Had a lovely vacation over the weekend on the coast and then at tonight's Dodger game. Many, many pictures as soon as I get the camera hooked up. Maybe tomorrow since I took tomorrow off too. Until then, nappy nap time.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

I should post something about the Silky Pony. So here it is.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(**inhale**)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Once a fucking jackass, always a fucking jackass. Now you're a slimy fucking jackass. Couldn't you keep it in your pants?

* John Edward used to be the biggest douche in the universe. Now it's John Edwards.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 05:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Birthday to two of my favorite ladies!

Mrs. Who made each of them the perfect birthday card, I canna compete. See here and here.

But I did get y'all some balloons.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Thank you so much!! I LOVE the balloons!

Posted by: pam at August 04, 2008 12:49 PM (l6NIn)

2 You are the sweetest!!!

Posted by: vw bug at August 05, 2008 04:57 AM (FPOeI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Even though I know it's little more than a publicity stunt, I appreciate the Republican Congress critters who are trying to do something about the energy price crisis and the economy. They'll be staging phantom sessions throughout the Congressional recess, and you can keep up with what's going on even though C-SPAN won't be covering the proceedings.

This message came tonight via the Facebook Group "Let's Rock The House!":

On Sunday, over thirty Republican Members announced that they would return to the House of Representatives to continue the Guerilla Congress's phantom sessions. Members will continue to discuss the need for an 'all of the above' energy plan with visitors, and keep the pressure on the Democrats to reconvene the House and allow a vote on offshore drilling.

The session is expected to begin around 10 AM Eastern. The designated Twitter hashtag for who are stepping up to get footage from the event is #rth, and Eyeblast.tv has offered to promote any media uploaded to the website. The Twitter feed #dontgo, accessible at http://dontgo.us, will be used by members and other observers to relay information about the event itself outside the Capitol.

If you plan to report from the event, be sure to stick to #rth and upload to Eyeblast.tv. From there, we will need all of you to alert the media about the Eyeblast content and promote it as much as possible.

Be sure to follow http://dontgo.us and Rock the House for continuing developments tomorrow.

UPDATE: Cotillion Sis Nicki has a pretty good list of Congressional Twitterers posted today. Check it out!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

For the musically inclined and for ringtone junkies....

Lots of synth mp3s, suitable for making ringtones here.

Sheet music to Perfect Story and Bad Horse (and mp3 of the Bad Horse ringtone) here.

More fun Dr. Horrible stuff as I find it!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 07:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Helen's post yesterday, about names, got me thinking. You see, I can't just say these are the names I would choose for my children without explaining why. There's a whole list of rules that hubby and I came up with many, many years ago. Long before we even started dating.

You know those long, rambling conversations you can have with your closest friends? The rules sprung from one of those. WE were just sitting around, BS'ing one day. I don't even know what started it off, but eventually both of us (and Ben. He was there, too) were tossing out rules for what names you can and can't give your kid. Over the years, we've gone back to them, as friends have had and named their own kids, and had a few laughs, I must admit.

So here's a list of our rules:
1. It must be a classic American name, spelled in the most standard way. Our children's heritage is classic EuroMutt with a dash of Native American and heaping helping of Armenian. The best way to describe them will be American. So we think their names should be, too.

2. It can not be one of certain names. I would list them, but I don't want to piss people off. It's just that, with a few exceptions, in our collective experience, everyone we know with these names is some kind of asshole. To the point that it's like "well his name is (one of those), you expect that".

3. It can't be a family name. Too much animosity. If I name my kids after my side of the family you can bet his family would be pissed. And vice versa. There may be some leeway for dead relatives used as middle names, but in general, it would cause more fuss than I'd care to deal with.

4. Probably best listed as a corollary to 3: There will be no juniors. There's enough confusion in the house with 4 different names now (two of which, I might add, belong to DOGS), I don't need to add on the confusion of calling for DH and getting answered by DH, Jr. Plus, we both think our kids should have their own names.

5. They must be full names. Alexander, Elizabeth, Johnathan, Katharine are all acceptable, for example, while Alex, Beth, Jon, and Kathy are not. Give the kid the whole name, and they can choose from a multitude of nicknames for themselves.

6. The Asswipe (that's Os-Wee-Pay) Rule: No easily made fun of names. Hubby's name is very similar to the quirky title character of a popular song during his childhood, and my last name laid me open to years of taunting comparing me to a comic villain. We'd like to spare our kids as much as possible. So under this rule, no Richard (Dick), Peter, Johnson, etc.

7. No rhyming. Dear God no. Thankfully, neither of our last names rhymes with many first names.

8. No multiples. This is mostly an issue for people with first names as last names, and we'd really have to stretch it to get that to work for us, but seriously. You couldn't think of anything more creative than Thomas Thomas (my mother's orthopedic surgeon) or Martin M. Martin (a teacher at our high school)?

