T.E. asks, "My Dear Miss Kitty,
Who has the cooler job, Santa or the Easter Bunny?"
Santa.
Hands down, it's Santa.
So this answer is going to be more text-y than link-y, but I think I have some pretty solid reasons why Santa has it better than the Easter Bunny, so just bear with me, if you would.
Okay, let's look at living conditions first.
Santa lives at the North Pole (horrible weather) in a sort of magical workshop where he is surrounded by his wife, elves, reindeer and bajillions of toys. It's always kind of holiday-ish at Santa's workshop, so I'm guessing there is singing and lights and probably some pretty decent grub. We all know Santa's a little on the larger side, and one doesn't get that way if the food sucks. Let's be honest.
The Easter Bunny lives...somewhere. Nobody really knows. But if he is like any other bunny, he probably lives in a hole in the ground. There may be other bunnies or there may not be. Probably not. If there were, we would have heard of Mrs. Easter Bunny, right? He's probably a bachelor who goes around procreating like, well, a bunny, but he can't be seen with all of these kids hanging about so all of his former girlfriend bunnies have scorned him and don't come around any more either. And let's be honest, if you're a bunny that looks like this, do you really want to be seen hanging around with this guy? Or worse, this one?
Point: Santa.
Next we look at job circumstances.
Santa works all year long. Making toys. He gets to build trains and dolls and iPods and drills and all kinds of fun things. If he gets tired of making tops, he can switch over to blocks for a day. And again, the work environment is filled with elves singing, people to chat with, and good food. Then, once a year, he climbs into a magical sled and takes a trip around the world where people leave cookies for him at every stop. Not too shabby, I'd say.
The Easter Bunny works one day a year. Not too bad. Until you consider that he has to steal his product (eggs) because bunnies don't lay eggs. So in the days leading up to Easter, he has to break into hen houses to try to collect enough eggs to hide for the children to find, or he has to break into various variety stories to get those brightly colored plastic eggs and then fill them with stuff. He could, at any time, be caught and dragged off to jail or shot by an angry farmer. And then he has to go hide the eggs so other people can find and consume the treats within. And he has to do this all by himself. No little worker bunnies hopping around to help with the stealing and hiding, and nobody to leave little treats for him as he does his job.
Point: Santa.
And finally, attire.
Santa gets to wear a nice, big, warm, fuzzy red suit with boots and a hat and gloves so he stays nice and toasty on his round-the-world trip. And I'm guessing he can wear whatever he wants in the workshop.
The Easter Bunny sometimes gets to wear really horrible vests or bow-ties, but that's about it. You know how dank and muddy it can be in March or April? And he doesn't even get to wear boots? Sure he's an animal, but do we have to treat him like one?
Point, set, match: Santa.
Sorry, Easter Bunny, but you just plain got screwed with your holiday. It's not even on the same day every year, for crying out loud. At least you get to hawk Cadbury Creme Eggs for a little while each year. Those things are tasty.
Thank you, T.E. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Like a Cat Out of Water
D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
The shower in the apartment where I live has a very sloooooow drain. I have recently discovered that one of my cats has taken to 'wading' or 'swimming' in the draining shower water that usually comes up to her shoulders. The other cat acts as her 'spotter,' for lack of a better term, and watches intently from the sidelines.
I thought cats hated water! Is she looking for fish? Does she think she's a 'mama grizzly' like on those Alaska infomercials with Tina Fey? Is she training for synchonized swimming for the 'kitty olympics?' How concerned should I be?
D. H."
Hi, D.H.
No, not all cats hate water. For one thing, they drink it. Quite a bit. As do most mammals 'cuz we need it to, um, you know, survive.
There are some dainty cats who don't like to get their paws wet, but if your kitty likes to swim, them swim she shall. I think the other cat is coaching the swimmer cat. I wouldn't worry about it too much, at least not until your one cat develops an eating disorder and the other one starts wearing gray sweatsuits talking about how he could have been a contender back in the day. Then its time to get some help.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
The shower in the apartment where I live has a very sloooooow drain. I have recently discovered that one of my cats has taken to 'wading' or 'swimming' in the draining shower water that usually comes up to her shoulders. The other cat acts as her 'spotter,' for lack of a better term, and watches intently from the sidelines.
I thought cats hated water! Is she looking for fish? Does she think she's a 'mama grizzly' like on those Alaska infomercials with Tina Fey? Is she training for synchonized swimming for the 'kitty olympics?' How concerned should I be?
D. H."
Hi, D.H.
No, not all cats hate water. For one thing, they drink it. Quite a bit. As do most mammals 'cuz we need it to, um, you know, survive.
There are some dainty cats who don't like to get their paws wet, but if your kitty likes to swim, them swim she shall. I think the other cat is coaching the swimmer cat. I wouldn't worry about it too much, at least not until your one cat develops an eating disorder and the other one starts wearing gray sweatsuits talking about how he could have been a contender back in the day. Then its time to get some help.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 20, 2010
Belly Dancing
H.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
So my new girlfriend takes these bellydance classes and they have a performance coming up that's called a 'hafla.' I've been to one before, and she kept asking me all of these questions about the other dancers: "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out? Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques? Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing? What did you think of the chest work?" etc. How do I answer these questions in such a way that it sounds like I paid attention without making it sound like I paid TOO MUCH attention? And is it better for me to act like I'm being dragged to the event or do you think it's ok to show my enthusiasm for the dancing?
H. B."
Kudos on landing a chick who belly dances, dude. Well done.
I have to say, first of all, that chances are when your girlfriend asks you those kinds of questions, she's chatting about the show the same way anyone would after seeing any kind of show. Or she's fishing. One of the two. It can be hard to tell because women are sneaky.
But I can help you, with simple suggestions on how to answer such questions in a polite "I was watching the show" kind of way without venturing into "I had to take an extra ten minutes in the men's room at intermission" kind of a way.
For example, when she asks, "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out?" you can reply, "Thank goodness they didn't!" Just make sure to make it sound sincere - any sarcasm here could be the end of your relationship. As could expounding on the subject, thus turning yourself into the bumbling idiot in every romantic comedy movie ever made.
When she asks, "Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques?" simply reply, "No. I was listening to the music and didn't really notice." This will show you were paying attention to the show, but not oogling the other dancers.
When she asks, "Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing?" it is okay to just let that question sink to the bottom of the conversation, never to be found again, not even by those guys who found the Titanic. There is no good answer to that question, so it's probably best to become violently ill, or have your mouth full to something that you can either spray at her when she asks (in an attempt to speak with your mouth full - if it looks like a spit-take, she'll get suspicious), or that you can "choke on" because you "swallowed wrong." In any case, a swift change of subject is the best response.
And finally, when she asks, "What did you think of the chest work?" tell her that hers was amazing and give her a quick kiss.
If you are dating a woman who belly dances, she gets it. She knows it is a type of performance and it is to be viewed as an art form, so she would probably appreciate it if you showed some sort of enthusiasm about going to see her show. Specifically, going to see her in her show. The other performers are blurs of color and jingles that just make her look that much better.
Got it?
Thank you, H.B. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
So my new girlfriend takes these bellydance classes and they have a performance coming up that's called a 'hafla.' I've been to one before, and she kept asking me all of these questions about the other dancers: "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out? Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques? Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing? What did you think of the chest work?" etc. How do I answer these questions in such a way that it sounds like I paid attention without making it sound like I paid TOO MUCH attention? And is it better for me to act like I'm being dragged to the event or do you think it's ok to show my enthusiasm for the dancing?
H. B."
Kudos on landing a chick who belly dances, dude. Well done.
I have to say, first of all, that chances are when your girlfriend asks you those kinds of questions, she's chatting about the show the same way anyone would after seeing any kind of show. Or she's fishing. One of the two. It can be hard to tell because women are sneaky.
But I can help you, with simple suggestions on how to answer such questions in a polite "I was watching the show" kind of way without venturing into "I had to take an extra ten minutes in the men's room at intermission" kind of a way.
For example, when she asks, "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out?" you can reply, "Thank goodness they didn't!" Just make sure to make it sound sincere - any sarcasm here could be the end of your relationship. As could expounding on the subject, thus turning yourself into the bumbling idiot in every romantic comedy movie ever made.
When she asks, "Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques?" simply reply, "No. I was listening to the music and didn't really notice." This will show you were paying attention to the show, but not oogling the other dancers.
When she asks, "Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing?" it is okay to just let that question sink to the bottom of the conversation, never to be found again, not even by those guys who found the Titanic. There is no good answer to that question, so it's probably best to become violently ill, or have your mouth full to something that you can either spray at her when she asks (in an attempt to speak with your mouth full - if it looks like a spit-take, she'll get suspicious), or that you can "choke on" because you "swallowed wrong." In any case, a swift change of subject is the best response.
And finally, when she asks, "What did you think of the chest work?" tell her that hers was amazing and give her a quick kiss.
If you are dating a woman who belly dances, she gets it. She knows it is a type of performance and it is to be viewed as an art form, so she would probably appreciate it if you showed some sort of enthusiasm about going to see her show. Specifically, going to see her in her show. The other performers are blurs of color and jingles that just make her look that much better.
Got it?
Thank you, H.B. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Impulse Buys
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
As usual we are being bombarded with commercials and adds for those perfect Christmas Gift ideas. But I am wondering about the ones where people get a Lexus for Christmas. Maybe its just me but.........when did a new luxury automobile become an impulse buy?"
Hey, M.C. In case you hadn't noticed, EVERYTHING is an impulse buy at Christmas time. I'm just kind of surprised it took the car manufacturers this long to catch on and try to take advantage of it.
There are a lot of things at work here. One is guilt. This is a great time of year to remember that Jesus was a hoopy frood. I know, I know, there are plenty of people out there (and probably quite a few reading this) who don't necessarily dig on the whole Jesus vibe. That's fine. I'm not particularly religious myself. But if you at least pretend for a minute that he was a real guy who lived a long time ago, he seemed like a pretty cool dude. Telling people to love one another and all that stuff. Turning water into wine - tell me you don't wish you had that skill. Feeding the poor. And the people who decided his birthday should be celebrated alongside the way more popular at the time solstice celebrations, thought it might be a good idea to play up the fact that he was a hoopy frood to try to get more people to join the party. So since about 440AD, people have been running around at this time of year telling everyone what a great guy he was and I'm guessing that there has been a little bit of the telephone game in there so now, instead of being groovy guy, he's the guy who can make Chuck Norris cry for his mommy. And since we're supposed to be celebrating things in his image, and there is no possible way you could make Chuck Norris cry for his mommy, you have to show you are just as good as Jesus by...buying a car for your loved ones. Because those coupon books you used to give just don't cost enough to prove you're worth getting in on the Jesus celebrations. He gave his friggin' life for you man; the least you could do is go into debt in his name.
I would like to point out here that boat, jet, and helicopter manufacturers were trying to get in on the fun for a little while there, until it was pointed out that not everyone has a pilot's license or access to a major body of water. So for the time being, anyway, a car is the most expensive thing that just about everyone (in the United States) might actually be able to use. The more you love, the more you'll spend, but not if the person can't use it. Usually.
And, of course, we have the rampant materialism of the general American population. You said it right when you mentioned the bombardment of adds this time of year (the extra "d" is for "double the ads," I presume). If you're not buying craploads of junk that people don't actually need at this time of year, well, that's downright un-American.
So we take materialism and guilt and put them together and voila! You have to buy your loved ones luxury cars for Christmas or you just plain don't love them. The car manufacturers are just disappointed that they haven't been able to successfully position the automobiles next to the candy bars in the supermarket check-out lines.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
As usual we are being bombarded with commercials and adds for those perfect Christmas Gift ideas. But I am wondering about the ones where people get a Lexus for Christmas. Maybe its just me but.........when did a new luxury automobile become an impulse buy?"
Hey, M.C. In case you hadn't noticed, EVERYTHING is an impulse buy at Christmas time. I'm just kind of surprised it took the car manufacturers this long to catch on and try to take advantage of it.
