Oooh, Retro!

I totally forgot to post this, and I really should have!

The Adorable Husband wears Gargoyle sunglasses -- remember Terminator? -- and has for twenty years or so. He likes them, and hasn't found anything else that blocks enough light and that don't make him look like a deranged bug.

So he was up skiing with my nephew last month, and one of the lift operators thought they were pretty cool -- "Really neat, man -- totally retro!"

I don't think you can be considered fashionably "retro" if you have been wearing the style the whole time. I'm not sure what that is, exactly, but retro it ain't! The Adorable Husband disagrees, of course, and he's feeling quite fashionable and stylish.

Only 2166 Chickens

Senate hopeful Sue Lowden’s plan for Healthcare reform is to barter for medical procedures. It's eminently mockable, not because the barter system is a bad idea (it's honestly not), but because she simply doesn't seem to grasp that the same people who don't have money for health care, have little to barter, and continues to repeat it. People bartered chickens for medical care becuase they couldn't afford to pay. That is not a solution to healthcare - bartering won't "Bring down prices in a hurry", unless, perhaps, you're a car dealer, it is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to get care and it turns medical care into a 'maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't" proposition. That's not acceptable.

Sue Lowden (R), the leading Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, recently articulated her vision of how the American health-care system should work. At a local candidate forum, Lowden, a former state senator and chair of the Nevada Republican Party, encouraged Nevadans to "go ahead and barter with your doctor." It would, she insisted, "get get prices down in a hurry."

"I'm telling you that this works," the Republican candidate explained. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say, 'I'll paint your house.' I mean, that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."

I would point out that "Before we all started having health care", people died of simple things that we can now prevent, and people with easily treatable diseases got no treatment at all because they couldn't pay for it. It just wasn't an option. The reason why people paid with chickens was because they were broke. Not because it was some idyllic time when things were simpler. It was because it was a horrid time when there were more poor people and there was no social safety net.

But, I really posted this because the following website made me laugh. A lot.

Some enterprising person has put up the Sue Lowden Chicken for Checkups web page, which just make me laugh uproariously.

Double Standards

Apparently bra- and panty-clad women prancing around in Victoria Secret ads are ok becuase the women are thin and have a-cup breasts. But try airing an ad for plus-sized lingerie, and the networks balk. Lane Bryant has a new Cacique lingerie ad that the networks didn't like, and apparently didn't want to air. The only reason I can see? Because the women aren't thin.

It appears that ABC and Fox have made the decision to define beauty for you by denying our new, groundbreaking Cacique commercial from airing freely on their networks.

ABC refused to show the commercial during “Dancing with the Stars” without restricting our airtime to the final moments of the show. Fox demanded excessive re-edits and rebuffed it three times before relenting to air it during the final 10 minutes of “American Idol,” but only after we threatened to pull the ad buy.

These are the same networks that run Victoria Secret ads. What was their complaint? "Too much cleavage". Well, yeah, when you look at real women and not coat-hangers and they tend to have breasts. Real women look like this -- far more than look like the airbrushed version of beauty that the fashion mags would have us believe. Talk about a double standard.

Cool Science Badges

Just popping in to link to Cool Science Merit Badges.

"I work with way too much radioactivity, and yet still no discernable superpowers yet” is my favorite!

I can't believe you said that....

I can't believe that they actually used the name. I can't. It's just too damn funny. I'm laughing so hard I nearly ruptured something. Yup. I'm twelve.

Duluth Trading Company Ballroom Jeans. Yup. Ball Room.

Unfamiliar Rules

I've been trying to help my sister with her wedding planning--getting the guest list put together, figuring out when things have to happen, that sort of thing. She's got most of it in hand, and when she was out visiting, we picked invitations and the associated bits and pieces that are included (rsvp, maps, ceremony/reception cards, etc). They are shipping now and she's getting ready to start the long evenings of addressing the things.

We, as a culture, just don't have big formal parties very often - weddings are about it for most people. There are all sorts of weird rules for things that we simply don't know (and if you don't pay attention you can miss them entirely). I didn't have placecards at my wedding, because I had absolutely no idea that I was supposed to, for example. Placecards? When was the last time you saw those? It all worked out, and in terms of faux pas it was a pretty minor one, but as I went through the books with Nin about what to do and when to do it and how to address things and the rest, it struck me that we really have to learn a whole new set of rules.

