The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog. <- This came preformatted in the AR summary that WordPress recommends posting to your site. However, instead, the idea of helper monkeys just killed any motivation I had today.

I first learned about helper monkeys through, where else, The Simpsons:

All started well

All started well

 

Still working...kind of.

Still working…kind of.

 

But...

But then…

 

No comment necessary.

No comment necessary.

 

Pray for Mojo

Alas, Mojo couldn’t hang.

Ironically, about five years ago, I was editing a booklet of charitable organizations federal workers could opt to donate to. And, low and behold on my page – Helping Hands. It was like a sign from God. I dropped everything (much like right now) to google this amazing organization, and spent the remainder of the day giggling uncontrollably over the pictures on the site. It doesn’t hurt that my favorite author, David Sedaris, at the time was also smitten with the idea of helper monkeys, and donated his time to promote this charity.

logo

Helping Hands does great work, but gets very little recognition. Thus, I’d like to introduce you, one of my seven readers, to a nonprofit worthy of your last minute donations:

Meeting Monkey and Human Needs

We are a non-profit organization that helps adults with spinal cord injuries and other mobility impairments live more independent and engaged lives. We do this by providing them, free of charge, with a unique service animal: a highly trained capuchin monkey to help with their daily tasks.

Small Hands, Big Hearts!

With an attentive and affectionate monkey helper, our recipients are defined more by what they have gained than by what they have lost. It is impossible to calculate the value of this transformation. No price can be put on the independence, self-respect, joy, and sense of empowerment that our monkey helpers bring to their human partners.

Why Monkeys

The most obvious difference between capuchin monkeys and other service animals is their dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills. This enables them to perform tasks such as:

Turning pages
Scratching itches
Retrieving dropped objects
Inserting straws into bottles

Is a Monkey Helper Right for You? Apply for a Monkey

180494712.336.255

Something about this hundo doesn’t taste right

BAH! I’m going to hell b/c I’m dying writing this, particularly b/c it’s an actual organization doing great things. But the premise is just TOO.FUNNY. Ok I’m done.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask (I know I was!)

By Max Fisher, (Washington Post) Published: August 29

 Nerdy Girl insights and additions italicized

syriaForMax (2)

 The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.

If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.

Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

1. What is Syria? (Seer-ree-ahhh??)

Syria is a country in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It’s about the same size as Washington state with a population a little over three times as large – 22 million.  Syria is very diverse, ethnically and religiously, but most Syrians are ethnic Arab and follow the Sunni branch of Islam. Civilization in Syria goes back thousands of years, but the country as it exists today is very young. Its borders were drawn by European colonial powers in the 1920s. Big shock there – a country with arbitrary borders imposed by a band of bougie outsiders almost a century ago is in some sort of turmoil. If i had a nickle for every time i heard that problem…

Syria is in the middle of an extremely violent civil war. Fighting between government forces and rebels has killed more 100,000 and created 2 million refugees, half of them children.

2. Why are people in Syria killing each other?

The killing started in April 2011, when peaceful protests inspired by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia rose up to challenge the dictatorship running the country. The government responded — there is no getting around this — like monsters. First, security forces quietly killed activists. Then they started kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing activists and their family members, including a lot of children, dumping their mutilated bodies by the sides of roads. Then troops began simply opening fire on protests. Eventually, civilians started shooting back.

Fighting escalated from there until it was a civil war. Armed civilians organized into rebel groups. The army deployed across the country, shelling and bombing whole neighborhoods and towns, trying to terrorize people into submission. They’ve also allegedly used chemical weapons, which is a big deal for reasons I’ll address below. Volunteers from other countries joined the rebels, either because they wanted freedom and democracy for Syria or, more likely, because they are jihadists who hate Syria’s secular government. The rebels were gaining ground for a while and now it looks like Assad is coming back. There is no end in sight.

3. That’s horrible. But there are protests lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria? And, please, just give me the short version.

