Archive - Jul 2009

So, riddle me this one, joker:  How is it that some conservatives can cheer mightily when the Congressional Progressive Caucus threatens to kill the health care bill in the House because a deal was done with the Blue Dogs to get them on board...yet, when it comes to immigration reform amnesty they still argue heatedly that killing that particular bill was the right thing to do, was all about "conservative principles" and fighting back against the 'RINOs'? 

And, of course, vice versa, because the Dems chortled just as mightily when immigration reform bombed a few years back. 

That's some sweet, sweet hypocrisy you've got going on there, kids. 

Not like I want the damn bill to get passed in any way shape or form, but a blind man on a galloping horse couldn't miss the obvious in this situation.

God, that's nasty. 

So, Apple, reportedly, has come up with a Tablet PC, which will be unveiled in September along with a way to purchase albums from iTunes. 

I don't really care.  And I fail to see why I should care.  Tablet PC's have been out for ages---and they're getting better and better with each iteration.  This is nothing earth-shattering, although I'm sure there are a bunch of Mac worshippers out there, foaming at the mouth this morning, searching the web for more leaks on the subject, and will be first in-line to buy one, once it hits the market.  There won't be any more leaks---this one was timed to get the in-crowd primed.  I don't know why people like to be easily maneuvered by Apple.  Because that's what they do.  They maneuver you into the position where they want you: drooling over gear that doesn't have nearly as much functionality as they want you to think it does. 

Why do you people fall for it, again and again?  I don't understand it.  You're not idiots.  If you can work a computer, surf the internet, manage your music collection and use a smart phone, you have a decent level of intelligence.  Why do you want people telling you where to go on the web, what programs to use, what gear to have?  Why do you have to have your world nicely slotted, with Apple pegs to fill said slots?  I just don't get it.  Why do you keep going back to a company whose default position is that you're an idiot?

Look, I know there are a bunch of Mac junkies out there who would swear to their dying breath that Macs are better for any number of reasons---the ease of use, the compatibility with the iPhone and your iPod, that nothing seemingly ever goes wrong (which, the husband will tell you is a lie, because he gets Macs into his store all the freakin' time.  Which, of course, doesn't mention the rise of the "Genius Bar" in every Apple store across the world.  Why do you need geniuses if everything magically works?) that they're so much cooler, etc.---but, really, I don't give a flying fuck about your excuses as they're easily rebutted.  You cannot freakin' right click on a mouse with a Mac unless you buy a mouse that was originally intended to be used with a PC.  Do not tell me that Steve Jobs is a genius because he came up with GUI---because he didn't; he stole the idea from Xerox Parc, and everyone knows it.  Do not tell me in a smug tone, either, that you'll never get hit with a virus on your Mac.  That's not a selling point in my book because it means that, ahem, there aren't enough Mac users to justify hackers spending time on violating your precious graphic design files, not because you have some superior security systems in place.  Apple is an iPod company; it just needs you to have a computer because that's how you sync all your toys. Once they no longer need the computer to accomplish that task, Macs will go the way of the dod.  Why?  Because iPods are where it makes its money, and some day in the future, you're going to find yourself SOL.  They will get there.  Mark my words. 

The first computer I ever used was an Apple II.  Then I worked my way up to the IIe.  I learned to code on these computers, and I am forever grateful for that experience because, while I was in reality just coding a program in Basic to make a pixelated dog walk across the screen, it unraveled the mystery of computers for me. I have worked on Macs over the years, and I will admit I was grateful that they were easy to use, because, at the time, I didn't have the time to figure out how to use a PC to accomplish the relatively easy task of writing and printing out a paper.  But nowadays PCs can accomplish anything a Mac can do---and will do it better, faster, for less money, and with less interference from the maker.  This intereference is something I find overwhelmingly intrusive, and I don't understand why more people don't find it to be so. I do not want someone dictating to me what I can and cannot do with my computer. Yes, a PC will come preloaded with a large amount of Microsquash software; yes, it will try to tell me that this is the preferred way of doing something, but, at least with a PC, I have options, which is not something you have with a Mac. I will choose my internet browser.  I will choose my operating system (and, yes, that means I have the ability to stick with XP, because it's incredibly stable, even though Vista has been on the market for years and will shortly be overtaken by Windows 7.).  I will choose how to organize my music, and if I want to put a CD on my computer and my mp.3 player, I don't have to upload it to iTunes, and put it in a format that does not work with the gear I currently own---or want to own, because it limits my choices.  I have the freedom to choose; it would appear as if Apple users don't. 

