Moving Day

A couple of folks have nudged me because I've been silent lately. And there's a perfectly good reason--moving day. No, not me, just the blog.

I'm not thrilled with the look and layout, so look for things to change as I get used to the new digs and start creating something all my own. And this weekend will be dedicated to some reorganizing and general cleaning and fixing of links.

For now, I'll be leaving previous posts in both places, but I'm disabling comments here on Blogger and nothing new will appear here.

Here's the new digs.

Self-interest vs. Need

A situation has arisen with a member of a forum in which I participate that tickles the corners of my brain. This man, K, his girlfriend and their new baby were all set to move 1600 miles away to the currently unused home of his great aunt under a verbal agreement to rent the home from the aunt's children (his first cousins once removed, for those keeping track). They'd given notice with their current landlord, hired movers, and K's girlfriend had quit her job in anticipation of the relocation. About a week before the great departure, one of the aunt's sons pulled the rug out from under them by removing his consent to rent the home to them. Apparently this nosy relative had been reading things on K's blog and MySpace page that weren't to his liking.

Some things aren't sitting right with me. Pointing out that K has a new baby, and using that need as a justification for calling the nosy relative a douchebag bothers me. As much as I respect K, their need for a home, new baby and all, doesn't justify calling this man a douchebag for asserting his property rights in the situation. Need is no virtue to be called upon when attempting to win an battle over property. Need is not a checkmark on one side's favor.

Even now, a part of me still wants to cry out "But they have a baby!" But if I allow that part of me victory, even in this one instance, then I open the door to weighing the virtuousness of all needs. It's a struggle to silence that part of me crying out. We all have been taught for too long that self-sacrifice for our brother's need is as virtuous as his need itself. Sanding out that "conventional wisdom" etched into my moral code isn't so easy in practice.

(Incidentally, in the interests of disclosure, I'm rereading Atlas Shrugged. I'm at a point in the book where "need as virtue" is discussed at length, which may be why all the unstated references to K's need bother me. Take that however you may...)

K put his comments out there knowing consequences might one day follow him. Granted, he probably thought consequences would probably come from someone not so close to home. But the beauty of freedom of association is the right to avoid associating with someone for any reason--irksome blogs and MySpace pages included.

And yet, need aside, I can't get stop thinking this busybody relative is a douchebag anyway. Why?

Perhaps it's because, while the nosy relative is acting in his own self-interest, he's doing it for ridiculous reasons...his feelings. He's trying to scratch an itch by bringing moral indignation into the equation, something that has no place in any rational argument. A rational person would conclude that, so long as K pays the rent on time and doesn't destroy the property, his views are largely irrelevant. It's a business transaction in which feelings, hurt or otherwise, have no place, and only a douchebag would make his emotions the centerpiece of his financial decision-making.

Perhaps it's because the man entered into an agreement without researching the information that might actually concern him, and then, upon actually DOING the research, changed his mind. Were there a written contract in place, I'd be overjoyed to deliver to him the "tough shit" he so richly deserves.

The nosy relative is displaying classic traits of irrational douchebaggery, and I hope his horse loses this race.

From the "Good Fucking Grief" files

It's shit like this that makes me doubt any hope for humanity.

Iowa Family Finds Snake Head in Can of Beans

An Iowa family filed a lawsuit seeking damages over a snake head they claim to have found in a can of green beans.

Amy Schneider said she found the head when she opened the can of green beans on March 24, 2006. It was about the size of a golf ball, she said.

"It was ... yuck, it was really yuck," she said. "It was gross."

She said Lakeside Foods offered her some coupons when she complained.

It doesn't appear she actually ate any of the can's contents. And she deserves something more than coupons... why? Ms. Schneider, at BEST you can claim you're out perhaps a dollar for that can of green beans, plus perhaps a dollar for every other can of green beans in your pantry you now can't bring yourself to eat, and THAT'S being generous. But suing for mental anguish because you saw a snake head?

Grow the fuck up, you pantywaist.

Ahhh, spring!

