So,at the risk of making it easier for the internet to find me, I've decided to explore my local bike/walking trails. I thought it might be nice to review each one, just in case you wanted to bike/walk around the area. That, and it gives me a good excuse to get out there and get exercise while the weather is decent. I'll be covering this roughly by area of town, but otherwise in no particular order. So, without further ado, let's get started!
Hamburg Trail
Parks and Rec describes this as a shared use (bike/walking) trail from Sir Barton Way to near Winchester Rd. They give its length at about .3 miles. It has three access points.
Point #1--Sir Barton Rd.
Point #2 (that really long staircase on the left) Lowe's parking lot
Point #3 (ramp extends to the left, as well as staircase) Walmart Parking lot
If you're driving, you can park at Lowe's or Walmart (top of the hill), but you will have a steep climb back up to your car. For our review, I came in from Sir Barton. Having seen the trail from the parking lot, I can say without a doubt that this is the easiest and prettiest place to start this trail--it also give you the longest route and avoids annoying hills. This trail is surprisingly scenic for its location, and has a bonus horse cemetery.
I'm dead serious about the horse cemetery. This is Kentucky.
Scenic view towards the cemetery.
You'd never guess this was next door to a Walmart.
I'd say its biggest drawbacks are its short length and the way it just sort of dead ends, instead of looping back on itself.
Seriously, they couldn't have connected it to another parking lot or a sidewalk or something?
Still, not a bad trail for a lunch time walk. I also noticed some lamp posts, so it may be doable at night, too.
Numerical ratings:
All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.
terrain (steepness): 5 (1 if approached from the parking lot)
shadiness: 3
length: 1
scenery: 3 (average for central KY)
accessibility: 5
So I generally avoid talking about politics, mostly because a) I don't care that much b) I tend not to be overly informed on the subject and c) people who talk about politics tend to be a lot like rabid dogs.
Only rabid dogs are more rational.
But I've noticed that lately, people seem to be paying a bit more attention to the circus that our electoral system has become. And when I say that, I mean that people are starting to notice the media focus on relatively unimportant side issues, and the way that only certain inflammatory statements by particular people make it to the front page. It gives me hope that maybe, one day, the people might rise up, say, "Enough," and actually do something about our broken system.
Of course, in order to fix the system, you have to acknowledge and identify the problem. And that's the point we're at now. In an effort to get one more voice out there pointing out the inconsistencies (and get myself on yet another watch list), let's talk about some of them, and the possible reasons behind them.
Focusing On Side Issues: If you listen to the media, the key issues for this years presidential election are women's rights and gay marriage. Now, I'm not saying those aren't important issues--as a woman, having a say in what happens to my body is important to me, and who doesn't know a wonderful gay couple or three who deserve the rights and privileges that a legally sanctioned marriage provides? However, I'm pretty sure that there are one or two things that are just a wee bit more important. Like jobs. Yeah, yeah, I know unemployment rates have gone down. I also know that's there's a limit on how long you can collect benefits, and there's a lot of people who have passed that limit. Unemployment has gone down because people have run out of benefits, or gone back to school to retrain (or to hide out until things get better), or because people have settled for two or three crap jobs just so they can pay the bills. Go check the want ads--the jobs that are available are either highly specialized (i.e. require specific training) or shit jobs that nobody wants because they don't pay anything (like fast food). How many people do you know who have had to move back in with their parents, or take on an additional roommate, or who have lost their job, or who can't afford to replace their broken down car, much less pay their bills? That probably describes about half the people I know, and if you can say the same, I think we definitely have an employment problem in our fine country. So why isn't the media covering that? There could be a lot of reasons. My theory? By focusing on side issues like gay marriage and women's rights (both of which will eventually resolve themselves for the best), it gives the candidates the chance to hide the fact that they don't have a solution for the job problem. Alternatively, if you go in for your conspiracy theories, it could even be a way to hide the fact that the main candidates don't want to solve the problem. Pick your reason for why. Either way, it's a ploy to distract our attention from what's really important.
This is what's going through my head whenever I think of this.
Manipulating The System: Now, I'll admit we're traipsing into conspiracy theory here. At the same time, some things just don't add up. For example, let's take a look at the debacle that was the republican primary. How many candidates got put out there for president? It doesn't really matter, because pretty much all of them were crackpots, crazy, or otherwise horrible candidates. Seriously, next to the republican hopefuls anyone would look good--especially Obama. I'm not saying he had a hand in it, or that there someone somewhere is pulling strings. But after the demolition derby that was the primary, I question who can take the republicans seriously at all.