That’s a complicated question, and there’s no single, definitive answer. This is the shortest possible version — stay with me, it’s worth it. You might say, broadly speaking, that there are two general theories. Both start with the idea that Syria has been a powder keg waiting to explode for decades and that it was set off, maybe inevitably, by the 2011 protests and especially by the government’s overly harsh crackdown.

Before we dive into the theories, you have to understand that the Syrian government really overreacted when peaceful protests started in mid-2011, slaughtering civilians unapologetically, which was a big part of how things escalated as quickly as they did. Assad learned this from his father. In 1982, Assad’s father and then-dictator Hafez al-Assad responded to a Muslim Brotherhood-led uprising in the city of Hama by leveling entire neighborhoods. He killed thousands of civilians, many of whom had nothing to do with the uprising. But it worked, and it looks like the younger Assad tried to reproduce it. His failure made the descent into chaos much worse.

Okay, now the theories for why Syria spiraled so wildly. The first is what you might call “sectarian re-balancing” or “the Fareed Zakaria case” for why Syria is imploding (he didn’t invent this argument but is a major proponent). Syria has artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers, forcing together an amalgam of diverse religious and ethnic groups. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it, worsening preexisting sectarian tensions.

Zakaria’s argument is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. He compares it to the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, after which a long-oppressed majority retook power from, and violently punished, the former minority rulers. Most Syrians are Sunni Arabs, but the country is run by members of a minority sect known as Alawites (they’re ethnic Arab but follow a smaller branch of Islam). The Alawite government rules through a repressive dictatorship and gives Alawites special privileges, which makes some Sunnis and other groups hate Alawites in general, which in turn makes Alawites fear that they’ll be slaughtered en masse if Assad loses the war. (There are other minorities as well, such as ethnic Kurds and Christian Arabs; too much to cover in one explainer.) Also, lots of Syrian communities are already organized into ethnic or religious enclaves, which means that community militias are also sectarian militias. That would explain why so much of the killing in Syria has developed along sectarian lines. It would also suggest that there’s not much anyone can do to end the killing because, in Zakaria’s view, this is a painful but unstoppable process of re-balancing power.

The second big theory is a bit simpler: that the Assad regime was not a sustainable enterprise and it’s clawing desperately on its way down. Most countries have some kind of self-sustaining political order, and it looked for a long time like Syria was held together by a cruel and repressive but basically stable dictatorship. But maybe it wasn’t stable; maybe it was built on quicksand. Bashar al-Assad’s father Hafez seized power in a coup in 1970 after two decades of extreme political instability. His government was a product of Cold War meddling and a kind of Arab political identity crisis that was sweeping the region. But he picked the losing sides of both: the Soviet Union was his patron, and he followed a hard-line anti-Western nationalist ideology that’s now mostly defunct. The Cold War is long over, and most of the region long ago made peace with Israel and the United States; the Assad regime’s once-solid ideological and geopolitical identity is hopelessly outdated. But Bashar al-Assad, who took power in 2000 when his father died, never bothered to update it. So when things started going belly-up two years ago, he didn’t have much to fall back on except for his ability to kill people.

kind of like people with usedtatudes – they used to be cool, or attractive, or whatever, but they can’t deal with the fact that times a-change, and prefer to live in their glory days? Image

4. I hear a lot about how Russia still loves Syria, though. And Iran, too. What’s their deal?

Yeah, Russia is Syria’s most important ally. Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the United States has to go around the United Nations if it wants to do anything. Russia sends lots of weapons to Syria that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene.

The four big reasons that Russia wants to protect Assad, the importance of which vary depending on whom you ask, are: (1) Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union; (2) Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances; (3) Russia also hates the idea of “international intervention” against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia; (4) Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.