There are a lot of things at work here. One is guilt. This is a great time of year to remember that Jesus was a hoopy frood. I know, I know, there are plenty of people out there (and probably quite a few reading this) who don't necessarily dig on the whole Jesus vibe. That's fine. I'm not particularly religious myself. But if you at least pretend for a minute that he was a real guy who lived a long time ago, he seemed like a pretty cool dude. Telling people to love one another and all that stuff. Turning water into wine - tell me you don't wish you had that skill. Feeding the poor. And the people who decided his birthday should be celebrated alongside the way more popular at the time solstice celebrations, thought it might be a good idea to play up the fact that he was a hoopy frood to try to get more people to join the party. So since about 440AD, people have been running around at this time of year telling everyone what a great guy he was and I'm guessing that there has been a little bit of the telephone game in there so now, instead of being groovy guy, he's the guy who can make Chuck Norris cry for his mommy. And since we're supposed to be celebrating things in his image, and there is no possible way you could make Chuck Norris cry for his mommy, you have to show you are just as good as Jesus by...buying a car for your loved ones. Because those coupon books you used to give just don't cost enough to prove you're worth getting in on the Jesus celebrations. He gave his friggin' life for you man; the least you could do is go into debt in his name.
I would like to point out here that boat, jet, and helicopter manufacturers were trying to get in on the fun for a little while there, until it was pointed out that not everyone has a pilot's license or access to a major body of water. So for the time being, anyway, a car is the most expensive thing that just about everyone (in the United States) might actually be able to use. The more you love, the more you'll spend, but not if the person can't use it. Usually.
And, of course, we have the rampant materialism of the general American population. You said it right when you mentioned the bombardment of adds this time of year (the extra "d" is for "double the ads," I presume). If you're not buying craploads of junk that people don't actually need at this time of year, well, that's downright un-American.
So we take materialism and guilt and put them together and voila! You have to buy your loved ones luxury cars for Christmas or you just plain don't love them. The car manufacturers are just disappointed that they haven't been able to successfully position the automobiles next to the candy bars in the supermarket check-out lines.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Friday, December 17, 2010
Time
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
What is the best time of day?"
Right now. Because it is the only time that is real.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
What is the best time of day?"
Right now. Because it is the only time that is real.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Starting in Music
J.J. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
For someone just starting out, what advice would you give to someone eager to play music? Just go solo, or try to put a band together?
J.J."
Hi, J.J. I think the answer to this question depends on quite a few variables. When you say, "just staring out," do you mean, "Never had one lesson," or "I've been playing for a while and am just getting up the confidence to play out?" Because if it is the former, I would recommend first taking some lessons. Really. Sure, you can go to open mics and try to sell your "music" to the public, but chances are, they will just kind of tolerate you until it is time for the next guy who is there pimping his CD release show to come up and play something good. Or, you could try to find bandmates, and you may find some, but they will find out very quickly that you add nothing to the group and may end up kicking you out of your own band.
If it is the latter, it all depends on what kind of music you are making. Some music doesn't require anything beyond a person and an instrument. Some does. If the kind of music you are making requires a band, I would recommend not only finding fellow band members, but also a good stylist, make-up artist, agent, manager, and personal trainer. You'll also want to find a good studio that has the most updated AutoTune software because my guess is that in between workouts, shopping trips, meetings, events, charity functions, awards galas, and other various public appearances, you won't really have much time left to rehearse. Which is fine. Nobody is going to be coming to your shows to see you "sing." They'll be there for the spectacle of it. Which reminds me - make sure your pyrotechnician is union. You'd hate for something bad to happen.
And good luck with your musical career!
Thank you, J.J. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
For someone just starting out, what advice would you give to someone eager to play music? Just go solo, or try to put a band together?
J.J."
Hi, J.J. I think the answer to this question depends on quite a few variables. When you say, "just staring out," do you mean, "Never had one lesson," or "I've been playing for a while and am just getting up the confidence to play out?" Because if it is the former, I would recommend first taking some lessons. Really. Sure, you can go to open mics and try to sell your "music" to the public, but chances are, they will just kind of tolerate you until it is time for the next guy who is there pimping his CD release show to come up and play something good. Or, you could try to find bandmates, and you may find some, but they will find out very quickly that you add nothing to the group and may end up kicking you out of your own band.
If it is the latter, it all depends on what kind of music you are making. Some music doesn't require anything beyond a person and an instrument. Some does. If the kind of music you are making requires a band, I would recommend not only finding fellow band members, but also a good stylist, make-up artist, agent, manager, and personal trainer. You'll also want to find a good studio that has the most updated AutoTune software because my guess is that in between workouts, shopping trips, meetings, events, charity functions, awards galas, and other various public appearances, you won't really have much time left to rehearse. Which is fine. Nobody is going to be coming to your shows to see you "sing." They'll be there for the spectacle of it. Which reminds me - make sure your pyrotechnician is union. You'd hate for something bad to happen.
And good luck with your musical career!
Thank you, J.J. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Christmas Gifts
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
What was the worst Christmas gift you ever received?"
This is actually a really tough question to answer because most of the Christmas presents I've been given have been spot on. Usually because I ask for stuff and people get it for me. And it's also hard for me to say a gift is "bad" because someone took the time to buy me a gift in the first place, which was really sweet and I have to applaud the effort. I did get a book once, though, that was just WAY off base. It was about how feminism was just sort of a fad and isn't it nice that we're moving back towards a society wherein women like to stay home and cook and clean and take care of the family? I think. I didn't read the thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a stay at home mom. When I have kids, if it financially viable, I may choose to do just that because how awesome would it be to get to see your kids grow up every day? But that's just it - I may choose to stay home. I would not stay home because society told me I should. Which is kind of what feminism is about. Which means feminism is alive and well and it rocks, baby!
Oh! And another time, a co-worker (boss-type) of mine who lives in Europe brought me this nice little box of European chocolates for Christmas. None of which were vegan (which I am). On the up side, I got to give those away to the rest of the people in the office, so at least somebody got to enjoy them.
I used to have these sort of nightmares (not really nightmares, but awful thoughts) that someday, when I'm rich and famous, my fabulous rich and famous boyfriend (or boss, or co-star or someone) would buy me a fur coat as a gift (not that any of those people would, I just wanted to add some links to this post). I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't take it, first of all, but I would probably then have to question our whole relationship. So thank goodness I'm not rich and famous and I don't have any rich and famous friends/coworkers/costars!
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
What was the worst Christmas gift you ever received?"
This is actually a really tough question to answer because most of the Christmas presents I've been given have been spot on. Usually because I ask for stuff and people get it for me. And it's also hard for me to say a gift is "bad" because someone took the time to buy me a gift in the first place, which was really sweet and I have to applaud the effort. I did get a book once, though, that was just WAY off base. It was about how feminism was just sort of a fad and isn't it nice that we're moving back towards a society wherein women like to stay home and cook and clean and take care of the family? I think. I didn't read the thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a stay at home mom. When I have kids, if it financially viable, I may choose to do just that because how awesome would it be to get to see your kids grow up every day? But that's just it - I may choose to stay home. I would not stay home because society told me I should. Which is kind of what feminism is about. Which means feminism is alive and well and it rocks, baby!
Oh! And another time, a co-worker (boss-type) of mine who lives in Europe brought me this nice little box of European chocolates for Christmas. None of which were vegan (which I am). On the up side, I got to give those away to the rest of the people in the office, so at least somebody got to enjoy them.
I used to have these sort of nightmares (not really nightmares, but awful thoughts) that someday, when I'm rich and famous, my fabulous rich and famous boyfriend (or boss, or co-star or someone) would buy me a fur coat as a gift (not that any of those people would, I just wanted to add some links to this post). I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't take it, first of all, but I would probably then have to question our whole relationship. So thank goodness I'm not rich and famous and I don't have any rich and famous friends/coworkers/costars!
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
"The Devil Wears Prada" - SPOILERS
L.W. asks,"Hey,
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
License Plates
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
Do think that personalized license plates might have secret messages in them?"
No. I think they have very blatant messages in them. For example:
So as you can see, M.C., the world of the license plate is not quite as mysterious as one might think. Though I will say that the time I was leaving my mom's house and there was a car parked in front of mine with the license plate "TARDIS," that was a sign. A sign from god.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Do think that personalized license plates might have secret messages in them?"
No. I think they have very blatant messages in them. For example:
- This one says, "My wife used to drive this car, but took the other one in the divorce."
- This one says, "I'm never getting any, ever, ever again."
- This is an obvious cry for help and I wish I knew where the person lived so the next time those lovely people in orange robes come to my door, I can point them his way instead.
- I like this guy's honesty and would subscribe to his newsletter if he had one. Which he probably does. Online somewhere.
- This one is most likely a lie, though, because I'm guessing most people who are, don't want to advertise it.
So as you can see, M.C., the world of the license plate is not quite as mysterious as one might think. Though I will say that the time I was leaving my mom's house and there was a car parked in front of mine with the license plate "TARDIS," that was a sign. A sign from god.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
Books vs. Technology
J.C. asks, "Hello great and powerful Miss Kitty
My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?
-JC (not Jesus Christ)
ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"
Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.
Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?
When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.
I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.
And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.
So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.
Yay books!
Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?
-JC (not Jesus Christ)
ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"
Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.
Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?
When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.
I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.
And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.
So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.
Yay books!
Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Friday, December 10, 2010
Songwriting
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
Have you written any new song lately and if so are any of them about me?"
I have not written any new songs in a while. I'm almost ashamed to admit that, but I haven't. I've been doing other things. Which isn't really an excuse - lots of artists are able to do more than one thing at a time - it's just how things have worked out recently.
I have also found myself surrounded by a lot of really amazing music at the moment that is sort of filling up and soothing my soul in such a way that I feel musically satisfied without writing anything. Like this. And these guys are also pretty great. And I know a lot of people really didn't like it, but I have to admit that this one has kind of grown on me, as have some of the other tunes from the same album.
So anyway. The short answer is no, no new songs lately. I was thinking of your Christmas tune the other day, though and it made me miss you. Hope you are well.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Have you written any new song lately and if so are any of them about me?"
I have not written any new songs in a while. I'm almost ashamed to admit that, but I haven't. I've been doing other things. Which isn't really an excuse - lots of artists are able to do more than one thing at a time - it's just how things have worked out recently.
I have also found myself surrounded by a lot of really amazing music at the moment that is sort of filling up and soothing my soul in such a way that I feel musically satisfied without writing anything. Like this. And these guys are also pretty great. And I know a lot of people really didn't like it, but I have to admit that this one has kind of grown on me, as have some of the other tunes from the same album.
So anyway. The short answer is no, no new songs lately. I was thinking of your Christmas tune the other day, though and it made me miss you. Hope you are well.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Cat Training
D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
One of my kittens is growing at an exponential rate and seems to be suffering from 'species confusion.' When she was little, my grey kitten began to perch on my shoulder to sleep as I sat in my bean bag chair -- not unlike a pirate's parrot. As she has grown and continues to grow, she continues to try to perch on my shoulder but since she no longer fits, more often than not she ends up sprawled across my chest or wrapped around my neck. My question is: how do I gently modify this behavior without rejecting her love or 'giving her a complex' about her weight?
D.H."
I have to admit, D.H., that I am at the same time very touched and very confused by what is going on in your household. I think it is adorable that your cat likes to perch on your shoulder, but I'm concerned for your posture if you spend a lot of time sitting in a bean bag chair in such a way that a cat can perch on your shoulder and then wrap itself around your neck. I'm guessing you are mostly reclined at this point? I know that seems comfy, but you're really not doing your lower back any favors. I fully expect to get a question in a few weeks about where to find a good chiropractor.
Which actually presents a rather simple solution to your problem - sit up straight. This will make it harder for your growing cat to get comfortable on your shoulder and she may instead opt for your lap (or your head, but that's usually only if they're playing "evil"). If there is no comfortable shoulder space, she will not sleep there.
I will say, too, that cats are more "trainable" than one might think, if you have the patience for it. See, she likes sleeping on you because you are warm. Your nice hot breath is probably at least part of the draw, and if you eat lots of tuna, all the more. But if you can show her that there are other comfy, warm places to sleep, and give her good reason to try them, she will eventually move away from your shoulder to the new spot.
For example, when I got my cat, he was NOT A LAP CAT. He liked attention (and still does), but would wriggle and squirm out of my lap within two seconds of me even attempting to put him there. Until one day, I picked him up, sat down, put him in my lap, and scritched his ears for as long as he would let me. The next time, I pet his ears, and scritched his face. The next time, ears, face, and the top of his head. I'm sure you can see where this is going. He eventually learned that when he sits in my lap, he gets attention. Oh, and it just happens to be warm and soft, too. Now, my lap is his favorite place in the house to sit. And all it took was a little patience and a lot of positive reinforcement.
So as you transition your cat from parrot to feline, just remember to work at her speed and to show constant, consistent affection when she behaves the way you want her to.
Good luck!