Of course there are some dog PCs out there.  Believe me, I hear about it every day of the week from the husband.  He claims that eMachines keep him in business, and is currently rethinking his position as a Dell re-seller because he's had so much trouble ordering from them lately. And, yes, they are vulernable to malevolent intrusions.  I'm not denying any of this.  But these concerns aside, the cost of entry is much less with a PC than it is with a Mac; your options, again, are greater as far as what you can do with it, and if there's a better software option available, you'll be able to get it more readily with a PC than a Mac; but most of all, you don't have to buy a boatload of proprietary gear to get the full benefits of modern computing. 

Again, I don't really care about Apple. It's the greater phenomenon associated with the purchase of such a machine that interests me.  I just don't get why people seemingly enjoy having their choices ripped away from them simply because they got hacked one too many times when they owned a PC.  The husband will tell you that, most of the time, if your machine got hacked, or is incredibly slow because it's loaded with spyware, it was, most likely, your own damn fault. You went somewhere on the internet that you knew damn well you shouldn't have gone; you downloaded something that you shouldn't have; you opened an email attachment you shouldn't have; you allowed some nefarious program to make changes to your registry, etc.  Some spyware asks for your permission to work, and you, not really paying attention to whether this would be good or bad, are caught up in the instant gratification and, in a silly fashion, allow the changes.  He's more tactful, of course, when he explains this to his customers, but thems the facts. 

The husband's top two tips for safe surfing are:

1. Do NOT download ANYTHING from sites for kids.  And, yes, this includes sites you see advertised on Nick and Disney programs, because they are loaded with spyware.  He recently had a very satisfying moment when the mom of a pair of twins asked him to lecture these twelve-year-old girls after she'd paid hundreds of dollars for him to clean off their slow-running laptops.  Which had been purchased at the end of the school year. They'd gone nuts at these sorts of sites, downloading this freebie or that game, and had bogged up the works entirely in less than a month. He patiently explained that these games and freebies were put there specifically to put software on their computer to follow them around the internet, to spy on them.  They payed attention when their mother threatened them that if they did it again, and their machines had to go into the shop, the next bill was on them.   

2. This should go without saying, but avoid pr0n, because, again, those sites are loaded with spyware and that's where some of the malicious stuff on the internet resides.  

Safe surfing aside, why is it that people would rather not admit that they were foolish, once upon a time, and learn from the experience, hence making them a wiser user, but would rather switch to a system that doses the pabum in a shiny, easy to use, spoon---having their choices for something that's potentially tastier ripped away from them in the process?  Why would they choose to be used?

It doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, Bammy has achieved one of his campaign goals: making America popular again.

Barack Obama has restored America’s global standing to where it was before the Bush era, but many in the Muslim world remain hostile, according to a survey published on Thursday.

The Pew Research Center’s annual global attitudes survey indicated that people polled in 25 countries now had a more positive attitude towards the US. The exception was Israel, where approval dipped after President Obama courted the Muslim world in a June speech in Cairo.{...}

 If you want the actual "improvement" numbers, hit the link and you'll get the rundown.  But, the real whopper comes from Madeleine "Foggiest Bottom" Albright, idiot ex-Secretary of State.

“It is certainly better to have a president who is respected and who is popular than who is not,” said Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, referring to the contrast in international public regard for Mr Obama with that for former president George W. Bush. “We were in a hole in our reputation and leadership... There is a long way to go but it is much better to start here.”

For the most part, however, attitudes were negative in much of the Muslim world, including allies in Turkey and Pakistan. Only 14 percent of Turks gave the US a favourable rating, barely up on last year.

“I personally am a little surprised by the continuing Muslim numbers,” Ms Albright said. She described the Muslim and Western worlds as being in a “very deep rift”, which would “take some time to fix”.

So, according to Madeleine Albright, somehow, a. Barack Obama is now, apparently, the United States of America and b. she couldn't possibly understand how the numbers from Muslim countries could be bad when it comes to America's "popularity."