Iran’s thinking in supporting Assad is more straightforward. It perceives Israel and the United States as existential threats and uses Syria to protect itself, shipping arms through Syria to the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah and the Gaza-based militant group Hamas. Iran is already feeling isolated and insecure; it worries that if Assad falls it will lose a major ally and be cut off from its militant proxies, leaving it very vulnerable. So far, it looks like Iran is actually coming out ahead: Assad is even more reliant on Tehran than he was before the war started.

5. This is all feeling really bleak and hopeless. Can we take a music break?

Oh man, it gets so much worse. But, yeah, let’s listen to some music from Syria. It’s really good! I’LL be the judge of that…actually, I won’t be. I have a job to do. But let me know how it is.

If you want to go old-school you should listen to the man, the legend, the great Omar Souleyman (playing Brooklyn this Saturday!). Or, if you really want to get your revolutionary on, listen to the infectious 2011 anti-Assad anthem “Come on Bashar leave.” The singer, a cement mixer who made Rage Against the Machine look like Enya, was killed for performing it in Hama.

6. Why hasn’t the United States fixed this yet? <– Why would anyone assume that it’s the US’s job to ‘fix this’?? Isn’t that the world police image we’re desperately trying to shake? What an asinine assumption. If I ever meet anyone who thinks like that I’m going to punch them squarely in the throat.

Because it can’t. There are no viable options. Sorry.

The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching airstrikes or a “no-fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.

The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. But there’s no indication that either side is interested in that, or that there’s even a viable unified rebel movement with which to negotiate.

It’s possible that there was a brief window for a Libya-style military intervention early on in the conflict. But we’ll never really know.

7. So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?

Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.

It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

8. Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly.

You’re definitely not the only one who thinks the distinction is arbitrary and artificial. But there’s a good case to be made that this is a rare opportunity, at least in theory, for the United States to make the war a little bit less terrible — and to make future wars less terrible.

The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons.

You didn’t answer my question. That just tells me that we can maybe preserve the norm against chemical weapons, not why we should.

Fair point. Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire off some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.

That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.

9. Hi, there was too much text so I skipped to the bottom to find the big take-away. What’s going to happen?

Short-term maybe the United States and some allies will launch some limited, brief strikes against Syria and maybe they won’t. Either way, these things seem pretty certain in the long-term:

• The killing will continue, probably for years. There’s no one to sign a peace treaty on the rebel side, even if the regime side were interested, and there’s no foreseeable victory for either. Refugees will continue fleeing into neighboring countries, causing instability and an entire other humanitarian crisis as conditions in the camps worsen.

• Syria as we know it, an ancient place with a rich and celebrated culture and history, will be a broken, failed society, probably for a generation or more. It’s very hard to see how you rebuild a functioning state after this. Maybe worse, it’s hard to see how you get back to a working social contract where everyone agrees to get along.

• Russia will continue to block international action, the window for which has maybe closed anyway. The United States might try to pressure, cajole or even horse-trade Moscow into changing its mind, but there’s not much we can offer them that they care about as much as Syria.

• At some point the conflict will cool, either from a partial victory or from exhaustion. The world could maybe send in some peacekeepers or even broker a fragile peace between the various ethnic, religious and political factions. Probably the best model is Lebanon, which fought a brutal civil war that lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990 and has been slowly, slowly recovering ever since. It had some bombings just last week.

Recovery! ‘Some bombings’ = just a flesh wound

Image

Ok, I’m just going to put this out there – Lena Dunham reminds me of the childhood picture book character Little Critter. Don’t ask me why I think this, I just do. And I spent a solid 45min googling 90s books trying to remember what it was called. I now have the closure I need to begin watching GIRLS again.