Take the RSVP card that's included in nearly every wedding invitation you've ever seen. It's actually a no-no in really formal circles, but everyone finally surrendered to the reality that no one writes personalized letters of regrets or acceptance anymore and has them delivered on little silver platters. We don't do it - and the etiquette for weddings finally realized that if the average person wanted to know how many people were coming to the wedding, providing them with an easy way to tell you is important. Now people are arguing whether the postcard version of the response card (instead of the little card and envelope) are acceptable, and whether providing a website or email address to response to is 'tacky'. This is all new to most people.

Which was hammered home when I started trolling a few of the wedding websites and forums looking for some general tips. Every single one has a dozen brides asking how to explicitly ask for cash as wedding gifts, or how to invite one person and not another, or how to make it clear that no children are invited to the wedding.

The "no children" thing is a serious hot-button issue with a lot of people. Some view a wedding as a huge family event at which everyone should be there and all kids should be included. To them, not inviting their children is insulting and rude. Others view a wedding as a formal adult celebration and do not want to have a dozen children running around. Sometimes it's a financial issue, sometimes it's a preference - want kids, or don't want them at the reception, either option is ok. You're not rude for not inviting them, if that's what you want. If you want kids, great. I'm not judging one way or the other.

Nin is definitely inviting kids to the wedding. She and her fiance are in their thirties, all their friends have kids - it is what they want. So for her, the issue is moot.

But there are a ton of couples out there who are struggling with the problem of not wanting to invite kids to their wedding - they aren't set up for it, they can't afford it, they simply want an adults-only affair. But this is apparently very hard to communicate to today's wedding guests. Every single forum is filled with questions on how to explain to guests who return a response card + 3, or communicate through family members how excited their kids are to come to the wedding, and when told that they aren't going to be able to bring them, announce that they aren't going to attend, either.

The thing is, there really is a rule about this -- it's just that we're so unfamiliar with the etiquette of formal invitations that no one knows what it is anymore. It's simple: only the people NAMED on the invitation are invitied. Makes perfect logical sense, but there are a lot of people out there that think an invitation to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith automatically includes their three children and the dog. I think we all intuitively know this, but given the conversations I've been reading online, a lot of people don't want to accept it. It should be enough that the invitation is written out to the two adults, to inform them that they should plan for a babysitter, but that's not always the case. Every bride was bemoaning the fact that they had to call people on their list to clarify that no, Junior is not invited and we simply cannot accomodate him. Sorry.

I wonder if you asked people randomly whether they would assume their "and family" was invited to a party, if the invitation was addressed to "Mr and Mrs...". We simply aren't aware of what the subtle wording is supposed to mean anymore. Our society isn't geared to that uber-formal sort of lifestyle, so the whole wedding etiquette thing is a monstrously huge list of do's and don'ts that are confusing. No wonder the bridal industry makes a mint on etiquette books and wedding planners. Oy!

As I said, it's not an issue for Nin's wedding - they want, and are inviting, kids. Ok, so how does that work? Technically, you're not supposed to write "and family" on the invitation, if you're being formal (and let's be honest, this is faux-formal nowadays, since we simply don't do it very often) you write all the names on the inner envelope - that's how you know that little Susie and Jimmy are invited. There are entire books out there with examples of how to address wedding invitations. What about "and guest"? Nin's fiance pointed out that he always got invitations addressed to him "and guest" and taht was perfectly fine. We pointed out to him that if the person is in a long-term relationship (as most of their friends are) then you are obligated to find out what the 'and guest's' name is and write that on the invitation (and in fact, they should receive their own). He was confused about this (well, so were we sometimes..everyone is.)

But we get to dress up, drink champagne, and pretend we know exactly how this high-society thing works. And I'm sure we'll mess up something, somewhere. It will still be fun!

Semantics, again

The christian militia group (calling themselves "Hutaree") was recently in the news -- its members were arrested for plotting to kill law enforcement personnel. I haven't really followed much of the story, except to wonder - why is this not being called what it is: terrorism. Is it because the group is white? Christian? American? What they were planning is the very definition of terorrism, and yet that word has yet to be applied to them by the media. I guess American's don't like the idea that there are native terrorists. Weapons of mass destruction? WTF?

According to the indictment, “The general concept of operations provided that the Hutaree would commit some violent act to draw the attention of law enforcement or government officials and which would prompt a response by law enforcement. Possible such acts which were discussed included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession with weapons of mass destruction.

After the attack, Hutaree members would retreat to one of several “rally points” to wage war against the government and be prepared to defend with “trip-wired and command detonated anti-personnel improvised explosive devices, ambushes, and prepared fighting positions,” the indictment says. That action, Hutaree believed, would serve as a catalyst for a more widespread uprising against the government, the indictment says.