9. No objects. Thing names are for animals. "This is our daughter, Ladybug." "This is my cat, Ladybug." "how nice." NOT. There's a reason some names refer to people. Abstracts are ok, however, such as Faith, Joy, Hope, Honor, etc. Although in my experience such names often turn out to be no more than wishful thinking on the part of the parents....

10. Fictional Characters are sometimes ok, under these conditions: the character must have a real name (Luke is acceptable, Han is not), and the character's reputation won't come back to bite the kid in the ass (again, Luke is acceptable, Homer is not). Naming your kid after a villain is usually a bad idea, as well. Especially if it's a villain in a kid's movie....

11. There should be a reason you're willing to share. Someday your kid will ask you "mom, dad, why did you call me Paris Nooner Lastname" and you have to be willing to explain your quick trip back to the hotel that ended up being more than a bag drop-off....

12. Gender appropriate names are a must. Gender neutral names are ok, but for GAWDS SAKE, don't give a girl a boy's name or vice versa. Even if it is acceptable as a name for the opposite gender. Leslie is a girl's name. As is Stacy. Cameron is a boy's name (see Ferris Bueller). So is Kendall. Trust me, it's hard enough to pronounce the names people give their kids. Don't make me look a fool by calling a "he" a "she" in class.

I'm sure some of our rules go against what you like or even some of your names, but this is what we want for our kids. Because life is hard enough without being known as Chlamydia Vagina.

More on the worst baby names ever compiled here.

So what do you think? What are your rules? Which of these do you agree with? Disagree with? That's what the comments are for, hint, hint.

UPDATE: Check out this poor girl's name. I would like to beat her parents. (h/t Richard Cocking)

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:45 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Fully agree with the "no juniors" part. Also, that bad name link you listed? Hilarious. Big time.

Posted by: Helen at July 25, 2008 02:01 PM (R4iEo)

2 'Paris Nooner'. Heh.... Here's another one: don't name your two daughters the same name, just in different languages. That's silly.

Posted by: pam at July 25, 2008 02:11 PM (l6NIn)

3 Honey, you forgot: Don't name all of your children names that all start with the same letter. Don't name alphabetically either. :-)

Posted by: GMT at July 25, 2008 02:18 PM (IfXtw)

4 When I see Leslie, I think it's a boy My great uncle's name was Leslie, so that probably reinforces it.

Posted by: Ith at July 25, 2008 03:23 PM (tHVIZ)

5 oh, and there should be a whole section on multiple births. Rhyming twin names, or matching twin names are BAD. Choosing names based on the letter your multiples were assigned at Ultrsound, also BAD. You get the picture....

Posted by: caltechgirl at July 25, 2008 04:25 PM (IfXtw)

6 and along with that thing about the same initials? If you must do that, for goodness sake don't change the spelling of the kid's name to fit the scheme (eg Jinger Duggar, which is pronounced 'Ginger', but fits the J scheme along with her 17 other brothers and sisters)

Posted by: caltechgirl at July 25, 2008 04:28 PM (IfXtw)

7 I think you nailed it pretty good. My dad and FIL had the same name, so when I was preggars with #2, and my father died, we got away with naming his middle name after both of our dads. My FIL still calls #2 today by his middle name. My sister works for a pediatric dentist, and wow, has she come across some really bad names. Celebrities name their kids, quite often but not always, some odd things. Gwenyth Paltrow's daughter, Apple, I actually like.

Posted by: Stacy at July 25, 2008 07:30 PM (92p8H)

8 I just thank God I don't have to worry about it anymore, unless you consider naming a pet controversial. But nonetheless, you have great rules.

Posted by: c.a. Marks at July 25, 2008 07:52 PM (ePdrC)

9 I had this thing where I wanted to name any child (female) I had with Mr. Right "Malevolent". Because Malevolent Brown is a rawkin name! RG

Posted by: RightGirl at July 25, 2008 08:20 PM (dizBt)

10 These are good. I'm all for classic names myself. I was into syncopation of the first & last name too. It all has to roll off the tongue just right. And I didn't want a first name that ended in the same letter that our last name starts with - I don't like how they mush together. So for us, Michael was out, though I really like the name...

Posted by: Marie at July 26, 2008 05:00 AM (UunPp)

11 Don't name all your daughters Mary Blank - For example - me. My full name is Mary Elizabeth - my sister's name is Mary Anne. Catholic families often give their girls the first name of Mary and then a second name that is what she is called. I'd prefer they reverse that so your daughters won't all have the same first and last name as my sister and I did.