Please note – this is nowhere near close to a ding on Ms. Dunham. For the most part I think she’s fabulous. She just happens to look like an anthropomorphic animal character created by Mercer Mayer.

girlsimages

arrow-down

index15

No?? Am I on my own on this one? That’s ok. I’ll just post more cover photos and geek out ‘cuz the week’s out.

tumblr_m322hf0S4W1r7lmjho1_400

index20

inde40x

Sooo, TV’s biggest waste of airspace, the Oscars, were on last night. Did you watch? I passed. I figured if Seth MacFarlane was hosting there would be more than a little bit of singing, and since that’s always the worst part of any Family Guy, Cleveland Show or American Dad episode, I wouldn’t be missing much. From what I gather from reviews of the show, I was right. Apparently the theme for the awards show this year was music in film or some such. As I’m not in a drama club, nor a Gleek, I’m glad I passed.
That said, I’m more than happy to pass judgement on everyone’s attire. Something I feel like people could benefit from remembering is that fashion and glamor are two different concepts – fashion is about the shock of the new, while glamor is defined by desire and mystery. Unfortunately, many in Hollywood try for both and possess neither. But that’s ok – the Oscars probably shouldn’t be viewed the same as Milan or Paris fashion weeks. Ultimately the red carpet is for the couch-potato critics like me – the velour tracksuit wearing, middle American living, People magazine readers.

I’m so jazzed that Jennifer Lawrence won! I for sure thought she didn’t stand a chance slash was kind of confused as to why she was nominated, but whatevs, good for her! And the best part is that now they can promote the next installment as, ‘Hunger Games Part 2 – starring Academy Award winner Jennifer Lawrence’. But there will be plenty of time for mocking that later – let’s get on to mocking the way people look.

Lawrence/Dior

Lawrence/Dior

Jennifer Lawrence pulled off the perfect red carpet look – plenty of drama but not too many complications. The silhouette of her dress was knockout, and there was no fussy styling details detracting from that. Her swept-back hair, neat silver clutch and delicate jewelry were all in harmony. She looked like a genuinely nice person who deserved to win. Bonus points – the internal structure of her dress kept it looking great from every angle. Plus, the texture seemed to ensure that it didn’t look shiny or crinkly. Likes it!

Hathaway/Prada

Hathaway/Prada

I think it’s safe to assume it wasn’t Anne Hathaway’s intention to be upstaged by her nips, but that’s exactly what happened (kind of like how on Friends there was a span of about 3 seasons where you could see Rachel was cold in every scene). It’s actually the darting in the dress, but the resulting look is the same. I don’t care for how the satin holds its shape all the way down – looks like a stiff bridesmaids dress or something you’d wear to prom circa 2001. Plus, I feel like the look is too angular and sharp. Apparently she started talking about poor/starving people in her acceptance speech? She needs to get over herself. Bring back Princess Diaries Mia.

Adams/Oscar de la Renta

Adams/Oscar de la Renta

I LOVE gray, possibly more than anyone else, but this dress just looks dirty. Or like a rain cloud a la jimmy dean breakfast commercials. Plus, it’s just too huge for words. I wonder how many times she was stepped on? And if she shed, haha, leaving a trail of feathers. ‘Oh, there goes Amy – heading toward the bathroom.’

25273_300

Witherspoon/Louis Vuitton

Witherspoon/Louis Vuitton

The color Reese Witherspoon chose to wear was gorgeous. Flattering, different and of the moment (read, trendy) while the cut kept her dress classic. Plus, it looked great with her old-Hollywood-styled hair. I like this older, post-Ryan Reese. She seems more at ease with herself and clearly doesn’t take herself too seriously.

Chastain/Armani

Chastain/Armani

Jessica Chastain looked elegant and timeless, but my first impression was ZZZZZZ. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like every time I see her she’s wearing some neutral-toned something or other and being pale with red hair. Yawn. However, the beading was nice and I’m digging her Harry Winston frosting.

Aniston/Valentino

Aniston/Valentino

Jennifer Aniston knows her brand and knows what the public wants her to be – the nonthreatening, smiley girl-next-door. She’s made a pretty decent career out of this, and she wouldn’t want to jeopardize anything by going off-brand in some cray Bjork dress. So, throw on a strapless something, have a great blow-out, and smile a lot. Bingo bango bongo. Job done.