Barack Fargin' Obama is NOT the United States of America.  He's not God.  He's not Jesus.  He is a politician.  Who happened to get elected, God only knows how, President of the United States of America.  That does not mean he is now the actual country.  One does not equal the other. He is not the land north of Mexico and south of Canada, between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  I know Europeans are stupid this way, and could actually believe this, but you can't travel to Obama's navel, like you would Yellowstone National Park.  His shoulder is not Chicago.  His ears are not San Francisco.  His dreamy brown eyes are not New York.  He is the president, but he is not America.  How hard is that to understand? 

Oh, yes, I'm probably taking this a little too literally, but how the fuck do you equate America's supposed new popularity with Barack Obama?  America is a country.  It's ridiculous. Barack Obama is one of its citizens.  He is not the country; he's just another citizen, despite his job. He will leave office someday.  You might want to gird your loins for that, because, according to the Constitution, the peaceful handover of power is absolute, and one day he will either get spanked out of office (hopefully) or will leave after two terms.  Are you going to hate my country then, depending upon who's elected?  Who the fuck are you to say which way we should go?  That's our business.  If you want a say in it, move here, gain citizenship, and effin' vote, you assholes.  Otherwise, it's none of your goddamned business.  I would never say, "Oh, I hate Germany because Angela Merkel is Chancellor. I would never visit because she's in charge.  I hate them!"  Why wouldn't I say that?  Because it's none of my goddamned business who the Germans elect to be Chancellor.  Neither is it any of my business to say Ahmadinejad is a good reason to hate Iran. Because then you're proclaiming dislike for millions of people based on the cock-eyed views of one man. It's patently unfair to the people of the country to have their worth judged solely on who happens to be running the joint.

But, apparently, no one has a problem doing that to America.  America's fair game.  We can only be popular if a democrat is at the helm.  

Fuck that.  

Bammy's no better than the rest of us, but, because he's a politician, he might actually be worse. If you came to America, you might learn that the majority of the citizenry hate politicians because they're a bunch of lying windbags, who only look after themselves.  If you think positively of America now that Bammy's in office, well, you're stupid.  America has THREE HUNDRED MILLION people living here other than Bammy.  Come and visit.  You might like the landscape.  You might like some of us.  You might not.  But to base your opinion of a country solely on its elected leadership means you're an uneducated, poorly travelled idiot. 

I can understand how it helps to get things done on an international basis, fair or not, when you've got someone at the helm who is respected by all.  Witness the seemy underbelly of international trade negotiations.  Peter Mandelson---who is now a cabinet member for Gordon Brown and who is now Lord Mandelson to you, you common peon---a few years back was the EU Trade Commissioner, and he made it patently clear he wasn't going to make any concessions on the EU's agricultural subsidies until the US did.  Which was complete and utter bullshit, because President Bush had already said, repeatedly, to the EU that if they made cuts, the US would follow, which, at the time, was a rather large possible concession, meant to move trade talks forward. Bush meant it, and was willing to take the heat from the agricultural community for it if the EU bit.  Mandelson meant his statement, as well, yet the difference was that Mandelson didn't want to make any concessions, because the French would have strung him up by his thumbs if he did, so he used Bush's unpopularity, and the general opinion of him as the bad guy, as a convenient excuse for getting out of actually negotiating for change.  Mandelson was a weasel, and he got away with it, simply because Bush was unpopular.  There are a thousand different examples from the world of IGOs to further this point.  Bush was unpopular from Day One, simply because of who he was and what he represented. No one wanted to do business with him, and, furthermore, people cheered and screamed with delight when Hugo Chavez spoke from the podium at the UN General Assembly when he said he smelled sulfur in the air after Bush spoke.  It's not pretty, but those are the facts.  It helps to be popular.  Or at least unassuming.  43 was neither of those, and it did make things harder for him. 

That aside, why should popularity, of all things, be what greases the skids?  And I'm not talking about "majority wins" here; I'm talking about this absurd notion that someone who is popular is always better.  Why does it matter?  I really dislike this crap, because it means that the only people qualified to get things done, apparently, are the Prom King and Queen, and the Captain of the football team and the cheerleading squad. Get over thinking high school is the ruling paradigm of life, for chrissakes.  Why do you accord more status to the jerk whom everyone likes rather than the spotty geek in the corner whom everyone hates, simply because no one gets them, but who is smarter than everyone else combined?  It makes no sense.  Get a spine already and get over it. 

I've rambled on long enough.  Time to end this post before it gets even more incoherent than it already is. 

Just in case you, my devoted Cake Eater readers, depend upon me entirely for your news, today, July 20th, is the 40th Anniversary of the moon landing. 

