't like this type of writing because the people that read it might have even less factual knowledge than I do, but without even the B.S. filter--a poor author could create a portrait that is complete fiction and the naive reader wouldn't know any differently. I only have one example of a book of this type that wanted me to pull out my hair: Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford. If you are going to make a commentary on history, do not hide it in fiction. Admit your references with pride--and refer to them often. Write a historical novel, but you'd better have something factual to stand on that doesn't involve a written demand of the author to provide evidence for his case.

And on this note, I begin my efforts for full disclosure on the historical accuracy of my novels. You'll notice that Historically Dead (sorry if it's name has been changed since I wrote this) makes a strong attempt to bridge history and fiction. I've already admitted to being an expert on nothing more than an ability to call the B.S. card, so I welcome you to peruse my "references". Now, before you say anything, Wikipedia is my general go-to source and I'm okay with that. This isn't a scholarly paper/book and I'm not checking my references for accuracy, just some kind of platform to build off of without looking entirely ignorant.

One of my classes in college involved the professor reading us a passage from Wikipedia on one of the subjects we were studying. The point was that while yes, every item in the article was technically true, it didn't fully emcompass everything that we were talking about. If you've ever read anything on a subject then I know that you can find the exact opposite argument also in existence using equally relavent examples (it's one reason why I suck at writing argumentative essays--I can't convince myself that I'm right). This strategy for finding real "facts" doesn't work for a publically edited encyclopedia, so Wikipedia is stuck stating the facts and nothing but the facts (except when a troll decides to say that Socrates worked as a bouncer in a strip club in New Jersey).

So, don't knock my sources, but please do tell me if something I've written is blatently wrong (be nice). I mean, if it's something that I don't care to debate in my writing, you'll have to settle with my technically wrong, technically right facts as they stand, but I would like more information on the subject for my own mental encyclopedia, so do share what you know on the subject and, if it's not already obvious, I would appreciate a few bits of evidence to support whatever you have to say :-).

Flags on America's Next Top Model

I'm just throwing it out there that the American flags on the American's next top model t-shirts are wrong. The rule is that no matter the orientation (verticle or horizontal) the stars go in the top left. The t-shirts have the stars on the top right. Do conservatives not watch ANTM? Or has this just been overlooked?

For the record, I don't care. Period. I just point out what I see, especially when there been complaints like this made public by conservatives before. I mean, there are some who would say that this means that the show is Communist or some other such non-sense. I'm calling out those people for not doing their homework. If you are going to make a mountain out of every mole hill, then please don't forget the really small stuff.

Bill O'Reilly, Master of the Televerse

Sigh, yesterday I caught up on a weeks worth of Bill's "Talking Points" (the only 3 minutes of his show that he shares with the "free world" of hulu). Once again, Bill took the top spot as the most trusted news source. Sigh. And once again, I fee the need to qualify his pride.

The problem with comparing Fox News to the rest of the "lame stream" media is that the aren't comparable. It is a fact that Fox leans right while NBC, CBS, ABC, and they're siblings lean left (or rather, more left, though since I watch only their local channels not on cable, I cannot judge their content fully--our local NBC and Fox station are "married" for all that they share a studio and news anchors). For all that I comment on Fox News, I have no real desire to watch their programing--just as I have no real desire to watch MSNBC or CNN. I don't want to listen to the excessive bashing that is a news commentary show (except for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who bash both sides equally). Sorry I ramble.

Here's the real point. There are only a handful of people who watch BOTH Fox News and the "liberal left". These are the people who also watch Jon Stewart looking for the real nuggets of truth (not the dick jokes). If I ask a conservative, then they will probably say that they trust Fox. If I ask a liberal, they will probably say MSNBC. If I ask a poor person living in the slums, they will probably say none of the above since they don't generally care about the news. Now, where does that leave the population that could reply to the poll in question? Generally speaking, I'd guess Conseravatives who watch Fox News: Older Americans who have some money tucked away. I'm afraid that I didn't pay enough attention to know the actual percentage points, but since I think one of the things this country needs to do is get more people interested in current events, we need to take into consideration that of the "don't know" there are enough people to maybe make a difference in those figures that Bill is so proud of.

What upset me most (besides the fact that Bill will repeat these facts for the next month as though they actually mean something to me) is that when he informed us that he was either tied with or beating Jon Stewart in the popularity contest (whatever) he was snide and rude, as though because of what one poll said he is better than Stewart (his long standing rival). I decided long ago, though careful observation and a healthy appreciation of what television psychologists say, that anyone who has to constantly tell everyone how much better they are over someone else is jealous...and probably has low self-esteem. Not that telling him such would do anyone any good. I prefer the smile and nod and don't take them seriously method.

Am I a hypocrit? I don't know. I don't try to belittle Bill with a lot of passive aggressive "I'm better than you" or "You're an idiot (cough: pinhead)" comments, but I do use him a lot as an example. It's not personal--he's just my only real access point to Fox News since they won't show more on Hulu (I do like their "news minute" show, even if they are a bit too blatent about the hulu-ness; I mean, hulu isn't really about hulu programing--it's about streaming a variety of media in a central location). I also don't think that my ultimate message is meant to make me look better, smarter, more handsome/beautiful, or be able to fly.

Polio and DDT

Huh. I didn't know that people were spraying DDT to combat Polio, even though scientists told them that there was no connection between the disease and flies.