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
One of my kittens is growing at an exponential rate and seems to be suffering from 'species confusion.' When she was little, my grey kitten began to perch on my shoulder to sleep as I sat in my bean bag chair -- not unlike a pirate's parrot. As she has grown and continues to grow, she continues to try to perch on my shoulder but since she no longer fits, more often than not she ends up sprawled across my chest or wrapped around my neck. My question is: how do I gently modify this behavior without rejecting her love or 'giving her a complex' about her weight?
D.H."
I have to admit, D.H., that I am at the same time very touched and very confused by what is going on in your household. I think it is adorable that your cat likes to perch on your shoulder, but I'm concerned for your posture if you spend a lot of time sitting in a bean bag chair in such a way that a cat can perch on your shoulder and then wrap itself around your neck. I'm guessing you are mostly reclined at this point? I know that seems comfy, but you're really not doing your lower back any favors. I fully expect to get a question in a few weeks about where to find a good chiropractor.
Which actually presents a rather simple solution to your problem - sit up straight. This will make it harder for your growing cat to get comfortable on your shoulder and she may instead opt for your lap (or your head, but that's usually only if they're playing "evil"). If there is no comfortable shoulder space, she will not sleep there.
I will say, too, that cats are more "trainable" than one might think, if you have the patience for it. See, she likes sleeping on you because you are warm. Your nice hot breath is probably at least part of the draw, and if you eat lots of tuna, all the more. But if you can show her that there are other comfy, warm places to sleep, and give her good reason to try them, she will eventually move away from your shoulder to the new spot.
For example, when I got my cat, he was NOT A LAP CAT. He liked attention (and still does), but would wriggle and squirm out of my lap within two seconds of me even attempting to put him there. Until one day, I picked him up, sat down, put him in my lap, and scritched his ears for as long as he would let me. The next time, I pet his ears, and scritched his face. The next time, ears, face, and the top of his head. I'm sure you can see where this is going. He eventually learned that when he sits in my lap, he gets attention. Oh, and it just happens to be warm and soft, too. Now, my lap is his favorite place in the house to sit. And all it took was a little patience and a lot of positive reinforcement.
So as you transition your cat from parrot to feline, just remember to work at her speed and to show constant, consistent affection when she behaves the way you want her to.
Good luck!
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Alpha Cat
D.H. asks, "Miss Kitty,
As a new cat owner who has previously owned dogs, how do I tell which of my two kittens is 'the alpha'? When wrestling, the burly grey kitten submits to the dainty white kitten. When eating, the dainty white kitten allows the burly grey kitten to shoulder her out of the way in order to polish off her share of the food. Are there other indicators? Or is the designation of an alpha merely a simplistic tool people use to categorize animal relationships that, in reality, are much more complex?
Hi, D.H.
I think the most important thing to remember here is that these are cats, not dogs.
Cat society is different from dog society, as in, it's a little more relaxed. They don't spend entire days trying to prove who is coolest. Today, the dainty white one may be in charge; tomorrow, it will be the burly grey one. Cats aren't nearly as concerned with status as dogs are.
Where do you think the phrase "cool cat" came from?
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
As a new cat owner who has previously owned dogs, how do I tell which of my two kittens is 'the alpha'? When wrestling, the burly grey kitten submits to the dainty white kitten. When eating, the dainty white kitten allows the burly grey kitten to shoulder her out of the way in order to polish off her share of the food. Are there other indicators? Or is the designation of an alpha merely a simplistic tool people use to categorize animal relationships that, in reality, are much more complex?
Hi, D.H.
I think the most important thing to remember here is that these are cats, not dogs.
Cat society is different from dog society, as in, it's a little more relaxed. They don't spend entire days trying to prove who is coolest. Today, the dainty white one may be in charge; tomorrow, it will be the burly grey one. Cats aren't nearly as concerned with status as dogs are.
Where do you think the phrase "cool cat" came from?
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Cat Genetics
D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
My partner and I recently got two kittens from the SPCA. Although one is a dainty all-white short-hair, her sister is a burly grey-striped long-hair with a racoon tail. They also have radically different personalities. The SPCA swears these two are siblings from the same litter, but they are nothing alike. How can this be? Was Momma 'a rolling stone' of some sort?
D.H.
Hi, D.H. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Genetics!
There are a couple of things that could be going on here. The first is that yes, the mother cat was impregnated by two or more male cats at the same time. Well, the impregnation may not have occurred at the exact same time, but she could have "gone out for Italian food" with one cat one night, and another cat the next, with all of the various seeds taking root and producing all kinds of kittens.
The second thing to remember is that in the Wonderful World of Genetics, there are things called "dominant" and "recessive" genes. Dominant genes always show up when they are present. Recessive genes only show up if there are two of them. If both parents have one dominant and one recessive gene, there is a one in four chance that the offspring will display the recessive traits. This is why in large Irish families, there is always one kid with dark brown hair.
But just look at the families around you. Take me, for example. I have strawberry blond hair, greenish eyes, and almost no nose. My brother has blond hair, blue eyes, and a decent sized nose. My mom has coloring similar to me, and my dad has dark hair and blue eyes. How did those parents create a blond son? Genetics! Hooray genetics!
Another thing to remember is that for a cat, white is a "masking" color as opposed to being a color in and of itself. If you want to think of it as something akin to albino-ism, you probably could and nobody would fault you. Unless you tell them you think that way, at which time, they may point and laugh. But what it means is that just because the cat is white doesn't mean she's not a speckled tabby at heart, so to speak.
Same goes for personality. Cats is cats. They do what they want and nobody really knows why.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
My partner and I recently got two kittens from the SPCA. Although one is a dainty all-white short-hair, her sister is a burly grey-striped long-hair with a racoon tail. They also have radically different personalities. The SPCA swears these two are siblings from the same litter, but they are nothing alike. How can this be? Was Momma 'a rolling stone' of some sort?
D.H.
Hi, D.H. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Genetics!
There are a couple of things that could be going on here. The first is that yes, the mother cat was impregnated by two or more male cats at the same time. Well, the impregnation may not have occurred at the exact same time, but she could have "gone out for Italian food" with one cat one night, and another cat the next, with all of the various seeds taking root and producing all kinds of kittens.
The second thing to remember is that in the Wonderful World of Genetics, there are things called "dominant" and "recessive" genes. Dominant genes always show up when they are present. Recessive genes only show up if there are two of them. If both parents have one dominant and one recessive gene, there is a one in four chance that the offspring will display the recessive traits. This is why in large Irish families, there is always one kid with dark brown hair.
But just look at the families around you. Take me, for example. I have strawberry blond hair, greenish eyes, and almost no nose. My brother has blond hair, blue eyes, and a decent sized nose. My mom has coloring similar to me, and my dad has dark hair and blue eyes. How did those parents create a blond son? Genetics! Hooray genetics!
Another thing to remember is that for a cat, white is a "masking" color as opposed to being a color in and of itself. If you want to think of it as something akin to albino-ism, you probably could and nobody would fault you. Unless you tell them you think that way, at which time, they may point and laugh. But what it means is that just because the cat is white doesn't mean she's not a speckled tabby at heart, so to speak.
Same goes for personality. Cats is cats. They do what they want and nobody really knows why.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Cashews
M.C. asks, "Oh I mean Miss Kitty or even MISS KITTY. I am on my phone and don't have the patience to find the right location for Kitty questions. So here goes. Dear Miss Kitty. Why are cashews so damn tasty?"
Hi, M.C. Love you. *smooch*
Cashews are probably my favorite nut. I think a lot of it had to do with their scarcity when I was a kid. We always had peanuts around, but we'd only ever have cashews in the fancy nut mix served at holidays and stuff. Because cashews are expensive. For real, yo. And rightfully so. They are typically imported from far-off lands and are therefore much more expensive than the nuts grown right here at home.
I will admit that I had to do a little research on cashews in order to get backup for what my original answer was going to be and assuming that Wikipedia is correct (which, how could it not be?) the cashew is almost as much a superplant as soy or corn. They make medicines and antifungals and corrosives and varnishes and anti-venoms and booze out of the various parts of the plant. And sometimes, when you're going after the nut (which is actually a seed, like the pit in a peach), you have to wear gloves so you don't burn your hands off. Good fun, those cashews.
So maybe they're tasty because we all know in the back of our minds that there is nothing this plant can't do. This does not hold true for tofu, however, which you have to slather in something that has some flavor to make it edible. I love me some tofu - tofu is my friend. But on it's own, it is not particularly tasty. I'd tell you to try it, but why? I'd rather you try tasty tasty tofu so you can learn to love it as I have.
So I thought about the very little bit that I know about cooking and I know that there are three things you can add to just about any food to make it tastier - fat, salt, or bacon (because it contains both fat and salt). Cashews are a pretty fatty nut (seed). If you break their nutritional information down into carbs, fats, and protein, they are 66% fat. Going back to our original statement, we've just added a hell of a lot of fat to a nut, so it's going to be tasty. Then, typically, when you buy cashews in the store, they have been roasted (which brings out the buttery goodness of the nut) and salted which DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! hits the other thing that you can do to food to automatically make it taste better. You've got fat and salt infused into a buttery delicious little nut. What's not to like?
Now, you take those babies and cover them in chocolate and...
Sorry. I've just lost all focus.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Hi, M.C. Love you. *smooch*
Cashews are probably my favorite nut. I think a lot of it had to do with their scarcity when I was a kid. We always had peanuts around, but we'd only ever have cashews in the fancy nut mix served at holidays and stuff. Because cashews are expensive. For real, yo. And rightfully so. They are typically imported from far-off lands and are therefore much more expensive than the nuts grown right here at home.
I will admit that I had to do a little research on cashews in order to get backup for what my original answer was going to be and assuming that Wikipedia is correct (which, how could it not be?) the cashew is almost as much a superplant as soy or corn. They make medicines and antifungals and corrosives and varnishes and anti-venoms and booze out of the various parts of the plant. And sometimes, when you're going after the nut (which is actually a seed, like the pit in a peach), you have to wear gloves so you don't burn your hands off. Good fun, those cashews.
So maybe they're tasty because we all know in the back of our minds that there is nothing this plant can't do. This does not hold true for tofu, however, which you have to slather in something that has some flavor to make it edible. I love me some tofu - tofu is my friend. But on it's own, it is not particularly tasty. I'd tell you to try it, but why? I'd rather you try tasty tasty tofu so you can learn to love it as I have.
So I thought about the very little bit that I know about cooking and I know that there are three things you can add to just about any food to make it tastier - fat, salt, or bacon (because it contains both fat and salt). Cashews are a pretty fatty nut (seed). If you break their nutritional information down into carbs, fats, and protein, they are 66% fat. Going back to our original statement, we've just added a hell of a lot of fat to a nut, so it's going to be tasty. Then, typically, when you buy cashews in the store, they have been roasted (which brings out the buttery goodness of the nut) and salted which DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! hits the other thing that you can do to food to automatically make it taste better. You've got fat and salt infused into a buttery delicious little nut. What's not to like?
Now, you take those babies and cover them in chocolate and...
Sorry. I've just lost all focus.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Potty Time Santa
J.R. asks, "Where does Santa pee on Christmas Eve, on his round the world circuit?"
That's actually a really good question, J.R., and there are a couple of theories on that. See, nobody has ever thought to ask him. Sure, you hear the random story about some kid seeing his mom make out with Santa, or some guy who happens to see Santa do his thing and then gets a personal "Merry Christmas" out of him, but in all of these encounters, does anyone ever think to ask Santa if he need to pop into the loo? No, they don't. Most of them don't even bother to say, "Thanks for the gifts, and for squishing your innards to get them to us," because if you know anything about the physics of Santa, you know he is traveling at approximately 650 miles per second, which subjects him to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. If that doesn't squish your innards, I don't know what will.
So there are a couple of theories on where Santa might take a pit stop if he needs one.
The first is that he is visiting millions of homes with large, bushy trees in them. Much better than using the trees outside, I must say, mostly because it can get cold outside which can make the mechanics of the deed tricky. This also explains why people are usually pretty quick to get rid of their trees once Christmas is over, and it is a pretty good, solid argument for real trees vs. fake trees.
The second, which is one I hold very dear, is that he uses whatever household restroom he needs to. Hell, we all leave cookies and milk out for him, so why not help himself to the toilet as well? In my house, this led to the tradition of the Christmas Morning Toilet Scrub, where we would gather around the toilet with our brand new scrubbing brushes and toilet bowl cleaner that smelled of gingerbread and get rid of any traces of the Santa who had also stopped at goodness knows how many other toilets around the world that were not nearly as sparkling clean and disease-free as ours. Good times. Good times.