Terrorists. C'mon, let's see it being reporting properly: these people are a dangerous cult, planning a terrorist attack.

Small but still there

Even though I ate cheese and drank wine and avoided the treadmill for ten days (including having my sister and entourage at the house, wining and dining), when I finally ordered my bridesmaid dress for her wedding, it was a size smaller than I was wearing before.

And I feel better. That's the whole point, of course, but there is a slim chance (a slim one, but one there, nonetheless) that I might be able to wear a sleeveless dress in August and not be all freaked out about it.

And I've graduated to walking uphill on the treadmill, since walking without any incline doesn't get my heart rate up high enough anymore. Hah!

Eek. Long Absence

Back after a long hiatus -- travel for work, spring break vacation with my sister, her son, and fiance, and now...tons of snow.

Seriously - a foot and a half, at least, since 5pm yesterday. Everything pretty much shut down - including I25 from Denver to Colorado Springs, and most of I70 west of the city. Schools closed, and all the foofaraw that accompany a "spring storm"

Tomorrow (thursday) is supposed to be in the fifties again. Gotta love spring!

Weather woes

I arrived in Vegas this morning (spending the week on-site at my client) and it was *SNOWING*.

SNOW.

In Vegas. I supposed it is March, and weather is still wintery...but I was totally not expecting snow. And, I've been told it will be in the seventies later this week.

It's not all bad

I just wanted to report that the Ongoing Treadmill Adventure seems to be working.

My butt is smaller. Not by much, but definitely measureably smaller. Hah!

We have BAD dogs

Came home this evening, having been gone about two hours, and discover my driver's license, and all my credit cards, CHEWED UP on the floor.

They were on the kitchen counter. Berit (and we know it's her, we've caught her a few times) is counter surfing and apparently these looked good.

It's easy enough to get replacement cards, of course...but now I will have to stand in line at the DMV for how long? Last time I had to do anything there, it took three hours.

Bad, bad, BAD dogs.

How? Huh?

My MIL sent me a link to this picture from the NYT. How, exactly, were the track marks in the snow made? Every time I think I figure it out, the fact that there aren't two wheeled cars trips me up. A trailer? Unicyclists? Just an axle? Photoshop?

HOW?

What's real?

Half the time when I'm watching a movie, I can no longer reliably tell what is real and what is computer generated -- but I never realized how ubiquitous the green/blue screen is on television. (although why I should be surprised by this is beyond me, with lower budgets it makes perfect sense that they build backgrounds and such via computer.

But this is still pretty cool.

At it again

The religious whackoloons are at it again in Utah. They have proposed legislation that would make miscarriage a criminal offense.

Utah is posed to become the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:

* expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
* removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
* assumes women are "guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child" if a pregnancy ends after "intentional, knowing, or reckless" behavior.

But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this "Criminal Miscarriage" law is unique. It doesn't punish individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women.

It has a very minimal chance of passing, since it's vague enough that it would be impossible to actually enforce. Is riding a bike ocnsidered reckless? How about hiking? How about swimming? How about a job that exposes them to second hand smoke? Drinking coffee? Having sex? What other "controls" do they plan to put on women to ensure they fulfill their role as walking uterus?

They didn't think this one through, from a applicability perspective, but they sure as hell thought it through from a position of punishing women and forced pregnancy. These people hate women, there is no other possible way to interpret this. It is too grotesque for words.

And they are obivously ignorant of the fact that miscarriage is very, very common -- up to 40% of all conceptions miscarry (many of those fertlized eggs that never implant), and of the roughly 4 1/2 million pregnancies every year, half a million end in miscarriage, and another thirty thousand or so in stillbirth or infant death. These statistics include all women, not just those the Utah legislature seem to want to target -- the women who are "reckless" and intentionally do things that can cause a miscarriage. Not just the ones who "deserve" to go to jail because they got pregnant. Becuase, as we all know, a woman is just a container for a fetus, once she gets pregnant. Idiots.

Women may have to PROVE that the miscarriage they had was not 'criminal'. Think about that. Think about the woman you know who had a miscarriage (we all know a few)...dealing with the loss of a pregnancy which they most likely wanted and hoped for...and to be criminally investigated and forced to prove they didn't do anything "wrong". I'm so angry I'm having a hard time typing that.

