Pay No Attention

Ask a Grouchy Woman: Menage or not?

Dear Grouchy Woman:

I moved into this hot Santa Monica Apartment under false pretenses.  You see,  these two righteous babes already lived there and needed a roommate.  When they found out I was a chef-in-training, they invited me to move in with them.  The catch?  We had to convince the landlord that I was gay.  Not that there is anything wrong with it.  As a matter of fact, just between you and me I wouldn't kick Brad Pitt out of bed for eating crackers.  That's just between us though.

Now comes the hard part (so to speak).  My two roomies are totally hot.  I think I even like talking to them.  The brunette is totally cute, clever, and (dare I say it) ...  sassy.  The blonde pretends to be dumb, but I know she could be a well regarded author one day, once she finally transcends the prevailing cultural biases and prejudices against well-stacked blondes.  Bottom line ... I am starting to have feelings for these two women ... or at least I am having strong yearnings towards a weekend romp through the splendor in the grass or with the two of them or something like that.  Still, I don't want to blow a fine living arrangement by freaking them out and suggesting something that might gross them out and cause them to develop nausea or epilepsy or something.  I also don't want to get arrested or become homeless.  Further, I can't let Mr. Roper catch on (should Chrissy and Janet actually go along with this) because then he will know I am not gay (and no one believes bisexuals even exist) and he will kick me out of the apartment.  Could we ever look at each other the same afterwards? Do you think Brad Pitt would join us?  What about Angelina?  Do they even exist?  Should I just take up another hobby?

Sincerely,

Jack

* * * * *

Dear Jack: 

You have two separate but related issues here.  Issue one: do you risk blowing a fine living arrangement by propositioning your roommates?   Issue two: how do you keep Mr. Roper from guessing that you dig the chicks and kicking you out of the apartment. 

With regard to issue one -- absolutely!  What are you going to do, live there for years in a state of continual frustration?  Grow a couple and proposition them already.    If they freak out, say you were just kidding around.  At least the blonde one will believe you.

Assuming you solve issue one to your satisfaction, I suggest you recruit the services of an attractive randy male friend that all three of you find attractive (let's call him "Larry") and have a foursome instead of a threesome.  If Mr. Roper should somehow catch you in the act (perhaps he was hiding in the closet from Mrs. Roper?), just pretend you're only interested in Larry, and included the girls solely to please him.  Then invite Mr. Roper to join you and Larry.  The worst thing that can happen is that Roper takes you up on it.

Sincerely,

Grouchy Woman

P.S. -- Forget about Brad and Angelina.  They'll never get a sitter.

With Friends Like These . . .

I'm sure a good laugh was had by all:

Two men accused of setting their friend’s groin on fire were sentenced to jail and prison this week.

. . . .

The charges stemmed from a Jan. 18 incident in which the men set friend Elliot Tuleja’s groin area on fire as a practical joke. Tuleja was drinking with Keiffer and Pillers at a house in Grover Beach, said prosecutors.

The men routinely drank together and played practical jokes on each other. That night one of them poured cologne on Tuleja's groin area while he was passed out and allegedly lit his pants on fire, according to prosecutors. Tuleja suffered second-and third-degree burns on his testicles and third-degree burns on his inner thighs.

Not to Carp, But This Spa Treatment Is Disgusting

Just when you thought spa treatments couldn't get any more bizarre, along comes this new form of pedicure:

Ready for the latest in spa pampering? Prepare to dunk your tootsies in a tank of water and let tiny carp nibble away.

Fish pedicures are creating something of a splash in the D.C. area, where a northern Virginia spa has been offering them for the past four months. John Ho, who runs the Yvonne Hair and Nails salon with his wife, Yvonne Le, said 5,000 people have taken the plunge so far.    . . . .

Ho said the hot water in which the fish thrive doesn't support much plant or aquatic life, so they learned to feed on whatever food sources were available — including dead, flaking skin. They leave live skin alone because, without teeth, they can't bite it off.

And as if that's not disgusting enough for you . . .

In addition to offering pedicures, Ho hopes to establish a network of Doctor Fish Massage franchises and is evaluating a full-body fish treatment that, among other things, could treat psoriasis and other skin ailments.

It's going to be a while before I can eat fish again, I can tell you that.

* * * * *

Grouchy Woman beauty tip: 

You don't need fish to keep your feet smooth and healthy!  You don't even need a spa pedicure.  Grouchy Woman is a runner, so she knows all about callouses, and she's cheap, so she knows all about not going for expensive pedicures on a regular basis.