And the third theory takes us back to the whole physics thing mentioned earlier. See, if a person is traveling at 650 miles per second, and is subjected to 17,500.06 times the force of gravity, one needs EXTRAORDINARY amounts of energy to withstand that. It's like when they're teaching pilots to withstand Mach 3 speeds and they tell them to clench down as tight as they can. Times 5,833. So Santa is burning up a LOT of calories on his journey around the world (not alot 'cuz that's something totally different), and all he gets to eat along the way is cookies and milk. In short, Santa gets dangerously dehydrated on his trip around the world and as such, he doesn't need to pee. Why do you think he does this only once a year? You'd think a guy as benevolent as Santa would be making appearances at charity functions and whatnot throughout the year to keep on giving. And why do you think he's always pictured as fat? He needs to build up some padding because he's going to burn through all of it on his journey around the world. No, Santa doesn't need to pee on his journey around the world because he is subjecting himself to the most brutal test of physical endurance ever imagined by human or superhuman being. Even worse than bicycle bog snorkeling. And then he has to take the following year to rest, recover, and prepare to do it all over again.
So may I recommend that this year, you leave out, say, a pot roast for Santa instead of the usual milk and cookies? Dude could use some protein.
Thank you, J.R. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
That's actually a really good question, J.R., and there are a couple of theories on that. See, nobody has ever thought to ask him. Sure, you hear the random story about some kid seeing his mom make out with Santa, or some guy who happens to see Santa do his thing and then gets a personal "Merry Christmas" out of him, but in all of these encounters, does anyone ever think to ask Santa if he need to pop into the loo? No, they don't. Most of them don't even bother to say, "Thanks for the gifts, and for squishing your innards to get them to us," because if you know anything about the physics of Santa, you know he is traveling at approximately 650 miles per second, which subjects him to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. If that doesn't squish your innards, I don't know what will.
So there are a couple of theories on where Santa might take a pit stop if he needs one.
The first is that he is visiting millions of homes with large, bushy trees in them. Much better than using the trees outside, I must say, mostly because it can get cold outside which can make the mechanics of the deed tricky. This also explains why people are usually pretty quick to get rid of their trees once Christmas is over, and it is a pretty good, solid argument for real trees vs. fake trees.
The second, which is one I hold very dear, is that he uses whatever household restroom he needs to. Hell, we all leave cookies and milk out for him, so why not help himself to the toilet as well? In my house, this led to the tradition of the Christmas Morning Toilet Scrub, where we would gather around the toilet with our brand new scrubbing brushes and toilet bowl cleaner that smelled of gingerbread and get rid of any traces of the Santa who had also stopped at goodness knows how many other toilets around the world that were not nearly as sparkling clean and disease-free as ours. Good times. Good times.
And the third theory takes us back to the whole physics thing mentioned earlier. See, if a person is traveling at 650 miles per second, and is subjected to 17,500.06 times the force of gravity, one needs EXTRAORDINARY amounts of energy to withstand that. It's like when they're teaching pilots to withstand Mach 3 speeds and they tell them to clench down as tight as they can. Times 5,833. So Santa is burning up a LOT of calories on his journey around the world (not alot 'cuz that's something totally different), and all he gets to eat along the way is cookies and milk. In short, Santa gets dangerously dehydrated on his trip around the world and as such, he doesn't need to pee. Why do you think he does this only once a year? You'd think a guy as benevolent as Santa would be making appearances at charity functions and whatnot throughout the year to keep on giving. And why do you think he's always pictured as fat? He needs to build up some padding because he's going to burn through all of it on his journey around the world. No, Santa doesn't need to pee on his journey around the world because he is subjecting himself to the most brutal test of physical endurance ever imagined by human or superhuman being. Even worse than bicycle bog snorkeling. And then he has to take the following year to rest, recover, and prepare to do it all over again.
So may I recommend that this year, you leave out, say, a pot roast for Santa instead of the usual milk and cookies? Dude could use some protein.
Thank you, J.R. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Glamour
C.H. asks, "Miss Kitty,
I simply can not remain quiet about this a moment longer. I am a longtime reader of the periodical 'Glamour,' ever since my early days of pouncing on the latest issue in the late '80's as it came available each glorious month in my junior high school library. Unlike those who 'pooh-pooh' this magnificent mag for serving the misogynistic beauty industry or criticize it for merely recycling the same articles every few years or so, I am a dedicated fan. Imagine then, my shock and outrage at seeing the December 2010 issue of Glamour exclusive 'A Very Vampire Christmas: A steamy original short story from the woman behind True Blood' nestled shamelessly among such high quality fare as '9 Naughty Things Even Nice Guys Crave in Bed' and 'Dips! Drinks! Dessert! Eat all the Good Stuff and still Stay Slim!'
I simply loathe all of this 'Team Edmund/Team Franklin' vampire/werewolf fantasy nonsense. And as for gauche Jersey Girl Snookie Stackhouse and her shenanigans, the less attention paid the better as far as I'm concerned. Let popular culture stay where it is! In the gutter where it belongs! Is the print media seriously in that dire of straights that my beloved Glamour must pander and lower itself to be yet another outlet for..., for..., vampire pornography?
Is this indeed the end of times the Mayans warned us about?
C.H."
I think you're a little confused, C.H. Glamour is not the magazine people read "for the articles." That's Playboy. But beyond that, let's take a look at some of the vampire confusion that is going on in your question.
True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries and follows the story of Sookie Stackhouse as she falls in love with a vampire named Bill Compton. In Louisana. Not New Jersey. It is based on the premise that vampires have been "outed" in our society and live somewhat in harmony with humans. "Tru Blood" is a beverage that was created for vampires to be able to survive without killing people. I've see the first couple of seasons and it's actually a decent show, if you can get over Anna Paquin's accent. Then again, I tend to like things written by Alan Ball. But the important thing to remember about this show is that being a vampire (or shape shifter or random supernatural being of another sort) isn't all that odd. It's like everyone has something going on and with vampires walking around freely (at night, anyway), it's really not that big of a deal.
The whole Edward vs. Jacob thing (sadly not Edmund vs. Franklin - who are Edmund and Franklin anyway? Are we talking some sort of Battle of the Founding Fathers? 'Cuz that would actually kind of rock) is from the Twilight series, which is the angsty tween version of the vampire story. I've not read the books nor seen the movies, so I'm basing my opinions solely on what I've seen the press and they look...angsty to me. Like the focal point of the story is always, "Is the completely gorgeous but somehow misunderstood and therefore socially ostracized teenage girl going to give herself to the 6,000 year old vampire or the really hot werewolf dude and since they both love her, can't they all just get along?" Like the Hatfields and the McCoys, but with vampires and werewolves. And teenage drama. Involving a vampire who is really not a teenager anymore. Really not. I can understand your frustration in having to deal with this series because frankly, I'm sick of it too, and I like vampire crap.
The Jersey Girl Snooki is a hot mess and needs to go away.
Now that we have that all straight, we can chat about the state of print media. Yes, it is in dire straights (not to be confused with Dire Straits). How many times a day do you go to Glamour.com instead of picking up your magazine and reading it? This is why magazines now have between 50 and 3,000 pages of ads at the beginning, before you even get to the table of contents. They need to make money somehow. But even the advertising companies are starting to pull out because it is cheaper to advertise online, so the magazines need to try to increase their readership somehow. And if that means jumping on the vampire bandwagon, be glad it is a short story from the woman behind True Blood, and not The Meaning of Christmas as it Applies to The Vampire Diaries. Because that would be truly sad.
Thank you, C.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I simply can not remain quiet about this a moment longer. I am a longtime reader of the periodical 'Glamour,' ever since my early days of pouncing on the latest issue in the late '80's as it came available each glorious month in my junior high school library. Unlike those who 'pooh-pooh' this magnificent mag for serving the misogynistic beauty industry or criticize it for merely recycling the same articles every few years or so, I am a dedicated fan. Imagine then, my shock and outrage at seeing the December 2010 issue of Glamour exclusive 'A Very Vampire Christmas: A steamy original short story from the woman behind True Blood' nestled shamelessly among such high quality fare as '9 Naughty Things Even Nice Guys Crave in Bed' and 'Dips! Drinks! Dessert! Eat all the Good Stuff and still Stay Slim!'
I simply loathe all of this 'Team Edmund/Team Franklin' vampire/werewolf fantasy nonsense. And as for gauche Jersey Girl Snookie Stackhouse and her shenanigans, the less attention paid the better as far as I'm concerned. Let popular culture stay where it is! In the gutter where it belongs! Is the print media seriously in that dire of straights that my beloved Glamour must pander and lower itself to be yet another outlet for..., for..., vampire pornography?
Is this indeed the end of times the Mayans warned us about?
C.H."
I think you're a little confused, C.H. Glamour is not the magazine people read "for the articles." That's Playboy. But beyond that, let's take a look at some of the vampire confusion that is going on in your question.
True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries and follows the story of Sookie Stackhouse as she falls in love with a vampire named Bill Compton. In Louisana. Not New Jersey. It is based on the premise that vampires have been "outed" in our society and live somewhat in harmony with humans. "Tru Blood" is a beverage that was created for vampires to be able to survive without killing people. I've see the first couple of seasons and it's actually a decent show, if you can get over Anna Paquin's accent. Then again, I tend to like things written by Alan Ball. But the important thing to remember about this show is that being a vampire (or shape shifter or random supernatural being of another sort) isn't all that odd. It's like everyone has something going on and with vampires walking around freely (at night, anyway), it's really not that big of a deal.
The whole Edward vs. Jacob thing (sadly not Edmund vs. Franklin - who are Edmund and Franklin anyway? Are we talking some sort of Battle of the Founding Fathers? 'Cuz that would actually kind of rock) is from the Twilight series, which is the angsty tween version of the vampire story. I've not read the books nor seen the movies, so I'm basing my opinions solely on what I've seen the press and they look...angsty to me. Like the focal point of the story is always, "Is the completely gorgeous but somehow misunderstood and therefore socially ostracized teenage girl going to give herself to the 6,000 year old vampire or the really hot werewolf dude and since they both love her, can't they all just get along?" Like the Hatfields and the McCoys, but with vampires and werewolves. And teenage drama. Involving a vampire who is really not a teenager anymore. Really not. I can understand your frustration in having to deal with this series because frankly, I'm sick of it too, and I like vampire crap.
The Jersey Girl Snooki is a hot mess and needs to go away.
Now that we have that all straight, we can chat about the state of print media. Yes, it is in dire straights (not to be confused with Dire Straits). How many times a day do you go to Glamour.com instead of picking up your magazine and reading it? This is why magazines now have between 50 and 3,000 pages of ads at the beginning, before you even get to the table of contents. They need to make money somehow. But even the advertising companies are starting to pull out because it is cheaper to advertise online, so the magazines need to try to increase their readership somehow. And if that means jumping on the vampire bandwagon, be glad it is a short story from the woman behind True Blood, and not The Meaning of Christmas as it Applies to The Vampire Diaries. Because that would be truly sad.
Thank you, C.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Peas and Carrots
M.O. asks, "Miss Kitty,
Those who know me in my public life know that I have never maligned a carrot in any way, shape or form. As a person exercising individual choice, I merely happen to prefer to consume peas. Why is it, then, that I am constantly assaulted on a daily basis by groupings of peas and carrot pieces mixed together? Is it the colors? Is it some sort of socialist propoganda? Is it an attempt by the failing carrot industry to take over the world?
M. O."
Dude, I want to live where you're living so I can be assaulted by vegetables on a daily basis. I would love that. No more of that silly "going to grocery stores" business; I could just walk down the street and be bombarded with dinner. That would rock!
If it turns out, though, that you are exercising your right to hyperbole (which is actually in the Constitution, right after life and liberty, but before the pursuit of happiness) and you're not pelted with veggies as you walk down the street but are instead talking about the selection in your local grocery store, I have one very simple solution for you.
Shop somewhere else.
I know that my local Trader Joe's and my local Whole Foods both have packages of peas, and packages of carrots that you can buy separately. And I have. On many occasions. At farmer's markets, peas and carrots are usually on separate tables, so you could try that, too.
It is true that peas and carrots look good together - orange and green are lovely complimentary colors. There is also the texture factor - peas are small and kind of squishy and are therefore nicely complimented by a larger, firmer, crunchier vegetable like a carrot. And don't forget Forrest Gump's influence on the popularity of the vegetables. That movie won Oscars, you know.
