Smablog

AND FUCK DRYER SHEETS LITERALLY NOBODY EVER HAS ENOUGH OF A PROBLEM WITH STATIC TO WARRANT PAYING OUT THE ASS FOR THAT SHIT

DO YOU WANT CLEAN CLOTHES? YOU DON’T EVEN NEED TO BUY FUCKING DETERGENT JUST MAKE YOUR OWN* IT’S SO GODDAMN EASY AND 80X CHEAPER

FUCK THE ENTIRE LAUNDRY INDUSTRY *Fuck The Entire Laundry Industry Recipe

1 cup Washing Soda (not Baking Soda. Different things.)

1 cup Borax (not Boric Acid. Also a different thing.)

Step one: acquire $5 bag of baking soda from Costco.

Step two: lay that motherfucking baking soda out on a baking tray.

Step three: bake the baking soda on a tray in an oven at 400° for 1 hour (to make the moisture evaporate, leaving washing soda)

I Got A Cat For My Sick And Grumpy Grandpa, And He Turned His Life Upside Down

“I’ve been photographing my grandfather, Jiji, since I had no clue how to use a camera. One day, 94-year-old Jiji’s life was turned upside-down by Kinako the cat. Since the War ended, for 64 years, Jiji commuted to his office, but in 2009 he was sent to the hospital. The doctor said he was sick. The once outgoing man gradually lost his interest in life and became grumpier than ever. It was around that time that I brought Kinako to live with us. An extraordinary friendship gradually grew between the two. Who would have thought that a timid kitten would befriend a grumpy old man! The border between human and animal melts, just as shy Kinako melted Jiji’s heart.”

“We know that athletes, musicians, and actors all have to practice, rehearse, repeat things until it gets in the body, the ‘muscle memory’ but for some reason writers and visual artists think they have to be inspired before they make something, not suspecting the physical act of writing or drawing is what brings that inspiration about.  Worrying about its worth and value to others before it exists can keep us immobilized forever.  Any story we write or picture we make cannot demonstrate its worth until we write or draw it.  The answer cannot come to us any other way.”

Okay we’re going through this bit by bit.

First of all, this is the first thing that pops up when you visit the website:

But wait, it gets worse.

Once you get in, you see that Trump’s inauguration takes up the entire main page. You know what? I’m fine with that. I mean it makes sense.

What I’m not fine with is this:

As of yesterday (I’m on the Wayback Machine), these are the issues that the Obama Administration listed, leading to pages which went into detail about these issues and what the Administration was doing about them.

Again, that’s from the Obama Administration.

This is the current Issues Tab under the Trump Administration:

No, I haven’t cropped it. That’s it. That’s the entire list. All of those are the issues that Trump’s Administration cares about.

The civil rights page? Gone. Climate change page? Gone. Health care page? Gone. Disabilities page? Gone. It’s all gone. Everything is gone.

They also completely took away all of the pages on Obama’s initiatives, all of the pages on internships and involvement in the White house, all of the pages on different ways to protest (other than the We The People petitions), and for some reason, they even took out most of the pages in the history section. The famous virtual tour? Gone. A detailed history about the architecture, the decor, even theee customs and traditions? Gone.

 But here’s the best part.

Most of the ‘Briefing’ section has been cleaned out as well and the tab for weekly addresses has been completely removed.

This was the page Obama had right after he took office after Bush:

Notice how, even though the website changed overnight, he still put in a huge list of issues including virtually every one listed on the website yesterday?

But wait, there’s more.

I went back and looked at how Bush’s page looked before the Obama Administration changed it. And guess what? Bush had an entire list of issues that resembled the ones listed on the website yesterday.

But wait!

There’s more!

Back when the Internet was new and the webpage was just a bunch of text, Clinton had an entire list of issues like the ones listed on the website yesterday.

So, no, this isn’t something that always happens. The website changes but the issues have always stayed the same and they’ve always been prominently displayed.

bush doing the same? actually kinda surprising

One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else. Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation. 

The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.

And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.

In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives. 

How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.  

There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.

Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line - oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that it worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor - here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.

What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.

The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society. 

As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:

To teach both sexes due equality

And as they stand bound, to love mutually.

The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.

OR ‘PEAKED’

BUT PIQUED

‘PIQUED MY INTEREST’

YOU ARE NOT ‘PHASED’. YOU ARE ‘FAZED.’

IF IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG DAY, YOU ARE ‘WEARY’. IF SOMEONE IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT MAKES YOU SUSPICIOUS, YOU ARE ‘WARY’.

