I saw a fridge magnet at a store recently. It had a 1950s-looking woman on the phone in the kitchen while two kids played in the background. Her dialog bubble says, "Yes, I've childproofed the house, but they keep getting in."

Need a laugh? Try this from the Muppets - Angus McGonagle, the Gargling Argyle Garyole gargling Gershwin gorgeously with Mark Hamill.



Bonus link: this one has embedding disabled so you have to click the link. Weird Al singing "One More Minute." You should listen to this song because it contains lines like "'Cause I'm stranded all alone in the gas station of love, and I have to use the self-service pumps."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r41U_T7pQjQ

Dear Americans,

It is ESPRESSO. Say it with me: ESSSSSSSPRESSO. Do you see an X anywhere in the word? No! Is there a silent X in the word? No! It is not, I repeat, not "expresso."

Everyone already knows our school system is a disaster; you do not need to demonstrate it. And for fuck's sake, it's bad enough hearing "expresso" ordered every time I go near a coffee shop, but if you are a restaurant owner appearing on TV, you really need to pronounce it "espresso."

I try to avoid politics, but I just have to ask if I'm hearing this right:

Is Congress actually asking Sotomayor to prove that not being a privileged white guy might make her biased?

And if so, is there a brain operation for that?

If anyone's wondering why I suddenly changed my journal title to "California is made of fail" the other day, there is no one specific reason. It's nothing against the people of California. It's stuff like this:

• How the fuck do you manage to go bankrupt when you've got the film industry, Silicon Valley, a huge agricultural dominance and tremendously profitable real estate dealings? That takes some real effort at fail. I mean, there are states that have approximately jackshit going for them, and they're still solvent.
• California has some very shitty laws. They tend to favor irresponsible people at the expense of the responsible, and that's made of fail.
• Our state legislators tend to embarrass the hell out of me whenever they open their vapid, medicated mouths on C-SPAN. It's like they're trying to reinforce the stereotype that Californians are out to lunch.
• The prop system is just too stupid to live.
• California has an insane amount of influence for a mere state in a single nation. Because our laws tend to become precedent for everyone else's, we can't vote on a prop of have an election without non-Californians from all over the world pumping billions into lobbying and spinning.

That kind of thing. I'm sure I'll change it to something else later. I just felt it needed to be pointed out that the state responsible for creating Ronald Reagan, Action Puppet, should be told to sit down, shut the fuck up, and not speak again until intelligent people who do not have it so easy and therefore need common sense just to survive grant it permission to speak again.

Not only is it sprinkling outside, THERE HAS BEEN THUNDER. Three times. I haven't even heard thunder in 5 years.

*hugs thunder, tells it never to stay away so long again*

I wonder if I could start a prop to make "Celebrity Skin" by Hole the official song of Los Angeles? Because fucking hell, it ought to be.

'Course, maybe you need to have experience toxic exposure levels to the film industry to feel the way I do about both the city and the song, but it's so... yeah.

You can follow us here. Don't ask me what we'll be doing with the page. Stuff! Big stuff! Possibly smelly stuff - you never know. But stuff.

http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/blog/the_hathor_legacy/

From the Annals of the Mildly Amusing:

So, last week this friend of a friend was supposed to have some Japanese businessmen coming in for a presentation. Monday morning, he got an email from one of them saying their boss had canceled all travel to the US due to the "killer pigs."

Thing is, he hadn't heard about swine flu yet, and we have some pretty ferocious wild boars in the forests around here, so he was driving into work on the freeway, looking out for killer pigs.

I've got it! If we breed leeches with electric eels and teach them to suck hair instead of blood, they would be organic electrolysis machines.

(Is this the sort of idea one patents, or trademarks?)

"Avoid grinding over steaming pots."

That is all, thank you.

(Found on the label of a restaurant pepper mill.)

I was all set to go buy an iPhone - it looked like finally, someone had created the solution I've been looking for for years. But it turns out they don't want my business.

I'm pay as you go on the cell phone. I hate phones, so $100 worth of minutes usually covers me for about 9 months. No way am I paying a monthly feel that comes out to several times that. When you buy an iPhone from Apple, you have to:

(1) Get a $30/month "data plan" from AT&T. That gets you online.
(2) Get a $39.99 or more/month voice plan. That gets you phone service, whether you want it or not.

Those of us who just want to use the iPhone like a really cool PDA are not wanted. My $360/year is not desired.

Why, you might wonder, would a company turn me away rather than get whatever they can out of me? Even if they think only a very few people will want just the data plan, why not offer it so you can cash in on them along with everyone else? Maybe because they're afraid a whole lotta people would just go with the data plan if they had that option? Maybe they're gambling that people will be so wowed by the phone that they'll give in and pay for something they don't want in order to get what they do want?

So. I have the money. I'm willing to pay it. But no one will make what I want. Who says businesses are too smart to leave money on the table?

