If you google 'cthulhu tea cosy' your first hit is an Amazon list "So yu want to know what to get a Goth for Christmas".

Chatty cat is bugging me again...

I was talking to my sister on the phone a few days ago, and she was surprised that she could hear my cat meowing. She was even more surprised when I told her the cat was in the next room more than fifteen feet away, and that the volume was the standard level for her.

I added Google ads to most of my provocateuse sites at lunchtime, and I've earned 3¢ so far. 9790 page impressions, one click through.

ita, maybe something like this?

[link]

She was even more surprised when I told her the cat was in the next room more than fifteen feet away, and that the volume was the standard level for her.

I can testify that Kathy's cat is LOUD. Especially compared to my very, very quiet cat. She is sweet, though (unless you try to trim her claws).

9790 page impressions, one click through.

I blame the "Prove that you can click on a moving thing/answer a pop culture question, win something we're obviously not going to give you!" ads. I don't click through on almost any ads. I don't trust them.

Oh dear.

I think I want about half the shoes on this page: [link]

And I have a much easier time, well, justifying shoes for Lillian.

This is dangerous.

I think Lillian and Em and Isaac and Ellie and the other various babies we've got hanging out ALL need the flame booties.

That's perfect, ChiKat! Which is probably why it costs a gazillion dollars. But at least I know the stuff exists. Coffee Bean needs to have them in their stores, or maybe Borders/B&N. That's where most of my tealy shopping happens.

I blame the "Prove that you can click on a moving thing/answer a pop culture question, win something we're obviously not going to give you!" ads.

I'm hurt that you think I'd put ads like that up! I'm surprised you think Google would, but I admit I have no idea about their graphical ads. I'm not using any of those.

Speaking of cats, our landlord is apparently claiming she didn't know we had one. This cat has been living there for three years, and overlapped with another cat who had been there for three before.

The gist seems to be that it's okay to disregard atheists and any religion without Moses.

While that's true, the selection is a bit more subtle than that. He's not *ruling* that he wants to permit discrimination against those groups, he's saying that that's already inherently allowed and the 10C case is no different.

It took me several reads of the passage to follow his logic (though I probably would have done better had I followed the link), but this is my interpretation of the steps in his argument:

• 1. Establishment of religion is what is unconstitutional.
• 2. But the Court has already ruled before that simply acknowledging a "God" does not go so far as establish a religion. In other words, we already permit some kind of reference to monotheism.
• 3. Therefore, we already permit some disregard of polytheists and atheists by saying that monotheism does not establish a religion.

• 4. All of the major monotheistic religions respect the 10C.
• 5. Therefore, reference to the 10C does not single out any particular monotheistic religion.
• 6. And it's the singling out that is unconstitutional.
  

• 7. Reference to all the monotheistic religions= constitutional therefore reference to all monotheistic religions via the 10C= also constitutional.