I bought a brand new wardrobe right before I got pregnant, the first time.

Well, there is definitely this aspect. I did just buy a new wardrobe to fit. Not tops so much as pants and skirts. And now it's all packed away in rubbermaid tubs marked skinny clothes.

I really need to replace the floor covering in the dining room.

sarameg, to me, this screams out, Whitemarsh Ikea!

I'm all congested today with a sore throat. I don't wanna be sick! I wanna feel not so sore-throaty with the weird demi-moore-voice.

Happy Birthday, Miracleman!

My apartment is a disaster, and yet I am full of sloth. Bleh.

My iPod has crashed in some bizarre way (it won't load songs). If you try to look at the checked playlists in iTunes, it crashes the program... so I guess I don't know what is actually corrupt here. So now I have an appointment with the Genius Bar.

Since I do all my housework with the iPod on, and the iPod doesn't work, does that mean I get excused from the housework?

Since I do all my housework with the iPod on, and the iPod doesn't work, does that mean I get excused from the housework?

Definitely!

So, I did the lamest of the work tasks on my to-do list (transfering said to-do list to new notebook/calendar), but am still on the sofa.

Can you reset the iPod and start again from scratch?

I forgot to go to bed at a reasonable time last night.

I managed to get up and take a shower already this morning, and am now delaying taking the laundry downstairs. I have to go into work for a few hours today (at least I'll get paid OT for this!), so have to have clean clothes, but just don't wanna do it!

ita -- no, the reset didn't fix it, since now I have an iPod that works, but has no music on it. Which reminds me, I'd better pack up now because I'm going to have to haul iPod, cable, and iBook to the store in my backpack....

What did you do to them that prompted amazement?

Not sure what it was but: added cream, cooked over low heat, and probably most importantly, in a new calphalon skillet. I don't think I've done any of those things to my eggs before. They were light and fluffy.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone cares to do it--just that there must be someone outside the company who can. If not investors, then who? Purchasers?

Well, in the Nigerian case, I think the Nigerian government has been involved in trying to solve the flaring problem, while at the same time making it somewhat difficult. I'm not saying that the gas companies in Nigeria have not been pretty callous about the tribes who have to live with 300 foot tall flames-- they probably have. But the recapture of the natural gas is an incredibly profitable exercise that has been repeatedly stymied in Nigeria, and not because the gas companies don't want to do it, but often because of problems with the government. The article implies otherwise-- they could solve it if they wanted to, they just don't. But in one case I'm aware of, bidding was suspended for a year or two simply because of regime change (this particular case is the focus of an international investigation of allegations of corruption, which is where I come in. But the corruption would have been intended to get the natural gas trains built, not keep the flames burning).

Anyway--just because the investors are separate from the grant-endowing people doesn't mean they still can't try to make a better world with their money. There's only so excited I can get about a charity that invests in ruining health and land. Not that they care, but I am also adamantly of the naive belief that charities and grant-givers should care.

Sure, but I think it's more complicated than that, and way more complicated than the article implies. I got the impression from the article that investing in gas companies and pharma companies is ALWAYS WRONG-- even though the only organizations that can recapture natural gas and develop AIDS medicine are those, and both are involved in those two activities. The LAT didn't report on investing in bauxite companies working in Jamaica-- who's to say that they haven't invested there for a reason?

I think it's more complicated than that, and way more complicated than the article implies

It's probably safe to say it's always more complicated than the article implies (or far simpler) if it's a mainstream paper.

I got the impression from the article that investing in gas companies and pharma companies is ALWAYS WRONG

That I did not. I was instead caught by the idea of them investing in companies that are pretty directly causing problems they're trying to remove the effects of.

Now, it's pretty clear that if Gates simply neglected to invest in them, the gas companies wouldn't change their behaviour either, and the people suffering related maladies would still need the good works of the other side of the organisation.

I just wonder about power, who has it, and if the Gates Foundation can't wield it, where's the hope?

The LAT didn't report on investing in bauxite companies working in Jamaica-- who's to say that they haven't invested there for a reason?

I just brought up bauxite as an example of companies flouting local law, an example with which I'm more familiar. Got diddly to do with Gates, but fits more into the "who can apply pressure, then?" question. As far as I've been told there's no issue with the local government in the same way as the Nigerian gas companies--but I didn't realise that conflict from reading the article.