I know I've been incredibly lax in blogging lately. Must be a spring thing--many folks just seem to get silent and busy this time of year.

One pastime I've been enjoying immensely is periodically checking the WildWatchCams with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that lewlew blogged about. Bluebirds, osprey, bald eagles, herons, burrowing owls and barn owls...it's fascinating to watch their spring nesting habits.

The baby bluebirds gradually decreased in number from seven rather ugly hatchlings to three fluffy adorable chicks. At some point Monday morning, they fledged and disappeared from the camera's view. Unfortunately I missed the actual event; they were there when I checked up on them in the morning, and then a couple hours later there was only the empty nest. But it looks like someone's feathering the nest again, so I'll be keeping watch.

The barn owl nest failed. At first, whenever I checked on her during the day, she was setting on her eggs and sleeping. But during the final days before WDFW staff removed the infertile eggs and prepped the box for a new nest, she could be seen awake during daylight hours, preening herself in the nest box and ignoring her eggs. They're not sure why the nest failed--it could be either the male or the female--but there's a good chance she'll nest multiple times during the year. Some feathers have appeared in the new nesting material, so I'm hopeful she'll be back soon.

The osprey is still setting on eggs--she doesn't move much, and her mate can sometimes be seen coming and going from the nest for food. According to Wikipedia, hatching them takes about 5 weeks, and I have no idea when she started.

Both the bald eagle nests have chicks that appear to be doing well, and it gives me a thrill whenever I'm fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of both adults at their nest at the same time.


I was beginning to wonder if I'd ever see the burrowing owl. For two weeks or so, all I ever saw was the burrow entrance surrounded by grass. Then on Tuesday, an adult miraculously made an appearance outside the burrow...my first sighting. It didn't move much, so I had to wait for several refreshes to be sure of what I was seeing, but it definitely was an owl. Then, after a mere half day of marveling at finally having spotted one, I enjoyed the treat of seeing one of the downy, light-colored babies make sporadic appearances at the burrow entrance. Slightly smaller and much more mobile, it darted in, out, and around the burrow for some 15 minutes before disappearing again, but not before I captured a screen shot of it.

These cams perfectly punctuate my enjoyment of springtime in the Pacific Northwest. The sun peeks its head out and the weather becomes more mild and placid. The grass grows lush and thick in every field. Flowering trees and plants and burst forth in splendiferous displays of color. The tips of the evergreens are frosted with verdant, youthful new needles. And this year, the birds of prey appear to be eating well, given their frequent appearances both on the webcams and all along my morning and evening commute.

Nothing against Christmas, but this truly is the most wonderful time of the year.

Mapping humor

Try this on Google Maps:

1. Click on "Get Directions."

2. Enter "New York, NY" to "Paris, France."

3. Scroll down in the directions to step number 23.

GIS geek humor. Gotta love it.

Today's humor

From the creator of Money Talks by way of the Revised Devil's Dictionary newsletter:

Sexual congress: A polite euphemism for screwing someone.

U.S. Congress: A not-so-polite euphemism for the same thing.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Argh!

For two days, I've had the same song stuck in my head.

If Jim Henson weren't already dead, he'd be on my "needed killin'" list now. I'll just have to settle for blaming a certain Bitchitorial post on memetic viruses for infecting me.

The relationship pity party

Lately I seem to be stumbling onto far too many people whining about relationships ending badly, and then blaming one entire sex or the other as the root of all evil based on their former beloved's behavior. Often they'll back the stereotype up with the weak justification of personal experience (e.g. "This happened in ALL my relationships," or "This happened to all my friends, too.") And I'm perilously near my snapping point when it comes to all this superfluous bitching and moaning about circumstances most of them could have foreseen if they'd opened their eyes even a smidge in the beginning.

When the men are doing the complaining, it's usually how some woman turned into a vindictive, greedy, lying wench, and ruined their lives by spilling all their dirty secrets to the ONE person they hoped would never find out.