It's also interesting that it was good hygene that helped spread the disease. Before modern plumbing, infants were exposed to a mild dose of the virus and became immune. After, well, there was no real way to get the immunity. Just one more example of why we don't necessarily want a sterile world.

West Point Oddity

I just watched  a "Book of Secrets" episode about West Point Academy. It's interesting that they're happy to tell everyone about how the students/soldiers are tested daily to think critically and that they spend a whole semester on Combat Leadership with a focus on explaining why missions are necessary, since soldiers are increasingly demanding such information.

My problem is that one of the oldest traditions is making students/soldiers memorize obscure answers to random questions and other such, well, nonsense found in a book (sorry, I cannot recall the name of said tome). Now, I get that there is probably some meaning that they will never share with the outside world, and it's probably just some big inside joke, but as a person who opposes the cumpulsory memorization of ANYTHING, I just wonder where the line is drawn. When is a student allowed to say "this is stupid"? I mean, I can also buy the idea that it helps train the students/soldiers into mentally challenging themselves, but why not let them memorize the Periodic Table or the birthdays of the Presidents...at least then they can put such knowledge to use outside of a West Point Alumni meeting.

Health Care

What annoys me the most about the Health Care debate (and I'm probably repeating myself) is that WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE. Seriously. When someone goes into a hospital and cannot afford to pay the bill, do you think that the costs magically disappear?!? No, in the real world, which is where I live, I don't know about you, my insurance company is mandated by the law to pay hospitals to treat those who cannot pay. And since those people ONLY go to the doctor when they are, well, dying (or at least they feel like they're dying), there is no such thing as preventative medicine (like having a doctor tell you that your cholestoral is too high BEFORE you have a massive heart attack--last I heard, Lipitor is cheaper than a quadruple bi-pass).

So, the question is--do we keep the status quo and keep paying for the dying people, or do we, gasp, mandate health insurance so that everyone will see a family doctor at least once a year, dealing with problems WHILE THEY ARE SMALL AND THEREFORE CHEAP, and who knows, maybe making progress with the obesity epidimic, too.

And if you think like one of my Uncles, and that mandating health insurance will increase everyone's premiums, then let us look at this LOGICALLY:

1. Part of your premium is ALREADY paying for these people's health coverage. This is money that can be moved from the hospitals and into a fund for said BASIC mandated insurance (for those who cannot afford insurance and whose employers do not offer coverage).

2. When people who CAN afford health insurance, but CHOOSE not to have it, will no longer be able to mooch off the hospitals, which will reduce costs to insurance companies and the hospitals (any money not funding the basic insurance, can be invested like insurance companies and hospitals would like to do. This will also increase the monitary base that the insurance coverage pools from.

3. I've already talked about how identifying and treating illnesses while they are small is cheaper than waiting for all the shit to hit the fan.

And finally 4. If after all this analysis your premium does increase, then we need to look at the insurance company and see how their profits are doing compared to their expenses. I understand that the gut reaction is that "if it's mandated, they can charge whatever they want," but car insurance is mandated--do THEY charge whatever they want? And also, we pretend to live in a capitalist society: doesn't that mean that companies CAN and SHOULD charge whatever they want? Because we all have the freedom to start a competing company which charges less, but makes up for it in total number of customers. When we start complaining about companies charging whatever arbitrary amount that we want, we need to start really fearing Socialism.

Day-am!

GCB just showed me which way they're choosing to lean! And it was a brilliant, laugh out loud, punch the shark on the nose masterpiece of comic glory. In the case of sending Sharon's son to a new boarding school after he was expelled from the last one with sleeping with the wrong girl (he seems to have too high a sex drive for these Christian ladies) he agains is caught with someone's daughter--Cricket's. So, during the climatic fight where the "children" are repremanded, Cricket comes out and says that she's heard that Alaska is a good place to send him and that there's an excellent abstinance program at the one in Wasilla.

For those of you not in the know, Wasilla is where Sarah Palin was mayor and we all know about her daughter Bristol.

hahahahaha. I think this just made my week.

Edit: 4-3-12

I was watching my back issues of the Today Show and apparently Sarah Palin co-hosted this morning (for some reason my videos aren't queueing as fast as they normally do today, so hopefully I can watch them tomorrow) and yesterday she called to check in. Matt Lauer, being my hero in many ways, decided to poke some fun at her expense, asking how she was preparing for the 'event'--reading any newspapers? I nearly died. Why yes, he was poking fun for no other reason to poke fun. Why yes, he did say something that probably hurt her feelings. And why yes, he picked something that those of us who care too much about politics could laugh at too. Will she go on her blog (or Fox News) next week and cry foul? Hells yes. Do I care? No, not at all. If I went out into public and claimed that I read newspapers and then couldn't name them when asked, I'd expect someone to bring it up years later. Here's the difference: I know how to call BRAIN FART when and where it happens. I do it all the time, usually right in the middle of a sentence. I'm no 54 seconds of Rick Perry then try to play it off. I'm a good old "Crap--what in the world was I saying?" girl. Ask me again in 5 minutes. Anybody who's walked into a room to either say or get something knows exactly what I'd be talking about--no harm, no foul.