The legislators in Utah really want their own particular version of morality to be enforced. Their version of morality is hateful and wrong and evil. Regardless of what side of the abortion issue you are on, this is beyond the pale.

Even better, they are now going to classify anything that causes a miscarriage as "illegal abortion", and, if you read the text of the bill, it eliminates any option for elective abortion. It is not only a ban on legal abortion except in very narrow circumstances, it criminalizes everything else. O

This law: - defines legal abortion as a procedure "carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician." Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion - including miscarriages.

This is the 21st century? Could have fooled me.

More at DailyKos

The full text of the bill is here.

TILT

Strange thing I learned today (I so love the interwebs! I really do!)

The word "sibling" is not a naturally evolved English word but instead a modern revival of a lost Old English word generally meaning kins-person or relative rather than specifically referring to brothers and sisters.

This popped up from another blogger, who picked it out of a footnote from a book published in 1942:

Sibling is a coined word use by scientists for both brothers and sisters. The English language lacks such a word.

I find this astonishing.

Geeky Cooking

I was browsing around for recipes and came across 'Cooking for Engineers', -- simple recipes, fully explained, and definitely written with the engineer in mind.

I am totally enamored of the big charts at the bottom of each recipe, though. They appeal to my geeky sense of process.

Berit, Again

Well, we did follow-up bloodwork on the pink beastie, and her platelet count is so low that our vet advised us to not let her outside without supervision. This happened before Christmas (and for all we know, it has been a constant problem that we only managed to fix for the time she was on steroids. At any rate, she's back on steroids because her platelet count is 5,000. It's supposed to be somewhere between 140-170,000. Not good.

She seems to be fine, which is weird. At a count this low, she is at risk for spontaneous bleeding, which could be very dangerous. So, no romping outside with the blue beastie, and we're trying to keep her quiet and give the meds a chance to work. She rebounded really quickly last time, but we obviously didn't find the cause of the problem. It's an immuno-suppressive issue, at any rate, but all the tests came back as negative, so we don't know what is causing this. It's possible that a year of allergy shots messed up her immune system. Fun, en?

Not quite getting it

This just made me laugh (and then cringe a bit). Methinks they don't really understand medicare or socialism at all. Tea-party FAIL.

Let's test them first

Tom Tancredo (yes, I'm embarrassed to be from his state) wants to bring back literacy tests for voting. You know, the "literacy tests" that were used to bar certain people from voting. Rachel Maddow had the only possible response:

"But I want you to know first, that this is what it was like. You would head down to the courthouse to register to vote, if you dared. In order to register, you‘d face an exam. It was sometimes called a literacy test, but it wasn‘t testing to determine necessarily if you could read or write. If you were black, the test was designed purely to afford a legalistic veneer of justification for denying you your constitutional right to vote.

The questions weren‘t about ABCs. They were—they were questions like this one, from Alabama‘s literacy test in 1965. If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted? Do you consider yourself qualified to vote in this country? Can you answer that question?

You want to hear it again? If a person is charged with treason—if a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?

Or how about this one from the same test: In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states? Do you know the answer to that one?

Again, these are from Alabama‘s literacy test in 1965. It was applied selectively, of course, to black voters, to keep them from registering.

If you lived in Georgia in 1958, you would have faced questions like this one: Who is the solicitor general of the state judicial circuit in which you live and who is the judge of such circuit? If such circuit has more than one judge, name them all.

How did you do on that one? Or how about this one: What does the Constitution of Georgia provide regarding the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?

If you wanted to vote in Georgia in 1958, those are the questions you would have to answer. But, of course, not everyone would face those questions. The board of registrars had the sole authority to determine who got asked which literacy test questions and whose answers to those questions rendered them ineligible to vote.

The idea was that black voters weren‘t being denied the right to vote based on race. That would be illegal. No, those voters just couldn‘t pass this literacy test.

This isn‘t the plot of some Kagzo (ph) Klansman gothic short story. This isn‘t a theoretical for first-year law students. This isn‘t some State Department report on some tin pot dictatorship halfway around the world that we can‘t pronounce.

This is American history. This is really, really recent American history—as in this lifetime for a lot of people American history.

And the opening night speech at the national tea party convention this weekend proposed bringing the literacy test for voting back. And that proposal got a warm round of applause

I suggest that the FIRST people to have to pass a "literacy test" should be the ones calling for it. Since they seem to be misinformed bigoted cranks absolutely unaware of history (or uncaring of it), it should be easy for them, right? Right?

I couldn't answer those questions. Could you?