Michael Douglas leads his wife actress Catherine Zeta

Yo! Catherine! Beyonce wants her dress back! Catherine Zeta-Jones is gorgeous. You know that, I know that, we all know that. But, more often than not, she leans showgirl, partic in swooshy metallic. I feel like at home Michael Douglas is just like, ‘Oh, you‘ while she parades around in headdresses.

Kidman/L'Wren Scott

Kidman/L’Wren Scott

My personal winner! Nicole Kidman is a must show for the red carpet – her choices tend to be either brilliant or brilliantly awful. This, I’d say, is one of the good years. Major props for wearing a gown straight off the catwalk (I know I said red carpets were not a place for high fashion – this is an exception). Her look is #27 from the London Fashion Week show by L’Wren Scott, which took place just last week. Add to that a demure smile and clearly besotted husband, and you’ve got yourself a winner.

Stewart/Reem Acra

Stewart/Reem Acra

This is an example of a ‘why is she here’ moment – Kristen Stewart. Maybe she presented. Idk. Suffice it to say, there isn’t a dress in the world that could make Kristen Stewart look like anything other than Kristen Stewart. There’s really no other way to describe it. She’s in Reem Acra, and it’s feminine and refined, but she’s on crutches and her hair looks insane and you get the feeling there either was a tantrum earlier or there will be one soon. But she’s K-Stew. That’s how she rolls.

When did Ashton Kutcher become bearable again? I saw him on the cover of the new Esquire this morning, and it was just a sudden realization – he’s hot and no longer douchey! It’s a happy day in girltown.

esquire-002

I’ve always thought he’s been amazing on That 70’s Show – his character practically single-handedly made the show a success. But then, I just got so tired of the whole goofy-fake-frat-guy-trucker-hat persona. This was probably around the time of Punk’d. Remember that show? Yea. It was like this whole little Justin Bieber phase (before there was the current toolish Biebzz).

2122-399x263

And then he married Demi Moore. And that was awkward b/c she’s like, legit old. Hot, but old. I mean, her daughters are practically the same age as him! He could have been watching Nick at Nite with them one minute, and banging out their mom the next. Just really bizarro.

demi-moore-ashton-kutcher-wedding03

But, then he became a cheating ex-spouse! And it really wasn’t cool, b/c, like, just don’t do that, jaknow? It’s bad enough to have Rumor Willis splashed across the tabloids, but to see your ‘step-dad’ in there too is beyond. Plus, filling in for Charlie Sheen on Two and a Half Men? WTF? That show is A. Terrible and B. Way over the shark, so why not just let it go? The ‘half man’ is freaking like 32 already. Not cute.

So, I guess that leaves his saving grace as Ms. Mila Kunis. Only the sexiest woman alive. I for realz love this girl and may or may not have posters of her up in my room. It’s that kind of crush. I think it’s so great that they got together – they had great chemistry on the show and they’re both fabulously good looking, and now apparently they’re close to moving in together! Swoon.

Presh!

Presh!

This is essentially an open letter to Mila – Thank you so much for bringing Aston Kutcher back from the brink of Twitter-obsession and Nikon promotion. Thank you for making it cool to be a fan of his again. And most importantly, thanks for having a normal, sweatpant-wearing, relaxed relationship. It’s great to know that it’s ok to wear comfies outside of the house. I mean, if the stars are doing it, it must be alright…right?

I was talking with my guy last night, and he brought up this MILF he used to know – slight, with fake tits and a nice ass – named Dorothy. I’m nodding along in agreement, noting the typical emphasis on petite women with huge boobs, when BAM! Stunned out of my reverie by the name Dorothy. I don’t know why I find this subject so funny, but I DIED laughing (slash am still chuckling right now thinking about it).