ALL IN ‘DUE’ TIME, NOT ‘DO’ TIME

‘PER SE’ NOT ‘PER SAY’

BREATH - THE NOUN FORM

THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

WANDER - TO WALK ABOUT AIMLESSLY

WONDER - TO THINK OF IN A DREAMLIKE AND/OR WISTFUL MANNER

BALL- A FUCKING BALL

Slight can also be a personal or social attack, as in being slighted by someone.  This also is not interchangeable with sleight.  You personally cannot be surreptitiously placed in someone else’s pocket without anyone noticing.

Technically you can be ‘phased’ but this requires a portion of your atoms to be shunted into an alternate dimension or state of matter.

Peeked is what you have done (past tense) if you look over or around an obstacle with the intent of not being seen yourself.  Peaked is what you have felt (also past tense) when you are unwell or ill.

IN BDSM, “DOMINANT” IS THE COLLOQUIAL SHORTHAND USED AS A NOUN INSTEAD OF “DOMINANT MAN”, “DOMINANT WOMAN”, OR “DOMINANT PERSON. OUTSIDE OF THE LIFESTYLE, THE WORD “DOMINANT” IS TYPICALLY AN ADJECTIVE, LIKE WHEN SOMEONE IS TALKING ABOUT THEIR “DOMINANT HAND”, I.E. THE HAND THEY WRITE OR DO MOST THINGS WITH.

“DOMINATE” IS A VERB, AND IS NEVER USED AS A NOUN, OR TO DESCRIBE YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE. YOU ARE NOT A “DOMINATE”. SOMEONE MAY DOMINATE YOU, OR BE DOMINATED (see the tense change there, á la verb!) BY YOU.

Taught- to have given instruction

Taut- pulled, stretched tight

I’d like to add:

OR ‘PEAKED’

BUT PIQUED

‘PIQUED MY INTEREST’

YOU ARE NOT ‘PHASED’. YOU ARE ‘FAZED.’

IF IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG DAY, YOU ARE ‘WEARY’. IF SOMEONE IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT MAKES YOU SUSPICIOUS, YOU ARE ‘WARY’.

ALL IN ‘DUE’ TIME, NOT ‘DO’ TIME

‘PER SE’ NOT ‘PER SAY’

BREATH - THE NOUN FORM

THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

WANDER - TO WALK ABOUT AIMLESSLY

WONDER - TO THINK OF IN A DREAMLIKE AND/OR WISTFUL MANNER

BALL- A FUCKING BALL

Colbert’s Election Special Was Amazing and Awful Stephen Colbert’s election special on Showtime was supposed to be a big, profane, raucous celebration of the end of a crazy, awful Presidential election. It was supposed to be Colbert’s own burst of freedom—doing a show on pay-cable, unshackled from the restrictions of network television, he could delightedly introduce himself as “your host Stephen F***ing Colbert.”

But as the returns continued to roll in, Colbert’s smile began to freeze on his face. By the time he brought on the pundits John Heilemann and Mark Halperin—two guys who have proven themselves to be as good a symbol as any of the sucking-up-to-power smugness of the media—Florida had gone to Trump, and Halperin was suddenly trying out his new role as the voice of doom: “Outside of the Civil War, World War II and including 9/11, this may be the most cataclysmic event this country’s ever seen.”

Because this was live television, and because the election had not yet been called officially for Trump, Colbert was obliged to follow through with some pre-arranged humor. Poor Laura Benanti had to reprise her terrific Melania Trump impersonation, reciting scripted lines that came across as a blur: All anyone–including, it seemed, Benanti–could think of was the prospect of the Trump Presidency.

Jeff Goldblum came out for an interview that turned into a therapy session. “What positive message can we get from tonight?” asked Colbert. Goldblum improvised like the jazz musician he sometimes is, but it ultimately came down to him trying to muster a bit of positivism and saying things like, “I won’t be uninspired by this!”

What happened to previously-announced guests like Patton Oswalt and Katy Perry? Colbert brought out Charlemagne Tha God and comic Jenna Friedman; they looked miserable. Charlemagne Tha God said “We’re f***ed” over and over. Asked by Colbert how she felt, Friedman said, among other things, “Get your abortions now”—assuming, by implication, that a reconfigured Supreme Court, with the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned, is an inevitability.

Colbert had no choice but to become serious. He said, “This is a moment for people to understand that political involvement is a responsibility.” He said that in retrospect, “We overdosed on the poison” of party divisiveness, and that we should be ashamed to have felt that “there’s a gentle high to the condemnation.” Of taking political sides and doing political humor, Colbert said, “Whether your side won or lost, we don’t have to do this s**t for a while.” That was as close as he could come to comfort, “in the face of something that might strike you as horrible.”