Posted by: Mary Elizabeth (Beth) at July 26, 2008 05:21 AM (RZhpS)

12 Yup, you pretty well nailed it. On the topic of "abstract concept" names: I've had several women in my class named Chastity. I'm sorry, but that is just not a good name. I know, I know, Cher used it, but still. Especially when the girl's 19 and is "experimenting." I also cannot stand the "invented spelling" names. Seriously, I think the parents sometimes do that to screw over the kids' teachers and anyone else who might have to read off their name. Snorglfqt does not equate to Michelle, not in ANY phonetic scheme of ANY real language, and several made-up languages. I don't even like the pretentious-spelling names, like MyShell instead of Michelle. Spell it like it is pronounced. And parents that name their kid after a consumer product should have said kid taken away.

Posted by: ricki at July 26, 2008 07:48 AM (UvHaM)

13 And I have to add: Parents who give their twins rhyming names should just expect those twins to turn evil. That is the curse of rhyming names. And second: if you give your kid an "invented spelling" name, you immediately disqualify them from EVER getting huffy if someone mispronounces their name. Seriously, if you name your kid Ghoti and expect teachers to pronounce it "Fish," also teach your kid not to cross their arms and pout when on the first day, the poor teacher goes, "Ghoti...Ghoti Anderson?"

Posted by: ricki at July 26, 2008 07:52 AM (UvHaM)

14 Amen. Preach it.

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at July 26, 2008 11:06 AM (0Pi1o)

15 Kendall = Girl's name for me, thanks to All My Children

Posted by: ZTZCheese at July 26, 2008 03:25 PM (Iw+8+)

16 I work in high school photography, so most of the time it's a lesson in Don't Do That. The classic one, though, is one that we had come through prom photos a few years ago. We ALL took one look at this "dress" and ended up with our jaws on the floor. Basically, imagine a halter top— except it just barely covers the breasts, and is bound at the waist, exposing the spangles the girl has around her belly button. Then imagine that she has on those little spandex cheerleader shorts, and a fall of cloth that does, in fact, go to the floor. Yes, she is wearing a garter. And high-heeled sandals. I pulled the girl's card, looked again— that couldn't be serious— and went to the school database. Sure enough, the girl's name was Sparkles. Sparkles hangs on my cubicle wall now, with a note: What Not To Wear. Ever.

Posted by: B. Durbin at July 27, 2008 07:59 PM (tie24)

17 Very good list...wish I could greet parents at the the classroom door with it and say, "Fix it or we will."

Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 29, 2008 12:44 PM (z+bTV)

18 I worked with a Latin girl named "Candida." I once asked her where her name came from, and she said that it was a "common Hispanic name." In my world, candida is yeast.

Posted by: Lauren at July 30, 2008 11:44 PM (Pt1kf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Happy Fun Ball is made of Wonderflonium. That's why you ahouldn't bounce it!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 03:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

It was a busy weekend at the Casa de CTG. For the first weekend in about a month it was cool enough to work outside, and we were actually IN TOWN to get things done.

Despite the fact that GMT is home for the summer, the yard has been getting away from us shamefully. It has just been too hot to work in the yard for long periods, so the list of things to be done has far outpaced the the things we can GET done. Add to that a tree that decided to DIE in the middle of the yard, and well, it was starting to look like there were a few dead cars arriving to be parked on the lawn in a week or so.

Finally this weekend we were able to tackle some big projects. First up was the dead tree. Our lovely plum tree just turned brown and withered. We'd known it was sick, with some disease that didn't affect the other fruit trees in the yard, or the neighbors yard. But then it just up and died. So we took it down before it fell and killed someone.

Hubby clipped off all of the small limbs and branches with pruning shears and then we borrowed a friend's chainsaw and chopped it down a piece at time into a rather cheerful looking pile of firewood.

When Hubby got to the stump, the reason for the tree's downfall became immediately clear: Termites had infested the base of the tree and killed it from the inside out. Of course, we sprayed the stump with bug spray and threw the termite pieces in the trash. They live in the soil in Pasadena, I know, but the fewer the better is my motto when it comes to Termites.

When the plum tree was done, we moved the operation to the front yard, and using our awesome pole trimmer and tree saw, we took out all of the lower branches on the nasty tree that shades our driveway (and drops leaves and makes the car sticky from its secretions), mostly because the branches were likely the cause of our cable having loose connections, and because the branches were beginning to brush the roof. Yeah, not good. I've noticed these trees all over Pasadena, and it seems to me that most people who park under then DO NOT experience sticky, leafy car like we do, and I realized, most of the other trees are higher above the cars, so hopefully the trim will help with that, too.

Then, later last night we went over to some other friends' house and picked up their mini-whisper-chipper. This should allow us to get rid of most of the tree waste by making it into some lovely mulch. YAY!