And they did this all with less computing power than is in my cell phone. 

Amazing. 

And for you conspiracy theory nuts who keep insisting that the moon landing never happened, that it was all staged on a set in Burnbank, that flags don't wave on the moon because there's no atmosphere or wind and THAT PROVES IT DEFINITIVELY (even though that was a result of the effin' rocket wash, you dolts!) you should shut your pieholes, definitively, or I'm going to send Buzz Aldrin after you.

Nicely done, Buzz. 

Courtesy of the husband's wild surfing ways, we have this little gem this fine Monday morning: Company Denies its Robots feed on the Dead.

Would you like some brainssss with your Cheerios this morning?  Well, too bad for you---because DARPA, Cyclone Power Technologies and Robotic Technology would like to reiterate that what's been rumored in the media about one of its robots is patently false.

POMPANO BEACH, Fla.– In response to rumors circulating the internet on sites such as FoxNews.com, FastCompany.com and CNET News about a “flesh eating” robot project, Cyclone Power Technologies Inc. (Pink Sheets:CYPW) and Robotic Technology Inc. (RTI) would like to set the record straight: This robot is strictly vegetarian.

On July 7, Cyclone announced that it had completed the first stage of development for a beta biomass engine system used to power RTI’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR™), a Phase II SBIR project sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office. RTI’s EATR is an autonomous robotic platform able to perform long-range, long-endurance missions without the need for manual or conventional re-fueling.

RTI’s patent pending robotic system will be able to find, ingest and extract energy from biomass in the environment. Despite the far-reaching reports that this includes “human bodies,” the public can be assured that the engine Cyclone has developed to power the EATR runs on fuel no scarier than twigs, grass clippings and wood chips – small, plant-based items for which RTI’s robotic technology is designed to forage. Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI.

“We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population, but that is not our mission,” stated Harry Schoell, Cyclone’s CEO. “We are focused on demonstrating that our engines can create usable, green power from plentiful, renewable plant matter. The commercial applications alone for this earth-friendly energy solution are enormous.”

I LOVE that they felt the need to put out a press release to tell the world that, no, their robot doesn't eat flesh. 

Do we live in an awesome world or what?

As if all the rest wasn't bad enough, the Prez throws like a girl. 

Sarah "Barracuda" Palin and the Piranhas of the Press.

{...}From the beginning, and for the ensuing 10 months, the coverage of this governor consisted of a steamy stew of cultural elitism and partisanship. The overt sexism of some male commentators wasn't countered, as one might have expected, by their female counterparts. Women columnists turned on Sarah Palin rather quickly. A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary.

 

"The fact of the matter is, the comparison between her and Hillary Clinton is the comparison between an igloo and the Empire State Building," Chris Matthews said on MSNBC's "Hardball" last October. (Note to Chris: That's not a "fact;" it's closer to a simile, and an ad hominem one at that.) But Matthews was hardly alone.

 

"This is not a serious choice," said Eleanor Clift, a regular on "The McLaughlin Group."
 

"It looks like a made-for-TV movie. If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in very, very many newsrooms."

Howard Fineman, Clift's Newsweek colleague, in an appearance on MSNBC, said that McCain's choice of Palin undermined the planned story line of the GOP convention, which was going to be that Obama lacked the readiness to lead the country. "Well, Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams."

 

The first thing reporters and commentators seemed to have noticed about Gov. Palin was her physical beauty. The second was that she had a bunch of kids, the last one born with Down's syndrome in spring 2008. For some reason, these two facts infuriated many Democratic activists and bloggers – and some liberal journalists.

 

The most egregious example was posted on Daily Kos on Sept. 12, 2008 by Paul Lewis Hackett III, a trial lawyer and U.S. Marine Corps veteran of Iraq, who ran in 2005 for a vacant seat in the House from Ohio's second congressional district, losing narrowly in a district President Bush had carried easily just a year earlier.

Fretting that the Obama campaign was going to lose Ohio to McCain, Hackett proposed his own solution: A series of savage attacks on the GOP ticket focusing on Sarah Palin and her family. Here is what he wrote:

 

The message (would be) simple and the professionals can refine it but essentially it should contain these elements: Sarah Palin? Can't keep her solemn oath of devotion to her husband and had sex with his employee. Sarah Palin? Accidentally got pregnant at age 43 and the tax payers of Alaska have to pay for the care of her disabled child. Sarah Palin? Unable to teach her 16 year old daughter right from wrong and now another teenager is pregnant. Sarah Palin? Can you trust Sarah Palin and her values with America's future?

 

Apparently, Hackett took the rumors of an affair from the National Enquirer, which offered no proof, or even evidence. He then segued into an even uglier line of attack, arguing that it's irresponsible to bring a handicapped baby into the world. This is not "pro-choice," it's pro-eugenics. It's also creepy and illiberal, and reinforces conservatives' worst fears about Democrats and the issue of abortion. And, oh yes, Bristol Palin's age was wrong. She was nearly 18 when Hackett wrote this screed, not 16. This proved a harbinger, too, as misinformation slipped easily from the left blogosphere into mainstream coverage.

 

This New Journalism, if you can call it that, exhibited in 2008 was epitomized by an eradication of the lines between fact and opinion – and, even more troubling, between reporting and propaganda. Some journalists were content to repeat Democratic Party talking points or bloggers' rumors as though they were established fact, interspersing them with ideological commentary in a kind of toxic stew.

"She is a far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over Bush in 2000. She thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools," wrote Jonathan Alter in Newsweek on Aug. 29, 2008. Actually, she did not support Buchanan, she questioned whether climate change is man-made (not whether it's occurring) and gave creationists the most minor of rhetorical nods – and never questioned the teaching of evolution in schools.

 

But so it went.{...}

 

By far, this is the best rundown on the shameful doings of the press during the election. 

Go read.  It's long, but it's well worth your time. 

The husband recently acquired (yes, that's a good a word as any, I suppose) the first season of A Bit of Fry and Laurie, and we just started watching it.  I've never seen the series in its entirety before, just bits and pieces (I crack myself up!) on ye old YouTube.   

I've seen this before, but it's still hysterically funny.  I thought I'd share.

How did Fry get through that without cracking up?  I love him. 

Aside from a quick downpour on the 4th of July, we haven't had much rain for the past two weeks.  Normally, that wouldn't bother me.  One thing has changed though, and it's that we're spending our summer in our "new" residence. 

And it seems just to get unbearably muggy in here.  All the time. 

I have, I will admit, not been shy about turning on the AC.  This is odd for me.  I'm what you'd call "weird" when it comes to air conditioning. I am not one of those people who constantly keep their house closed up, and the air conditioning always on, like I would normally run the furnace in the winter.  I was raised not to run the cooling machinery unless you really needed it, i.e. you were sweating, uncomfortable and logy, and it was ninety degrees outside.  My mother had two constant refrains during summer when I was a kid: "Open it up!"  or "Close it up!"  Yes, these were demands.  This meant, depending upon which order we received, we were all to get up from what we were doing and were to run around the house (and this was in a three-floor, five-bedroom, colonial that looked an awful lot like the Amityville Horror house, with at least three windows in every room) closing or opening windows on Mom's demand.  It was so common a chore that I never really was bothered by it...except for the bit abouthaving to go up to the third-floor, which was my brothers' room at the time, and close the windows up there.  I had three reasons for this objection: first, it stank, because, being adolescent males, well, there really was no option for it not to stink---particularly when they both had jobs at an Italian restaurant as bussers, and every pair of Addidas tennis shoes they owned filled the air with the odd mixture of sweat, foot funk, and spaghetti sauce, which, of course, says nothing of my brother Mike's perpetually stinky soccer gear ; second, because it was yet another flight of stairs to climb; and third because it was freakin' hot up there.  When you came back down after closing the third-floor windows, you were noticeably logy.  I don't know how my brothers actually managed to sleep up there without the AC.  It would have driven me nuts.  

Never mind that the "cat's eyes" windows in their bedroom didn't have screens on them, and bees liked to place their hives in the eaves right next to the windows, and there was always the chance of being stung.  I don't know that anyone actually did get stung, but it was always a risk, as you could see the bees floating around outside the windows if you stuck your head out.  And I really didn't like bees at that particular point in time. 

I have, of course, turned into my mother in this regard, and the husband generally doesn't mind, when I say, "Open it up," after having gone outside to gauge the atmosphere for myself, and to see whether it's compatible with having the windows open.  It's rare when he overrules me in this regard. Ever since the husband came back from Kuwait---and this was almost ten years ago, people---he has a profound dislike of air conditioning.  When he worked there, he had the misfortune of being there for part of Kuwait's brutal summer---and, lest you think it's just like being in Arizona, know that it's not: Kuwait's heat is of the wet variety, having their back to the desert notwithstanding, because they're right on the Arabian Sea.  At this time, he wanted to come home.  Badly.  Things were not going well with the project he was working on, and he felt trapped, which no one likes to feel, but something the husband dreads more than most. Not only at work was he trapped, but in his cheapskate hotel room, as well, where he'd been relegated to spending most of his time. His per diem had magically dried up, and he was forced to eat a neverending string of room service club sandwiches while watching CNN International or MTV Asia, because that was the only thing the hotel kitchen produced well, and because the only bill these people were paying was for his hotel room. (And, even then, after he left, the husband got emails from his business partner's friends wondering why he'd run up the bill, insisting with his actions that he'd brought shame to said business partner.  The nerve of these people never ceases to astonish me.)  To my knowledge, he hasn't eaten a club sandwich since.  The only time the husband could get out of the room was at night, when he would be the sole sweaty person roaming around downtown Kuwait City, because everyone with means had gotten the heck out of there, and everyone without, and who were stuck there, was asleep. The husband needed some fresh air.  Often. Even then, it the dead of night, it was still ninety-some degrees outside, and it never got much better.  He would call me from his cell during his wanderings, and would detail the misery for me.  I felt utterly helpless.  Ever since then, it's been my guess, that air conditioning makes him, on some subconscious level, relive the feeling of being trapped, like he was during that summer.  He claims it's just because he doesn't like to listen to the fan, or have it blow on him, but his dislike is too profound for me to exclude my guesses.  So, I'm generally hesitant to turn the AC on, even in menopausal hot-flash hell---which, if you think about it, means I should never go near the thermostat, because I run hotter than most people---and am apologetic every time I do, because I know he doesn't like it. 

But there are times when I can't push past my annoyance and discomfort and just have to turn the freakin' thing on.  Like now.  It's seventy-six outside, and, at a little before eleven am, I'm toying with the notion of turning it on, despite the cool breeze that occasionally wafts in from the north-facing window next to my desk.  Not because it's too hot, but because it's muggy and my skin is starting to stick to my nightgown (which, yes, I'm still in, because I'm at home.  And you all are jealous, because I'm still in my jammies and you wish were in yours.), and to other bits of skin. I don't like this.

Humidity is uncomfortable in this new house.  I can't figure out why, because it's not like we moved cross country, but rather moved four blocks away, and the weather obviously isn't different. Sure it bothered me in the past, but then again, the toilet tank in the old place never dripped with condensation like it does here when it gets too muggy. I think, partially, it must have something to do with our proximity to the ground, and that makes it more humid.  The old Cake Eater pad was on the second-floor of a duplex, and while heat rose, we didn't get the same amount of humidity that we do here.  Or at least that's what it seems like. Maybe we had more cross-breeze at the other house. I don't know. During the day, I spend the majority of my time in our home office, on the second floor, with only two windows to bring in air----on the north and south sides, respectively, because the people who converted the second floor to useful space simply walled-over the windows in the middle, rather than work around them.   (So, yeah, you can see these same windows from the outside of the house, but you know they don't go anywhere.)  This means the air flow up here in the office, despite the fact I have fans running, is not so good and the humidity lingers.  It reminds me way too much of having to go up to the third-floor when I was a kid, suffering the incessant Nebraska summer heat coming off the roof, just to shut the windows that looked like a pair of cat's eyes.  The only difference now being that there is no Addidas foot-funk/spaghetti sauce aroma coming off my brother's shoes to annoy and disgust me, and that I generally can't escape it because I, ahem, work from up here.  

I just wish it would rain already and would clear things out, even for a short while.  We're gagging for rain here.  I read in the paper yesterday that we're two inches down from normal this summer, despite the humidity. Which is weird, but is just how it works around here.  We even had a fog roll in on the 4th, during the fireworks show, because it was so muggy.  That's not something that happens every day around here. Every day this week, in the morning and evening, the skies have turned threatening, but haven't produced anything in the rain department.  If it rained and cleared out the humidity, I wouldn't have to turn on the AC, and make all sorts of apologies to the husband, and it will be comfortable without it.

Sigh.

You see the little problems that occupy my mind?  Very silly, I know.  Believe me, I can't believe you've read this far down into this post, because I know I probably wouldn't have.