If you want to get Freudian about it, think about one carrot with two peas. Yes, the male ego has penetrated every aspect of our society.
Peas and carrots also contain lots of vitamins and minerals in common, so you can reach your RDA without overdosing on green things - it's good to have variety in your diet. But I can understand the desire for just peas. When I make mac 'n cheese, I don't want to add peas and carrots, just peas. It is important to be able to purchase them separately and plenty of locations will offer you that choice.
Or perhaps you'd rather try these?
Thank you, M.O. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Those who know me in my public life know that I have never maligned a carrot in any way, shape or form. As a person exercising individual choice, I merely happen to prefer to consume peas. Why is it, then, that I am constantly assaulted on a daily basis by groupings of peas and carrot pieces mixed together? Is it the colors? Is it some sort of socialist propoganda? Is it an attempt by the failing carrot industry to take over the world?
M. O."
Dude, I want to live where you're living so I can be assaulted by vegetables on a daily basis. I would love that. No more of that silly "going to grocery stores" business; I could just walk down the street and be bombarded with dinner. That would rock!
If it turns out, though, that you are exercising your right to hyperbole (which is actually in the Constitution, right after life and liberty, but before the pursuit of happiness) and you're not pelted with veggies as you walk down the street but are instead talking about the selection in your local grocery store, I have one very simple solution for you.
Shop somewhere else.
I know that my local Trader Joe's and my local Whole Foods both have packages of peas, and packages of carrots that you can buy separately. And I have. On many occasions. At farmer's markets, peas and carrots are usually on separate tables, so you could try that, too.
It is true that peas and carrots look good together - orange and green are lovely complimentary colors. There is also the texture factor - peas are small and kind of squishy and are therefore nicely complimented by a larger, firmer, crunchier vegetable like a carrot. And don't forget Forrest Gump's influence on the popularity of the vegetables. That movie won Oscars, you know.
If you want to get Freudian about it, think about one carrot with two peas. Yes, the male ego has penetrated every aspect of our society.
Peas and carrots also contain lots of vitamins and minerals in common, so you can reach your RDA without overdosing on green things - it's good to have variety in your diet. But I can understand the desire for just peas. When I make mac 'n cheese, I don't want to add peas and carrots, just peas. It is important to be able to purchase them separately and plenty of locations will offer you that choice.
Or perhaps you'd rather try these?
Thank you, M.O. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tolerance
J.M. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty:
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Smart Phones
iP.L. asks, "Miss Kitty,
What would be the potential implications if there was a movement to legalize marriage between humans and their smart phones?
Sincerely,
iPhone Lover
I think if the day comes wherein people feel the need to marry inanimate bits of technology, I will officially resign from the human race and go live in a cave somewhere among the bats. Because bats are friggin' cool.
I don't mean to discriminate - I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as both parties are cool with it. Thing about marrying a smart phone is, how do you know the smart phone wants to marry you? Seriously, think about it. You bought that smart phone. You filled it with phone numbers and apps to make your life easier. You stuff it in pockets and leather carrying cases and purses and laptop bags. You drop it on the floor repeatedly and curse the high heavens when it drops a call or is two seconds slower than you'd like it to be. You say you love it but really, it is your slave. And you treat it badly. Did anyone ever stop to ask their iPhone if it would like that Justin Bieber ring tone generator to be installed? Did anyone bother to thank their Blackberry for reminding them when their anniversary is?
No.
We treat our smart phones like shit and then you expect them to want to marry you?
I would also have to ask what the benefits of marrying a bit of technology would be. See, the main points of contention in the gay marriage debate are equal rights for spouses of the same gender - hospital visitation rights, inheritance issues, insurance things, etc. When you are hospitalized, you take your phone with you and are allowed to put it on the bedside table. Nobody is going to bar your smart phone from the room. The only rooms the phones are not allowed in are the ones where it would probably do a lot of damage to the phone to have it in there (i.e. MRI and x-ray rooms). And do you really want to leave your life savings to your smart phone? Wouldn't you rather leave it to your kids so they can go to college, or to some charity if you really don't like your kids? Okay, what if it is the smart phone that gets sick? You take it to the Apple Genius Bar and they poke around in there - while you still have full visitation rights - and when they come back and tell you that it's a software glitch that will cost $500 to fix, or you could buy a new phone for $99, what do you do? You throw away your original phone for a newer, younger, sleeker model.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a movement does start to allow humans to marry their smart phones, I will instantly start a campaign for Smart Phone Rights. Crackberries Unite!
Thank you, iP.L. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
What would be the potential implications if there was a movement to legalize marriage between humans and their smart phones?
Sincerely,
iPhone Lover
I think if the day comes wherein people feel the need to marry inanimate bits of technology, I will officially resign from the human race and go live in a cave somewhere among the bats. Because bats are friggin' cool.
I don't mean to discriminate - I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as both parties are cool with it. Thing about marrying a smart phone is, how do you know the smart phone wants to marry you? Seriously, think about it. You bought that smart phone. You filled it with phone numbers and apps to make your life easier. You stuff it in pockets and leather carrying cases and purses and laptop bags. You drop it on the floor repeatedly and curse the high heavens when it drops a call or is two seconds slower than you'd like it to be. You say you love it but really, it is your slave. And you treat it badly. Did anyone ever stop to ask their iPhone if it would like that Justin Bieber ring tone generator to be installed? Did anyone bother to thank their Blackberry for reminding them when their anniversary is?
No.
We treat our smart phones like shit and then you expect them to want to marry you?
I would also have to ask what the benefits of marrying a bit of technology would be. See, the main points of contention in the gay marriage debate are equal rights for spouses of the same gender - hospital visitation rights, inheritance issues, insurance things, etc. When you are hospitalized, you take your phone with you and are allowed to put it on the bedside table. Nobody is going to bar your smart phone from the room. The only rooms the phones are not allowed in are the ones where it would probably do a lot of damage to the phone to have it in there (i.e. MRI and x-ray rooms). And do you really want to leave your life savings to your smart phone? Wouldn't you rather leave it to your kids so they can go to college, or to some charity if you really don't like your kids? Okay, what if it is the smart phone that gets sick? You take it to the Apple Genius Bar and they poke around in there - while you still have full visitation rights - and when they come back and tell you that it's a software glitch that will cost $500 to fix, or you could buy a new phone for $99, what do you do? You throw away your original phone for a newer, younger, sleeker model.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a movement does start to allow humans to marry their smart phones, I will instantly start a campaign for Smart Phone Rights. Crackberries Unite!
Thank you, iP.L. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Adult Education
J.R. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
Why is it so difficult to apply to graduate school at UCLA? I spent 12 hours at my computer and $120 dollars today!
Bonus question: Do you like the Hall & Oates song referenced in the subject line?
Cheers,
JR"
Hi, J.R.
I think your problem is that you are applying to the school that everyone in the known universe wants to attend. I mean, really, think about it. What city is more glamorous than Los Angeles? From the outsider perspective, anyway. If you've never been, you think it's all glitz and fancy cars and famous people and it's always sunny and warm and nothing bad ever happens in LA that can't be solved in 30-55 minutes. Sure there is traffic and smog, but those things seem so minor compared to the chance that you might meet your hero while walking down the street.
True, those of us who have been there a while know it is expensive and overdone and very cliquish (and I was only there for three months) and it can feel heartless and sterile if you don't have millions of dollars to spend, but they don't show you that in the movies. They show you the hooker who meets the filthy rich guy who saves her in a limo.
So you've just graduated high school, or you've just graduated college, or you've been out of college for a while and are frustrated with your life so you think the best course of action is to go back to school and learn more so you can get a better job and make more money and hopefully be happy someday. And while you're building up this super happy future, you try to picture yourself in some super happy place that is always warm and sunny and it's clean and glamorous and there are exciting people all around you and...UCLA! You're going to apply to UCLA! They have a fun campus and great sports teams and it's a beautiful location and hey, people actually learn things there, too! What more could you want in a school?
The sad thing is, everyone else thinks that way, too, so poor UCLA gets approximately 8,750,342,976 applications per year for 39 spaces (actually, it's closer to 58,000 applications for 4,000 spaces, but you get my point). That is a lot of application materials to wade through, my friend. So they have to make the process difficult. That is the first test you have to pass - can you complete the application? I'm sure more than 58,000 people start the application process, but only 58,000 finish it. That's the first cut. So if it took you 12 hours and $120, you're 12 hours and $120 closer to the second cut. You've already beaten out those lazy bastards who couldn't think of a good reason why they wanted to apply there in the first place and gave up writing their essays after, "Since I was seven years old, my dream has been to live in California..."
So hang in there. It's tough. I know. And now you get to play the waiting game, which sucks even more. But I have my fingers crossed for you. If for no reason because I'm still hoping you write that sequel someday (but starring Zoe and Dean this time).
Bonus answer: I honestly didn't know there was a Hall & Oates song called "Adult Education," so I had to go look it up on YouTube. I'm guessing that if it had been on the radio in about 1986, I might have listened. I am a little bit confused by the half-naked Egyptian style wedding/sacrifice ceremony with a mentally challenged janitor and dudes in masks in the video. And I'm kind of scared by Oates' high-waisted pants. It's not a bad song. Probably not one I'm going to rush out to buy, though. But I do have to give you credit for random pop-culture references in your question. Kudos for that.
Thank you, J.R. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Why is it so difficult to apply to graduate school at UCLA? I spent 12 hours at my computer and $120 dollars today!
Bonus question: Do you like the Hall & Oates song referenced in the subject line?
Cheers,
JR"
Hi, J.R.
I think your problem is that you are applying to the school that everyone in the known universe wants to attend. I mean, really, think about it. What city is more glamorous than Los Angeles? From the outsider perspective, anyway. If you've never been, you think it's all glitz and fancy cars and famous people and it's always sunny and warm and nothing bad ever happens in LA that can't be solved in 30-55 minutes. Sure there is traffic and smog, but those things seem so minor compared to the chance that you might meet your hero while walking down the street.
True, those of us who have been there a while know it is expensive and overdone and very cliquish (and I was only there for three months) and it can feel heartless and sterile if you don't have millions of dollars to spend, but they don't show you that in the movies. They show you the hooker who meets the filthy rich guy who saves her in a limo.
So you've just graduated high school, or you've just graduated college, or you've been out of college for a while and are frustrated with your life so you think the best course of action is to go back to school and learn more so you can get a better job and make more money and hopefully be happy someday. And while you're building up this super happy future, you try to picture yourself in some super happy place that is always warm and sunny and it's clean and glamorous and there are exciting people all around you and...UCLA! You're going to apply to UCLA! They have a fun campus and great sports teams and it's a beautiful location and hey, people actually learn things there, too! What more could you want in a school?
The sad thing is, everyone else thinks that way, too, so poor UCLA gets approximately 8,750,342,976 applications per year for 39 spaces (actually, it's closer to 58,000 applications for 4,000 spaces, but you get my point). That is a lot of application materials to wade through, my friend. So they have to make the process difficult. That is the first test you have to pass - can you complete the application? I'm sure more than 58,000 people start the application process, but only 58,000 finish it. That's the first cut. So if it took you 12 hours and $120, you're 12 hours and $120 closer to the second cut. You've already beaten out those lazy bastards who couldn't think of a good reason why they wanted to apply there in the first place and gave up writing their essays after, "Since I was seven years old, my dream has been to live in California..."
So hang in there. It's tough. I know. And now you get to play the waiting game, which sucks even more. But I have my fingers crossed for you. If for no reason because I'm still hoping you write that sequel someday (but starring Zoe and Dean this time).
Bonus answer: I honestly didn't know there was a Hall & Oates song called "Adult Education," so I had to go look it up on YouTube. I'm guessing that if it had been on the radio in about 1986, I might have listened. I am a little bit confused by the half-naked Egyptian style wedding/sacrifice ceremony with a mentally challenged janitor and dudes in masks in the video. And I'm kind of scared by Oates' high-waisted pants. It's not a bad song. Probably not one I'm going to rush out to buy, though. But I do have to give you credit for random pop-culture references in your question. Kudos for that.
Thank you, J.R. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Christmas Tree
K.S. asks, "Will you be putting up a Christmas Tree this year? If so, please describe. If not, please justify."
No.