You saw a primary. I saw Thunderdome.
Whatever your position, it's looking pretty good for Obama. But wait, you say, what about third party candidates? Surely someone else is running. Yes, Sally, there is. However, there are these things called ballot access laws. I didn't even know about this until it was brought to my attention. You see, in order to be on the ballot, a candidate has to pay a fee and get so many signatures on a petition. The exact numbers vary from state to state, but you get the idea. However, if a candidate is backed by a third party--i.e. not republican or democrat--they have to not only pay a higher fee, but get substantially more signatures (think 2000 as opposed to 200). And, of course, those signatures can be challenged, which means at best a delay in getting on the ballot, at worst not being there at all, if they can invalidate any of those signatures (and something as simple as writing the wrong zip code can invalidate one). Our current third party candidates are having to do this, and last I was aware of, at least one was dealing with a challenge in Pennsylvania. If they refuse him ballot access, he'll probably still be a write in candidate, but you tell me how many people are going to know of him. On the other hand, if he's on the ballot, there's a good number of people who will look at Romney and Obama and say, "Oh, hell no, let's go with the other guy."
The Two Party System: While I paid as little attention as possible in my history classes, one thing that always stuck out to me was the number of political parties and the way they seemed to change around every few decades, at least to start with. Now? We pretty much have two parties and a bunch of fringe groups. Those two parties have been on top since about Lincoln. To top things off, we haven't had a serious contender from a third party since Nixon (George Wallace of the American Independent party garnered a whopping 46 electoral votes in 1968). What's the deal here? I'm going to go out a limb here and say it's money. Let's face it, at this point, the winner is whoever can get their name out there the most, and the more money you have, the better you can do that. It's like voting for prom queen in high school.
Seriously, they have billboards and everything.
The republican and democratic parties have so much more funding than our third party guys. The other guys simply don't have enough money to compete on the same level. But at least they still try, even if it means standing on a street corner with a sandwich board.
Voting Against The Other Guy: Okay, this isn't really the media, but I hear this a lot and have to challenge it. The idea here is that the third party candidates have no chance, so, even if you hate both the republican and the democrat, you should vote for the one you hate less, just so the other one doesn't get into office. This always reminds me of a particular passage in a Douglas Adams book, as follows:
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and
coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down
him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On
its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people
hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the
vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted
in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36.
(Thanks to wikiquotes, from whom I shamelessly copied and pasted.)
Yes, the candidate that you so despise doesn't get in. But the one who does is still a bloody lizard. Either way, you have just elected someone who doesn't truly represent the people or has their best interests in mind. I mean, with our current election--who actually believes that Romney or Obama has the slightest clue what the average American is going through right now? They're both millionaires. Seriously, we just had Romney defining the middle class as topping out at $250,000 a year. Of course, it got twisted a little, but I think we can all agree that if your income has more than five digits in front of the decimal place, you are not in the middle class (unless you have like ten kids). For actual middle class, you're looking at more like $30,000-$70,000. Either way, you're electing someone who has no idea what you're going through and honestly doesn't give a shit (they just pretend to to get your vote). You're still voting for a lizard. Now, I'm not saying the third party candidates aren't lizards, but there's a chance one of them might be a human in a lizard suit. Maybe if everyone voted for the candidate they most agree with instead of against the one they most disagreed with, these other guys might have a chance. I'd love to see how many people vote for Obama because they don't want Romney vs. how many people vote for Obama because they think he 's the best choice.
I'm not saying third party candidates are the solution to our problem. They probably aren't. What I am saying is that instead of getting distracted by the slight of hand and logical fallacies, we need to be examining how each candidate stands on the issues, and voting accordingly. If you look at how Romney stands and genuinely believe that he's the best man for the job, you should vote for him. If that's how you feel about Obama, go with him. Personally, I'm for Gary Johnson, but hey, it's your decision. The point is, if we keep electing idiots who benefit from our broken system, it will never get fixed, and this problem exists on every level right now. The presidential race isn't even the most important one (just the most publicized).
Let's stop electing the damned lizards, okay?
Rational discussion welcome below. Trolls, people who refuse to acknowledge logic, and people who attempt to start a flame war will have their comments deleted.