Keep a pumice stone in your shower.  Once or twice a week in the shower (depends on how callousy you are), rub your callouses with the pumice stone for a couple of minutes.  Moisturize them when you get out of the shower.  Vaseline works fine, if you don't want to buy none of that fancy-pancy lotion stuff.  Keep it up and you'll keep the callouses under control. (Note: if you have really thick callouses now, it may take a while to get them down, but you will eventually, and if you keep after them, they'll never get ugly again.)  

Don't believe it works?  You're welcome to give Grouchy Woman a foot rub and check out her nice, soft feet.

Ask a Grouchy Woman: Petty Cash?

Dear Grouchy Woman:

Several months ago, a friend of mine didn't have enough money when a bunch of us went out to dinner.  I spotted him $19.  He still hasn't paid me back.  I'm annoyed by it, but I feel petty asking him to pay me back.  Shouldn't he have remembered without my having to remind him?  What should I do?

Sincerely,

Petty, Out Of Resources, Mad and Nasty

* * * * *

Dear POOR MAN:

Yes, he should have remembered without you reminding him.  But after all, this is a guy who forgot to get cash before going out to dinner.  Well-meaning people sometimes space out, especially on small debts.  They shouldn't, but they do.  And as you know yourself, sometimes the lender spaces out too.  Your friend probably isn't being a deliberate deadbeat (if you really suspect he is, you should reconsider the friendship).

Grouchy Woman hates asking people to pay her back, but she's discovered that sometimes that's the only way she sees the money.  She's learned the hard way never to lend money to someone she doesn't feel comfortable nudging with a friendly reminder.   Her favorite time to give such a reminder is the very next time she sees the person, if the debtor doesn't promptly bring up the subject himself, and her favorite way is to ask the debtor to spot her for dinner, a drink or a movie:  "Hey Frank, if you cover me for a couple of beers, we'll be square for the movie last week."  The key is to do it in a friendly, cheery way, rather than sounding like you've been brooding about nothing else since you've last seen your friend.

The problem arises when you forget to do that, your friend also forgets, and months pass by before you realize your friend never paid you.  At that point, while you're still totally entitled to be paid back, you begin to feel uncomfortable and petty asking your buddy to pay back the $9 you spotted him for an order of fried calamari.  At least that's how Grouchy Woman feels.  That said, if Grouchy Woman were the flaky debtor herself, she would much prefer that her friend remind her rather than feeling resentful and angry about it.   

Taking all of that into account, here are some general guidelines Grouchy Woman applies to such situations: 

(1)  Regardless of the size of the debt, if GW remembers the debt promptly, she'll give a friendly reminder to the debtor.  

(2)  If it is a debt of, say, $15 or more (it depends a little on who the debtor is -- GW cuts some people more slack than others), she will ask about it, even if a fair amount of time has gone by and she's seen the person a few times, provided she can remember exactly the circumstance under which she lent the money (as opposed to the vague sense that someone owes her $15 from something, somewhere).  Again, it's important to ask in a nice way that makes it clear you don't think the person is deliberately withholding the money. 

(3)  If the debt is less than $15, and a month or more has passed, Grouchy Woman grumbles a bit to herself and then lets it go, financially and emotionally -- it's not worth it to her to pursue it or hold a grudge. 

Grouchy Woman might reduce or raise the trigger amount, depending on the closeness of the friendship and the financial position of the respective parties.  Also, if you are seriously going to brood about it and hold a grudge, Grouchy Woman recommends that you pursue it regardless of how small the amount is.

So, applying that rule to your situation, and assuming this is a good friend, Grouchy Woman recommends that the next time you see your buddy, you say, in a cheerful, teasing kind of way: "Hey Frank, this one's on you -- remember that dinner at Luigi's in October?  I spotted you $19, you deadbeat, and you still owe me." (Leave out the "deadbeat" reference if it's not a really good friend.)

Sincerely,

Grouchy Woman 

P.S. to various readers --   BAP: GW has not forgotten that she has a couple of your books.  They were excellent, and she will give them back to you the next time she sees you.  She'd be glad to meet up expressly for that purpose.  L: you have two of GW's books, and she has one of yours. Yours had a wonderful time with GW, but it is homesick.  R: you've had that DVD for a year, for chrissake.  Watch it already before the DVD format is completely outmoded.   M: GW still has one of your bowls from J's shower.  GW keeps forgetting to bring it to you.  She is very sorry.  Please conk GW over the head with the bowl when GW gives it back to you.