Saving the Titanic

I guess this is the name of the documentary I'm watching on PBS. Wow. It has all the drama of James Cameron's Titanic, but is told from the bowles of the ship, inside the boiler rooms where brave men were the first line of defense against the ship sinking. I'm not sure how much is artistic license, and how much is from credible sources, but I have a feeling that when she finally goes down, I will be in tears. These men know that the ship is going to sink and a select few decided to stay and do whatever they could to help. Of all the films/documentaries/museum exhibits I've seen, it's never hit me as to exactly how heroic those men were. I think Cameron did them a disservice when he left them out of his "masterpiece", though maybe I should forgive him since he did show that the steerage passangers were hurt. This documentary is totally ignorning the passangers so far, which is okay, since they aren't the point. At least they aren't trying to tell the whole story, unlike Cameron who seemed like that was his attempt.

RIP Titanic and all those who went down on her.

Edited all of 30 seconds after my initial posting:

Wait, where did he come from?!? I guess that's the artistic license because they just said that it's doubtful that there were any engineer survivors and the documentary ended with that figure on the screen. I guess it's like the story Briar Rose by Jane Yolen; we know that 4 men escaped Chelmno, but it's entirely possible that a woman did in such a way that Gemma did.

By the way, if you haven't read Briar Rose, you really should. I mean, it's pretty obvious that it was written in the early '90s without the strict feminist leanings of most modern works (I mean, more than once Stan has to come to her rescue and I'm just shouting to myself "Duh woman, use your brain!"), but beyond Becca not being my favorite "heroine", I'm not sure if she's supposed to. The story is Gemma's, Becca is just the conduit. And Gemma's story will have you crying.  

Birth Control vs. Viagra

I was a bit shocked yesterday when The View (I'm a few days behind) informed me that Viagra is covered by health insurance because it's a medicine, while birth control isn't because it's not. I do not understand that one, but then, I haven't heard the insurance companies come out on one side or the other on the subject. I actually have always been under the impression that if you have health insurance it includes birth control, but maybe I've been wrong.

As for what I just heard from Bill O'Reilly (dated 3-12), I'm upset that his only comment against Sandra Fluke is that she can afford to dress well and travel (and hang out with Democrats) but can't afford $9 a month for birth control. What a load of crock. Does that mean I should find fault with George Clooney for speaking out against the atrocities in Sudan because he can afford to not have to live there?!?! Republicans are the first to say that you can't throw money at a problem, but haven't I heard that claim before? Why should we the government pay for foreign aid when those high paid Hollywood types could easily fund it? Is it really so foreign to people like O'Reilly that a person not in dire straits (I won't comment on whether or not she can in fact afford her own birth control since I haven't seen her budget and I'd be a little disturbed if O'Reilly has) stands up to speak for those who are.

I don't use any birth control, though my periods have gotten so painful that I may do so once I'm ready to accept that part of my body (yep, 23 years old and periods are ICKY), though I guess I should be grateful that as an unemployed woman, thankful for still being on my parents health insurance, I guess I should take advantage of co-pay free birth control pills, since as I write this, that's the main reason, besides the fact that I don't really like being dependent on pills, that I wouldn't give up my monthly pains. I can't justify budgeting in the pills when my savings are going to pay back my student loans--even if it's just $9 a month.

More Shameless Plugs

Gotta love Sherrilyn Kenyon who plugged what was probably her latest book (under a different name--Kinley MacGreggor) in one of her Dark-Hunter books. I wonder if that's one of the reasons she uses a second name. I approve.

Edit: AND she has great taste. The Dresden Files reside on Tabitha's (one of her characters) book shelf. :-)

G.C.B.

I'm digging this show. I like that it so blatently shows some of the hypocracies that exist within the Christian faith. I've heard that some Christians are upset by the show, but they really shouldn't. I mean, if they don't believe that these types of people exist, then they're deluded, and it promotes true Christian values, which shouldn't be judged by how well one knows the Bible, whether or not they work at Hooters, and what crimes are in their past/their husband's past. I think it's a good ice breaker in the discussion of just what a "Good Christian Woman" is....and who the real bitches are.

P.S. Annie Potts looks amazing! She was on The View last week about the show and said that she's 60 and hinted at maybe using plastic surgery, but honestly, it doesn't show at all. She looks 40 if she's a day and wow. I'm blaming the curves--I honestly think that the reason most of hollywood don't look as good as she does is because they're too skinny--it makes their wrinkles stand out more. I'd even say that Jennifer Aniston looks older than Potts...please don't hit me.

Oil Prices

I'm really annoyed because the politicians keep saying that we need to allow for more drilling in order to lower gas prices. While A: this is a long term fix only, I also have to point out that there is a LOT of oil sources on land and easily accessed already owned by the oil and gas companies that they are choosing to keep in reserve. They spend a lot of money finding those new sources of oil and then they just want the first rights to get it which is what the government fights are about.

They've closed how many refineries in the past 2 years? Yes, they were closed because it was cheaper than fixing their environmental problems (like leaking noxious toxins into our water sources), so yes, I guess it is all the government's fault that we aren't able to refine as much oil as we used to thus raising gas prices (though as we're unable to un-tie gas prices from the rest of the world, there's no telling how much of our own actions had any effect).

By the way, on the fact that there is only the world market on gas, thus causing our prices to be high even when our domestic production is high, shouldn't we be pushing for a higher export tax on oil? This would keep our oil in the country, making us more independent. I'm not sure if Exxon would like that...how much of our oil is exported? Keystone would imply a lot, even if it does come from Canada.