So, a while back I was wandering the internets and I happened upon a blogger who mentioned this thing called Birchbox. It's a subscription thing where you get a box of various and sundry toiletry samples each month. I've been exploring my girly side, so I decided to check it out. It's $10 a month (less if you get a full year--I opted for the monthly so if I decided to cancel I wouldn't be out as much). It's also high end stuff, so it's a cheap way to try out products you might not be able to spend the money on. There was a waiting list, so it was a month or two before I was able to sign up.
The reason I tell you all this, of course, is because my first one came in and I wanted to share/show off my loot. Now, before you menfolk run away, I do want to point out that they do have a men's box. Anywho, I'm super excited because a) I didn't expect it to get in until Friday and b) it's like a tiny Christmas!
This is what was in my mailbox.
Apparently, they theme each box, which is pretty neat. This month is a back to school theme. Inside the mailer was the packaging you see on the website--a brown box with their logo. And inside that....
So cute!
And because that photo is way blurrier than it was on my phone (yes, I know I have a spiffy camera, but the battery was dead) let's do some closeups, shall we?
The small jar turned out to be pomegranate scented shaving cream. It smells really good.
Also included was a razor, with coupons for blade refills. Convenient, yes?
And then there was a cute little tissue wrapped package. I love packages inside packages!
And inside that was a gel lip stain, perfume, and a hair tie.
The perfume actually doesn't smell half bad, which was a pleasant surprise. I'm usually not overly keen on most perfumes. The little booklet that came with it all also had the full name of each item, and the price (the whole idea is that if you like the stuff you can order a full size version). I'd just like to point out that the full size perfume is like 70 bucks for a small bottle, so that's probably why it's tolerable (it's also like the third most expensive thing they sent out samples of).
Overall, I'm pretty pleased with my first box. I'm actually looking forward to the next time I shave my legs (did I mention the shaving cream smells really good?) and I can't wait to see if my husband likes the perfume (he's at Gencon right now--I'm not going up until Friday, so I'll have to wait). And, of course, I'm looking forward to next month's box now, too. I love getting packages, and it's extra fun when it's a surprise!
I may make this a regular thing for ye old blog, mostly because it's fun for me. And who knows, maybe some of you guys are also still discovering how this whole girl thing works (I'm a late bloomer, I know). I will say you don't have a whole lot of choice for your samples (the surprise is what makes it fun), so if you have allergies you may want to give it a pass, or share your bounty with your friends.
Don't worry, I'll try to keep up with some of the zany fun you've come to expect, although I'll admit, it's been a bit tough lately. Things have been kinda boring/stressy, and I hate to go into rant mode too often. But it'll all be good, so you kids have fun till next time!
Before we get started, I just want to let you know that this was almost a post about how not to pick up girls (hint: you should get out of your car, unless she's a hooker) or a rant about how people are always needlessly invading my space.
I think you got lucky.
Because today's subject is girls wearing glasses. Which, based on the search results also appears to be some sort of fetish--somewhere around half the results are galleries filled with pictures of hot girls wearing glasses. It's both scary and reassuring. At the same time, I'm pretty sure none of those girls wear glasses on a regular basis (there's this thing you get in the area around the nose pieces).
I also learned of a quote that apparently still gets bandied about, even though the supposed originator has been dead for over forty years: "Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glass," Dorothy Parker.
Knowing that I wear glasses, I think you can guess how I feel about that. I mean, I've worn glasses since the third grade. I've worn glasses for so long, that sometimes I go looking for them and freak out, only to realize that they're on my face. I feel like I should have heard about this whole glasses are unattractive movement a long time ago. I mean, I remember trying to go without them at one point in grade school because they weren't cool, but cool and attractive were two very different things to me as a child (and still are, to be honest). Of course, I did grow up with a mother who wore glasses, and none of my friends ever really picked on me about them. But men not liking women who wear glasses? There's just so much wrong with that statement. Firstly, a woman's life is about more than just finding a man. While that statement might have been relevant in a time when a woman's place was to find a man, settle down, and pop out babies, we have a lot more options these days. Let's leave outdated concepts of the role of women in the past, shall we? Secondly, it's just plain wrong. There are apparently lots of guys who find girls with glasses sexy, otherwise the following wouldn't exist (I apologize for the list of links instead of pics. For the guys who stumbled upon this looking for pics, congrats, you now have a list of sites to check out):
And I'm tired of looking at all these pictures, so we'll leave it there. Trust me, there are a lot more. Either way, I think we can pretty well say that while not all guys dig a chick with specs, enough of them do. So suck it, Dorothy Parker.
I feel like I may have gotten sidetracked there. I also feel like I've been looking at porn after finding those links for you, so I hope you appreciate it. Ugh. I don't even want to see what the most popular search terms on my traffic are going to be after this one.
Still, even though we have a surprisingly large group of supporters out there, popular culture still holds to the Dorothy Parker school of thought. Seriously, how many ugly duckling movies have you seen where they take the nerdy "ugly" girl and transform her into a beautiful princess. What's the first thing they do? Get her contacts. We see this over and over in movies, and not just your teen feel good crap. How many romance movies portray the heroine as a frumpy woman in glasses (because nothing says frump like spectacles), then take those glasses off to reveal the sexy girl beneath? I'm pretty sure I've seen this gimmick in almost every genre. While we may not outright say it, our culture is permeated with the message that glasses are not attractive. Models don't wear glasses, unless they're modeling them, or going for the naughty intellectual look. People in movies and TV only wear glasses to look smart and nerdy.
But I've known stupid people who wear glasses. And I've know beautiful, sexy girls who wear glasses--and are beautiful and sexy in them.
So what do we do? Do we accept the standard our culture has given us? Do we rock the naughty librarian look for the fetishists? Or do we look for a third option? How about we show society that just because a girl wears glasses, it doesn't mean she's a nerdy ugly duckling. You wouldn't ask an amputee to take off her leg to increase her sex appeal. And for many of us who wear glasses, those lenses are just as necessary for getting around as that leg (just a whole lot cheaper). If you want to take off your glasses or wear contacts so you can get a certain look, that's fine. But you shouldn't feel pressured to do so because of society's crazy standards (they're not always right--remember lead based makeup?).
Let's focus on accepting ourselves and our flaws, and making changes because we want to, not because society says we have to.
And for the record, I used to think that was two words for the longest time. That it was "a stigmatism", as in, "My stigmatism! Noooo!"
But seriously. This weekend I saw my first movie in RealD 3D. I'd seen stuff with the older 3D (the red/blue or red/green), and it made me violently ill. Something about my astigmatism makes me unable to properly process it.
This is pretty much what I see with the glasses on. Maybe a bit less blurry.
Understandably, I'd been avoiding the newer 3D for that reason. I mean, I have to keep the 3D on my 3DS off or I get ill--and that doesn't even require glasses. Yeah, there were several levels of Super Mario Land that were almost impossible because of that.
But this weekend, I found myself at a showing of Pirates! Band of Mistfits in 3D (it was a friends thing and I didn't find out about the 3D until it was too late). Now, it was definitely not the best example of 3D, but there were a few bits where things really popped out and it didn't make me sick! Yay! No nausea or vomiting!
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the image of her popping out of the dumbwaiter. That was pretty terrifying.
Of course, it wasn't really a movie that needed 3D and you could tell they just added in the effects so they could use the gimmick. Finally, I was able to experience 3D and it was disappointing (the movie was entertaining, though, so it wasn't a total loss).
But all was not lost, because The Amazing Spiderman came out this week. Those of you who know me will know of my Spiderman fangirlness. I absolutely love my man, Peter Parker. I still hold a grudge against Iron Man for outing him in the Civil War storyline several years ago and Joe Quesada's still on my shit list for Brand New Day. While I can't sit through some of the older shows (sorry, 60's Spiderman), I will gleefully watch almost anything that involves Spidey. I watched all three of the previous movies--and enjoyed them (which hurt ever so slightly in #3). This could have starred Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, and I would have gone to see it.
I even like the amazing Spiderham, Peter Porker.
Now what with timing and everything, we wound up at the 3D showing (we couldn't wait that extra fifteen minutes). I was excited, because I knew there would be some really awesome 3D effects. How could there not be? I was a little irked because I had to face the screen straight (no snuggling with the hubby) or everything got really blurry, but I had high expectations.
And they were met. Andrew Garfield is a truly amazing Spiderman, and captured the awkwardness of Peter Parker perfectly. The only thing I didn't like was how they criminalized Dr. Connors (he's a very tragic character), but considering some of the crap they've pulled in the comic recently (Future Foundation, anyone?) I'm giving up on complaining about minor issues. The key thing here is how well they captured the various characters and stayed faithful to the overall feel of Spidey's life. Also notable is a return to the webshooters, actually doing something with his parents, using Gwen Stacey as the first love of his life, and avoiding the use of the most annoying phrase in the comic. It was awesome, go see it. Now. I'll wait.
Om nom nom.
All righty, now that you've seen it (and maybe even in 3D), allow me to confess that I found the 3D somewhat lacking. I mean, there were some obvious ones (like the opening credits), but I really didn't see much, and it felt very much like the 3D was just kind of wasted. I mean, it was hardly there for most of the webslinging, and....
If you saw it in 3D, you will immediately realize there's a problem with that last statement. My husband did. A couple days later, we were discussing it and I made that very point, and he was all, "What? Seriously?"
Apparently all of the webslinging was in 3D. The husband followed with a list of scenes that had serious 3D effects--that I apparently completely missed. I seriously didn't see half of the movie in 3D, and I was wearing the glasses!
So, yeah. On the plus side: Yay! I can watch movies in 3D now! On the minus side: Boo! I can't see half the 3D.
On a completely unrelated note, the trailers for Spiderman included the last Twilight movie. I'm not seeing a lot of overlap in audience here. The husband said it was for the girlfriends and wives, but I was all, wait, why wouldn't they want to see Spiderman instead?
So, I totally just realized that I did my Dinosaur World post and forgot to use the best picture I took. I could just add it in as an edit, but then those of you who already read it might miss it. I could just post it to my facebook, but I think this is one that deserves to be set free on the internet.
Behold!
SOON.
I might make this my wallpaper on my computer. Then again, the shark fighting the narwhal is pretty epic.
So, this weekend the darling hubby and I went on a road trip. Our destination? Octagon Hall, for a day (and night) of ghost hunting. Now, Octagon Hall, for those of you too lazy to click the link, is in southwestern Kentucky, south of Bowling Green. We probably could've driven down on Saturday, but the hubby didn't want to rush, so we left Friday afternoon. This left us with some extra time before the thing started on Saturday, so we decided to go to Lost River Cave. Most of western Kentucky is riddled with caves, and this particular one is right in the middle of of Bowling Green. It also involved a boat ride. While there are better caves in the area (Mammoth cave comes to mind) it was a nice (and quick) diversion for the afternoon. The spiel the tour guides had was also quite entertaining (such as the bit about the wishing rock--if you didn't duck, you'd wish you had). It was a very young cave, and still actively being formed.
From there we headed down to Octagon Hall for our event. It was a big organized event with some of the folks from Ghost Hunters and a couple of other well known people in the field (John Tenney was amazing). I don't think the organizers thought things through really well though, because they didn't allow for a dinner break (there was a concession stand, but a hot dog and chips only goes so far) and the first half of it was presentations and meet and greets--on the site, in a tent, with only port a johns and no plumbing. It might have worked better to do that part at the hotel, methinks. We did finally get around to the ghost hunting bit around 10 pm. The ghosts were pretty quiet, but we did get a little activity. It was pretty interesting, and the only time I've ever been in a situation where it was appropriate to talk to empty air.
However, as awesome as the rest of the trip was, the coup de grace was on the way back. See, as we were heading down, we passed a sign for Dinosaur World.
Yes, this is where I took all my pictures (it didn't help that I forgot my camera and phone charger, so my battery was dead for the other two). I could tell you about how awesome all the dinosaurs were, or I could show you the pictures.
Even the ashtrays were awesome!
The factual information was questionable, but the life size dinosaurs were fabulous. Of course, who goes to Dinosaur World for facts?
You go to Dinosaur World for dinosaurs looking at you suggestively.
You also go for creepy headed scary dinosaurs.
And for giant dinosaurs who want to eat you.
And for cute little baby dinosaurs.
Don't worry, I won't ruin them all for you. Still, the whole thing is very much like someone said, "Damn, I've outgrown my toy dinosaurs. I know! I'll make them lifesize!" The coloring and sculpts are very toy like, which adds to the fun.
And they still found a use for the toy dinos in the museum.
Even the bathrooms were covered in dinosaurs.
...so this is how I paint our bathrooms?
It was definitely worth the stop, even if we did wind up getting stuck in traffic afterwards for an hour (before we made a u turn and went back to the last exit) and had to spend another hour detouring around the wreck that held us up. A detour which spat us out a measly three miles ahead of where we'd been, mind you (that's the part that wasn't better than your weekend).
All in all it was a great trip, and both us would love to head out that way again for a mini vacation. I don't think I'd like to live there, but Western Kentucky was a nice place to visit.
