Category Archives: Soapbox

Emails, life events, and things in the news that catch my attention and annoy me enough to rant about or interest me enough to comment on yell and scream about. Usually things regarding religious and political groups that insist on regulating the lives and lifestyles others with stupid laws and random taxation.

Even carrots taste better at McDonald’s

Posted on by

Preschoolers in study liked food more if it had a Golden Arches wrapper
By LINDSEY TANNER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last updated August 6, 2007 11:45 p.m. PT
CHICAGO — Anything made by McDonald’s tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

We really needed another study for this? I could have told you that after watching the Saturday morning cartoons and then taking a walk through the cereal isle of any grocery store to watch the ever popular, “can I please have this – I promise to clean my room” tantrum reenacted as children hold their favorite sugary sugar coated sugar pops infused with sugar and a little sugar on top cereal (tastes great with a little dab of honey).

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the children when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

I would just like to take this time to point out that the “familiar packaging” is only familiar if the child has seen it before. I’m thinking my house will have the Saturday morning Netflix cartoons just to avoid commercials.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald’s foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost.
“You see a McDonald’s label and kids start salivating,” said Diane Levin, a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to children. She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was “the first study I know of that has shown so simply and clearly what’s going on with (marketing to) young children.”

Dr. Tom Robinson of Stanford University, author of the study, said the children’s perception of taste was “physically altered by the branding.”

It wasn’t physically altered you dimwit (he must have watched too much ‘Baby Einstein’). Physically altering would require taste bud removal.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be similar for children from wealthier families.

True, but only if the children of wealthier families watched the same commercials. It’s possible that the wealthier kids have such a huge library of videos that they never watch TV in all its commercial glory.

The research, appearing in August’s Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study likely will stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to children. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies, including McDonald’s, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald’s says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

Adding fruit – Yay! Big plus. Unfortunately, they don’t say if it’s fresh fruit or dried fruit which is typically dried with fruit juice containing high fructose corn syrup. They also don’t mention how many calories or fat in the meals, but merely state that it’ll be less. Less than what? I have a small car – it weights less than an elephant. It’s a Hummer. You see how it’s all relative?

“We’ve always wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions,” company spokesman Walt Riker said.

Translation: We see that people are going back to the 80′s trend of eating healthy and exercising so aside from offering diet coke and crappy salads we’re going to package carrots and apples with our trade mark and sell it with less freshness and higher prices than a grocery store now that it’s been kid tested and mom approved.

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too little is being done.

“It’s an amazing study and it’s very sad,” Strasburger said.

“Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about — to brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional desire for a particular brand-name product,” he said.

Well Duh! They want money! Did he just wake up? It’s called CAPITALISM.

Related posts:

Videos hardly creating baby Einsteins

Posted on by

Sensational non-news. Overly dramatized for your panties in a bunch pleasure…

By Amber Dance
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 – Page updated at 02:06 AM
Los Angeles Times

Parents hoping to raise baby Einsteins by using infant educational videos instead might be creating baby Homer Simpsons, according to researchers.

I just love how they more than insinuate that you might actually be making your child dumb by showing these videos.

In a study published today in the Journal of Pediatrics, researchers found that, among babies ages 8 months to 16 months, every hour spent daily watching programs such as “Brainy Baby” or “Baby Einstein” translated into six to eight fewer words in their vocabularies as compared with other children their age.

Oh NO! Jr. isn’t ever going to make it to college *eye roll* I can see how a child might be delayed in learning if their parents/caregivers use TV as a babysitter and never interact with the kid, but they can pick up those eight words later on. Hell, Einstein himself didn’t speak until he was about five years old.

The video makers have sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth to parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track.

Unfortunately, it’s all money down the tubes, according to Dr. Dmitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington.

I don’t think it’s money down the tubes if you just want to entertain your kid while you do the laundry and dishes without Jr. underfoot. I just wouldn’t rely on it getting your toddler into medical school – that requires more advanced videos.

Christakis and his colleagues surveyed 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota. They determined the babies’ vocabularies using a standard set of 90 common baby words, including “mommy,” “nose” and “choo-choo.”

Note to self, must teach baby Sophia the word “choo-choo” so that should we ever participate in a study she’ll appear intelligent.

The researchers found that 32 percent of the babies watched the videos; of those, 17 percent watched more than an hour a day, according to the study.