By the way, again, apparently Putin made a lot of campaign promises this year that include raising government pensions to a level that exceeds their tax revenue, but that's okay. Everything he promised can be paid for if a barrel of oil raises to $150, since 50% of their tax revenue comes from oil and natural gas. Huh...it looks like there's more than just Exxon who will benefit if gas prices continue to increase.

I really liked Jon Stewart's analysis of the world's stage of problems from 2 weeks ago. Republicans are running for office, so you know that they're saying anything inflammatory in hopes of winning votes. It then makes sense that we can project this campaign strategy on Iran and Isreal since both of their top offices are up for election in the next year or two.

Dresden Files by Jim Butcher and Religion

I love Jim Butcher's religious arguments. They're well thought out and pretty seemless in where they fit in the rest of the story without feeling oppressive and pushy for one way or another. It's like the religious debates that happen online--it's the Atheists and Agnostics who know, and reference, the most Bible verses and history.

Were-Hunters

I'm a huge fan of the were-hunter segment of the whole "Dark Hunter" society created by Sherrilyn Kenyon (my latest obsession, obviously). First, the question of "what came first" has been answered (they're the bi-product of an ancient king's attempt to legnthen the life of the Apollites without taking human souls) (and this is another reason why I like this series--the same question is ansered for the vampires). Second, it's kinda hilarious that they "imprint" on their Fates chosen mate, but since the Fates are the Fates, there's no creepiness where someone "imprints" on a child (stupid Twilight)--it's always at the most fortuitious time (or so I suppose given my limited examples so far). So you can know someone your whole life and not know that you're their mate (though I think sex has a lot to do with this; I think I read that they have to have sex then wait for the mark to form) and feel free to curse the Fates if it's someone you couldn't help yourself about (poor Panthers in heat :-( ).

But that's just another great thing about this idea--there are 2 branches of each animal (human to animal and animal to human) who don't get each other at all. They've been taught to hate and kill each other for offenses that both sides perpetrate: who kills indescriminately, the "humans" or the "animals", for example. I've recently become fascinated by the notion that to kill ruthlessly is "animalistic", but in reality, animals do not kill out of spite or revenge--they kill to eat or to protect themselves. There may be one or two alternative examples (not including rabies infections), but generally, you aren't going to have a grizzlie bear stalk a human for destroying it's homeland. Because it invaded the homeland and took away all natural food sources, maybe, but not for the specific reason that it wants it's land back. Anyway, the were-hunters are just a great example about how prejudices spread through poor communication and lack of education--if you meet either side you learn that they aren't the abominations that the other proclaims.

Edit: And I now demand a new status quo when it comes to werewolves. Look, wolf/dog sex is weird in that their penis actually expands to lock itself inside the female for as long as 30 seconds. I was watching a nature documentary the other day about wolves and some of the other wolves wanted to stop the female and male from mating--after the swelling had started. So there were 8 or so wolves fighting while 2 of them are literally locked together butt to butt (I have NO idea how they were able to twist around like that but it had to have been painful)--I cringed when they almost ran around both sides of a tree--that would not have ended well. So. Given this information, I love the fact that Kenyon added in this detail (she really does celebrate the differences between the were-animals that live within her world). And I'm now disappointed whenever I read about were-wolves and the guy pulls out immediately after sex. I like the conversation Vane has with Bride about it--he's forced to cuddle after sex which, as a woman, I find totally hot.

Biggest Loser Week 10

Dolvet took the ladies to Ballet class--I LOVE the fact that he came out wearing the proper clothes to participate too--it takes a man very comfortable with his masculinity to do that, especially since the ladies are uncomfortable in the clothes as well. Very nice, dude. Very nice.

"Tolerant"

Only in Religion does the word tolerant have a good connotation. In everyday conversation it's almost always paired with toothaches, annoying siblings, and all other things painful that we would rather not exist.

Breast Feeding

I'm 100% for breast feeding for those who decide to do it (and 100% for those who choose not to). But I do have a problem with ladies who don't use a blanket to cover it. I mean, I've seen a lot of pictures, especially since Beyonce did it in public, of women doing thin on the news, and though you can't see a thing, it's just a bit too obvious. It's just awkward, so please ladies, do what you like, where you'd like, but please, please, please, use a blanket to cover it. Or your coat. Seriously--you can't even tell that Beyonce is breast feeding in that picture. 

No Touch Bathrooms and Kitchens

I have my own theory about what should and should not be "no touch" when it comes to spreading germs. I really think that the only thing that should be automatic is the sink and maybe the door. Why? Think about it. Your hands are dirty when you enter the room. You do your business with your hands dirty and then comes the time to wash. The sink is the only thing you touch with both dirty and clean hands. No one grabs the soap without touching the water, so really it can be filthy and it's not like you aren't 30 seconds away from washing away the germs. And the paper towels are only touched by someone who has washed their hands, so it's clean. If your hands aren't clean when you reach for the towel or air drier, then you aren't doing it right.

And yes, I just watched a commerical for Lysol's new auto soap dispenser. Waste. Of. Money.

Parenting books

I think that no body should be allowed to publish a parenting book before their children are at least 18 years old. I just hear about "Blossom's" new book and I'm just wondering how much personal experience she actually has and to what extent her results can be extrapolated over the course of a lifetime. At least the "Dragon Mother" did that. As did the Duggars.

