I initially made this change because I like to keep a running count of the number of unread books I have, and it was a pain in the ass to count when the unread novels were mixed within the read ones. I was not expecting it to triple my literary consumption, but there you go.

I imagine this change lowered the barrier to entry for reading a new book; instead of confronting hundreds of books at once and having to remember whether I’d read each one, I now have 83 [fiction] books to choose from and I already know I haven’t read any of them. I then use the Random Number Generator to pick the next book, which adds an element of suspense/surprise. (Also, I’ve been doing a ton of writing lately, and I find reading a good book—not blogs or other online reading—to be the best way to take a short break and pick up re-energized.)

So, the Random Number Generator’s latest pick was The Brothers Karamazov, a book which I’ve started reading three different times over the years but always ended up putting down (not because it wasn’t good, but because it was too thick to travel with, and I was on the road 90% of the time back then). I’m now about halfway in, but I feel as though I’d have a deeper appreciation for many of the themes if I actually understood more of the biblical references.

I have fought reading the Bible for a long time. I’m not remotely religious, and with the infinite number of other ways I could spend my time, reading a lengthy tome I knew I would hate just never appealed to me. I ended up buying the King James version a few years ago, though I don’t quite recall what led me to get it. (It literally may have been the last time I picked up Brothers Karamazov.)

When I finally picked it up a couple days ago, I was determined to have an open mind. After all, stories in the Bible have influenced many of my favorite books. Even if I don’t believe in god, there’s probably some literary value, right?

I made it about 20 pages in, frequently Googling things, like: Who was Cain’s wife? (Only possible answer: his sister. Gross.) But I just can’t make it past Genesis 9:20.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken: and he was uncovered within his tent.

And Ham [Noah's son], the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

And he said, Cured be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Huh? Noah’s sons saw him passed out drunk and naked, so his grandson should be cursed?

I look to the footnotes:

Ham…saw the nakedness of his father: While many suggestions have been suggested for this phrase, it is best to take it to mean merely what it says. There is no indication of any gross violation. The phrase indicates that this violation of privacy was merely the beginning of eventual sexual degradation.

So why not curse Noah for being naked? Or Ham for seeing him naked? What did poor Canaan do to deserve a curse?

I Google this section and learn that saw the nakedness of his father actually means Ham raped his mother, who gave birth to Canaan. Whoa there, tiger.

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between seeing your dad naked and raping your mother. Really big. Really, really big. Although, in either case, poor Canaan still doesn’t deserve punishment. In fact, I don’t understand how anyone can remotely consider god to be just or fair or loving or kind or basically any positive adjective. If he existed (and he doesn’t), he’d be the perverted uncle who rapes toddlers. (And if you believe he is real, he already is raping toddlers, if you think about it. Or is he teaching them a loving lesson? *gag*)

This is just too silly to be worth a moment more of my time, and I now find it even harder to have any respect for religious people or for anyone who claims the Bible has literary value. The reason it’s referenced so often is that it came first, so references to its stories are more widely understood. That’s it.

Lips from the Dairy Queen commercial:

Lips from Rocky Horror Picture Show:

Now, I love me some Rocky Horror, but isn’t Dairy Queen supposed to be family-friendly or something?

I like that our bodies are largely a reflection of our dedication and commitment to our own health. If I pig out for a week (or, more likely, spend a week straight drinking at Seattle tech events), I have to jump up and down to get my jeans to zip, which at least keeps me partially in check. (I recognize this and am careful never to own pants larger than a size four.) Last week I biked home five blocks from yoga class and could barely make it, which was a kick in the head that I am no longer the fit chick who spent 90 (productive) minutes a day at the gym.

Now it is a question of my personal integrity and dedication to my health: will I return to my fit chick habits, or will I allow myself to deterioriate?

It makes biological sense that size is tied to our perception of beauty – we want a healthy mate to make healthy babies, and a larger person is probably not healthy. Since I cannot have and do not want any babies, I like to think it’s not just about “health” as an abstract term. When I’m consistently eating right and hitting the pavement for a run, sure, I’m thin. But I also need less caffeine. My mind is clearer. I get (even) more done. My libido quadruples. I sleep hours less a night. My neck doesn’t hurt. I’m happier, and calmer.

Will a pill give me all that? No. (Well, perhaps a hefty cocktail of pills could – ha.) And I wouldn’t want it too. It may, technically, be “efficient,” but at far too high a cost, personally and societally. If I want benefits, I want to earn them.

(Final note: I really do understand that some people have medical conditions that affect their size. But it’s a very small percentage of people, and, to be frank, nature is also giving a warning sign here that your system’s not working quite right.)

(Seriously… why would someone buy carbon credits? Do people need another way to feel like they can change the world from their couch? I would be happy to be proven wrong. I fear I am right.)

If your job is to blog, I think you can take two fucking seconds to spellcheck your posts. One pro-blogger in particular seems to have a handful of egregious grammatical errors in every post. Cut it out. If I could find the Unsubscribe button in my German Firefox build, I’d click it!

Below is an episode of “Dildo Diaries” chronicling this legislative embarrassment. (This is not safe for work. Duh.)

This whole mind-boggling issue aside, I am most struck by the truly enviable level of professionalism displayed by the store clerk at the sex store. Wow. I would trust her with top-level government security work any day. Not just anyone can stand behind a glass case of dildos and tell you, completely seriously and with a completely straight face, that they do not sell dildos there.

Source: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/05/its-about-life-babies-life-babies/

A 16-year-old Argentine girl has given birth to female triplets – for the second time.

The girl, named only as Pamela, had her first set of female triplets aged 15, having first given birth to a son when she was just 14.

All seven children were born prematurely but without any kind of fertility treatment.

So, how do we discourage her continued procreation, and discourage her peers from repeating her mistakes? Why, build her a house, of course!

Pamela’s family already receives help from the provincial authorities, which donated land and built them a house when the first set of triplets was born.

Pamela’s mother, who cleans houses to support her daughter and rapidly increasing number of grandchildren, says they will now seek more assistance from the government for the new additions to the family.

Not common sense! Nooo! Not that!

Some Argentines are arguing that perhaps what Pamela needs is more advice on contraception.

Source: BBC News

If her partner decides that she is worthy of a token salary for doing the laundry, then it’s the partner’s personal and private decision to compensate her. If her adult child decides that her staying home provided a tangible benefit that should be rewarded, then that adult child can retroactively compensate her accordingly.

If you think it’s acceptable, or even mandatory, for society to compensate full-time parents, then you had better equally support those same stay-at-home parents compensating their children if they do a shoddy job.

Every other job is tied to performance and deliverables, isn’t it? 

You should definitely stop building new companies that have selling to Microhoo or Google as an exit strategy (or worse, goal!).