I am totally exhausted.

Also from this weekend, it seems we stopped watching House entirely about the time we went into escrow on the house. Regular lurkers will know that was well over a season ago, strike or no strike. So this weekend we picked up where we left off, and have watched 9 episodes or so, which brings us up to just about the last pre-strike episode. It's nice to have all that TiVo space back, too. Just 12 to go. I expect we'll get through them in the next couple of days. Then we have a whole season of Ugly Betty to get through. As well as a whole slate of summer shows.

Speaking of summer shows, we were both very impressed with A&E's The Cleaner, starring Benjamin Bratt. Despite a few cheesy moments (including a Pulp Fiction-esque heroin rescue and a very amateurly foreshadowed suicide), it was gripping and we're looking forward to the second episode on Tuesday.

Also, our all-time favorite, Psych, is back on USA. This season started off with what I consider to be just a "meh" episode, despite the much ballyhooed arrival of Shawn's Mom: Cybill Shepherd. She was actually excellent, and seemed to fit right into the cast. The plot was MORE than a tad contrived, with Shawn resorting to fraud and blackmail to keep Gus's "dayjob" from forcing him out of the agency. Not his best work, and certainly not the best script of the show. Surprisingly adorable: Henry getting all mushy about his ex and Lassiter crying on the therapy couch after boasting to Jules that he was kicking a$$. Looking forward to a much better season once the writers get over their long winter break.

And a final thought on TV: All-time Foodie fave Ted Allen returns to weekly TV with a new show on Food Network starting next Tuesday (7/29). It's called "Food Detectives" and looks to be the gay love child of Alton Brown's Good Eats and MythBusters. Even if the concept wasn't so cool, I'd be all over this show. How can you not love the man who once advocated that bacon should be its own food group, and later described it as the "best two words in food: Ba. Con."?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 854 words, total size 5 kb.

According to some, the "lack" of women in science and engineering is so critical that Title IX-like protections should be put in place until women are equally represented.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Women have no barriers in science, probably fewer than in any other general field. Over half of students entering medical school this year are women. More than 60% of graduate students in biology and biochemistry and psychology are female. My department chair is a woman. There's no lack of women in science, even at the highest levels.

Yes, you might argue, but the article focuses on Physics and Engineering. And true, there are relatively few women in physics and engineering. But is it possible that maybe women don't choose these fields because they are less interested? Should we force girls into jobs they don't want? It's not like the demands of an academic career in physics are that different from the demands of an academic career in biology or biochemistry. Which even these researchers had to admit was the case:

[T]he institute found that women with physics degrees go on to doctorates, teaching jobs and tenure at the same rate that men do. The gender gap is a result of earlier decisions. While girls make up nearly half of high school physics students, they're less likely than boys to take Advanced Placement courses or go on to a college degree in physics.(emphasis mine)

So far, these Title IX compliance reviews haven't had much visible impact on campuses beyond inspiring a few complaints from faculty members. (The journal Science quoted Amber Miller, a physicist at Columbia, as calling her interview "a complete waste of time.") But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:05 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one
People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Signed by ORDER and

in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS

JOHN HANCOCK,

PRESIDENT.

ATTEST.

CHARLES THOMSON,

SECRETARY.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1365 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Best Independence Day post I've seen! Happy 4th!

Posted by: pam at July 04, 2008 05:52 AM (l6NIn)

2 Giving credit where credit is due, I referenced your post today (trackbacks weren't working). Happy 4th to you and yours!

Posted by: Lauren at July 04, 2008 04:11 PM (Pt1kf)

3 Happy 4th and 5th!!

Posted by: Richmond at July 05, 2008 10:52 AM (dMnJ3)

4 Amen!

Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 06, 2008 10:24 AM (z+bTV)

5 I love the internet.

Posted by: Miss Havisham at July 08, 2008 11:35 AM (Fqfrj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You'll find some changes in the right-hand sidebar. Many dormant and dead blogs sadly deleted, a few new additions (especially under the Green Parrot -- Pasadena Bloggers) and a long list of NEW bloggers I have actually met.

I'll be uploading pictures to Flickr, too, sometime later tonight or tomorrow, so check here for new pics shortly.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

As many of you longtime lurkers will remember, the Elder Princess has been a severely allergic dog for most of her life. You may recall we've done all the tests, antihistamines, steroids, shots, human anti-transplant-rejection drugs, and of course special foods. We never did find out for certain what the culprit was, but circumstances have shown that it lives in Chapel Hill, and not California, so our Boo is doing a lot better over the last three years.