Male Birth Control

Look, I just heard the Today Show's "experts" give their opinion and I don't like that it's so easy to put birth control on one person or the other. Girls who don't want to be mothers need to take their pill. Boys who don't want to be fathers need a pill for themselves. And use a condom for extra protection because nothing is 100% effective except abstinance. I DON'T think that women should be the ones to buy condoms because the leading cause of mis-usage with a condom is because it's the wrong size--that increases the chances of it breaking, falling off, etc. If she doesn't know what size her partner is, how can we expect her to do that task? Now she'd also better tell him off and refuse him because he forgot to buy them.

One of my dad's stories is about the shipmate who was so glad he got a Vasectomy for free during Vietnam--he was accused as many as 20 times by various women who said he was their baby's daddy. Contraception doesn't cause unplanned pregnancy--a lack there of does.

Real Housewives

I admit it, I enjoy watching the Real Housewives (all the various localities) make a fool of themselves in public. Right now I'm watching Atlanta and they're discussing the Africa Incedent (where supposedly one woman said that the white one wouldn't hold a black baby). What I'm laughing most about is how they're attacking one another in a most back-stabbing way and yet, all they really need to do is watch the footage that was shot and it's clear that everything was at the very least thrown completely out of proportion and at the very most, it's apparent that someone is purposely trying to start fights (I'm someone that hopes desperately that it's not on purpose). These ladies have the luxury of a camera available to settle all disputes since they can hear all that stuff that is normally just second hand information.

I think that episodes of the Real Housewives should be used in conflict mediation especially between women where talking behind another's back is the primary cause of conflict. An entire lesson can be taught where individuals learn to recognize what second hand information can start. In my perfect world the gossip spreader gets beat up, not the one who said something with, or without, malicious intent. 'Course, also in my perfect world, there isn't malicious intent because the primary speaker has balls enough to talk to the person in question if they have a problem, and the recipient of the comment has intelligence enough to listen and reply in a civilized manner.

And on that note, my dad came home from work last Friday and told me that he now knew what I meant about teachers at school refusing to break up a girl fight. When Norfolk Public Schools got in trouble last fall for what a lot of people thought was excessive use of pepper spray, I told him about how violent girl fights are and not just to the girls involved--they will rip out the hair of anyone who tries to intervene--pepper spray is sometimes the only way to break up the fights (and when it's a "food fight" involving chairs, the spray is even more necessary). But anyway, my dad had never seen a chick fight before he was stopped at a red light in front of one of the projects--he now knows exactly what I was talking about. Some girls just don't have class, and yet, using their propensity to jump down another's throat and fight like animals as evidence doesn't work for some reason....

Once Upon a Time

I LOVE this show, but what's up with the "sisters"? I mean, when I first started researching the show before it aired, I swear that "Snow White" was incarnated as a nun. And tonight, one of the "sisters" is seriously flirting with "Grumpy" (sorry--I call them all by their fairy characters).

P.S. I love Grumpy--he's my favorite dwarf--I think I spend too much time reading about the "tall, dark, and brooding" type...though I guess the tall (and even dark) part is debatable, haha. But I'm not digging the writer's choice of girl for him--she's a little too accident prone...but then, Grumpy is only 1 year old, technically....and what the heck! His name is Dreamy?!?! That explains EVERYTHING!!!!! (Good call, I'm now in favor of this relationship).

Nummy ;-P

I like this take on the old "Be kind to dragons, for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup"--- "Be kind to dragonswans for thou art sexy and taste good with cool whip". ("Dragonswan" by Sherrilyn Kenyon)

New favorite "quote"

"There were some things that no man wanted to hear under any circumstance. One, that he’d lost his testicles in battle. Two, that he’d lost his testicles to a fluke injury. Three, that he’d caught some disease that interfered with his ability to perform as a man. And most of all four, that the father of the woman, who was one of the most powerful men in all of Christendom, was at the gate of the home where he’d just violated the man’s daughter without the sanctity of marriage. Four was guaranteed to cost him not just his testicles, but the rest of his internal organs as the king ordered them scraped from inside him while he was still alive enough to feel it. " --The Warrior by Kinley MacGregor (men sure seem to be attached to their testicles, hahaha)

P.S. As I finish this book and the series, I'm thinking about how sch-mooth Sherrilyn Kenyon is when it comes to bridging her novels into one world. I know that the revelation in the epilogue pointedly states that he belongs in the Dark Hunters world. I'm not sure if I agree with the fans on her website (another very smart move--she states in the books that the Dark Hunters use the dark-hunter.com domain to correspond with each other, a convienient way to steer fans of the books to her website) that he deserves his own book--I think that 90% of The Warrior was made up to make Lochlan a tragic character. No where in the previous books are there any hints of the abuse his father is accused of--all that we know is that he cheated on his wife once and paid penance for that by neglecting his bastard son--which makes him one kind of bastard, but how could there have been no hints of the many bastards he must have fathered, plus the physical abuse of women? Kieran's disappearance, while it did hint at being more than it seemed, seemed too much like an after-thought for my liking.

Jarhead Movie

Wait, they're letting this movie onto basic television? I swear that my 11th grade history teacher saw this movie and she told us that every 4th word was the f-bomb. But maybe I have the wrong movie? I didn't have any desire to see it.