So what are you saying? 32 percent of Sophia’s classmates will be dumb and 17 percent of those will be truly dee-dee-dee? Let’s blame the video those are always easy targets and then when the kids are teens will blame other TV shows, violent computer games, and their music.

The videos, which are designed to engage a baby’s attention, hop from scene to scene with minimal dialogue and include mesmerizing images, such as an active lava lamp.

Christakis said children whose parents read to them or told them stories instead of showing them videos had bigger vocabularies.

Is reading truly the key ingredient here? Maybe it’s the fact that reading a child means that someone is spending time interacting with her. I understand that if you leave the kid with a video that doesn’t have many words the child is just watching shapes and sounds with no meaning and probably won’t be picking up a lot of vocabulary for that hour or so that the TV is babysitting. What if the parent watched the video with their toddler and pointed out different objects, colors, number of items, or whatever? How would that be so different from reading to them?

“I would rather babies watch ‘American Idol’ than these videos,” Christakis said, explaining that there was at least a chance that the parents would watch with them, giving the babies contact and perhaps interaction that would have developmental benefits.

Oh good GOD NO! Anything but “American Idol” – Why on earth can’t Christakis just suggest that parents spend some time watching the silly videos with their kids and point out stuff – like I said above. I bet Christakis kid didn’t get into the prestigious preschool. He just has it in for the creators Baby Einstein videos.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for children younger than 24 months.

What?! Why the hell not? Aside from most babies not having the attention span to watch the History channel go on and on about WWII and Hitler why *shouldn’t* they watch TV?

The Brainy Baby Co. and Walt Disney Co., which markets the “Baby Einstein” videos, did not return calls Monday.

You called on Monday and published this article on Tuesday – was that really enough time?

Related posts:

Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread

Posted on by

This is the latest circumcision headline along with, “Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope”. I smell BULLSHIT!

I don’t see how the US can be so adamant about male circumcision. They’re now trying to change minds in other countries about it, but I don’t see anyone promoting social health effects of female circumcision. That doesn’t seem fair. Female circumcision curbs promiscuity. That would put a huge dent in teen sex and teens have the highest rates of STDs. Heck, we should terminate all teens and that will get rid of all STDs. Ok, Seriously I know there is a HUGE difference between male and female circumcisions, but if I was having a boy I wouldn’t circumcise him. I figure he’s born with a foreskin, I’m thinking he should keep it. If he hates me for it and wants it removed later on, I’ll pay for the surgery. Again, I know as an adult the surgery isn’t quite as quick and simple, but at least it would be his own choice. I’m not going to point fingers and say someone is wrong for circumcising their boy – it’s your kid, your choice. But this article is Bullshit!

From the Seattle PI

Last updated July 24, 2007 5:31 a.m. PT
Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread
By MERAIAH FOLEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SYDNEY, Australia — A U.S. health expert urged governments worldwide Tuesday to endorse circumcision to slow the spread of HIV, saying men without the procedure have a greater risk of contracting the virus from infected female partners.

A U.S. health expert? If you have the goods, the info, wouldn’t you want your name attached to this? And wouldn’t sex with an infected female partner be the key to such a risk and not having skin around the tip of your penis?

Experts at an AIDS conference in Sydney also warned that HIV infection rates were rising among men who have sex with men in developing countries because of discrimination and lack of access to health services.

Wait what does this have to do with foreskin or no foreskin? The headline, dear Ms. Meraiah says, “Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS”. Do these men having sex with men have foreskins or not? And is the HIV rate really rising due to lack of access to health services? I’m thinking the rate rises when they’re having unprotected sex. Read: CONDOMS.

The World Health Organization says male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission of the disease by around 60 percent. But only 30 percent of men worldwide have had the procedure, mostly in countries where it is common for religious or health reasons.

Around 60 percent? Boy that sounds scientific. I’m so convinced (that was sarcasm). Plus or minus what margin of error? In the US (according to the CDC) from 1979 – 1999 65% of the males born in the US were circumcised. If circumcision is actually helpful we should have a very low percentage of HIV/AIDS, yes? And the percentage of people with HIV/AIDs should be lower than most other countries since the US is the only country that routinely circumcises the majority of infant boys even without medical necessity or religious reasons, yes? Now I don’t have any statistics on US circumcision prior to 1979, but I know it was prevalent in English speaking countries in the early 1900’s and while it slowed down in other English speaking countries around the end of WWII it continued in the US.