I thought about putting up a tree this year. I have the space for it now, and believe it or not, I'm actually kind of in a good mood. Today, anyway. See, normally, by this time of year, I just want to crawl into a hole and not see, hear, or interact with other people until sometime after Valentine's Day. But this year, I've already listened to a couple of Christmas songs on the radio, and I watched two Christmas specials on television. I even went into a store on Black Friday - something I have never done before - though I didn't buy anything. I was kind of surprised to find that there were about four customers in the whole store, so we each got to have at least two salespeople follow us around asking, "Would you like me to start a dressing room for you?" or suggesting, "That works great with a skinny jean, but not a legging." Silly man doesn't know that I won't go near skinny jeans OR leggings, and I'm not terribly interested in wearing a tunic blouse with Bedazzled shoulders. Anyway.
So I thought about it. I thought it could be fun and festive to have a tree this year. I had a tree in my own place once before and it was nice. My cat thought it was a giant water dish just for him (good thing I wasn't using plant food), and he and I did spend some quality time napping under the tree, so that was fun. But the thing about decorating one's living space for a particular holiday is that such decorations are most appreciated by others. You decorate and then you feel the need to have people over so they can say, "Wow, the place looks great. Where did you get those gingerbread lights?" And you may or may not know this about me, but I'm not a big people person. The thought of entertaining people in my home evokes in me a reaction akin to how most people feel about amputation - you know that there are probably occasions wherein it is a good idea, but you'd rather explore all of your other options first. Which means if I get a tree, only my cat and I will really see or enjoy it. And then I'll have to clean it up somehow. Believe it or not, they tend to frown on people throwing their used Christmas trees out the window onto the street. I could try to keep it alive until next year, but I don't necessarily have the best track record with houseplants.
So anyway, as opposed to creating all kinds of extra work for myself so I can have a sad little tree that nobody else will see, I decided to give myself the gift of not worrying about it this year. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Thank you, K.S. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
No.
I thought about putting up a tree this year. I have the space for it now, and believe it or not, I'm actually kind of in a good mood. Today, anyway. See, normally, by this time of year, I just want to crawl into a hole and not see, hear, or interact with other people until sometime after Valentine's Day. But this year, I've already listened to a couple of Christmas songs on the radio, and I watched two Christmas specials on television. I even went into a store on Black Friday - something I have never done before - though I didn't buy anything. I was kind of surprised to find that there were about four customers in the whole store, so we each got to have at least two salespeople follow us around asking, "Would you like me to start a dressing room for you?" or suggesting, "That works great with a skinny jean, but not a legging." Silly man doesn't know that I won't go near skinny jeans OR leggings, and I'm not terribly interested in wearing a tunic blouse with Bedazzled shoulders. Anyway.
So I thought about it. I thought it could be fun and festive to have a tree this year. I had a tree in my own place once before and it was nice. My cat thought it was a giant water dish just for him (good thing I wasn't using plant food), and he and I did spend some quality time napping under the tree, so that was fun. But the thing about decorating one's living space for a particular holiday is that such decorations are most appreciated by others. You decorate and then you feel the need to have people over so they can say, "Wow, the place looks great. Where did you get those gingerbread lights?" And you may or may not know this about me, but I'm not a big people person. The thought of entertaining people in my home evokes in me a reaction akin to how most people feel about amputation - you know that there are probably occasions wherein it is a good idea, but you'd rather explore all of your other options first. Which means if I get a tree, only my cat and I will really see or enjoy it. And then I'll have to clean it up somehow. Believe it or not, they tend to frown on people throwing their used Christmas trees out the window onto the street. I could try to keep it alive until next year, but I don't necessarily have the best track record with houseplants.
So anyway, as opposed to creating all kinds of extra work for myself so I can have a sad little tree that nobody else will see, I decided to give myself the gift of not worrying about it this year. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Thank you, K.S. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
The Meaning of Christmas
M.C. asks, "Dear miss kitty. I really missed this thread. So here is my first
question. What is the true meaning of Christmas?
Hi, M.C. I missed you, too. Though I am a little confused by the capitalization of all of the important words in your message except my name. No, no. It's okay. I'll just sit over here in the dark and eat bon bons. No need to worry about me.
Tee hee.
Anyway. Christmas. It is that time of year, huh? If we go by the store calendars, it's been that time of year for about three months already. For me, it's just starting to feel like Christmas time. Probably because it is snowing outside. Which, of course, has me hoping we don't get two inches because then they might take issue with where I parked my car and I'll have to move it. "Sorry, I need to take an extra hour around lunch time so I can try to find a different parking spot where they won't either tow me or plow the snow around my car so I can never get it back out. So hi, snow. You are lovely, but please don't actually accumulate today. At least not two inches worth. Quarter inch would be fine. A nice "dusting," as they say. Make us all feel cozy. Cover up the dog poop. Just not so much that they tow my car. Please.
Anyway. Christmas. I just watched "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" last night, and according to that show, Christmas is about singing. It had me wondering why nobody ever sings "Welcome Christmas" when they go out caroling. Everyone knows the melody, even if they don't know the lyrics. But a lot of the lyrics are nonsense anyway, so if you mess them up, nobody is going to notice. And/or, I'm sure people could find the lyrics somewhere on this newfangled contraption called "the interweb." People are just lazy, I guess. Or there isn't enough about Jesus in the song to add it to the list of acceptable carols. Or people just don't go caroling anymore. Anyone want to go caroling this year?
Anyway. Christmas. There was also a Shrek Christmas thing on last night that seemed to say that Christmas is about surrounding yourself with the people you love and who love you and letting things get totally crazy out of hand until you're ready to not see those people again for a very long time. Which kind of makes sense.
And there are those who will tell you that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, who was apparently a really cool dude who went on to do some groovy things later in life and a lot of people have decided to live their lives the way he thinks they should live their lives. Which is cool. If Christmas is a birthday party, then I think we're all doing it right with the decorations and the presents and the massive amounts of foods that aren't good for you.
If you want to look at the word "Christmas," though, you could break it down into two parts - "Christ" and "Mas." "Mas" is Spanish for "more," so we're probably safe in thinking that the whole word is Spanish. (MAS is also an acronym for the Muslim American Society, but that just makes things even more confusing.) "Christ" is Spanish for (oddly enough) "Christ." So Christmas means Christ-more in Spanish. Christmore. More Christ. Christmas is about more Christ. If you've got none, this is the time of year to go get some. If you have some, now is the time to get more. Enough with the trees and the reindeer and stockings. We should be putting up statues of Christ in our living rooms and covering them with Christ-shaped ornaments. We should put little Christs on the mantle with his arms outstretched to collect gifts of little chocolate Christs (like the chocolate coins in gold foil wrappers that are so popular with our Jewish friends). We should put light-up Christs on our roofs to light the whole neighborhood. More Christ! More Christ! There can never be too many! Buy a ham in the shape of Christ and serve it with a side of Christ-shaped cranberry sauce. You've been saving that grilled Cheesus sandwich for a special occasion? This is your special occasion! Give everyone you know little Christ statues as you wish them a Merry More Christ! He was a groovy dude (or hoopy frood, depending on what galaxy you come from), so spread him around as much as humanly possible during the holiday season.
And when your friends, family and neighbors tell you to knock it off already, what they really mean is "Thank you."
Thank you, M.C. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
question. What is the true meaning of Christmas?
Hi, M.C. I missed you, too. Though I am a little confused by the capitalization of all of the important words in your message except my name. No, no. It's okay. I'll just sit over here in the dark and eat bon bons. No need to worry about me.
Tee hee.
Anyway. Christmas. It is that time of year, huh? If we go by the store calendars, it's been that time of year for about three months already. For me, it's just starting to feel like Christmas time. Probably because it is snowing outside. Which, of course, has me hoping we don't get two inches because then they might take issue with where I parked my car and I'll have to move it. "Sorry, I need to take an extra hour around lunch time so I can try to find a different parking spot where they won't either tow me or plow the snow around my car so I can never get it back out. So hi, snow. You are lovely, but please don't actually accumulate today. At least not two inches worth. Quarter inch would be fine. A nice "dusting," as they say. Make us all feel cozy. Cover up the dog poop. Just not so much that they tow my car. Please.
Anyway. Christmas. I just watched "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" last night, and according to that show, Christmas is about singing. It had me wondering why nobody ever sings "Welcome Christmas" when they go out caroling. Everyone knows the melody, even if they don't know the lyrics. But a lot of the lyrics are nonsense anyway, so if you mess them up, nobody is going to notice. And/or, I'm sure people could find the lyrics somewhere on this newfangled contraption called "the interweb." People are just lazy, I guess. Or there isn't enough about Jesus in the song to add it to the list of acceptable carols. Or people just don't go caroling anymore. Anyone want to go caroling this year?
Anyway. Christmas. There was also a Shrek Christmas thing on last night that seemed to say that Christmas is about surrounding yourself with the people you love and who love you and letting things get totally crazy out of hand until you're ready to not see those people again for a very long time. Which kind of makes sense.
And there are those who will tell you that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, who was apparently a really cool dude who went on to do some groovy things later in life and a lot of people have decided to live their lives the way he thinks they should live their lives. Which is cool. If Christmas is a birthday party, then I think we're all doing it right with the decorations and the presents and the massive amounts of foods that aren't good for you.
If you want to look at the word "Christmas," though, you could break it down into two parts - "Christ" and "Mas." "Mas" is Spanish for "more," so we're probably safe in thinking that the whole word is Spanish. (MAS is also an acronym for the Muslim American Society, but that just makes things even more confusing.) "Christ" is Spanish for (oddly enough) "Christ." So Christmas means Christ-more in Spanish. Christmore. More Christ. Christmas is about more Christ. If you've got none, this is the time of year to go get some. If you have some, now is the time to get more. Enough with the trees and the reindeer and stockings. We should be putting up statues of Christ in our living rooms and covering them with Christ-shaped ornaments. We should put little Christs on the mantle with his arms outstretched to collect gifts of little chocolate Christs (like the chocolate coins in gold foil wrappers that are so popular with our Jewish friends). We should put light-up Christs on our roofs to light the whole neighborhood. More Christ! More Christ! There can never be too many! Buy a ham in the shape of Christ and serve it with a side of Christ-shaped cranberry sauce. You've been saving that grilled Cheesus sandwich for a special occasion? This is your special occasion! Give everyone you know little Christ statues as you wish them a Merry More Christ! He was a groovy dude (or hoopy frood, depending on what galaxy you come from), so spread him around as much as humanly possible during the holiday season.
And when your friends, family and neighbors tell you to knock it off already, what they really mean is "Thank you."
Thank you, M.C. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Comparative Beauty
E.C. asks, "Miss Kitty,
Which is more beautiful, a baby's smile, a perfectly prepared platter of buffalo tofu or a pet curled up on your lap?
In any of the above, how much is it's beauty reduced if experienced while watching a repeat of "Three and a half men"?"
Hi, E.C. Good to hear from you. Though I will say that I think your question requires a bit more clarification. I'm guessing you're asking which is more beautiful to me because beauty is subjective and the only opinions I can have are my own. Unless I steal someone else's, which happens from time to time, but in the stealing process, I usually add a bit of my own flare to make it mine. So I am going to answer your question from my own perspective. Because that is easiest and I'm lazy.
We can eliminate the platter of buffalo tofu right out. While the buffalo sauce may have a nice color to it, tofu is not pretty. It's just not. Tasty when smothered in buffalo sauce, but not pretty. Moving on.
The smile of a baby is gorgeous, as is having a pet curled up in your lap. If we are talking about my niece and my cat, that's a really tough call. If we're talking about this baby and my cat, my cat wins, hands down. Especially when he sort of rolls onto his side so I can scritch his tummy and he does that pawing at the air thing 'cuz he's happy and then he lets me hold his hand for a minute before he curls back up into a tiny ball with his paw over his eyes to block out any excess light that may be creeping in. Or when he is at the other end of the hallway and can hear me putting a blanket on my lap so he comes running, a flat out run to get into my lap and fall asleep, that just melts me. More than any random baby's smile ever could.
However, my niece is gorgeous. Seriously. I know everyone says their kid or their niece or their nephew is the cutest kid ever, but mine really is. I've been saying she is for the past year and a half she's been alive and then when I show people pictures of her, they go, "Wow! She really is cute," like I had been lying or making it up. She is what every parent hopes their child will be - adorable, smart, funny, sweet. Beautiful little kid. And when she smiles at you...let's just say she could make the Grinch's heart grow four sizes. Yes, she is cuter than Cindy Lou Who, who is pretty damn cute. Come on. If she crawled into your lap and asked for a Barbie Dream House, you'd go find one, body image issues be damned.