Taming the Scotsman by Kinley MacGregor

This series is pretty good (Brotherhood/MacAlister), though it's pretty clear what kind of man Kinley MacGregor, also known as Sherilyn Kenyon, likes--tall, generally dark, and brooding. She's just as good as Jim Butcher when it comes to beating down the cutie. My only problem is that I'm worried that her brooding guys will lose some of their personality when they're tamed by the lady--will they be just as fierce 5 years later? But anyway.

I'm sitting here laughing my butt off because the big, bad, and sexy hero just handed his sword off to the chatterbox heroine who it turns out is quite the swordswoman so that she can fight the girl who helped kidnap them--while he's just standing there watching the fight with the 4 men who round out the kidnappers instead of beating them up easily while the only 2 swords available are occupied by the women.

For the most part I've been enjoying the books by this author and her real name (series is "Dark-Hunter"). They're fun romances where there's actually an enemy besides poor communication skills (which just annoys me and is why I've avoided romances like the plague before) which is right up my alley. The problem is that you can tell when an author writes romances and when they write epics that just happen to have romance in them--Kenyon's fight scenes are greatly lacking. It was very smart of her to invent a conviently blind character for one of the books. 'Course, I'm the first to say that a fight scene goes into too much detail--we really don't need to have 3 pages of battle for a great book. Butcher's background in martial arts means that he knows exactly what he's talking about when he describes, for instance how one man can take on 12 men singlehandedly. I did a year of Aikido with a friend teaching and I picked up enough to know how beautiful this fighting style is--using the weight of your opponent to throw them across the room. Kenyon glances over these fights, letting other characters talk while the fighting "just happens." I mean, if these women are as good with a sword as she claims, then why don't her hero and heroine ever practice against each other? I'm reading The Warrior now and I think that Cat and Lochlan should have an epic sword fight that ends up with them rolling on the ground kissing for the first time. They have such an antagonistic relationship the fireworks should be quite entertaining.

She also has the problem of the seriously anti-climatic resolution. I mean sure, sometimes the long, overly complicated conclusion is unncessary--sometimes you just need to push the big baddie into the convient fiery pit or shoot the missle into the 2 meter wide hole in the otherwise indestructible Death Star. But sometimes you want more than "I'm a goddess, see me just will you to death, even though I decided not to, and or for some other reason couldn't, for the past 300 pages" though granted, I'm now thinking that she has some overarching plan in mind...or at least I hope. I mean, Butcher is very good at leaving lose ends that come to bite Dresden on the ass three books later.

But all in all Kenyon is a very smart writer. I read the first two books and decided that even though the climaxes were dull, I had to find out more about the bad-ass leader "Acheron", so I decided that I'd read the series until his story got told. Well, one trip to goodreads.com told me that that would not be the 4th or 5th book, as I thought, but rather the 15th--I probably will read all the series because I found some really intreguing spoilers (I've found that sometimes spoilers make for better reading because I know what to look for and forward to).

Pro-Choice TV

You migh have figured out that I enjoy the liberal/conservative debate. I'm watching "Cold Case"--the episode on the death of a teenager the night his girlfriend gave birth and left their daughter in a trash can. I realized that there are at least 2 episodes where abortion was at least a preliminary cause of death for the victim (you know--getting killed for being pro-choice). I'm not sure whether it was actually the pro-lifers that killed the person in either case, but it's still a major point of the show.

It just made me think about other television shows--conservatives like to complain about the liberal agenda and the media. It seems like pro-life is often portrayed in a negative light in these crime dramas. I don't know whether you could choose to show pro-choice in a bad light, though. I mean, it's not like we're naieve about what an abortion entails, and when the nurse went into detail to convince the boyfriend to choose otherwise, it was pretty explicit that it's not a pleasant option. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that you don't see pro-choicers getting portrayed as murderers. I mean, in the most obvious sense: to go out and kill another adult in either hot or cold blood. I don't think that there are any real-life examples either.

Presidential Material

Last night's news informed us of Santorum's littlest child being sick and in the hospital with a poor outlook given all of the rest of her health. This made me wonder--would the death of a child make for a poor male president.

One of Palin's complaints about politics as usual was that she felt uncomfortable telling the public of her last pregnancy. Her reasoning was pretty sound--for generations the illness that is pregnancy has meant that a further gap in the abilities of man and woman. There is the idea that once a woman gets pregnant her emotions will suddenly overcome her and she will be left a dripping ball of goo. Worries about post-partum depression arise and whether it will affect her judgment--furthering the idea that a woman is thus inferior to a man.

So, in this "post-modern" world, what does this mean for men? I think women have done a pretty good job of showing that we do not become fainting daisies while pregnant and working, so what about what happens to men when an equally "traumatic" event happens: such as when a child dies? Don't men also grieve? Or do we have our heads still stuck up our butts where men are concerned and falsely believe that they will all (and this really is the destinction--we live in a unanimous world) stand strong and make the right decisions with complete separation from their mental state?

We complain that Clinton and Gingrich thought with their "little heads", but maybe we need to step back and wonder at how many decisions are made with a broken heart.

Do I think this should be held against Santorum? No. Do I think that we should use examples like this to bridge the gap between males and females? Certainly. 

Book Covers

I've been reading a mad number of romances by a Kristan Higgins. I'm not usually one for romances (for purely romance's sake) but these are actually pretty good. Whenever I've picked up one of my mom's before I'd always hit one spot where I'd have to role my eyes and tell the main girl to get a life. So far, that's only happened twice (one was for half the book, so mainly I just skipped over the parts where a 30 year old woman was acting like a 14 year old girl--once that part was ignored, the rest of the book wasn't half bad). Anyway, that's not really the point of this post.

I HATE it when the cover of a book isn't proper to the story. I mean, come on--don't the artists read the books? Or maybe even meet with the author to know what to do for the cover?!? For instance, the book I'm reading now has a girl sitting on the guys lap while in a rocking chair with a dog at their feet. Fine. The chair has a big part of this book. The problem? A: the chair isn't described as painted white in the book. In fact, it's described as "honey-colored tiger maple"--very distinctive. And B: the dog is supposed to be a husky mutt--a gray and white husky mutt, not the red irish setter or whatever they stuck on the cover. Really?!?

Now, I don't always complain about inaccurate book covers. For example, the Dresden Files. I mean, the guy very rarely wears a hat, and when he does, it's a baseball cap. But, oftentimes on the cover of a book (actually, I want to say that the first time we see Dresden himself on the cover is like 7 books into the series) he's wearing what I guess is called a fedora. I think it works perfectly. I guess it's because when you read the first few books Dresden doesn't come across as that...I don't know...dark, or ruggedly handsome, or whatever. I always picture him as a nerdy looking guy--tall, skinny, funny looking face. The hat helps enforce the idea that he's not supposed to be that bad to look at. I think the hat works to give a visualization of the man who Dresden really is--without it he might look a lot more average...does that even make sense? Either way, the hat does a lot for the character, even if it's entirely fiction to the book-verse. I mean, I saw a fan picture of Dresden and Sue and he's not wearing the hat--he'd look a lot more bad-ass with the hat, and given the nature of the picture, that's saying something.

Edit: whoops...my bad. However, my dog skills are pretty good. That is an irish setter on the cover and she belongs to the guy. But then, where's her dog?!? And the rocking chair is still the wrong color.

Redundancies?

Obama is going to try to shrink government by getting rid of redundancies such as the Commerce Department. I'm sure even the least governmentally informed of this country know about Rick Perry's gaffe when he forgot the names of the departments he would end, so now that Obama is going to attempt such a feat, shouldn't he be happy? I haven't heard any replies, except from the collective that is the Republican Party, that says that Obama's only doing it because the Republican's wanted to first (yes, the is of course a stupid reason to do anything...sarcasm). I personally think that this is the best way for Obama to win the re-election--take everything on the Republicans' platforms and attempt to do them. If he can get them completed, then American's will like him. If he can't get them passed, then he proves that they are impossible promises and also makes congress look even more ineffective (if a Democratic President can't get Republican ideas passed in a split congress, then how could a Republican get the same laws passed?). It's a win-win situation.

Sorry for how dippy this sounds--I'm fuzzy headed today--stupid cold. I guess I should go back to melting crayons (got a Crayola Crayon Maker for Christmas)--not too much thinking in that.

Books, Books, and More Books

I read a LOT during the latter part of 2011. I'm not sure what caused it, but after I found goodreads.com, I read double my figured challenge (I said that I could read 20 books between September 1and December 31 and I read 40). I guess what really helped my numbers was finding a couple of vampire series that I love. The first isn't so much vampires, but everything supernatural (and by the way, awesome), and is The Dresden Files. It actually makes me sad that I didn't learn about this series until now, and I might not have read the first book so voraciously except that it was the weekend of Hurricane Irene (we had no power for 2.5 days) and I'd already read the two books I had--my dad was the first to order Dresden and  I stole it off his pile.

The truth is, I didn't read much during my four years of university--whenever I had free time I had a tall stack of mail to answer, so books took a step back in importance. 'Course, my mail pile is huge now anyway because I've been going on some serious reading binges. I guess I need to learn some amount of time-management, but maybe that's not a good thing. I don't think I'd write a good letter if I wasn't really in the mood to do so. But I digress.

The Dresden Files are amazing and if you love supernatural books, you've probably already read them and are waiting for the next one--I'm just late to the party. However, I'm sitting here enjoying Dead Beat with like 5 more books ahead of me to enjoy next while you are stuck counting down the days, so maybe I don't care that I'm behind ;-P.

The second vampire series is The Morganville Vampires which are very teeny, but I like the main character. She really grows up each book, which is very good. I wasn't a fan of the vampires that attacked the teen shelf for the past five years or so, but I guess I was just annoyed by Twilight (which I still think is a terrible role model for our girls--I liked a meme I read which compared Bella to Ginny Weasley--When Edward broke up with Bella to save her life, she went into a coma for 4 months then tried to kill herself to hear his voice; When Harry broke up with Ginny to save her life, she helped organize an army and kicked ass. Claire definitely is more of a Ginny than a Bella, though I read some very poor reviews of the first book that I want to discuss here:

First, on ratings/reviews in general: you should never trust the ratings on books in a series to tell you about the series as a whole. This is because many people will read the first book, hate it for one reason or another, rate it badly, and will never read the second. All subsequant books will probably be skewed high because only people who liked the first book will read the second. I also will take the time to comment on the rating system of Goodreads--I don't like it. You have the choice of five stars, but they're all skewed upwards. If you look at what they say a star is worth, one is I hated it, two is It's okay, three is I liked it, four is I loved it, five is It was amazing! (or something like that). I like systems where three is neutral--so then it would be the "okay" option. My ratings are all fives with the occasional four or three--it's not because I think they were all amazing on the lines of Catch 22, but because when I made three just okay, a five is I really liked it.

Secondly, the frist book in Morganville Vampires does take a lot of removal from reality to believe and enjoy. I will admit that when I read a lot of the reviews after reading the book, I realized that I'd allowed a lot of plot "twinges" which I normally wouldn't. But I'm glad that I did because the later books explain better why it wasn't possible for Claire to call the police or her parents. Maybe Rachel Caine didn't even think twice about these problems when she wrote Glass Houses, but she fixed them after complaints were made, I don't really care. All I'm saying is that you should probably read the first 3 books as though they were the same book. Will I say that Rachel Caine is writing a soap opera so that people have to buy the next book immediatly after it's written? Hell's Yes. Does it make it a terrible series? No.

Let's see, what else have I read? I don't want to just run down my list of books from Goodreads--that's cheating and not very entertaining. Oh, I started Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series (he's the guy who wrote Dresden  for those not in the know). I think it's okay--but it gets such a "low" rating from me not because it's not a great series, but because I"m not a fan of the way it's written. The characters are great, the plot is great, everything is great--I just hate books which have 3 or 4 different stories running around because the main characters are all in different places. Most of the Star Wars books do this, which is why I've only read the teen books (where the twins learn to use their powers) and The Courtship of Princess Leia. I want one or two main characters and when they're apart, only one gets to live the story in "live time"--the other people must fill in the rest of us about their activities.

Oh, I read a pair of hilarious teen books based on the premise of the only 'fair' godmother. In fact that's the name of the first book My Fair Godmother. A high school aged girl whose life apparently sucks (according to her) gets help from her Godmother, who is trying to get into Fairy Godmother University by doing some extra credit work--which she kinda sucks at. But if ever there was a story that accurately fits the trope Hilarity Ensues, this is it. They're the literal re-working of fairy tales (the girl gets sent back into the past to be Cinderella and realizes what a crummy gig it is) and I think they are just the books to hand to any teenage girl who thinks her life is crummy--she'll quickly learn that it can, in fact, get worse. I'm excited because the second book in the "series" hinted that there will be a third attempt for Chrissy to do her extra credit in a way that gets her into the University--yay!

I also started reading The Princess Diaries series. I'm not generally a fan of the "diary" way of writing a book, but it works. I'm currently trying to read the sequel to Wolf Tower and it's annoying me. I guess it's because it's too close to how I'd write a diary--I'd start out alluding to terrible things that are actually important before bothering to talk about the mundane things that led up to the ordeal. The Princess Diariesi doesn't do it that way, and now that I think about it, Beka Cooper doesn't either. So maybe I don't have a problem with the diary, just when it tries to build suspense by leaving too many questions open too soon?

I guess that's enough of a general overview to give. Maybe I'll do a better job of updating now, but who knows.

Analogies

Two main points here: Climate Change and Multiple Gods

Okay, so the first analogy I'm sharing from a Fora.tv lecture on the politics of climate change and how poorly it's been discussed in the media (here). The analogy is looking at one snow storm to disprove the existence of Global Warming. The professor explains that it's like trying to determine Willie Mays cumulative batting average by looking at July of 1958. Which is a great way of thinking abou it.

The second analogy is one that I came up with this morning while thinking about where to take the story that I'm writing (link here). The story revolves around a 24 year old woman who is able to take away syptoms of illness and therefore increase the quality of life of the people in the town she lives in. The problem? There's a group of people who apsolutely hate her--and sue me if they look like my idea of demon-spawn: Christians so certain about their own superiority that they spew hatred instead of all the good parts of Christianity--love of your neighbors.

Well, while working through the scene where she confronts the mother of her love interest (I write romances, sue me again), who is a member of the offending church, the mother asks something about whether Scarlet (the main character) believes in God. Scarlet says that it's probably not the same God as the Browns, which, of course, frightens the mother because Christians are notoriously very unhappy with the idea of more than one "True God". Scarlet tries to get out of a theological debate, but the mother's curiosity overwhelms. Scarlet then comes up with this wonderful analogy to the idea of multiple Gods:

"Picture the maple tree outside. Is it the only maple tree in the world? No, of course not. There are maples all over the country and they are all different. They are all affected by the environment where they grow--by the minute differences in nitrogen and phosphorous levels--by whether they are in a city or the country--by whether someone cares for it or not. This is the same for God. The theological being is completely different for everyone--it doesn't matter whether it's two people sitting next to each other in a pew or two people where one goes to a Catholic church and one goes to a Methodist church. I call this multiple Gods. Few people would agree with the Phelps' that their God is your God, and yet they came to their conclusion reading the same book as all other Christians--just as all maples start out with the basic book of "maple-ness" that is then altered by the environment that they grow."

I'm not sure if that debate will make it into the final draft--especially since the story is no where near the point where that discussion is held. I write linearly--I start a story at the beginning and write until it ends--but I imagine the story for months to see how it can get to where it goes. I probably lose a lot of great material because I brainstorm only within my brain, but then again, it's those key events that you know need to go into the story because you keep going back to them.