Here is a map (I believe it’s current) of countries and the prevalence of male circumcisions. The map is from a site that is clearly biased against circumcision, but I think the representation of where this surgery is prevalent and not seem accurate. Take note that in Mexico, central and South America circumcision is rare. It’s also rare in Europe, China, India, and Russia. Now here is a Chart of the Adult HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rate (aged 15-49). The US is at .6%, Mexico .3%, Guatemala .8%, Honduras .7%, Nicaragua .2%, Costa Rica .4%, Colombia .6%, Ecuador .3%, Brazil .4%, France .4%, Spain .5%, Germany .1%, China .1%, India .3%, Russia 1.1% Because the countries in which circumcision is rare have HIV/AIDS percentages above and below the US I’m thinking it has to do with something other than foreskin.

Robert Bailey, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois, said studies in Africa showed that uncircumcised men were 2 1/2 times more likely to contract HIV from infected female partners, though many health officials were still unclear about its benefits.

I found two sources [1], [2] in which it states that the studies in Africa were halted “after their interim analyses found that medical circumcision reduced male participants’ risk of HIV infection”. The “Doctors against circumcision” site, which is obviously biased, suggests that if the studies went as scheduled the results would have been similar between the two groups. The circumcised men may not have been given adequate time to heal. From what I can tell all of the men were adults and were not circumcised prior to the study. From the CDC, “In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared to men assigned to the wait list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these deviations, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk of HIV infection compared to those who were not circumcised.” So basically it’s business as usual for the uncircumcised who get a head start while the newly circumcised men wait a bit to heal. I don’t know how long it takes a newborn to heal but I’m thinking it might take an adult a bit longer before the boinking may commence again.

“If we had a vaccine that was 60 percent protective, we would be very happy and we would be rolling it out as fast as we can,” Bailey told reporters at an International AIDS Society Conference in Sydney, Australia.

It’s my understanding that vaccine tests are not halted before their scheduled date just because initial tests confirmed desired results. I don’t think the FDA would approve.

“The next step is to get the leaders of countries to actually come up with policy statements endorsing the practice,” said Bailey, who has conducted circumcision-related studies in Africa and the United States.

Without local support, international agencies would be unlikely to encourage the procedure to avoid being seen as imposing foreign cultures or values, he said.

Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin from the penis, has long been suspected of reducing men’s susceptibility to HIV infection because the skin cells in the foreskin are especially vulnerable to the virus.

I suspect that a combination of condoms and AIDS education would be even more effective than removal of the foreskin since circumcised men also contract HIV.

In March, the WHO urged heterosexual men to undergo the procedure because of compelling evidence that it reduces their risk of getting the disease. However, it cautioned that male circumcision is not a complete protection against HIV, and said men should still use condoms and take other precautions such as abstinence, delaying the start of sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners.

What about gay men? If the skin cells on the foreskin are truly more susceptible to HIV – wouldn’t this also help gay men? Shouldn’t the WHO urge men in general and not just the ones with the “acceptable” sexual preference?

“Circumcision could drive the epidemic to a declining state toward extinction,” Bailey said. “We must make safe, affordable, voluntary circumcision available now.”

Yep, at .6% it’s nearly extinct in the US all due to circumcision I’m sure because countries like France, Spain, China that don’t circumcise have soaring rates like .4%, .6% and .1%.

Bailey also called on international agencies to ramp up funding for circumcision in countries hardest-hit by the epidemic.

Michel Kazatchkine, the executive director of the Global fund, a leading international health agency, also called for increased funding.

“I believe that the evidence is overwhelming for the efficacy of circumcision,” Kazatchkine told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the meeting. “And if countries come to us … I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t fund that.”

Yep we want everyone to be just like us because clearly we know what’s best. We’re the greatest and have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies and their children and especially their penis.

Kazatchkine said his organization had not yet received any requests for funding for circumcision, and noted that the WHO advice on the topic was only released in March.

Also at the conference, a leading American AIDS research group said HIV infection rates among men who have sex with men were rising in Africa, Asia and Latin America, citing figures from UNAIDS.

Studies also show that less than 5 percent of that group have access to HIV-related health care, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR, said.

Again, what does this have to do with foreskin or no foreskin? The headline, dear Ms. Meraiah says, “Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS”. Stay on track dear.

“This is a massive failure of the HIV/AIDS response globally and I think one that needs to be addressed,” said Kevin Frost, amFAR’s chief executive officer.

In Kenya, around 40 percent of men who have sex with men are estimated to be HIV positive, compared to a 6 percent rate in the country’s overall population, amFAR said. In Senegal, nearly 22 percent are believed to be infected, compared to less than 1 percent of the general population.

In Uruguay and Mexico, 21 percent and 15 percent are estimated to have the disease.

Let us be clear here – we’ve switch from talking about men that are cut or uncut and their chances of contracting the virus to the percentage of HIV/AIDS positive people that are gay men. Dear Ms. Meraiah, your hard hitting reporting seems a little misleading and off topic. Please focus.

Under an initiative launched at the AIDS Society Conference, amFAR will seek to raise $3 million in the next three years to provide grants for AIDS education and research among men who have homosexual sex in developing countries.

That’s fantastic, but should probably have been in a different article under a different headline.

AIDS study halted – From the CDC site:

“Three randomized, controlled clinical trails have been undertaken in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [10], was stopped in 2005 and those in Kenya [11] and Uganda [12] were stopped in 2006 after their interim analyses found that medical circumcision reduced male participants’ risk of HIV infection.”

10. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298.

11. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:643-656.

12. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-666.

Related posts:

Baby Benadryl

Posted on by

From msnbc

Kate Penland, of suburban Atlanta, said she and her 19-month-old son, Garren, were flying from Atlanta to Oklahoma last month on a Continental Express flight that made a stop in Houston.

As the plane was taxiing in Houston en route to Oklahoma, “he started saying ‘Bye, bye plane,’ Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta. The flight attendant objected, she said.

“At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, ‘It’s not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up,’” Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta.

When Penland asked the woman if she was joking, she said the stewardess replied, “You know, it’s called baby Benadryl.”

“And I said, ‘Well, I’m not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,’” Penland told the TV station.

Penland said other passengers began speaking up on her behalf, and the flight attendant announced they were turning around and that Penland and Garren were going to be taken off the plane.

Ohmygod! I can’t believe someone that chose to work in the customer service industry can be so intolerant to a kid that was simply saying, “Bye, bye plane” and actually have the gull to suggest drugging the child. I’m sure it was said in the repetitive manner that only toddlers and barking dogs know, but come on – you’re in the customer service field lady! I’m afraid to ask what she might suggest to a mother that has a child shrieking at the top of his lungs or throwing a temper tantrum. – I’m sorry mam but we’re just going to have to put him down.

Related posts:

Brief overview of my Mix07 experience

Posted on by

The first general session got everyone excited the things they showed were very innovative and fun. The breakout sessions to follow were rather hit and miss as far as capturing interest and effectively showing a more in-depth view of the technologies being pushed. Evidence of this was seen by anyone that noticed all the tiny watch batteries on the floor from people bored or maybe curious enough to want to take apart the cool little penlights in our goody bag. I walked out of the Tuesday afternoon general session, apparently just before everyone else did. If it was really necessary to tell us “Why” we should be using these technologies then they are useless. I’m sure if it wasn’t obvious to us we would have been hanging out at the bars and gambling tables a lot more and not crowding ourselves into every corner of most sessions.

The free Microsoft software was a definite bonus and the food was quite surprisingly good especially the cheese blintzes with raspberry sauce for the Wednesday breakfast. Of course the coolest little gadget was the blue light “ice cubes” we stole from our glasses at the Mix07 party at the Pussycat Dolls Lounge in Caesars Palace courtesy of Silverlight.

The Venetian was a gorgeous venue for the conference, and I had a wonderful stay there with exception to the lack of hot water on Wednesday morning. On Monday and Tuesday it took quite awhile for the shower to warm up and on Tuesday night there was a note left after the nightly turn-down crew came through which informed those of us residing in that tower that the water would be completely turned off from midnight to 4am. I went to breakfast at a quarter after eight still un-showered. Not too big a deal I guess. I made sure to take a long shower before checking out though. ;-)

Related posts:

Diaper Pins

Posted on by

I needed some safety pins to hold up my maternity pants so I bought some diaper pins. I thought it was fitting in a weird sort of way. When I took them out of the package I noticed the warning on it read, “Keep out of baby’s reach. Contains a functional sharp point. Never leave a baby unattended.” How on earth did people diaper their babies before disposables if they can’t use diaper pins within baby’s reach? – And no, it did not specify “only when not in use” it simply said keep out of reach due to “functional sharp point”. As opposed to those sharp points that don’t function? And “never leave a baby unattended” – are you supposed to watch them sleep? I know they’re cute at that age, but watching a baby sleep could get really boring.

Related posts:

French Birth Rate

Posted on by

Today I read an article in the Everett Herald about the French birth rate going up.

French birth rate up to 2 per woman
The increase bucks the trend elsewhere in Europe, where populations are graying.

By Pierre-Yves Roger
Associated Press

I have two major issues with this article. I’ll list them in the order in which they appear.

France had more babies in 2006 than in any year in the last quarter-century, the state statistics agency said Tuesday, capping a decade of rising fertility that has bucked Europe’s graying trend.

Rising fertility? Really? The actual fertility of the French people has gone up?

France’s fertility rate has been climbing steadily since 1996, Insee said, but it still has not passed 2.1 – considered what it takes to replace a population in developed countries. The rate in the United States is 2.1.

I just don’t like this meshing of the word fertility with birthrate four times in the same article. It makes it sound like they’re just recovering from radiation and are finally able to replenish their population. It’s irritating, but acceptable. The one thing that bugs the shit out of me is at a the bottom of this article that is all about the French birthrate going up – at the end of it the reporter feels compelled to state that,

The number of French marriages is continuing to decline as more French couples are choosing to form civil unions instead, Insee said.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything at all? Marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper. Paper doesn’t prevent conception. It would have to be pretty thick fucking paper to be used as birth control and I don’t want to think about the cuts it may produce. Seriously what the fuck does marriage have to do with the birth rate in France?

Related posts:

Flag at half mast

Posted on by

I haven’t been keeping up with the news lately, so I only just found out yesterday that ex-President Ford died on the 27th and today I heard that Saddam Hussein was hung yesterday. Today as Kurt and I head out to go shopping for a new living room chair to place next to our couch, “The Laura” I noticed that the a flag at half mast. Given the latest news I wondered who was it flying for the ex president or Saddam. Don’t scoff at me, just twenty years ago Saddam was our ally against Iran. Twenty years ago it didn’t matter that Saddam was an assassin who killed his way up to the top of the Iraq government or that the US knew Iraq was using chemical weapons both against Iran and to punish Kurdish insurgents. It wasn’t really cool with US citizens to support a terrorist, and the government denied it at the time, but with Iraq being 80% Shiite I don’t think the Sunni Leader would have had a chance without a little help from his friends.

In the ‘90s Saddam became a bad guy again. He accused Kuwait of illegally slant-drilling petroleum across Iraq’s border and so Iraq invaded. The US feared for Saudi Arabia because they are an ally of the US, but mostly because we like their oil, so Bush Sr. tried to pursued the public to go to war. It’s not ok for Iraq to violate Kuwaiti territorial integrity, but in a few more years (2003) it’ll be ok for us to invade Iraq’s boundaries for preemptive purposes. Many cried, “No Blood For Oil”. Bush Sr. pulled the biochemical weapons card and the attempting to build atomic bombs card. It wasn’t until the Kuwaiti government paid for the Nurse Nayirah ads in which a nurse described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor that everyone said ok fine let’s go to war.

Now the US government claims moral superiority over Iraq even though as a civilian anyone who not only has knowledge of a crime but funds the criminal is an accessory to said crime. So for moral reasons very similar to the ones daddy Bush used, let’s wage war! Does this make any fucking sense? With nothing but a document stating that there are “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”, which is known by the government before the start of the war to have been falsified, let us go to war because we can’t find Waldo in Afghanistan. Why if it’s so important to bring Saddam to ‘justice’ don’t we just go to the UN and start filing all the papers for a war crimes / human rights abuses trial? The penalty for that is still death. His underlings will get trials and then Iraq could have their civil wars without our soldiers getting in the way. – Oh wait there’s still that pesky fact of us having known all along what was going on but didn’t give a shit at the time factor. If helping Saddam in the 80′s was the right thing to do then we really should be flying the flag for our dear friend Saddam.

And in case you were wondering we did find the perfect chair to go with the Laura. It’s called the Farris. We also got an ottoman called the Tosha.

“Iraq: Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein”
With Joyce Battle Middle East Analyst, National Security Archive at George Washington University Thursday, Feb. 27, 2003; 11 a.m. ET

“Giant Firm Parlays Political Connections Into Pr Coups” Marcy Gordon AP Sunday, February 02, 1992

“Photos don’t show buildup” St. Petersburg Times – St. Petersburg, Fla. Author: JEAN HELLER Date: Jan 6, 1991

THE STOVEPIPE
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-10-27
Posted 2003-10-20

Mohamed ElBaradei, publicly described the fraud at his next scheduled briefing to the U.N. Security Council, in New York on March 7th. The story slowly began to unravel.

Vice-President Cheney responded to ElBaradei’s report mainly by attacking the messenger. On March 16th, Cheney, appearing on “Meet the Press,” stated emphatically that the United States had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear-weapons program. He went on, “I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency on this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.”

Related posts:

Failed attempts at planning ahead

Posted on by

On Sunday November 19th I went to Costco. I knew that my truck tires were bald and required replacement before winter just in case it actually gets cold enough to freeze or something. Costco didn’t carry the size tire I need for my small truck so I ordered some. They told me that the tires would probably be in on Saturday, but that they would call me.

The other thing that Kurt has been pestering me about is a cell phone. Ok fine it comes in handy during emergencies. On Saturday November 25th we went out gift shopping. I was looking for a laptop (gift for myself), and Kurt kept flashing different cell phones at me. I broke down and finally decided that a cell phone isn’t the end of the world and picked a prepaid type without any extra crap. – The store was sold out, so we went to two other stores and same thing. That night I hopped online to buy the phone.

Costco hadn’t called on Saturday so on Sunday we stopped by to get some doggie treats and see what was going on with my tires. The guy that took down my number the previous week had sloppy writing so they couldn’t call to tell me that they only received three of the tires. As we left the store it was snowing and not just a few little flakes that don’t stick – it was actual snow. That night I sent out an email to all my friends saying, “I’m finally as hip as my grandma, I don’t have it in my possession yet, but I finally broke down and got a cell phone. My number will be ***-***-****. I should have the phone by Friday-ish.”

Monday morning I wake up at 7am without power. I know it was seven because I have a laptop. We don’t have a corded phone, so when the power goes out so does the phone. I tried to get online to email work that I would be late but my wireless router also requires power. I went to the kitchen to get the flashlight so that I wouldn’t have to shower in total darkness, and hopped in the shower before all the hot water turned cold. I did all the rest of my normal work morning routine and then went out to wipe all the snow off my truck and get it warmed up. I did take the time to note that I could not see the tracks from Kurt’s car. He leaves for work at five. At 7:30 it was still snowing. I backed out of the driveway, but as soon as I hit the center of the road, I was stuck. If only I had traction.

The neighbor behind my house was in the middle of helping someone that was stuck beside my house (I’m on a corner lot), and came over to help me after pushing the other person. He helped me back into my driveway and let me borrow his phone. All that and it turned out to be a snow day – I didn’t even have to go in.

At 8:30 my power came back on and I open my email to see that one of my 50-something year-old friends replied to my cell phone email with, “Hahaha. As hip as your grandma! Now you need a MySpace page (like me).” I spent the day deleting accounts I no longer use and then added MySpace.

*** Update January 1, 2007 ***

I deleted my myspace.com account. As I expected it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I did find a couple people I never thought I’d get in touch with again, so I don’t think it’s entirely evil. I’m just not interested in the sparkly little comments and it seems a lot like match maker and classmates.com type of sites as in it’s just a place to hook up then promptly loose interest and leave as I did. The biggest difference is that you can change the background other custom things as long as the advertisements aren’t affected. I loved the Borat theme I put on my account, but I’d rather not resort to using a bunch of css hacks to achieve a pseudo personal space. The community aspect of myspace isn’t that appealing either. I don’t usually spend a lot of time with online communities or forums because sticking to the same topic is boring and forums that allow users to wander off topic usually get out of hand and become a drag to the moderators.