Let's group all those behaviors except the last into one category. To all of those, I have nothing but the question "What, weren't you AWAKE during the relationship?" If your woman was displaying ANY of those traits at the end of your relationship, she likely was displaying them BEFORE you ever met her.

Vindictive

• Did you ever see her end a friendship? How did she handle it?
• How about quitting a job she didn't like? Did she burn her bridges and try to take a few folks with her?
• Has she ever talked about how her previous relationships ended?
• Has she ever bragged about "getting even" for a perceived wrong? (Double flags if she ever says she got even "just because she could.")

Greedy

• Did she repeatedly mention how she'd like to quit her job and have someone take care of her?
• Did she pressure or guilt you into paying any of her bills? Have money problems she needs help with?
• Do her friends try to get as much money out of a man as they can? Does she support or denounce that behavior? (Yes, the kind of company she keeps is a reflection on her.)
• Does she slip in commentary that she's being somehow unappreciated by her employer, her friends, her family, or you?
• Has she ever made comments that indicate a sense of entitlement?
  

Dishonest

• Does she make a habit of taking little things that aren't hers? Borrow without returning? Losing borrowed items without making restitution?
• If a cashier gives her too much change, does she give it back?
• Does she lie to her friends or family for no good reason? (Double flags if she's ever bragged about getting away with a lie.)
• Cause damage to a total stranger's property and not make every effort to pay for the damages?
• Did you ever catch her in a lie, only to have her shrug it off as no big deal?
• Has she cheated on former lovers in the past? Does she express any genuine shame about it now?

As for the dirty secrets, if you didn't want them getting around, why did you create them in the first place? And why did you trust an obviously vindictive, dishonest person with them?

These lists are by no means exhaustive... the point is that rarely do people with the above traits demonstrate them in just one sphere of their lives. It's highly likely these whining men have seen their woman display one or more of these behaviors, probably long before the relationship waned. And though I hate to spell it out, here it is: if he sees his significant other behaving like this while they're still passionate about each other, it's highly likely that he'll be on the receiving end when all that romance goes henshit later. If she's willing to shit on her family, friends, or employer, why on earth wouldn't she shit all over her boyfriend or husband, too, once he's on her list?

But I don't want to bag on the men only - women can be just as guilty of wilful ignorance as their male counterparts sometimes are, and just as whiny about it afterwards.

The women I've been so unfortunate to overhear do an equal amount of bitching, and it's usually about how their man was unfaithful, lazy or unproductive. So again, let's take these one at a time.

Unfaithful

• Did you find out how his previous relationships ended?
• Did he cheat on someone else with you, only to dump her for you? (This is a doozy. If you were the other woman, how can you honestly believe there won't be an "other woman" in YOUR future?)
• Does he condone his friends' cheating?
• Does he display any of the dishonesty listed above?

Lazy/Unproductive

• Does he make a habit of doing nothing but sitting on his ass?
• Does he have a history of on-again-off-again employment? Quitting jobs for no good reason?
• Is his place a complete pigsty, even when he has ample time to clean it up himself?
• Does he move back home with his parents whenever things get too tough in the real world? Does he move back with them just so he has more money to buy expensive toys for himself?

Seriously, why should anyone who was wilfully blind to such a high degree deserve any sympathy after the fact? These folks CHOSE their significant others, likely knowing these faults existed, and figured some kind of mystical rain dance and some finger-crossing would save them from having that high-powered fuck-you-over laser of destruction turned on them. And the twitterpation of a new love is no excuse. Relationships can and do end, and anyone who isn't smart, serious, or mature enough to give a damn about finding an honest, forthright partner really isn't working up any tears from me once that partner starts to reign the fire down.

If you wilfully ignore or condone those little white lies, thefts of convenience, disrespect to others, past or present vindictiveness, or any of those not-so-subtle hints of future boulders that could very well come down on your head, then don't come whining to anyone who'll listen that the entire opposite sex is out to get you. You made all the choices that lead you to this point. You chose who to date. You downplayed the importance of character in a mate. If you want someone who'll treat you honestly and fairly when the relationship ends, then you damn well better wait for someone who's honest and fair to begin with. (And yes, they exist. Perhaps not to the degree we'd all like, but they're out there.)