The one thing that changed for the worse, though was her weight. Venison and Kangaroo are both lean meats, and usually less fat is added to the mix in allergy diets. Coincident with our move out here, most pet stores stopped distributing the Eukanuba brand of prescription diets, so we had to switch her to regular Eukanuba adult food (Lamb and Rice, actually, since we knew rice was ok and she'd never had lamb). And well, she put on a few pounds. Especially since the townhouse we lived in didn't have a yard and we had to walk her every day instead of playing....

But I digress. Today we went to the Smart of Pet to get food for the puppy (the Princess currently is being kept on a diet of weight control rations, which is not good for a growing girl). And to our surprise, what did we find in the regular food aisle? Eukanuba Naturally Wild Venison and Potato formula!

It looks and smells a lot like what we used to pay the same price for with a prescription. They both love it, or so it seems by the empty dishes and sleepy bodies. We'll see what their tummies think tomorrow!

I know Eukanuba has gone downhill in quality in recent years, but my dogs love it and they're both incredibly healthy, so we'll see how this goes one bag at a time.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 06:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Welcome to the Conservasphere to another Pasadenan, The Pasadena Closet Conservative!

He/She chooses to remain anonymous because,

I dare not "out" myself because I would run the risk of being held hostage by liberals at some Ashram while being brainwashed with MultiCultural/PoliticallyCorrect/GroupThink/Socialist "isms" until I hollered "I'm Nancy Pelosi's bitch", begged for mercy and changed my party affiliation using a pen filled with my own blood.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn..I didn't even know about the Bear Flag League. I also just realized you're a lot like me politically. Rock on. There needs to be more of us in the Dena for sure, for sure.

Posted by: Aaron Proctor at June 30, 2008 03:45 PM (jG00K)

2 Hmmm..am I in your blogroll?

Posted by: AP at June 30, 2008 03:47 PM (jG00K)

3 Thanks for the grand welcome! Little by little I'm hearing from others out there who also want to step out of the shadows. Someday we will have our own bloggers picnic, except nobody will show up in the interest of anonymity. I have added your site to my blogroll. Don't forget to add mine to yours.

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at July 01, 2008 08:23 PM (Q3iRb)

4 There probably ARE more of us than then Dems, but we've been gerrymandered into insignificance while also causing a rise in the intense partisanship by Dem legislators who are unanswerable to their "real" constituents and follow the Socialist Party Mantra instead: a good article about that here.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 02, 2008 01:23 PM (VNM5w)

5 You guys need a secret handshake or something... Yeepers!! But I am glad you're there.

Posted by: Richmond at July 02, 2008 02:39 PM (dMnJ3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Stolen from the lovely and talented Phoenix.

Only ONE word can be used in your answer and it can NOT be used twice.

1. Where is your cell phone? Desk
2. Your significant other? Home
3. Your hair? Messy
4. Your mother? Tired
5. Your father? Gimpy
6. Your favourite time of day? Night
7. Your dream last night? Cops
8. Your favourite drink? Dr.Pepper
9. Your dream goal? Leisure
10. The room you're in? Office
11. Your ex? Goofball
12. Your fear? Snakes
13. Where do you want to be in 6 years? Elsewhere
14. What you are not? Shy
15. Your Favourite meal? Lunch
16. One of your wish list items? Time
17. The last thing you did? Carried
18. Where you grew up? House
19. What are you wearing? Dress
20. Your TV is? Old
21. Your pets? Puppies
22. Your computer? Laptop
23. Your life? Content
24. Your mood? Annoyed
25. Missing someone? Hubby
26. Your car? Filthy
27. Something you're not wearing? Pants
28. Favourite store? Target
29. Your summer? Hot
30. Your favourite colour? Green
31. When is the last time you laughed? Today
32. When is the last time you cried? Yesterday
33. Your health? OK
34. Your children? None
35. Your future? Open
36. Your beliefs? Personal
37. Young or old? Childish
38. Your image? Confident
39. Your appearance? Comfortable
40. Would you live your life over again knowing what you know? Duh

Feel free to jump in and play along, y'all!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

All over town this weekend, on overpasses and chainlink fences along the freeway there were hand-lettered signs "The war is a lie." and "Bush Lied". I've been seeing them for months now, but it seems there was a concerted effort to add new signs this weekend, as there were more signs in the afternoon than in the morning along the same freeways.

These signs are highly amusing to me. Along with their partners "Impeach!" Impeach who? Yo Momma? Seriously. Finish your thought, ADHD child. Of course, some of the signs DO say Impeach Bush, but I have to ask, why? I mean, the man has about 6 months left in his term. How much of that time is actually useful political time? ZERO. And how long would it take to go through an impeachment process? Probably more time than he has left as President. Get off it.

But the "lie" meme perseverates. And congress commissioned a study of the available intelligence to determine whether the President actually lied. Senator John D Rockefeller led the Select Committee on Intelligence in this investigation. In a statement Thursday, the senator announced, "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent[.]"