I want to open a discussion, and I'm probably going to regret it. This IS inspired by a lot of recent blogosphere stuff, but it is not about anyone, nor about any single incident. It is just a question that I've been asking myself for a long time, especially in terms of running Hathor.

If you're an online activist for the equality of people like you - say, a woman who's a feminist or womanist (other examples would work, I'm just using what I know best) - and a man wants to be your ally, but even though he seems sincere in some of his efforts, there are big gaps where he just doesn't get it, what should you make of that? Do about it? Give him some criticism and encouragement? Tell him to go read Feminism 101 and not comment again until he's done so? Ban him?

The reason I'm asking is this: once you start working for a living, or having kids, or taking on adult responsibilities in general, your time for self-education can become exceedingly limited. I see this in myself in terms of being an ally on race - I'd be a much better ally if I had time to read more blogs, for example. The amount of self-education required in being an ally is huge, and it never ends, because our understanding of equality issues is constantly evolving. If it's just not practical for an individual to spend the many, many hours it takes to read the blogosphere and learn more about privilege and bigotry and the rules of etiquette in safe spaces, what would we prefer for him to do? Just shut up and go away, or are we satisfied if he accepts criticism of his "just doesn't get it" arguments and continues to learn, or what?

I'm not talking about people who are one step up from trolling. But I have seen some people hold views on women I personally found offensive, and then slowly change those views after interacting with some feminists. I've seen this happen both offline and online. I personally think it's worth a little effort to cultivate allies - worth giving them encouragement where they get it and criticism where they don't, and if they get more and more defensive, you give up, but if they don't, sometimes you gain another voice for your cause. But the downside to this approach is that such a person can come to dominate a discussion or safe space - as a webmaster, I strive for balance, and sometimes get it wrong.

There is one other thing I don't get about feminism, and in this sense I think it's a little different from equality movements for people of color, gays, disabled people, etc. It is this: it seems to me when a woman and a man claim to be a feminist, the woman gets the benefit of the doubt and the man gets treated with skepticism. When I look at some of the things feminist women have done and said wrong, I cannot imagine why ANYONE'S claim to be a feminist should not be met with skepticism. If, for example, a prominent self-proclaimed feminist author outs herself as someone who appropriates the work of women of color without a second thought, why does she not lose her feminist credentials? Why is she still considered an imperfect feminist rather than someone who's not a feminist at all? A man doing the same things would not be able to convince anyone to continue calling him a feminist (ally). What I'm saying is: however vigilant you think feminism should be in screening potential members, I think it should be consistent with all potential members, regardless of gender. I say this as someone who had two incredibly misogynistic grandmothers who both claimed to believe in equality for women.

Okay, so, SG-1 fans have noticed over the years that Teal'c will never zat a Goa'uld who's ribboning someone, even if the Goa'uld's host is someone they very much want to save. He always just shoots them to death. My fanwank for this has always been: the zat's discharge would flow into the person getting ribboned, and cook them extra crispy.

But here's a question for you: why doesn't he just tackle them?

(Aside from the fact it would look hilarious.)

I just Googled "What does a Manhattan taste like?" because from reading the cocktail recipe, I couldn't tell (not sure I know what Angostura bitters tastes like) and this is, of course, a very important thing to know. What caused me to laugh out loud, however, were two of the search results on the first page of Google:

"What does perfume taste like?"

and

"What does beige taste like?"

I know, it's not that funny. I'm just sleep deprived.

In following links to Hathor back to their sources, I came across this little gem - it's a question someone is asking Neil Gaiman:

Hello my name is Andrea bucy I have seen the movie stardust and I intend to read the book by you I was wondering if I could possible write a spinoff book that has some of the same characters and setting. But I wanted to get you permission first because if i were to get it published i don’t want someone coming after me cause i stole their ideas. I am prepared to offer you a deal if the book does sell i will offer you royalties of 60/40 50/50 or 40/60 i don’t write just for money but i realize that for some people like Jane Austen do and did go along in life and pay for many things by the money they make from their books. So i am asking you if we can maybe make a contract that says you have given me permission, only if you do give me permission, to use your ideas and work in my story and you will get credit for it.Pleas get back to me.

See, this is why we need to get rid of all those safety guidelines designed to preserve the lives of the very stupid so they can breed more of themselves. Gaiman's response:

I'm not really sure where to start on this one. If you want to write fan fiction, you can. I don't mind. Sequels and prequels and meetings and pairings and what have you. You can put it up on the web. But you can't publish it commercially. You need to stay on the non-commercial side of the street, which means you can't sell it, not even if, like Jane Austen, you're in it for the big bucks. Otherwise bad things would happen, involving lawyers from publishers and lawyers from movie studios, and your week would be ruined. Trust me on this.

Jane Austen is turning in her grave right now, muttering, "What the fuck?"