Those dishonest, greedy, assholes who've fucked you over deserve some scorn and shame of their own--certainly their behavior deserves nothing less--but you are not immune. This didn't happen in a dating vacuum. It's intellectually lazy to refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that you had a role here and, more importantly, to blame an entire sex rather than suffer the unpleasantness of some introspective pondering and accepting of blame.

I'm out of patience with the rampant pity party. Take some responsibility for yourself and your decisions. If you can't be bothered to do that, then please, for the sanity of the rest of us, shut the fuck up.

Dear e-stores

I'm an avid believer in online shopping. I love how it enables shoppers to bargain hunt without driving all over town, and to track down items they might not otherwise find in their city. It's beautiful, really.

However, if one more store asks me to register with a username and password just to make a one-time purchase, I'm going to wring someone's neck. To be specific, I'm trying to order a decent swimsuit that will work for repeated use in swimming laps. Fashion suits are far from suitable (pun intended) - they fade, stretch, sag, and generally aren't designed for that kind of wear and tear. Not many stores carry the kind of suits made to take such abuse, so I've turned to online retailers.

But every (and I mean EVERY) single one wants me to register with a yet ANOTHER username and password I won't remember before I can complete an order. After my attempts to purchase as a guest were rebuffed by a third e-tailer during the checkout process, I sent the company a nastygram telling them exactly why they just lost a sale.

It seems to be a disturbing trend in e-commerce - some of my favorite sites have now gone over to the dark side. Look, you boneheads... I have no problems remembering my addresses (both shipping and billing), and my credit card number. Those don't change often. But usernames and passwords always have to be unique, and I can remember only so much.

So please, stop asking me to fill my head with such a waste of space. One of these days, my poor brain will hit capacity, and where my first grade teacher's name was once stored, I'll now be able to recall only username "gwendolyn" password "qwerty07".

Just stop it! Argh!

Earning and stealing

Thought this little tidbit from an NPR story on the rise in violent crime was... amusing.

"There's clearly a growing number of people who have no future in our economy," Blumstein says. "There are basically three modes of earning income: One is to have a job, the other is welfare. The third is theft."

Clearly there's a reason Mr. Blumstein is a criminologist, not an economist. First, I'd quibble with calling welfare and theft "earning income", since earning implies one is deserving of the money through conduct of fair exchange. ("You give me money, and I'll take it" is not a fair exchange; nor is "You earn the money, and I'll spend it.") Second, where does that welfare money come from? Taken from those who earn. It matters not one whit that the money changed hands twice istead of once.

There are only two methods of gaining income, Mr. Blumstein. Earning and stealing. There is no third.

Everything that's wrong with government

From the Bonehead of the Day Award - Evil Parallel Universe Section:

Yee A Sleaze

In the Evil Parallel Universe, politicians support everyone's view on an issue.

San Francisco California state Assemblyman, Leland Yee, cosponsored a bill requiring that each semiautomatic handgun sold in California must leave a unique numeric signature on the expelled bullet to make it easy to identify the weapon that shot the bullet.

* He bragged about how proud he was to be a bill cosponsor.

* He was proud to be named to the honor roll of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for his having cosponsored the bill.

* He sent out a news release announcing his role in sponsoring the bill.

So, how can he appear to be on both sides of the fence?

Here's the left side of the fence

When his own bill came up for a vote, Yee not only voted against it but made sure it came up for a vote when some of the bill's supporters were not, at the time, in the Assembly, therefore assuring the bill's defeat. The bill failed by three votes.

Now the right side of the fence.

With the bill defeated, Yee, because he was not the deciding vote, was allowed to go back and officially change his vote to a "yes."

"Thus, Yee can still brag that he officially voted for the bill -- even though his actions helped kill it."

I'm speechless.

Why's and Wherefore's

My commute affords me much time to ponder. This particular morning, my train of thought brought to recall a story of educational testing lore I heard in my college years. In some (perhaps mythical) class, students showed up to take their final exams. The instructor handed out the papers, upon which was written a single question: "Why?" Now, according to the story, failing credit was assured for the answer "Because." And, according to the story, only one student achieved a perfect score on his exam, responding with a more impressive "Why not?"

It struck me today how much this illustrates the comparison of thought processes of freedom-oriented folks with everyone who desires some level of state interference. It also hit home how unsatisfactory "Because" - or even the more parental "Because I said so" - has sounded to me, and I realized that, even in my childhood, only begrudgingly have I accepted either answer, often only after a lengthy debate which made it clear that no better answer would be forthcoming.

Most of the freedom folk I've been fortunate to know don't take to hearing "Because" as a justification either. Whether it's the war on drugs, immigration, property rights restrictions, or taxation, "Because" has never been sufficient to gain our acceptance of some new policy or practice foist upon us by bureaucrats, voters, or anyone in any position of authority. Rather than the response of the failing students, we prefer the A+-garnering "Why not?" for a couple of reasons.

First, it involves asking a question that, in any responsible logical exchange, should be asked, from decisions as mundane as whether to bring a jacket to the ball game, to significant, big-picture questions involving finances or careers. Second, it acknowledges possibility. Possibility of success, of failure, of being right or being wrong, of pros and cons. It acknowledges the existence active thought processes a curt "because" hasn't once demonstrated.

Lately I've become greatly dismayed at how often I read or hear folks use "because" in their circular logic as a weak justification for our current laws and policies. I'll use immigration to illustrate my point, though examples abound. It goes something like this:

Illegal immigrants broke the law.

How did they break the law?
By not jumping through utilizing the proper hoops channels to work here legally.

Why should there be hoops?
To keep immigrants from coming here illegally.

Would they still be illegal if we didn't require all the hoop-jumping?
That's beside the... oh, look! Something shiny! (wanders off to watch television)

When the laws are subject to whim and a simple pen stroke, they cease to be a firm foundation for any political or personal stance. Yet apparently a large segment of Americans can't fathom asking why certain laws are even necessary. "Because" is all they need be told in order to toe the line and justify (to themselves, at least) their actions.

As for me personally, I find "Why not?" to be refreshing and invigorating. Forthwith I intend to more consciously use it in my own life, and to more actively challenge the "Because" users around me.

Not quite on hiatus

I have a busy couple of weeks starting today as I host three different sets of guests, so I'm not likely to have much to say here during that time. But I'm not going on hiatus - I promise.

And note to self: NEVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances allow your lawn to go four weeks unmowed in the spring. Especially after having fed it. And not right before you're having company over.

Blog wonkiness

As I'm sure you've noticed, some of my changes are resulting in some margin wonkiness over in the sidebar there. I also haven't gotten around to addressing the "comments" portion of my template, but fear not, it's in the offing.

Here's what I don't get. I changed the template today, previewed it before saving the changes, and it looked just fine. I saved the changes, republished, and that funny business on the right is what came out. I've viewed the source info for the published page and nothing has changed, so why does my blog look fine in "preview" and fabulously hosed once published? Any thoughts? I'm at a loss.

Anyway, it won't likely get fixed for a few days, because I've been neglecting many other things in favor of The Blog (it's amazing how much Photoshop can suck a person in). Henceforth, I solemnly swear NOT to work on template until my To Do list shrinks to a more manageable size.

Edited to add: picture (8x10 colored glossy picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...) of said wonkiness.

New summer fashion

As you can see, I'm in the process of giving Lunaya Pravda a bold, dramatic, daring new look. Okay, melodrama aside, it's at least a change, but I welcome my readers to comment on how bold, dramatic, and daring it is. If you think it sucks, feel free to visit this link for my response.

Joking aside, I'm nearing completion of the task, there are just a few more things I need to tweak once I get access to a computer with Photoshop. At this point though, any feedback - yes, even negative - would be greatly appreciated.

Yay! Boneheads are back

Bonehead Of The Day Award

Among today's offerings are NY police who write parking tickets to drivers before the valets park their cars, and a supermodel who fell out of a moving bus at 50 MPH after mistaking an emergency exit for a bathroom door.

Glad to see Jerry back after a long hiatus.

The free market at work

For all those people whining about the high prices at the pump, this is an intersting, market-driven approach to buying gasoline.

First Fuel Banks bills itself as the only retailer in the country where customers can buy gasoline for the future and hedge against rising prices. It advertises no service charge and no storage charge, just a $1 lifetime membership fee.

Altrichter said one of his neighbors got in at First Fuel Banks several years ago and is now is withdrawing from a reserve that cost him 99 cents a gallon. "How about that!" he said.

While I've never bought into the price-fixing and opportunistic pocket-gouging allegations against Big Oil (price-fixing is from OPEC, if anyone), it has always bothered me that the price I pay at the pump is based not upon the cost of the crude necessary to produce it, but on the price of crude oil at some point in the future. Big Oil has the opportunity to hedge their bets against the future price of oil by locking in a fixed amount of crude at a fixed price. Though prices quickly respond when the per barrel price of crude futures increases, they never seem to adjust as quickly in the downward direction.

First Fuel Banks gives every consumer that same option to place a bet that the price of refined gasoline will be higher in the future and to lock in a given amount at a given price. It removes much of the volatility at the pump currently experienced by most of us. If the prices at regular gas stations are high, withdraw gasoline from your fuel bank. If prices at regular stations are low, fill up there and reserve your bank for times when the current prices are out of reach. Account administration costs are nearly nil. And I can't help but think that gasoline might be worth having for barter in a shit-hits-the-fan scenario, assuming you can still access it.

I heard Friday on NPR that Southwest Airlines has managed to keep their prices lower by securing fuel prices some two years ago, which, among other strategies, has enabled the company to weather the current airline market better than its competitors. I plan to research this more, but I'm finding this a fascinating free market solution that gives consumers options previous limited to large corporations, wealthy investors, and government.

Goodbye, Log Cabin Inn

Historic Log Cabin Inn burns to ground

I haven't had the pleasure of eating there for over a decade. Many drives up and down the McKenzie for fishing and visits to central Oregon provided me with sights of this historic inn. And I'm saddened to know on my next journey along that scenic jewel, the Log Cabin Inn won't wave at me as I pass.

Hurray for all things natural!

Implants may be risky on shuttle flights

Of the 157 people who have paid Virgin Galactic $200,000 for a brief space flight in 2008, those with breast implants may find themselves flat out of luck.
...

"We've discovered there may well be issues with breast augmentation," he said. "We're not sure whether they could stand the trip -- they could well explode."

Now, I'm skeptical of anything published around this time of year, but should this be true, I wonder if it applies to butt, calf, and bicep implants as well. My guess is that implants aren't a risk unless the cabin depressurizes, and if that happens, they've got more to worry about than exploding boobs.

What's in a name?

So today I received a sorority alumnae newsletter for my local collegiate chapter here in Seattle.

Okay, okay, wait - let's get the sorority thing out of the way, because whenever I bring this up, the reaction is usually something like this: "YOU were in a sorority?!?!" (accompanied by skeptical and shocked looks). Yes, I joined. Yes, I stayed in all four years, and yes, I enjoyed it. But in my defense, I attended a university where the only majors are engineering and science and only a quarter of its undergraduate population was female. Our dues were low, we didn't have chaparones at events, we didn't have a house mother, and there was no requirement to live in the house because when I was there, our house held only 10 people. Women at my college were just different, and I don't think most of them would have even considered joining on another campus.

Anyway, as I was saying, I received the local chapter's newsletter today, and two of their new members' first names stood out at me. "L'Oreal" and "Winkie". What kind of sadistic parents would name their kids after a cosmetics line and a euphamism for penis?

I realize parents want to give their children interesting, unique, creative names. But sometimes they've gone too far.