So it's a tough call. If my niece sat in my lap with my cat, who was curled up around my hand that was scritching his tummy, and my niece looked up at me and smiled, I think my head would explode from the beauty of it. So for the sake of my own health, here's hoping my niece never comes over to my house to meet my cat.
Side note: Really cute story. I met my cousin's new baby boy over the weekend. He's only five weeks old so he hasn't really learned to smile or make eye contact yet. But in that way that babies can psyche you out, there was a moment when he was lying on the floor and I was holding his hand that I swear he looked at me and the one corner of his mouth started to pull back like the beginnings of a smile. And I couldn't help it - I cried. Felt like a total moron, but this tiny, perfect, beautiful baby boy was trying to smile at me. How could I not?
Regarding the reduction in beauty given what I'm assuming is supposed to be an unpleasant outside circumstance (I've not heard of this "Three and a Half Men." I've seen a few episodes of "Two and a Half Men" - are they related? Did the change the name of the show since the kid grew up? Did the kid have his own kid and that's the new "half?"), I don't think outside circumstances have as much effect on the beauty of the situation as one might think. If one is as skilled at appreciating beauty as I am (and let's face it, I'm good), one can sort of tune out the background noise and just enjoy the warmth of the cat on my lap. And when we're playing with my niece, we're not watching TV. Or if the television is on, it's football. She loves football.
Thank you, E.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything.blogspot.com
Which is more beautiful, a baby's smile, a perfectly prepared platter of buffalo tofu or a pet curled up on your lap?
In any of the above, how much is it's beauty reduced if experienced while watching a repeat of "Three and a half men"?"
Hi, E.C. Good to hear from you. Though I will say that I think your question requires a bit more clarification. I'm guessing you're asking which is more beautiful to me because beauty is subjective and the only opinions I can have are my own. Unless I steal someone else's, which happens from time to time, but in the stealing process, I usually add a bit of my own flare to make it mine. So I am going to answer your question from my own perspective. Because that is easiest and I'm lazy.
We can eliminate the platter of buffalo tofu right out. While the buffalo sauce may have a nice color to it, tofu is not pretty. It's just not. Tasty when smothered in buffalo sauce, but not pretty. Moving on.
The smile of a baby is gorgeous, as is having a pet curled up in your lap. If we are talking about my niece and my cat, that's a really tough call. If we're talking about this baby and my cat, my cat wins, hands down. Especially when he sort of rolls onto his side so I can scritch his tummy and he does that pawing at the air thing 'cuz he's happy and then he lets me hold his hand for a minute before he curls back up into a tiny ball with his paw over his eyes to block out any excess light that may be creeping in. Or when he is at the other end of the hallway and can hear me putting a blanket on my lap so he comes running, a flat out run to get into my lap and fall asleep, that just melts me. More than any random baby's smile ever could.
However, my niece is gorgeous. Seriously. I know everyone says their kid or their niece or their nephew is the cutest kid ever, but mine really is. I've been saying she is for the past year and a half she's been alive and then when I show people pictures of her, they go, "Wow! She really is cute," like I had been lying or making it up. She is what every parent hopes their child will be - adorable, smart, funny, sweet. Beautiful little kid. And when she smiles at you...let's just say she could make the Grinch's heart grow four sizes. Yes, she is cuter than Cindy Lou Who, who is pretty damn cute. Come on. If she crawled into your lap and asked for a Barbie Dream House, you'd go find one, body image issues be damned.
So it's a tough call. If my niece sat in my lap with my cat, who was curled up around my hand that was scritching his tummy, and my niece looked up at me and smiled, I think my head would explode from the beauty of it. So for the sake of my own health, here's hoping my niece never comes over to my house to meet my cat.
Side note: Really cute story. I met my cousin's new baby boy over the weekend. He's only five weeks old so he hasn't really learned to smile or make eye contact yet. But in that way that babies can psyche you out, there was a moment when he was lying on the floor and I was holding his hand that I swear he looked at me and the one corner of his mouth started to pull back like the beginnings of a smile. And I couldn't help it - I cried. Felt like a total moron, but this tiny, perfect, beautiful baby boy was trying to smile at me. How could I not?
Regarding the reduction in beauty given what I'm assuming is supposed to be an unpleasant outside circumstance (I've not heard of this "Three and a Half Men." I've seen a few episodes of "Two and a Half Men" - are they related? Did the change the name of the show since the kid grew up? Did the kid have his own kid and that's the new "half?"), I don't think outside circumstances have as much effect on the beauty of the situation as one might think. If one is as skilled at appreciating beauty as I am (and let's face it, I'm good), one can sort of tune out the background noise and just enjoy the warmth of the cat on my lap. And when we're playing with my niece, we're not watching TV. Or if the television is on, it's football. She loves football.
Thank you, E.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything.blogspot.com
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Bieb
T.E. asks, "What do you make of the persistent tabloid rumors that " Miss Kitty " is actually the literary pseudonym of Justin Bieber?"
I can see a couple of gaping holes in your logic there, T.E. You might want to get an extra coat to cover those up or something.
First of all, I don't normally pay attention to tabloid rumors because they are (say it with me now) tabloid rumors. "Tabloid," coming from the Greek tablous, which means "three and a half pounds of beetle dung," and "rumor" from the Greek roomus, which means, "place where we can chat and have a cup of tea." So you're talking about three and a half pounds of beetle dung in the room where we are supposed to chat and have a cup of tea. I don't know about you, but I'm not too thrilled about having tea in there. I think we should find somewhere else to go, like, say, a reputable news source location? The AP perhaps? BBC News? I do like the BBC.
Secondly, and how do I put this gently?, Justin Bieber is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Granted, the kid is only sixteen or seventeen, so we can't expect him to be too worldly. Except, wait a minute, he's traveled all around the world playing his "music." And supposedly, his grandfather is German and he can count to ten in German so that means he's not a moron. I can count to ten and say a few nasty words in German, though, so I don't know that counting to ten automatically discounts moron status.
And while I am not really one to toot my own horn, I will say that my posts do tend to be rather well put together. They use proper grammar and spelling. So while I guess it could be possible that the same person who Tweeted "#NEVERSAYNEVER3D really shows u what it's like. u see how hard things can get and that life isnt perfect but then u see the great moments 2," could be the writer of this blog, I'm going to put that into the category of Not Bloody Likely.
Finally, I don't think the Bieb knows what a pseudonym is. He would just call me a poser. Or a hater. Don't be hatin' on the Bieb!
Thank you, T.E. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I can see a couple of gaping holes in your logic there, T.E. You might want to get an extra coat to cover those up or something.
First of all, I don't normally pay attention to tabloid rumors because they are (say it with me now) tabloid rumors. "Tabloid," coming from the Greek tablous, which means "three and a half pounds of beetle dung," and "rumor" from the Greek roomus, which means, "place where we can chat and have a cup of tea." So you're talking about three and a half pounds of beetle dung in the room where we are supposed to chat and have a cup of tea. I don't know about you, but I'm not too thrilled about having tea in there. I think we should find somewhere else to go, like, say, a reputable news source location? The AP perhaps? BBC News? I do like the BBC.
Secondly, and how do I put this gently?, Justin Bieber is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Granted, the kid is only sixteen or seventeen, so we can't expect him to be too worldly. Except, wait a minute, he's traveled all around the world playing his "music." And supposedly, his grandfather is German and he can count to ten in German so that means he's not a moron. I can count to ten and say a few nasty words in German, though, so I don't know that counting to ten automatically discounts moron status.
And while I am not really one to toot my own horn, I will say that my posts do tend to be rather well put together. They use proper grammar and spelling. So while I guess it could be possible that the same person who Tweeted "#NEVERSAYNEVER3D really shows u what it's like. u see how hard things can get and that life isnt perfect but then u see the great moments 2," could be the writer of this blog, I'm going to put that into the category of Not Bloody Likely.
Finally, I don't think the Bieb knows what a pseudonym is. He would just call me a poser. Or a hater. Don't be hatin' on the Bieb!
Thank you, T.E. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Can/May
T.E. asks, "As a writer both un-trained and un-talented, I frequently stumble with the correct usage of CAN/MAY. Please tell me which of the following is correct:
Unicorn tears CAN cure cancer / Unicorn tears MAY cause cancer."
You ask an interesting question, T.E. Under normal circumstances, I would just point out that "can" usually implies the ability to do something, i.e. "I can juggle seventeen jelly beans," or when doubled, it references a rather bawdy dance, whereas "may" usually implies either getting permission to do something, i.e. "May I beep your nose?" or some level of uncertainty, i.e. "I may get liposuction someday, or I may not."
But to bring unicorn tears into the mix makes this a much more interesting question. See, there really aren't that many unicorns left in the world, and they are terribly crafty so it's rather difficult to pin one down long enough to make it cry. And then you add in the fact that they are such beautiful, gentle creatures that anyone who does meet one instantly feels like pond scum for even considering trying to make one cry that modern scientists haven't really been able to collect enough unicorn tears to do proper testing. Which means at this moment, "unicorn tears may cause cancer," is a true statement because we don't know if they do or not. They may, they may not. We don't know.
However, if you look at some older texts, ones from back in the day when unicorns ran free all around the globe and were, in some cases, considered a scourge, you will find many instances where it is implied that unicorn tears do indeed have some sort of mystical curative powers - kind of like Fawkes' tears in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." If we take those texts to be true, then it could very well be a true statement to say, "Unicorn tears can cure cancer."
Personally, I think it is a little bit odd to consider that unicorn tears could both cause and cure cancer, which is maybe why we don't see unicorns cry very much - they're too scared of what their own tears may do to them.
Thank you, T.E., for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Unicorn tears CAN cure cancer / Unicorn tears MAY cause cancer."
You ask an interesting question, T.E. Under normal circumstances, I would just point out that "can" usually implies the ability to do something, i.e. "I can juggle seventeen jelly beans," or when doubled, it references a rather bawdy dance, whereas "may" usually implies either getting permission to do something, i.e. "May I beep your nose?" or some level of uncertainty, i.e. "I may get liposuction someday, or I may not."
But to bring unicorn tears into the mix makes this a much more interesting question. See, there really aren't that many unicorns left in the world, and they are terribly crafty so it's rather difficult to pin one down long enough to make it cry. And then you add in the fact that they are such beautiful, gentle creatures that anyone who does meet one instantly feels like pond scum for even considering trying to make one cry that modern scientists haven't really been able to collect enough unicorn tears to do proper testing. Which means at this moment, "unicorn tears may cause cancer," is a true statement because we don't know if they do or not. They may, they may not. We don't know.
However, if you look at some older texts, ones from back in the day when unicorns ran free all around the globe and were, in some cases, considered a scourge, you will find many instances where it is implied that unicorn tears do indeed have some sort of mystical curative powers - kind of like Fawkes' tears in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." If we take those texts to be true, then it could very well be a true statement to say, "Unicorn tears can cure cancer."
Personally, I think it is a little bit odd to consider that unicorn tears could both cause and cure cancer, which is maybe why we don't see unicorns cry very much - they're too scared of what their own tears may do to them.
Thank you, T.E., for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Friday, November 26, 2010
Woodchucks and Tootsie Pops
C.T.L. asks, "How much wood would a woodchuck would to get to the center of a TootsiePop?"
Whoa, dude, that's quite a mess of pop culture references there, isn't it? Some verbage problems, too, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Woodchucks. Poor, tired woodchucks chucking wood all day and now you expect them to would, too? I think we need a little more information about this particular woodchuck. What exactly would he would in order to get a Tootsie Pop in the first place? Is this like a new version of the "What would you do for a Klondie Bar?" commercial campaign? Though from the beginning of the question, we have to assume that there is wood involved. In which case that link is even more appropriate. Eep.
But apparently a woodchuck would wood would something to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. I think the next question is, "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" Or, how much wood would it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Which brings us to the whole structure of a Tootsie Pop thing - is this a new Tootsie Pop with a wooden stick? Is the wood being used to smash the Pop part to get to the Tootsie? Is it balsa wood, a dowel rod, or an oak 2x4, because that will have a lot to do with it, too. And/or, is wood the new form of currency in some new, futuristic alien land in which woodchucks are the dominant species and they are on a never-ending search for Tootsie Pops which are prized above all else for their rarity and chewy chocolaty goodness? In which case, we would need to take into consideration the exchange rate between wood, grass, and sugar on any given day. Sugar has been surging recently, but I think grass will be making a comeback due to the fact that winter is coming and it may be a little harder to find good, green grass. So would the amount of wood to get a Tootsie Pop be the same as the amount of grass? Not in this market. Any smart woodchuck will tell you that you shouldn't be buying Tootsie Pops in the wood market right now because they will clean you out. Woodchucks should be investing their wood in sugar futures to plan for spring because aren't they all going into hibernation right about now anyway?