The incongruity between the idea of someone so sexy and an old-fashioned grandma name like Dorothy is just beyond amusing to me. I’ve been thinking about a growing list of unattractive names since then. Think about it – some names are inherently sexy, or, at least subjective enough to call to mind someone you once knew who was attractive. And others, well, they’re just not. How many hot Huberts do you know? Hmmmmm hotshot??

Precisely. Concurrently, the opposite is also true – some names call to mind more physical beauty than others. For instance, I feel like for guys the name Ryan is pretty much universally applied to attractive people. Ryan GOSLING, Ryan REYNOLDS, Ryan ZIMMERMAN – fairly there, all around.

(this just makes me laugh - SQUIRREL!)

(this just makes me laugh – SQUIRREL!)

So, without further ado, I give you my Not Hot list of names: Feel free to chime in with your own additions, or to argue mine. Ideally this will morph into a universal list of those to seek out/those to steer clear of. No one wants to gasp out ‘Dorothy’ in an intimate moment (I know there will be exceptions to this – I don’t care for details). Pretty much anyone who has a long name and refuses to go by a nickname is suspect in my book.

Not – Ladies

Agnes, Dorothy, Bertha, Betsy, Melaine, Melanie, Helga, Bernice, Matilda, Patrice, Patricia, Martha, Judith, Olga, Missy, Rebecca, Norma, Ursula, Eunice, Dolores, Agatha, Gertrude, Paula, Pam, Pat, Mable, Marge, Deborah, Peg(gy), Bailey, Shawn, Darlene, Mildred, Myrtle, Fawn, Doreen, Barbra, BARB etc. This list doesn’t even include all the white trash ‘Ys’ – Chrissy, Brittany, Misty etc. (See clip from Ted) or the ghetto D’s – D’Shauna, D’etrell, D’eseree.

Not – Gents

Millard, Franklin (and Frank), Richard, Bruce, Fred (and Frederick), Douglas (and Doug), Stewart, Chuck, Charles, Angus, Billy, Donald, Jamie, Otis, Curt, Ron, George, Paul, Harold (just saying it sounds like someone is holding their nose and whining), Maximilian, Ulysses, Joel, Graham, Geoffrey. Again, not even close to complete. But, it’s time for me to pack my knives and go.

JugEars

It’s the most wonderful time of the year (sung to the tune of that X-mas song) – LENT! Your favorite, my favorite, all the bodies’ favorite! 40 days (give or take – I’m not actually religious) of no fun!

images

In years past, I’ve given up a variety of things just to see if I could – with pretty much universal success. I’ve given up cheese (no pizza, nachos, bagels, lasagna etc), pasta (egads!) and sweets. I’ve even tried giving up Panera when I lived close enough to one to binge on a regular basis. But throughout the years I’ve staunchly avoided giving up the things that truly matter to me – soda and porn TV.

he would.

he would.

So, in the spirit of remembrance and self-control, I’ve narrowed this year’s contenders down to …drumroll please…fast foodstuffs, the EZ pass hot lanes, and reading novels at work for entertainment. (Note – soda is nowhere in this discussion. I’m good but I’m not that good.) If this were a democrazy I’d open up the polls for a true vote for picking my poison. However, seeing as how this blog is a straight up dictatorship, I’m going to go with fast food. Unless my guy isn’t in to that idea, in which case it would be too hard and I’ll quickly fold like a gay teen’s gym uniform.

this makes me sad.

this makes me sad.

I’ve also considered giving up spending monies on lunch, working during work hours, and the gym, but seeing as those aren’t things I ever really do anyways, it kind of defeats the purpose. Stay tuned to see how long I make it before cracking and ordering a full delicious box combo from popeyes or some beyond delicious waffle fries from the chic fil a. If I do manage to make it the entire time, I’ll be sure to rub it in each and every one of your haters’ faces.

josh hartnett - where have you been all my life?

josh hartnett – where have you been all my life?

%d bloggers like this: