On The Third Hand

I note you have put this in your “Navel Gazing” folder.

Until the left removes the lint from their navels and employ some Windex they will NEVER be able to see the world as it is and not as they wish it to be.
In other words: Their pants are pinching their brains!

Comment by Bill Ewing, MSGT USAF (Ret) — 20 Aug, 2006 @ 08:10

Every single day.

Comment by Jim - PRS — 22 Aug, 2006 @ 03:26

They’re exceedingly cranky. And I have no idea why.

Comment by tree hugging sister — 22 Aug, 2006 @ 23:55

Man is your blogroll eclectic!

Hi!
I just stopped by to see who was linking to me. Nice to meet you. Do come again.

Comment by Gryphen — 28 Dec, 2005 @ 01:43

Man is your blogroll eclectic!

Thanks. I do try

Comment by Kathy K — 28 Dec, 2005 @ 14:28

That is v. cool. I blog-rolled it.

Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — 29 Dec, 2005 @ 09:17

Nice site!

Comment by Nik — 13 Feb, 2006 @ 17:41

Yes…you forgot to mention Saturnalia. :p

Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — 21 Dec, 2005 @ 08:34

Happy Saturnalia!

Comment by Kathy K — 21 Dec, 2005 @ 09:16

12/22: Tohji-Taisai–Shinto rite honoring Sun Goddess Amaterasu

12/26: Day commemorating the death of Zoroastrian Prophet Zarathustra around 551 BCE. (Zoroastrians worship by making offerings to a sacred fire.)

12/31 to 1/4: Zoroastrian celebration of Divine Spirit Vohu Manah.

also…
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and Mithras
Gwyl Canol Gaeof
Tongji
Saturnalia (Though I don’t know if this is observed anymore)

Comment by Zendo Deb — 22 Dec, 2005 @ 02:02

Yep them to. I am sure there is someone celebrating one of those somewhere. I forgot to find a Saturnalia party to go to this year…probably a good thing since I have a gf.

Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — 22 Dec, 2005 @ 08:15

And a Merry RamaHannuKwanzurnaliamas to you.

Comment by Ken Summers — 22 Dec, 2005 @ 12:07

Oops. Forgot Festivus,

Comment by Ken Summers — 22 Dec, 2005 @ 12:08

JESUS CHRIST HAS REMOVED HIS BLESSING FROM AMERICA BECAUSE OF HOW CORRUPT THE CONFUSATIVES HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY. CAN’T YOU TELL? http://www.mixposure.com/song.php?songid=14027
DON’T BE A CENSORING COMMIE; BE MAN ENOUGH TO KEEP THIS POST UP.

Comment by DEAN BERRY – REAL AMERICAN — 24 Dec, 2005 @ 11:24

I’m not a man.

Comment by Kathy K — 24 Dec, 2005 @ 11:52

However, I’m leaving your post up - because people like you are one of the reasons I posted what I did.

Those who don’t like any mention of any religion are another reason.

[update - this guy evidently spammed Silent Running and some others too. If you check out the lyrics of the ’song’ he links (also replete with much cap-locked typing), you will see why I’m a touch disgusted.

Comment by Kathy K — 24 Dec, 2005 @ 12:00

å?£è¯?å¿«ä¹? - this will reach at least 10% of the world’s population.
ã?¡ã?ªã?¼ã?¯ã?ªã?¹ã??ã?¹ - this will reach people living in the world’s second largest economy.
Happy Xmas.

[ed note: I suspect those were in languages my blog doesn’t support - probably Chinese and Japanese - check out her home page for a nice multi-language holiday greeting]

Comment by China Doll — 27 Dec, 2005 @ 15:43

You too!

Comment by Easycure — 27 Nov, 2005 @ 22:56

You are welcome! Thought you and yours might enjoy it.
BTW: Be on the lookout for “Wilma.” According to Drudge, Cape Coral has a Bullseye painted on it!

Comment by Bill Ewing — 18 Oct, 2005 @ 02:32

I noticed that bullseye…

Comment by Kathy K — 18 Oct, 2005 @ 07:15

The Soviot Union had women’s equality in 1960 and declined economically and in population. Japan limits women to minor positions in the workplace and is the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Comment by Doug_S — 29 Sep, 2005 @ 14:09

The Soviet Union’s problem was not women’s ‘equality’. It was their government and their ‘5 year plans’.

Things are improving in Japan, albeit slowly, as more educated women make their way into the work force. (I’d say that they are about where we were in the early 70s) - and that’s a few centuries ahead of Saudi Arabia.

Comment by Kathy K — 29 Sep, 2005 @ 16:22

Dead on, Kathy. Outstanding piece you linked to, with so many thoughts near and dear to my heart. I thought the Iraqi constitution draft was a complete sell-out of what was promised Iraqi women-a voice. Under ( what an appropriate word) it, they are chattels yet again and less free than when Saddam Hussein held sway. How wrong is that?

Comment by tree hugging sister — 30 Sep, 2005 @ 15:51

Democracy and freedom are admirable goals…but just because they may be the best answer for society doesn’t automatically mean they will win out. One only need consult all of human history to see it’s largely been undemocratic with very limited freedoms. It’s going to - in my opinion - require some better leadership than we’ve seen so far to accomplish what should be our goal.

Comment by Jerry — 1 Oct, 2005 @ 11:35

The Soviet Union had womenâ??s equality in 1960

Yep, that’s what the USSR constitution said. I’ve read it - very gender neutral. Looked great on paper, murdered tens of millions when deployed in the field.

Curiously, those “equal women” never managed to raise much above local adminstrative posts though isn’t it?

I don’t recall seeing any females waving to the crowd in a May Day parade. I suspect politburo gender ratios never even got close to current US house/senate levels.

Comment by Purple Avenger — 2 Oct, 2005 @ 02:15

Purple Avenger is correct; de jure rights are often enough not in effect de facto – especially in non-democratic societies. Certainly, the putative equal rights of women under Saddam Hussein were not enforced in actuality, although it was women more often raped in front of their families by Hussein’s bully boys than their fathers, sons or brothers. And it was pretty young women rather than pretty young men who were taken off the street for Uday and Qusay’s umentionable pleasures.

The reality is that most Iraqi women have no less de facto freedom under the soon-to-be ratified Constitution than they did in the bad old days. And the Constitution can be amended, just like America’s. So let’s look hopefully to a future where the de jure rights of women grow to match their increasing de facto power, just as occurred in this country.

Comment by trailing wife — 2 Oct, 2005 @ 18:40

New Scientist has a similar story from a different point of view. It sees it as a struggle between “Enlightenment values” - reason, pluralism, democracy and freedom of thought–and fundamentalist religions that reject rational enquiry as the best way to explain the world, and empirical evidence as the best way to formulate policy. It notes that there has been an explosion of fundamentalist movements in all the worlds major religions and that they share a commom thread: a fervent belief that they alone are in possession of the truth - usually an overtly literal interpretation of a sacred text - and an equally fervent desire to impose that truth on others. And, unlike mainstream religion, they cannot tolerate dissent.

Comment by Kevin — 8 Oct, 2005 @ 08:05

My bark, now, is worse than my bite, but I will never hide in the flock.
Flock the democrats, I say!

Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 6 Sep, 2005 @ 13:44

I think he sums it up well….though I think he needs a third category for pretenders–People who talk like members of the grey tribe but don’t back it up with accomplishments.

Comment by Kevin — 8 Oct, 2005 @ 08:26

Ouch!

OK, a valid point. And you are talking about “pirates", not the RIAA targeting twelve-year-old girls in Queens. Odd how that works: where is their effort on large-scale sales, instead of one-shot free-loading?

I had to chuckle a few weeks ago when a former RIAA big-shot complained (on the Huffington whatchamacallit) that the stuff she had to buy (left RIAA - no more gimmees) had DRM so she had to use programs downloaded from the Web to make copies - DMCA violation!!! But then, way back during the BetaMax hearings, Jack Valenti admitted he had one and used it to time-shift…

Comment by teqjack — 25 Jun, 2005 @ 13:52

The projected loss numbers are only valid if you postulate that everyone in possesion of a pirated copy would otherwise have bought one at full price. Not flippin’ likely.

Comment by triticale — 28 Jun, 2005 @ 00:10

The article didn’t say the lawyer knew his client was perpetrating a hoax. Absent such evidence, or some other unethical behavior on his part, it wouldn’t be fair to hold him accountable.

Comment by Lawrence — 13 May, 2005 @ 23:31

According to some reports, it’s the same lawyer as has been used before by that woman plus her husband in other attempts at extortion !!

Comment by MommaBear — 14 May, 2005 @ 09:13

Why am I not surprised? (Sigh.)

Comment by Kathy K — 14 May, 2005 @ 11:20

Strongly disagree, Lawrence. I don’t care whether the lawyer knew it was a hoax, at best finding a finger is worth a couple of free meals AT MOST. Any further attempt to extort money should get the lawyer disbarred.

Comment by Ken Summers — 15 May, 2005 @ 20:24

Oh, I’m sorry, almost forgot (and Sheila would never forgive me…)

CHEWING ON HUMAN FLESH!!!

Comment by Ken Summers — 15 May, 2005 @ 20:26

THANKS !!

Comment by MommaBear — 8 May, 2005 @ 10:31

I’m waiting for the Jenni-fraud authored “Ten Steps to Beating Vegas” book.

Should be out shortly.

Comment by Marc — 7 May, 2005 @ 19:10

Just wish I’d thought of the toast. I could use US $16,000…

I didn’t post about her here – but from the look in her eyes in her pictures, she’s either bats or has been pushed so far she lost it completely. (And I’ve seen some Suthahn weddings that could push the normally sane to that point.)

In fact, 16 bridesmaids is worse than the ones I’ve seen. Her family and her fiance’s family is lucky I wasn’t their ‘bride’.
I’m armed.

Comment by Kathy K — 7 May, 2005 @ 19:32