But is that really what the report says? Not really. Clearly the information at hand was overinterpreted, aka SPUN, into the message that the Bush administration wanted to present. Probably in an effort to convince the American people to get behind the push to war in Iraq.

However, the report finds that in many circumstances, and on a variety of subjects, the President's (and other administration officials') statements on the war "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." These subjects include Iraq's nuclear weapons program, biological and chemical weapons capability, overall WMD capability, and support for AQ terrorists.

Which to me, raises a very important question, namely, How did our intelligence get so far off base? Did our operatives buy into the lies that scientists and supervisors were passing on to the regime? Or did the CIA et al. deliberately mislead both the Clinton and Bush administrations? Where is the actual failure, then? If the President is essentially parroting what the intelligence community tells them is fact?

So then what can we do with this knowledge, that our intelligence is, at best, flawed? How do we use it to plan and implement strategies for dealing with our enemies and their plots to thwart us? Knowing that such critical intelligence may be wrong makes it extremely difficult to build support for military endeavors, regardless of the import to national security.

Which brings me back to lying. Which is the lie then, Sen. Rockefeller's statement that the report finds that "Bush Lied", or the actual text of the report which shows that the intelligence community "lied" and Bush and Co. believed them?

h/t Babalu

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Very logical train of thought... something I'm not capable of lately. I know what you mean about the intelligence... but I still believe that it was not wrong. Hussein had plenty of time to disperse/bury, etc... they have found huge weapons caches buried in the desert... and large quantities of ricin. How much is enough I guess is what I'm asking...

Posted by: pam at June 09, 2008 01:37 PM (l6NIn)

2 That's a damn good point. How much is enough to count as "enough"?

Posted by: caltechgirl at June 09, 2008 01:38 PM (IfXtw)

3 sorry to go way off topic, but please consider yourself tagged

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at June 10, 2008 05:01 AM (+MvHD)

4 They also found a number (several hundred, as I recall) chemical warheads. And last I checked, that is not equal to zero.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at June 10, 2008 08:32 AM (Yh9SA)

5 Think it could it have anything to do with the lack of human intel that former Pres. Clinton got rid of?

Posted by: NAVY CPO at June 11, 2008 10:29 AM (sGtp+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rather than the death sentence that could have been imposed, imprisoned journalist Abdul-Karim al-Khaiwani was sentenced to 6 years hard labor. This "lighter" sentence is 100% due to pressure from the US media coverage of the story. Keep talking about it, keep blogging about it.

Jane has all the details here.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Jane Novak, who some of you know from her own blog, Armies of Liberation, and also from her frequent postings at My Pet Jawa, was on Fox and Friends this morning talking about her efforts to work for regime change in Yemen. Nice Deb beat me to the video editing and posted Jane's interview on YouTube, so check it out (below) and then go sign the petition! Learn more about Yemen and more reformers in the Middle East here. Finally, tell Fox how happy you are that they highlight these issues and talk to bloggers! Leave a comment here for FoxNews' Alisyn Camerota (who Jane tells me is very, very nice!)

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

The former Supreme Court Justice has a new project: She's a video game developer. In an effort to educate American kids about how the justice system works and the role of the courts, she has been working with Georgetown University and Arizona State to create a program for 7th through 9th graders called "Our Courts."

Sandra Day O'Connor, 78, who served as U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1981 until her retirement in 2006, said she never imagined she would be asked to address a conference about digital gaming.

She said she got involved with developing the project called "Our Courts" out of concern over public ignorance about the judiciary and partisan attacks on what should be an independent institution.

"In recent years I've become increasingly concerned about vitriolic attacks by some members of Congress, some members of state legislatures and various private interest groups ... on judges," O'Connor told the Games For Change conference on using gaming technology for social improvement and education.

"We hear a great deal about judges who are activists -- godless, secular, humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us," she said. "Now I always thought an activist judge was one who got up in the morning and went to work."

She said it was worrying to see members of the Senate requiring nominees to the Supreme Court to state how they would rule on certain cases during the confirmation process, and to see special interests trying to influence the election of state judges in states where such elections are still held.

"With partisan attacks and political pressure mounting, it's much more difficult to achieve fair and impartial judgments from the judges who are serving," O'Connor said.

The second part of the project will be for young people to use in their free time, O'Connor said, noting that studies showed children spend around 40 hours a week using media, including computers, television, videogames or music.

"If we can capture just a little bit of that time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction," she said.

O'Connor said she had seen from her own grandchildren that technology was the best way to inspire children to learn and it was vital to speak to them in their own language.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

I am amused at you. Amused in that sort of bemused way, but not really smirking. Funny, but not really worth more than a half smile.