Related posts:

Parents magazine and baby names

Posted on by

I had subscribed to Parents magazine a couple years ago. For some reason I am still getting issues and I don’t know why. After the first two or three, I stopped reading them and they merely made a trip from the mailbox to the recycle bin. That is just how impressed I am with their hard-hitting news and information regarding babies. I mean, in their article about Natural Fertility Boosters the first thing listed was acupuncture. I’m sorry, but that’s just preying on those desperate to conceive. You may as well tell me about the salad that can help me produce the male baby I so desire. This month (the December 2006 issue) I kept it only for the front page print that read, “home remedies doctors swear by” of course they never give you page numbers to the article titles that actually catch your attention and they don’t even give it the same name in the table of contents. It took me a while to figure out that the article I was looking for was on page 82, “Pediatricians’ Best Cold and Flu Remedies – What your doctor does when his child has a nasty cold, fever, or the flu.” I refrain from picking on the pronoun used for doctor, but I will obviously take note of it, so moving on. The first part covers cough and sore throat. It says, “Bring on the liquids” DUH! There were other little tips but nothing earth shattering – same for the nasal congestion section. The section about fever was ok – dispelling the myth of “sweat it out” being ok. I have noticed all sections insist the child should have plenty of fluids – I just cannot believe I paid for this. Really, the only thing I did not know was in the stomach flu section. It talked about the “BRAT” diet, which is apparently bananas, rice, applesauce, and toast for when they are ready for solid foods again.

Since I was reading this issue, I figured I would turn to page 128 to read, “185 cool baby names”, or as listed in the table of contents, “Name Game”. The story of one persons journey to the right baby name was just cheesy and all the little boxes and blurbs thorough out the pages with lists of names was not just retarded but horrifying! I am ok with their list of “Gender Benders” Aiden, Aubrey, Avery, Bailey, Brady, Cameron, Chase, Emery, Morgan, and Taylor. Although I do not think I would give my child any of these names, I would defiantly not name my boy Aubrey. They had another box with the “Surname Swap”. The boys names were ok except for Fisher – reminds me of Fisher Price – it’s a toy company not a child’s name! The girl’s list had two hits from me, Mackenzie, the name of the Budweiser mascot and Miller, another cheap beer reference. Nothing against beer, but both of those are shit beers!

Another list that got to me was, “Cross-Guessing these hip girls’ names used to belong to the boys” Devon, Dylan, Jordan, Tyler – These are ok but Blake is just to harsh a name for a little girl and Cullen? Sounds like Culling puppies to me. Brennan is ok, but Kirby? That’s a vacuum cleaner!

On the next page they list fruit for names. I’m never naming my girl Cherry and I shouldn’t have to explain why. Boys names are listed as, Hawthorn, Rowan, Fig, Huckleberry and Mulberry. Hawthorn is not bad. I will not choose it, but I can see it as a valid boy’s name. Fig is not a name it’s the type of leaf Adam wore to cover his genitals, but Huckleberry would be funny. Kurt’s friend from Wisconsin told us he wants to name his son Spartacus, so that when the teacher calls roll call the boy will stand up and say, “I am Spartacus”. With Huckleberry, I am thinking of the movie Tombstone with Val Kilmer playing Doc Holliday, “I’m your Huckleberry”.

Another retarded list of names was the “Put it in reverse” Heart = Traeh and Leader = Redael. One of their examples didn’t even follow suit – Wonder = Redwon? That ain’t backwards you imbeciles!

Now for the worst of the worst… In this article, they had the balls to suggest that names typically reserved for dogs are just too cute to remain canine only. These people need to be shot! I’m going to start with the “boys” names: Riley, Duke, Tiger, Buddy, Milo. If you are going to have a boy please read the following very closely… Your son will never get a job if his name is TIGER! And Buddy is a only a nickname – always has been always will be. Now for the “girls” names: Sierra, Shiloh, Sadie, Benji, and Lola. I can tolerate all those except Benji. Yes, the movie was great, touching and all that, but that was an ugly mongrel mutt DOG.

On the humorous side – A few months ago, the admin person at work asked me an odd question out of the blue, “Do women usually, you know, drop a load when giving birth?” Why she chose me to ask I don’t know, but I had heard of that in the past. I figured it was common enough and that’s what I told her, so when I read the bottom of page 152 I cracked up.

Poop on the delivery-room table. As unpleasant as it might sound, it’s not uncommon to defecate, pass gas, or urinate while giving birth. “This is a positive sign that the mother is pushing correctly,” says Dr. Miriam Greene. “She shouldn’t be embarrassed.” Easier said than done! But rest assured that your nurses and doctor have seen it all before. And don’t worry about what your husband thinks either.

Related posts:

Page 13 of 18« First9101112131415161718