Does GW owe you anything?  Let her know!

Ask a Grouchy Woman: Saving Herself for the Funeral?

Dear Grouchy Woman:

I have been dating my girlfriend for almost two years, and we've been living together for more than a year. I love her and want to marry her some day.  We're very compatible, like the same movies, etc., and we find each other attractive.  However, the problem is that we don't have sex anymore.  We had sex a couple of times a week during the first couple months of our relationship, but then she seemed to lose interest.  At this point, we haven't had sex in nearly a year.  I've tried to approach her and to talk about this, but she always says she's tired or stressed out.  I know she's been really stressed about work lately and I don't want to put pressure on her or be insensitive, but I really do miss the physical aspect of our relationship.  How would you recommend I handle this?  Should I wait until she's less stressed out to broach the subject?

Sincerely,

Frustrated

* * * * *

Dear Frustrated:

How do you handle this?  You dump her, that's how you handle it.  Grouchy Woman is frustrated just listening to you.

Let Grouchy Woman get this straight -- you went from sex a couple times a week (Woo hoo!) to no sex at all for over a year.  That would be, let's see, about 50% of the relationship and practically the entire time you've been living together.  And during all that time she's always been too tired and stressed out to talk about it?  Grouchy Woman has news for you, Frustrated -- if you're going to  "wait until she's less stressed out to broach the subject," you'll have time to watch a looooooootttttttt of movies.

You're not in high school, Frustrated.  You're not virgins saving yourselves for marriage, and neither of you is in a coma (although you may as well be).  If you think you're not getting any now, wait'll you get married and you'll see what frustrated is all about.  Why on earth would you stay in this situation?  It's not like you're staying together because of the kids.  Keep this up, and you're never going to have any kids.

Sincerely,

Grouchy Woman

Is there such a thing as a "perfect" novel or movie?

One of my faithful readers sent me a piece from "Paper Cut", the New York Times blog about books.  The article, entitled Perfect, asks whether there is such a thing as a perfect novel, and if so, which novels might deserve to be called perfect.  The blogger nominated The Great Gatsby, among others, but one thing he didn't do was define what he meant by "perfect".  And of course, that's the first thing you've got to do if you're going to make any claim that something is perfect.

Perfect is not the same thing as "good".  A lot of novels and movies out there are fantastic but flawed.  They might be brilliantly written or acted, but the characters act inconsistently, or there's an inconsistency between one scene and another, or the work contains extra, superfluous material that does not add to the work as a whole.  To me, in the context of a work of fiction, whether it's a book or a movie, "perfect" would mean that the work lacked those flaws.  Love it or hate it, it would work completely on its own terms.  Everything in it would be consistent with itself, and nothing would be in it that didn't add to the whole -- not a word, not a scene, not a character.  And nothing in it could be changed for the better, without deviating from the author's vision.

I'm not sure there is a perfect novel, really.  I'm very fond of finding and pointing out anachronisms and mistakes in novels, thus ruining them for other people.  But since I'm a risk taker, I'm going to nominate a few of my favorite candidates off the top of my head, and let you do the same thing to me, if you're so inclined. 

To start with, I nominate "Empire Falls" by Richard Russo, and Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice".  To me, the characters in both books live and breathe to perfection -- there isn't a line out of place, or a plot twist that doesn't in the end seem inevitable given the characters and their world, once things are set in motion.  You understand why Miles is still in that diner in Empire Falls, and you know why he married (and was divorced by) Janine.  And could there be better comic characters than Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice"?  Each character in Pride and Prejudice is pitch perfect every time, saying and doing just exactly what they inevitably would say and do if they were alive. Have at me -- what's wrong with these books?  (And don't say "they're boring" or "I don't like them" -- I defined what I meant by "perfect" above.) 

I feel that I should nominate one oddball choice, so I'll go with P.G. Wodehouse's "Bertie Wooster Sees It Through".  Yes, it's total farce, but it is perfect farce -- not a hair out of place.  I read somewhere that Wodehouse used to post pages of his novels at different levels around the walls when he was writing.  If a page was out of sync in some way with the rest -- too campy, too dull, etc. -- he'd post it above or below the rest and keep re-writing it until it was at the same level with the rest.  And it shows.  Wodehouse's characters and situations are ridiculous, but always pitch-perfect for what Wodehouse is trying to do.

For the perfect movie, I first nominate a really dark-horse candidate:  Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein".  I can't imagine what I'd change about that movie to make it better -- can't imagine what I'd cut, and can't imagine what I'd add.  Yes, the entire premise is absurd, but within that premise, everything works.  Don't you go saying "Blazing Saddles" is better.  While many of the scenes in "Blazing Saddles" are hilarious -- arguably some are funnier than "Young Frankenstein" -- the movie itself is disjointed.  And Brooks got way carried away at the end when suddenly, ha ha ha, we discover it's all a movie within a movie and everyone throws pies at each other.  "Blazing Saddles" is hilarious, but it's definitely not perfect.

Off the top of my head, I'll nominate two other candidates -- "Remains of the Day" and "Sideways".  Sideways, though I think it's hilarious and brilliant and moving all at the same time, could have blown it in my perfection sweepstakes, but saved itself with one line -- when Miles explains to Maya that Jack was his roommate his freshman year in college.  That line explains everything that would otherwise make the movie too far-fetched for perfection.  Miles and Jack would never, ever be on a road trip in wine country but for that, but when Miles tells Maya that Jack was his freshman roommate, suddenly you see them both at 18 -- geeky Miles and the big-man-on-campus Jack, and you know how the friendship started and why it continued.  Don't we all have some friend from way back when that we probably wouldn't be friends with if we met him now?

And "Remains of the Day" -- one of the only movies that can move me to tears at the end each and every time I see it.  Every damn time I want to scream at Stevens, "No! No!  You can't let her get away from you again!"  But at the same I know it's the only thing that character can do and still be consistent.

Oh -- and I hereby proclaim one television series as perfect in its entirety:  the original BBC version of "The Office" (not to be confused with the American version, which is amusing, but far from perfect).  The BBC version is so perfect it is painful.  You don't know whether to laugh or cry, at least if you've ever worked in an office.  Just brilliant in every way.

Have any of your own candidates for perfection?  Have a problem with any of mine?  The floor is yours -- comment away.

Maureen Dowd asks "May We Mock, Barack?"

You know, Maureen Dowd has pissed me off more than a few times over the last few months, but I think she really nailed it with this Op-Ed, entitled "May We Mock, Barack?"  Dowd discusses the lack of Obama-related humor out there:

“We’ve already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor, too?” wrote James Rainey in The Los Angeles Times, suggesting “an irony deficiency” in Obama and his fans.

Many of the late-night comics and their writers — nearly all white — now admit to The New York Times’s Bill Carter that because of race and because there is nothing “buffoonish” about Obama — and because many in their audiences are intoxicated by him and resistant to seeing him skewered — he has not been flayed by the sort of ridicule that diminished Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

“There’s a weird reverse racism going on,” Jimmy Kimmel said.

Dowd concludes:  "if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us."  (You can read her column in its entirety at the link above.)

I was just saying the other day that the one bad thing about getting rid of Bush is that late night TV will be less amusing.  What will happen to David Letterman's "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches", for example?  Neither Obama nor McCain could possibly fill Bush's shoes in that regard.  The McCain age jokes and Obama riding a unicorn just aren't the same thing. 

Never watched "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches"?  Here you go:

Jib Jab does it again

Here's a little equal-opportunity satire on the candidates, courtesy of JibJab. 

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Can't decide whether my favorite part is McCain keeling over in the old age home, or Obama riding the unicorn of change. I love JibJab.

Obama says New Yorker cover is insulting to Muslims?

I told you I'd be compelled to post about the cover again! I couldn't even last the night. 

Obama said that the New Yorker cover

doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."

Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim. Obama is Christian.

I do understand why Obama doesn't like the cover, but it does kind of tickle my funny bone that he's claiming that depicting him as a Muslim is insulting to Muslim Americans.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it, but still -- there's a little backhanded self-inflicted insult in there somewhere. 

(The more I think about it, the more I think your early comment was totally right, Malleable me -- Obama should have recognized the New Yorker cover as satire and used it as an opportunity to address the ridiculousness of the Muslim allegations instead of getting insulted.)

* * * * * * * * *

In a totally unrelated question, is this Onion article insulting to First Ladies?  Bill Clinton Sadly Folds First Lady Dress Back Into Box  I think this may be my favorite line:

While Clinton has vowed never to wear the outfit publicly, he admitted to removing the gown from its box once before, after Hillary won the California and New York primaries. On that occasion, Clinton reportedly stood before his bedroom mirror, held the bodice to his torso, straightened his posture before extending a gloved hand outward and, in honeyed, lilting tones, repeated the line, "Oh, this old thing? Prime Minister Fukuda, you do go on."

More Thoughts on the New Yorker Cover

I just bought a physical copy of The New Yorker.  (I'm old-fashioned and like to read things on paper.)  FYI, I had to go to four newstands before I could get a copy -- it was sold out at the first three.  For what it's worth, I think the cartoon looks goofier in paper than online, and therefore more obviously satirical.

Since my post the other day, I've been talking to a lot of people (nearly all Democrats) and reading a lot of commentary about the Obama cover.  I've had people lambasting me for not utterly condemning the cover, and I've had people lambast me for seeing anything remotely inappropriate about the cover.  I've seen posts on other blogs demanding the immediate resignation of everyone at The New Yorker responsible for the cover.  I've seen other posts gleefully proclaiming that at last The New Yorker sees that Obama is a militant Muslim.  And I've seen a few posts (they seem to be in the minority, though), applauding the cover as brilliant satire of far-right wing fear mongering.  It's amazing how diverse and how powerful the reactions to the cover are. And as I've processed those reactions, I've been asking myself why so many people, including me, have found the cover so troubling.

I cannot and do not pretend to speak for anyone else (although I encourage everyone to pipe up and comment), but I've been doing some self-examination and have come up with some answers for why I personally reacted to the cover the way I did.  And I'm almost more troubled by the results of my self-analysis than I am by the cover.  

First, I totally agree with "malleable me" (see comments to my previous post) that "this cover is so over the top it can only be construed as satirical by anyone with at least half a brain."  I honestly do think you'd have to be a bit stupid to think that The New Yorker was trying to say that Obama was a militant Muslim. Moreover, as a general rule, I love satire, and I dislike having it labeled, just like I hate having humor labeled with a smiley face and an "LOL".  So, if that's the case, why do I want this cover labeled more explicitly?  It's certainly not for my benefit -- I knew it was satire immediately (of course, I read The New Yorker fairly regularly and I also have a good three-quarters of a brain).   

So what's the deal?  The truth is, I'm a wretched snob and I think a fair-sized bundle of the voters out there fall far short of having half a brain (and that even more wouldn't know satire if it hit them with a brick).  And while I don't like Obama, I dislike far more the idea that malleable half-brains might be convinced into voting against Obama for the wrong reasons.  (I feel the same way about the "McCain called his wife a c*nt" rumor.)  So --  my number one reason for finding the cover inappropriate:  my snobby belief that many voters are thick-headed, easily swayed and humorless. 

Oooooh dear, that's not too nice, is it?  (Although I do claim half a point for caring about justice even towards candidates I dislike.)  But my self-analysis doesn't get any better. 

My number two reason for finding the cover offensive:  guilt.  Yup.  I feel just a bit guilty about not liking Obama.  I have a few friends who have actively reproached me for not supporting him.  Indeed, someone I know argued recently that there is a moral obligation to vote for the Democrat in this election, no matter who that person is and how much I might dislike him.  Although I intellectually disclaim any moral obligation to vote for a candidate I don't like, and firmly believe that there is nothing at all immoral about voting for McCain or Nader, I find there's a little emotional lifelong-Democrat part of me that buys into that reasoning.  So: since I spend so much time criticizing Obama on issues I feel are legitimate, I feel compelled to assuage my guilt by condemning any false portrayal of Obama, even if it is obviously satirical.  

I asked myself earlier if I would have found a comparable cover on Hillary offensive, and concluded that I would, but as I think of it, I'm not totally sure. I guess I'd have to see the cover to make that call.  True, I was very pissed off by some of the misogynistic coverage by many in the media, but then again, that stuff wasn't satirical.  The more ridiculous stuff -- the Hillary nutcracker springs to mind (photo above; you can buy one at the link) -- I shrugged off and even got a mild chuckle out of occasionally. 

The New Yorker cover is about as ridiculous as the Hillary nutcracker.  True, both play into certain voters' negative and damaging perceptions about the candidates.  But that said, the voters that would actually be swayed by the Hillary nutcracker or a cartoon of Obama burning the flag in Muslim robes are voters who would never be voting for those candidates in the first place. 

So, if I think all this is true, what's the real harm of the cover?  I'm not sure.  (Ten dollars says I end up doing at least one more post on this cartoon, as I keep hashing it over in my brain.)  But nonetheless, after saying all of the above, I still feel like I'd like to see a caption on that drawing.  And an article on the rumor-mongering would not only be appropriate with the cartoon, but would certainly sell some copies, no? 

You half-brained folks out there should feel very insulted at my smug assumption of superior intellect.