A year ago you were all screaming at each other: "Hilllary!" and "Anyone BUT Hillary" and today that's a moot frickin' point. Kind of like all of the articles/ commentaries/ blog posts that posited "Can anyone beat Hillary?" "Why the Republicans don't have a chance", and my personal favorite "Is the US ready for a woman as President?"

Yeah, guess not.

Of course, Senator Clinton brought this one on herself. She's a bitch. I say that in the most positive way possible. She has balls of brass, and an iron will and frankly, she made Evil Overlord mistake #1: (no, not monologuing....) she showed all her cards too soon.

I've disliked Hillary as long as I can remember, something about these type-A balls-out bitches really bothers me. Now, as most of you know, I'm a real bitch, myself. I don't take shit and I play the game as hard as I can. But I have standards. I can take a note from Laura Bush's camp, too. More flies with honey, and all that. There are lines I won't cross.

Those lines don't exist for women like Hillary Clinton. I have known many women like her. They're determined to step on the top rung of the ladder at all costs. It certainly has cost Hillary a lot. Even more than possibly the presidency. Friends, family, self-respect.

And after this loss, I feel sorry for her. She played the game hard. As hard as she could. She simply got outplayed by a force she couldn't counter, an opponent who possessed a power she couldn't touch: Mystique.

Because really, I think that's what this primary season was all about on the Left side of the aisle. Hillary is a known commodity. We've seen every bad hair day and every fake smile for a decade, and we've seen her get twitchier and bitchier as the years have gone on. We saw her fail at Universal Healthcare and flip flop on the War on Terror. We saw her move to New York just to run for office and stand by her Philanderer-In-Chief.

Barry, on the other hand is a mystery. Black, half-muslim, native Hawaiian (born there, not ethnically), grew up in Indonesia, married to a crazy racist lawyer bitch (allegedly)... Now there's a story. He says a lot of "great things", he gets a lot of airplay, but who the hell is he really? I don't think even HE knows.

The fact that he managed to keep that from us, that he allowed the media to build up a "Barry the Great" persona is likely the single biggest factor in his winning the nomination (presumably). You won't hear this on the news or in the commentaries, but I am convinced that "Barry Almighty" is why voters marked his name more often than Hillary's.

Will he choose her as his running mate? Some say he should, to pick up her constituents and prevent a last minute fight at the convention. I am of two minds on this. On the one hand I think he should strike out boldly, bring in a new running mate and effectively tell Hillary to "make like a tree and leave". On the other hand, the Barry and Hill show would appeal to a lot of their party and give Hillary the spotlight she craves. At least until the AQ jackasses decide to blow up the US again and President Barry has to stick her in Dick Cheney's former "secure, undisclosed location."

Of course, if he's really as bright as they say he is, he'll dump her flat. After all, we all know how badly she wants to be President, and well, we all remember Vince Foster.

So, my friends, you have done THIS ONE to yourselves. At least if Hillary was the nominee, we wouldn't have the prospect of race wars when McCain wins in November. On the other hand, if Barry wins y'all can never pull the race card again.

Thanks, folks. I'll be the one in the corner with the popcorn.

Love,
CTG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 4 kb.

When Linda O'Boyle wanted just a few more months with her family and chose to pay out of pocket for a drug that would work against her colon cancer and allow her to do that, she was dropped from Britain's National Health Service coverage:

Mrs O'Boyle was operated on in January last year for colon cancer and the doctors found it had spread to her stomach lining.

The former NHS assistant occupational therapist, who has three sons, twins
Gerald and Anthony, 37, and Mark, 33, as well as grandchildren Luke,
four, Finn, three, Jemima, two and Darcey, two, then had six weeks of
chemotherapy.

She continued with this until September last year when she and her husband were told the devastating news there was little more doctors could do.

However, her consultant recommended Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.

It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.

Mrs. O'Boyle's decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend £11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital HS Foundation Trust.

Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.

'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'

He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort.

'We were lucky we had the money, it's the people who have no recourse to it that struggle. It is wrong that they are denied the chance.'

Mr. O'Boyle, who said he was convinced the drug had extended his wife's life by three months, added: 'If these guidelines were changed it would be a wonderful legacy for my wife.'

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

Cake Eater Kathy lays it all out.

Nice, huh? A lifetime of taxes to pay for a health care system that actually employed this woman and her husband, only to be betrayed in the end because she was willing to pay out of pocket for a few more months on this Earth. She wasn't looking for a cure. She knew that was beyond her. She was simply looking for a palliative treatment which could extend her life a bit. Just a bit.