So how much wood would a woodchuck would to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Twelve. And a half. But if said woodchuck held onto his wood until spring, he could probably get it for eleven.
All hail our new woodchuck masters.
Thank you, C.T.L. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Whoa, dude, that's quite a mess of pop culture references there, isn't it? Some verbage problems, too, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Woodchucks. Poor, tired woodchucks chucking wood all day and now you expect them to would, too? I think we need a little more information about this particular woodchuck. What exactly would he would in order to get a Tootsie Pop in the first place? Is this like a new version of the "What would you do for a Klondie Bar?" commercial campaign? Though from the beginning of the question, we have to assume that there is wood involved. In which case that link is even more appropriate. Eep.
But apparently a woodchuck would wood would something to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. I think the next question is, "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" Or, how much wood would it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Which brings us to the whole structure of a Tootsie Pop thing - is this a new Tootsie Pop with a wooden stick? Is the wood being used to smash the Pop part to get to the Tootsie? Is it balsa wood, a dowel rod, or an oak 2x4, because that will have a lot to do with it, too. And/or, is wood the new form of currency in some new, futuristic alien land in which woodchucks are the dominant species and they are on a never-ending search for Tootsie Pops which are prized above all else for their rarity and chewy chocolaty goodness? In which case, we would need to take into consideration the exchange rate between wood, grass, and sugar on any given day. Sugar has been surging recently, but I think grass will be making a comeback due to the fact that winter is coming and it may be a little harder to find good, green grass. So would the amount of wood to get a Tootsie Pop be the same as the amount of grass? Not in this market. Any smart woodchuck will tell you that you shouldn't be buying Tootsie Pops in the wood market right now because they will clean you out. Woodchucks should be investing their wood in sugar futures to plan for spring because aren't they all going into hibernation right about now anyway?
So how much wood would a woodchuck would to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Twelve. And a half. But if said woodchuck held onto his wood until spring, he could probably get it for eleven.
All hail our new woodchuck masters.
Thank you, C.T.L. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Oh The Games We Play
T.E. asks, "Why would anyone chose to be the wheelbarrow when both the Scotty dog and top-hat were still available?"
I think there is one thing you need to remember about humans in general to answer this question. Because yes, Scotty dogs are cute and yes, top-hats are dapper. But humans in general are lazy and wheelbarrows have wheels. Scotty dogs require cleaning up after, and top-hats can't do anything for themselves. Wheelbarrows require a minimal amount of pushing effort to move around the board. And if you happen to acquire other things along the way, you can put them in the wheelbarrow so as to avoid having to carry them. Like the bodies of your opponents as you mop the floor with them. Three hotels on Boardwalk Ave - eat that, suckers!
Thank you, T.E. for your question. Keep 'em coming! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I think there is one thing you need to remember about humans in general to answer this question. Because yes, Scotty dogs are cute and yes, top-hats are dapper. But humans in general are lazy and wheelbarrows have wheels. Scotty dogs require cleaning up after, and top-hats can't do anything for themselves. Wheelbarrows require a minimal amount of pushing effort to move around the board. And if you happen to acquire other things along the way, you can put them in the wheelbarrow so as to avoid having to carry them. Like the bodies of your opponents as you mop the floor with them. Three hotels on Boardwalk Ave - eat that, suckers!
Thank you, T.E. for your question. Keep 'em coming! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Romance?
G.H. asks, "I am a thirty-three year old heterosexual Canadian male living in the states with only a high school diploma. I have to take the bus to get to my job at McDonald's because I let my car get reposessed due to one-too-many DUI's. If you were me you would drink also. I have never had an actual relationship with a real, live girl. I'm always put in the 'friend zone.' Sure, women find me funny at parties and everything, but I am such a loser that no one ever takes me seriously as a potential romantic partner. I don't get it. I write in my facebook status almost every night about how I just want a woman who will wrap her arms around me and hold me but no one ever responds. To make matters worse, I recently realized that I am also a 'Furry.' I came out to some friends last weekend and they freaked out on me. It seems like it's perfectly ok to be gay or bisexual these days, but if you try to open up and admit you have a fetish you're branded as some kind of weirdo all of a sudden. Or maybe not so sudden. It all feels so hopeless, the darkness of my life just keeps getting worse and worse."
Hi, G.H. I'm sorry you're feeling crappy at the moment and I think there are a couple of things to address here, if the ultimate goal is, indeed, to find a girlfriend.
Please keep in mind that while I am a girl, I am by no stretch of the imagination a relationship expert. I have very little experience in this field myself, but from one human to another, there are a few things I can think of that may help. And/or if they don't, you're welcome to tell me to go piss up a tree.
First of all, I see a lot of negative language in your post. I know, I know, you're depressed and feeling bad about yourself so the negative words feel the most appropriate. I understand that - I have experience with depression, too. But what I will tell you is that those words aren't doing you any favors, either internally or externally. If you think of yourself in those terms and use those terms to describe yourself to others, other people can tell and will probably distance themselves somewhat. I'm not saying you have to run around calling yourself a prince or anything, but "If you were me, you would drink also," is really negative. Really negative. Is there anything you like about yourself? Maybe you make really good paper airplanes, or maybe you have a nice smile or something. If you can find one thing to like about yourself, no matter how silly or trite it may seem, hold on to that. When you feel like crap and feel the need to drink, remember the one nice thing about you. You never know. Thinking of one might inspire you to think of two or three more.
Second, I had to look up what a "Furry" was (thank you, UrbanDictionary.com!). I have, apparently, been living under a rock for the past few years. Did you know that Furrys have conventions and things? Have you ever thought of going? See, the thing about telling our closest friends our deepest secrets is that they will tease us mercilessly. That's what they do. And we tease them in turn. It's a really fucked up kind of communication that exists between humans where we feel the need to belittle one another. And particularly when it involves sexual preferences. I'm sorry your friends didn't take it so well. Thing is, you are not the only Furry in the world, and thanks to this lovely invention called "the interweb," you can probably find others and perhaps attend a convention or a party. You'll be surrounded by people who share your passions and love you for them. I'm not saying ditch your current friends - I'm sure you have history with them and share other interests and things. But if this is something that is important to you and your current circle of friends is less than supportive, go find some additional friends who you can share this part of yourself with. Just try to avoid using negative language about yourself when making introductions.
And finally, the Facebook status thing. Stop that. Nobody wants to read the same status message about desperation every night. I know being alone can suck. I did the math once and determined that I have been single for about 93% of my life, so I know what it is like to get lonely from time to time. Thing is, shouting "I'm lonely!" from the mountaintops isn't going to get you the kind of attention you're looking for. Even if someone did respond, you'd wonder if it was out of pity, or you'd wonder why it was girl A and not girl B who posted a comment. Facebook is not a good way of making real connections with people. It is a good way of keeping up with people you already know who live somewhere else. If you're looking for honest to goodness human-to-human interaction, find a hobby. Join an inter-mural sports league. Take up sailing. Learn to dance. Pick a venue that has bands you like and go there with some sort of regularity. Go out and find other people who do the things you like to do (and I'm talking about actually going to do these things, even if it means going by yourself at first. Posting an ad on Craigslist that says, "Anyone up for some darts tonight?" isn't going to get you what you're looking for. Going to a bar that has a dart board and asking if you can get in on a game might) and I guarantee you, you won't feel so lonely whether or not you find a girlfriend. And then you'll stop using negative language about yourself because it won't be the most appropriate language anymore. And then, you just may find a girlfriend.
I know it sound complicated and daunting. When I was seventeen, I met a boy in Spain who was the most gorgeous thing I had seen (to date) and I flirted with him quite a bit, and he with me, and we sat down one night to chat and he told me, "You're a great girl and I like you; you just need a little more self-confidence." I don't know if he actually thought the semi-colon when he was talking, but I hear it in my head when I hear him saying that to me. And my first thought was, "How the hell am I supposed to get any if rat bastards like you keep turning me down?" But in retrospect, I know what he was talking about. Particularly in terms of romantic relationships, people are drawn to those who make them feel good about themselves. And the best way to do that is to feel good about yourself first. It's hard. You many have to "fake it 'til you make it" for a little while at the beginning. And you have to have a lot of strength to keep it up. But you can do it.
Thank you, G.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Hi, G.H. I'm sorry you're feeling crappy at the moment and I think there are a couple of things to address here, if the ultimate goal is, indeed, to find a girlfriend.
Please keep in mind that while I am a girl, I am by no stretch of the imagination a relationship expert. I have very little experience in this field myself, but from one human to another, there are a few things I can think of that may help. And/or if they don't, you're welcome to tell me to go piss up a tree.
First of all, I see a lot of negative language in your post. I know, I know, you're depressed and feeling bad about yourself so the negative words feel the most appropriate. I understand that - I have experience with depression, too. But what I will tell you is that those words aren't doing you any favors, either internally or externally. If you think of yourself in those terms and use those terms to describe yourself to others, other people can tell and will probably distance themselves somewhat. I'm not saying you have to run around calling yourself a prince or anything, but "If you were me, you would drink also," is really negative. Really negative. Is there anything you like about yourself? Maybe you make really good paper airplanes, or maybe you have a nice smile or something. If you can find one thing to like about yourself, no matter how silly or trite it may seem, hold on to that. When you feel like crap and feel the need to drink, remember the one nice thing about you. You never know. Thinking of one might inspire you to think of two or three more.
Second, I had to look up what a "Furry" was (thank you, UrbanDictionary.com!). I have, apparently, been living under a rock for the past few years. Did you know that Furrys have conventions and things? Have you ever thought of going? See, the thing about telling our closest friends our deepest secrets is that they will tease us mercilessly. That's what they do. And we tease them in turn. It's a really fucked up kind of communication that exists between humans where we feel the need to belittle one another. And particularly when it involves sexual preferences. I'm sorry your friends didn't take it so well. Thing is, you are not the only Furry in the world, and thanks to this lovely invention called "the interweb," you can probably find others and perhaps attend a convention or a party. You'll be surrounded by people who share your passions and love you for them. I'm not saying ditch your current friends - I'm sure you have history with them and share other interests and things. But if this is something that is important to you and your current circle of friends is less than supportive, go find some additional friends who you can share this part of yourself with. Just try to avoid using negative language about yourself when making introductions.
And finally, the Facebook status thing. Stop that. Nobody wants to read the same status message about desperation every night. I know being alone can suck. I did the math once and determined that I have been single for about 93% of my life, so I know what it is like to get lonely from time to time. Thing is, shouting "I'm lonely!" from the mountaintops isn't going to get you the kind of attention you're looking for. Even if someone did respond, you'd wonder if it was out of pity, or you'd wonder why it was girl A and not girl B who posted a comment. Facebook is not a good way of making real connections with people. It is a good way of keeping up with people you already know who live somewhere else. If you're looking for honest to goodness human-to-human interaction, find a hobby. Join an inter-mural sports league. Take up sailing. Learn to dance. Pick a venue that has bands you like and go there with some sort of regularity. Go out and find other people who do the things you like to do (and I'm talking about actually going to do these things, even if it means going by yourself at first. Posting an ad on Craigslist that says, "Anyone up for some darts tonight?" isn't going to get you what you're looking for. Going to a bar that has a dart board and asking if you can get in on a game might) and I guarantee you, you won't feel so lonely whether or not you find a girlfriend. And then you'll stop using negative language about yourself because it won't be the most appropriate language anymore. And then, you just may find a girlfriend.
I know it sound complicated and daunting. When I was seventeen, I met a boy in Spain who was the most gorgeous thing I had seen (to date) and I flirted with him quite a bit, and he with me, and we sat down one night to chat and he told me, "You're a great girl and I like you; you just need a little more self-confidence." I don't know if he actually thought the semi-colon when he was talking, but I hear it in my head when I hear him saying that to me. And my first thought was, "How the hell am I supposed to get any if rat bastards like you keep turning me down?" But in retrospect, I know what he was talking about. Particularly in terms of romantic relationships, people are drawn to those who make them feel good about themselves. And the best way to do that is to feel good about yourself first. It's hard. You many have to "fake it 'til you make it" for a little while at the beginning. And you have to have a lot of strength to keep it up. But you can do it.
Thank you, G.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)