She was asked, "How badly do you want to live?" And she replied that she wanted just a few more months with her family. She paid the price for a drug that wasn't available under universal healthcare, and she did it gladly, only to be smacked with a frozen mackerel in the end. Her actions would create a "two tier" health care system, and that, apparently, cannot be allowed, because that would mean she wasn't receiving lowest common denominator health care, like everyone else does with the NHS, and the NHS cannot stand that. She thought she had the right to choose what her healthcare was worth to her, and that she wasn't going to be penalized for her decision. One would suspect, with universal healthcare, that that would be a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

And yet this atrocious system is what some people would have us install here in the US. This is what some people want because their health insurance premiums are too high, and they would prefer not to have to pay them, but would rather let the government run things. It's tidier in theory, but absolutely disgusting in practice.

Again, how badly do you want to live?

Governments with nationalized healthcare systems don't want to give their citizens a choice. Patients are blackmailed, ultimately, into going with the lowest common denominator treatment if the the choice is between that or nothing at all because they don't have spare millions on hand to pay for private care.

But Kathy says it better than I ever could. She has lived it. Go read about what Universal healthcare means for Ovarian cancer patients in Europe compared to the treatment she recieved here in the US. It's shocking and frightening. Definitely something to consider as we go to the polls.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:58 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Oh, my God. That poor woman and her family... and they worked for the system! I know little to nothing about socialized medicine, but I know I don't want it.

Posted by: pam at June 02, 2008 01:52 PM (l6NIn)

2 thankee, darlin'.

Posted by: Kathy at June 02, 2008 06:46 PM (qPNVr)

3 Ban on co-payment? That's sick. No wonder my uncle (second-cousin's husband) in England died - all they did was give him morphine and say, "Go nicey-nice to a Hospice," -they're disgusting.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 03, 2008 09:27 AM (VNM5w)

4 THAT is why I have a problem with the idea of universal health care. Because it rapidly morphs from "safety net for people who are badly off" into "Everyone gets the same minimal standard of care because that's the only thing that's FAIR." In other words: why the hell should anyone work hard or save up money, maybe against some kind of medical emergency, if they're going to be told they get kicked out of any future benefits because they want to use THEIR money for a different/better treatment. (This will also KILL any innovation in treatments - there's no incentive to try new things if they're not "approved" by Mama Government.) If they proposed this kind of system, for, say, food - where everyone's issued a pound of kind-of-crappy hamburger, a couple cans of green beans, and a jug of Kool-Aid a week, everyone would be up in arms. Why do people want it with healthcare? (The other thing that scares me about universal healthcare coming here? I have aging parents. I sure as Hell do not want to be told, "Well, there's a treatment that could ease their pain and extend their lives, but we can't use it." Hell no. You want to see me throttle a doctor, and then go and throttle politicians? That would do it.)

Posted by: ricki at June 03, 2008 09:28 AM (O5SYw)

5 Everytime I hear these healthcare horror stories and how bad ours is, and how much worse it is elsewhere I can't help but wonder - Is there ANYPLACE in the world that has a workable healthcare system? Are there ANY solutions out there to improve ours and put the brakes on rising costs? Is is possible to find a solution that'll use the best of both worlds and make most everybody, if not all the people, happy? Just something I think of when I hear about the problems with our healthcare system. I hear a lot of griping, a lot of arguing, but few workable solutions to fix it.

Posted by: diamond dave at June 03, 2008 09:55 AM (EKSJf)

6 How about this scenario., hardworking mom, a receptionist at a strip mall dental office m-f and a museum guard on the weekends. No medical insurance. Where does she go when in pain? Got any ideas? Try county, take a ticket, no chairs so you get to stand. Takes the whole day to do so which puts said woman at risk for loosing her job. Often, by the time she's diagnosed, she's in deep sh@#$t. hell, lets lay it on thick, she's diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. Are we crying yet? please..my best friend died of ovarian cancer. She was a teacher for the LA Unified school district and although insured, she discovered that at UCLA, reputed to have the best care, (which she paid for out of pocket), those with money were those that received good care. If thats the case what do you think happened to our dental receptionist?

Posted by: royal pine at June 03, 2008 10:45 AM (Bby3r)

7 "...it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales." Tangentially, this is also one of the many reasons why the UK may be headed for a breakup, and soon. On this subject generally, I always go back to what P.J. O'Rourke said about it: "if you think health care's expensive now, just wait until you see how much it costs when it's free."

Posted by: Dave J at June 03, 2008 07:27 PM (glamO)

8 royal, its a shame many of our government run County hospitals are utter disaster areas, but is the solution really just complaining that rich people get better treatment and should instead get equally sh*tty treatment? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to leave the parts of our medical system that work alone and focus on fixing out government run County hospital disaster zones?

Posted by: the Pirate at June 04, 2008 08:28 AM (73P68)

9 Unbelievable!

Posted by: Lauren at June 04, 2008 12:09 PM (iUfJz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment