Head over to Youtube and watch every chapter of “The Story of Stuff”–the Intro, Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption, Disposal and Another Way. Or view the film at The Story of Stuff website.
From when he was knee-high, I’ve been telling H.o.p. about ads. What ads want from you. What they want to sell you. I tell him about the relationship between ads and some of the websites he visits. Like Neopets. I ever remind him that those sites want something from him, which is all the time and interest they can get from him, because they’re full of ads waiting for someone to take notice. Especially with Neopets, we used to go round and round on this. “But it’s free!” And I’d say, yes, their games are free to you to use, but they expect to eventually sell you something. He loves Neopets and has a Neopet that he tends to daily, taking care of it. But I wanted him to know that their website also gets something out of his visits, that they wouldn’t be doing this if they weren’t getting something out of him visiting and taking care of his no-subscription-fee Neopet.
So, my little nine-year-old was sitting at his computer making his CLICK charity rounds.
I hear a gasp.
I wasted my time reading about bags this morning, because I get the Review-a-Day from Powells.com and today’s review was fashion writer Lynn Yaeger, of the Village Voice, on three different books on handbag style.
Forty years ago — even 30 — there was no such thing as a “hot” bag. You had something square and black, or brown and squashy, that you carried in the daytime; something smaller and shinier for evening; and maybe something made of velvet or straw if you were a hippie. Now an impressively large number of women, in addition to worrying about how thin they are and whether they can walk a block in the shoes they’re wearing, also feel compelled to spend in the neighborhood of $2,000 on a purse. And it isn’t only wealthy women who are shelling out; middle-class women, working women, even schoolgirls are also deeply conscious of what they are carrying. If a serious bag once signified that you were a grown-up, now the brand name on your bag signifies what kind of grown-up you are.
The article finishes with her account of buying a replica Louis Vuitton bag when the one she had on order didn’t show up, then shoving it to the back of the closet because of her reluctance to carry a second-hand-status bag despite the number of compliments she’d gotten on it.
She’s a little wrong on her history. When I was a kid and moved down South in 1967, I arrived in a place where status was absolutely bespoken by some mahogany brown and tweed style of handbag which was all to do with its NAME which I don’t recollect but it was relatively expensive for the time–and this was in the fifth grade in public school.
“Find Furby at BK! You can collect all 100 FURBY toys!”
That’s what it reads on the little blue box which today’s Furby came in. H.o.p. had been hoping instead for a King Kong at Burger King. Instead the Furby arrived with the meal.
“Did you tell them I’m a boy?” H.o.p. asked.
Burger King and McDonalds sometimes have gender-based toys. You are asked whether the kid meal is for a boy or girl and the toy depends upon the answer.
The good news is that H.o.p. wasn’t thrilled with Furby. “I think I don’t hate it,” he finally said.
That is parent hell. 100 unique Furby toys available as give-aways from Burger King. Because the kids will know which Furby toys are available and which ones they do not have and which ones they must absolutely have or they shall die and there will be hell to pay if “I already have 3 Furby toys exactly like this one!”
There’s an area called Popular at Technorati. I rarely drop by there. When I remember it exists, I check out a few blogs to see what’s up, like crossing a virtual ocean to the far side where I bang my head with mysterious invisible hammers until I’m appropriately stupefied and return home full of wonder (kind of) and none the wiser.
This past weekend, by way of some other subject, I was reading a little on Cecil Rhodes and the diamond industry. So, day before yesterday, one of those days when I remembered the Popular section of Technorati existed, passing my way through on the way to far shores, I saw in the popular book section the title, The Truth About Diamonds. No author’s name attached. You’re snickering at me already, that I was thinking, “The truth about diamonds. Human misery, depths of despair, DeBeers, diamond cartel, Sierra Leone, colonialism, blood diamonds, slave labor.”
Clicking on the link, I was transported to Amazon and a photo of Nicole Richie looking professionally bored in a diamond tiara. The book is a novel. She is given as having written it. Most of the people who post reviews of it imagine that she has and some think it’s great writing, like she’s telling you her story over a cell phone, like “People” only all about Nicole, and others think it’s bad writing by an unaccomplished Nicole. You can choose the cover you want. One of the covers has her with the tiara and another does not. I read the tiara cover may have been felt to be too Paris Hilton, though if that’s true I don’t know why they’re offering it as an alternative. Looking at the two covers, I was trying to figure out who Nicole Richie was trying to look like now and I wasn’t sure. Instead of Amazon having it where you can click on the cover and read a couple of pages, one instead gets to look at the two covers.
I don’t often post human-interest type stories like this one below, from CNN, but aside from my wanting to note that had this been an anti-war demonstration gone wrong, in which case I think a lot of people would have ended up in jail (I don’t believe any arrests happened), I wanted to hear some response to this. Because I know there are going to be a number of different ways of looking at it as regards America’s cultural idea of alpha/beta types and the drive to get what you desire.
I comment below.
Panic ensues in rush for cheap laptops
Tuesday, August 16, 2005; Posted: 2:05 p.m. EDT (18:05 GMT)
I took my chair here and I threw it over my shoulder and I went, ‘Bam.’
— Jesse Sandler
RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) — A rush to purchase $50 used laptops turned into a violent stampede Tuesday, with people getting thrown to the pavement, beaten with a folding chair and nearly driven over. One woman went so far to wet herself rather than surrender her place in line.
“This is total, total chaos,” said Latoya Jones, 19, who lost one of her flip-flops in the ordeal and later limped around on the sizzling blacktop with one foot bare.
More than 1,000 people turned out at the Richmond International Raceway in hopes of getting their hands on one of the 4-year-old Apple iBooks, which retail for between $999 and $1,299. The Henrico County school system was selling 1,000 of the computers to county residents.
Officials opened the gates at 7 a.m., but some already had been waiting for hours in line. When the gates opened, it became a terrifying mob scene.
People threw themselves forward, screaming and pushing each other. A little girl’s stroller was crushed in the stampede. Witnesses said an elderly man was thrown to the pavement, and someone in a car tried to drive his way through the crowd.
Police would not immediately comment on the number of or extent of injuries, though witnesses said they mostly had scrapes and bruises.
“It’s rather strange that we would have such a tremendous response for the purchase of a laptop computer — and laptop computers that probably have less-than- desirable attributes,” said Paul Proto, director of general services for Henrico County. “But I think that people tend to get caught up in the excitement of the event — it almost has an entertainment value.”
Blandine Alexander, 33, said one woman standing in front of her was so desperate to retain her place in line that she urinated on herself.
“I’ve never been in something like that before, and I never again will,” said Alexander, who brought her 14-year-old twin boys to the complex at 4:30 a.m. to wait in line. “No matter what the kids want, I already told them I’m not doing that again.”
Jesse Sandler said he was one of the people pushing forward, using a folding chair he had brought with him to beat back people who tried to cut in front of him.
“I took my chair here and I threw it over my shoulder and I went, ‘Bam,”‘ the 20-year-old said nonchalantly, his eyes glued to the screen of his new iBook, as he tapped away on the keyboard at a testing station.
“They were getting in front of me and I was there a lot earlier than them, so I thought that it was just,” he said.
History books and the airwaves are filled with “dogged desire” wins out scenarios, the heat of competition winnowing out the losers from the daring-do winners, the glory of attaining hill’s crest, the reward of never-say-die. “God helps those who help themselves” is one of the big platitudes. “There is no second place.” “To the victor go the spoils.” Etcetera, etcetera. Some of us will look and say, “Well, it’s a stretch applying the platitudes to an Apple ibook, ” to which I wonder then where is the invisible cut-off line as to what is worthy, which for some is perhaps what their pocketbooks qualify as a perfectly redeemable effort. Because some who say, “Ugh,” may only be saying “Ugh” because they can afford the Apple ibook, and may find such a free-for-all perfectly legitimate if the stakes were higher.
Never mind the mismanagement that made the event a coliseum gladiator affair. Because it was certainly mismanaged. There were, I read, only 1000 ibooks available. Camping out for a good place in line was said not to be permitted. But of course people began showing up as early as midnight. Then when the time came to open the gates, the authorities said that vehicles would be first permitted to enter. Those who had first arrived went to their vehicles, and a rush was made on the gates by those who stayed on foot and those who had arrived later (whence the story of vehicles attempting to drive through pedestrians). Then once the people were inside there was a second line to form and weather. And the authorities didn’t close the gates until there was a line inside of several thousand people. For 1000 ibooks.
We perhaps have never thought of wealth in terms of poverty. How many thousands of the poor does it take to support a single millionaire? How many more thousands of impoverished has society generated to support its newly minted billionaires? We fail to recognize poverty as the sustenance of wealth. We may see the homeless and occasionally encounter the impoverished, but we never see ourselves as a cause. We are too busy, too preoccupied with ourselves, to reflect upon our collective generation of wealth as a cause of poverty.
Source: Loyola Poverty Law Journal, Spring, 1999, SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, Kenneth Ehrenberg, referencing, William J. Curran III, After 100 Years: A Disquieting Discourse of Poverty and Wealth, 35 N.Y.L Sch. L. Rev. 1031, 1033 (1990).
The truly impoverished likely were not among those in line for the ibooks. Perhaps some were. I’m just looking at the continuum here. Probably didn’t have “wealthy” individuals involved in the brawl, nor people who are truly disenfranchised. But you’ve got a lower end on some scale who have determined that these are the proper rules of engagement and they are really the same rules of engagement that result in the class structure defined in the above quote.
Which results in everyone being a loser.
One of the central premises of our capitalist system is the condition of “scarcity.” That is, capitalism claims to represent a solution to the problem of scarcity. [FN17] Capitalism is supposed to be the most efficient way of dealing with this condition. Indeed, this condition is often cited by those who wish to defend our economic system against the attacks by the adherents of other systems. However, what this term means is far from clear in our society which has such an abundance of wealth.
By “scarcity,” most of us mean that goods are in short supply: there isn’t enough of something to go around. While there often is no clear-cut understanding of what constitutes “enough,” the simple fact is that there is more than sufficient food to sustain everyone on the planet. The same is true of land and renewable energy. The important question, then, is why the staples of life are so egregiously maldistributed – why, for example, the United *13 States, with a little more than 5 percent of the world’s population, uses something like 40 percent of the world’s resources. What appears to be a problem of scarcity usually turns out, on closer inspection, to be a problem of distribution. [FN18]
The upshot of this realization is that a characteristic upon which the economic system is based is perverted in our society to justify the inequitable distribution of resources. How does this come about? First, and perhaps foremost, is the fact that the term “scarcity” does not mean the same thing to economists as it does to the rest of the population. [FN19]
Generally, when the term is used to bolster capitalism, economists are talking about either that in certain circumstances the choice of one product or commodity precludes the choice of another, or the presumption that, as a matter of human social nature, people will never be satisfied with the amount they have – no matter how much that is. [FN20] When we hear the word used in casual conversation, however, we usually think that the speaker is talking about a condition in which there are not enough resources to meet the needs of every individual. This latter condition certainly is no longer the case in the United States (if it ever was), and may not even be true of *14 the world taken as whole. [FN21] One problem with the economic definitions is that the first condition (one which, when taken as a premise, no system will alleviate) may give rise to the second. That is, if we are in a situation where the choice of one commodity precludes the choice of another, people will always be faced with what is just beyond their reach, making satisfaction of all “needs” (natural and artificial) next to impossible. This point is made more clear by its application to the competitive system.
When we combine the competitive aspects of capitalism with the condition of scarcity (economists’ first sense – the choice of one good precludes another), we end up with the familiar problem of the unequal playing field: The fact that choosing certain commodities will preclude the choice of others leads individuals to try to maximize their opportunities for choice. The more choices one has, the less likely one will find oneself in the position of having to choose between mutually exclusive commodities. In a competitive system, however, the only way of accomplishing this maximization of choice is essentially to take away the choices of another. Because certain circumstances will arise where the choice of one good will preclude the choice of another, and since we are in a competitive economic system, the drive to maximize one’s own choices necessarily entails minimizing the choices of others. Because one choice may exclude another, and there are a limited number of those mutually exclusive choices (“scarcity”), the most effective way to maximize one’s choices is to take away those of another. Yet the more choices one already has, the more power one has to maximize future choices; the fewer choices one starts with, the harder it is to avoid loosing one’s choices to others.
“Whoever has more resources is far more likely to win a contest, thus giving her even more resources for the next contest, and so on until the opponent is utterly vanquished or someone steps in to stop the competition.” [FN22]
*15 One of the upshots of our particular brand of competitive capitalism is that it is not marked by fair competition. People do not start out on the same starting line; some start miles ahead of others. Yet, we still see ourselves as in competition with each member of society for “scarce” resources. As a result, we have strong structural disincentives from trying to rearrange our institutions so that individuals may at least start from similar points. Included here is the point made above: that we are unwilling to help those far below for fear that others, in closer proximity to us, will surpass us. Furthermore, this point helps to explain why it is so difficult for our system to arrive at a more equitable distribution, or for the winners of one generation to be the losers of another. Generally, those on the bottom in one generation will be on the bottom the next, at least without the intervention of an extraordinary amount of luck. [FN23] While it is true that certain segments of the population are able to better their condition through slow and steady improvements across generations, they are still doing so (for the most part) at the expense not of those above them, but of those below them. Hence: “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
( FN23: Some might bristle at the suggestion that it is only luck which separates the “haves” from the “have-nots,” preferring to believe that with a little hard work and ‘gumption,’ anyone can become a millionaire. This belief is patently flawed. There are plenty of examples of individuals who make it big without a significant amount of intelligence or business acumen. While there is an even greater number of examples of people of intelligence well above the norm, and the appropriate applicative ability, who nevertheless languish in poverty simply because they never get the genuine opportunity to apply themselves to personal improvement. In fact, this “work ethic solution” is so counter-empirical that I would venture to claim that it is a prime example of radical self-deception in the face of what is perceived to be an intractable problem. As Curran somewhat derisively put this position:
Capitalism’s generation of poverty motivates us. It inculcates life’s hard lessons, sustains institutions, and supports principles. Thus, we believe that poverty can be avoided, that hard work and determination will always benefit the poor, and that wealth will reward them and poverty will discipline them. Poverty, we well know, can be defeated by every able individual in this, the world’s richest, most democratic and open nation.
Supra note 7, at 1034. Just as Job’s friends denied reality in claiming that only the evil are punished and the good are always rewarded, adherents to this false belief are denying reality in claiming essentially that everyone who deserves to be rich will be. )
Source: Loyola Poverty Law Journal, Spring, 1999, SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, Kenneth Ehrenberg
American society tends to think of life in terms of a competitive sport.
When you rule life as a competitive sport and accept greed as the essential bottom-line for “self-improvement” (which is the free capital way, where goods and wealth signify status) or greed even motivating basic survival (which again is the free capital way of interpreting history as certain gene sets winning out over others through that essential greed) is when you disqualify life as relationships, whether between humans or humans and nature in general. The rules of good sportsmanship are just a way of making the irrational sound reasonable. Such as 18th and 19th century warfare where good sportsmanship was qualified as lining up leagues of men in proper rows and marching them into battle, hordes dropping as guns felled them from a distance. Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” illustrates this insanity, as does Kurosawa’s “Ran”.
Our systems tend to define self-esteem on free capital values. Ehrenberg notes the importance of self-esteem and sees it as an alternative system from one that is competition-based.
As a concept, self-esteem is extremely useful for those trying to understand why people act as they do. As a reality, the importance of high self-esteem simply cannot be overstated. It might be thought of as the sine qua non of the healthy personality. It suggests a respect for and faith in ourselves that is not easily shaken, an abiding and deep-seated acceptance of our own worth. Ideally, self-esteem is not only high but unconditional; it does not depend on approval from others, and it does not crumble even when we do things that we later regret. It is a core, a foundation upon which life is constructed. [FN36]
Given this importance, it is a wonder we do not do more to build a robust sense of self-esteem in our educational system.
Source: Loyola Poverty Law Journal, Spring, 1999, SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, Kenneth Ehrenberg
Now, this ends up sounding as if self-esteem and individuality is to a certain extent based on an isolationist sort of greed where the rest of the community be damned, one’s own goals are paramount. But this isn’t the case, because the type of self-esteem Enrenberg is writing about is found with the support of the community and the person finding their place in giving to the community. And a reason it’s hard to come by is that our communities do not support this.
Perhaps of prime importance will be revamping a sense of individual uniqueness and worth. Individualism has not been the cause of our ills. Rather it has been the increasing sacrifices of our individual spheres to economic and social pressures which has contributed to the internalization of “intentional competition.” While it may appear, with a casual glance at our society, there is a surplus of cacophonous calls for individual rights (at least this is the complaint of some right-leaning Congress members), there is such a loud call, and it is so conflicted, precisely because of the incursions of society (hence the misplaced call for individual responsibility among many politicians). That is, many of the rights which we feel are protected by government or Constitution in our society, are given up “by choice” when we go to earn a livelihood, or in order to get our needs met if we are impoverished. We have conditioned the exercise of our rights so that they are in opposition to the ways in which our needs are met by this society. Free speech rights are sacrificed at work; reproductive rights are sacrificed for welfare; dignity and integrity *21 are sacrificed for an education. [FN33]
The basis of any possible revitalization of society must begin with a revitalization of the individual. At first that might sound like an empty platitude. It cannot be necessary to revitalize the value of the individual – a fundamental tenet in our society. However, it is this value which is being lost in our society as it is presently constructed. To value the individual cannot simply mean to protect a limited sphere of rights against government incursion, while leaving these rights, and other central aspects of our personalities, open to the interference of and determination by non-governmental outside influences. To be an individual implies a certain uniqueness that these limited rights protections cannot capture. To be certain, these protected rights are exercised in somewhat different ways by different people. However, this range of choices in how to exercise one’s rights is constantly shrinking on two sides. On the one side our options for exercising these rights are shrinking as a result of government’s failure to prohibit other outside sources from placing limits on our range of choices. On the other side our options are limited by advertising, and other forces of market socialization which seek to convince us that a particular choice or set of choices is in our own best interest.
Ehrenberg ends in saying,
Furthermore, competition as it manifests itself in our capitalistic system has lead to particular economic and social woes which capitalism, because of its very nature, is unable to combat. Therefore we have the responsibility to temper our competitive social institutions with other systems which correct for the disadvantages and inculcate a robust sense of individuality, not dependent upon relative social position. This is not to argue for the complete casting off of all of our present social edifices and economic systems. Rather, it is to note the importance of building social systems which will generate a recognition of our responsibilities toward each other. If we are secure in our own selves with who we are and where we are going, we will be much more likely to desire that security in others. This, in turn, will give rise to a sense of social responsibility which does not infringe upon anyone’s individuality, and yet will ensure that every individual’s needs are met.
Source: Loyola Poverty Law Journal, Spring, 1999, SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, Kenneth Ehrenberg
Our communities are competition-based and education is set up to regulate children according to its current creed and definitions as to who are winners and who are losers. From A to Z, in its process of grading, of rewards, of punishments, what is prioritized as having educational value, it is set to feed an ill system rather than honestly benefit a child and provide them a sense of their own special place in the community.
And we’re told that this is preparing a child for the “real world”.
I know I’ve been told this often enough by people who question homeschooling and our fairly eclectic way of homeschooling.
When I look at the above story on the free-for-all over the ibooks, I know I would have eliminated myself early on as a “competitor” because I would not have seen the value in hand-to-hand combat over a computer. I also would not have subjected my child to it. Just as the other night at the “Stand with Cindy” vigil, I had also thoughts of protecting my child to consider, and didn’t permit him to stand curbside. Everything looked great and things were upbeat but my seven-year-old, going down the sidewalk, walks inside me so that if someone comes up off the curb I’ve a chance to shove him out of the way. I had my same thoughts at the vigil, stand him to the rear. I wanted him to experience the community of the people at the vigil, but I also didn’t know if some nut might not decide to clip a few people, I had that concern.
I view myself as offering my child these same protections when I don’t subject him to an educational system that is set up to do nothing but defeat the majority of children. Nor do I see it as depriving him of some essential training ground for “real life”, not when I don’t think of school as “real life” training but a preparation for a competition-based game that eschews individual dignity and a real sense of community. That isn’t any kind of a “real life”.
Several weeks ago I was a little astonished at a couple of remarks made to me at the benefit for the oak tree which was also my husband’s birthday party. An old friend who I rarely see, a photographer, upon leaving, came to me and said she had been watching our son, watching him dance, and she had been at the point of tears because she had never seen a child so free and spontaneous. And then another individual, a DJ/musician who I didn’t even know, came up and said so that’s your son, and I said yes, and he said he was a very free-spirited child and was going to be a great artist. I said I knew yes he was free-spirited, and he was, yes, an artist. The man said, you have to protect that, a lot of people don’t see that as a good thing, they crush it. I said yes, I realized that. And he was adamant, he said again, you have to protect that, don’t let the system crush it. And I replied that’s one reason we were homeschooling, so it wouldn’t be crushed. And he seemed finally to be somewhat relieved. Several others said similar things to my husband, watching H.o.p. spontaneously regroup objects into sculptures. It’s just what he does. He sees a group of objects and in his mind he sees where the man or robot is and he matter-of-factly goes over and regroups to form the sculpture.
In fact, almost all artists, actors and musicians we know, from the time we decided to homeschool H.o.p., have expressed nothing but relief and have only been supportive. Maybe that’s because those who think alternatively, who thought alternatively as youths, were not only undervalued by the system but experienced the fight to keep self-esteem in a system that is geared to defeat alternative thinkers from the beginning, and defeat children who learn in different ways and different speeds with ostracizing labels, report cards and grade levels.
My son deserves more.
We all deserve more than to be viewed as units motivated only by greed, rewarded by greed, competition the only driving force. Life is relationships. Relationships with nature. Relationships with people. It’s not just school. It’s not just a job. It’s relationships and should be about respect and balance in those relationships, discerning the intricacies of our connections and the broad reach of cause and effect. And not in the “A smile brightens everyone’s day” bank’s way of teaching, “Give a smile to get an investor”.
True self-respect is difficult in the culture and systems that presently overwhelm us. And we are in need of it, desperately. In need of it and in need of bolstering it rather than feeding the competition game that is a flashy, fake respect and self-respect which people accept as their authority.
It is not “real life”. It is what we’ve been educated to believe is “real life”.
That it is “real life” is one of the first of the lies that needs to go.
See the above pic? It’s from some Raleigh North Carolina exhibit, dated 1952 and it is testament to two things. First, it testifies to the fact that people were already eating TV dinners before they came in foil trays. Second, collapsible TV trays existed before foil-packed TV dinners.
Had the picture been taken a year later then the family would have been eating out of foil tins at the table, For it was in 1953 that the TV dinner was invented, and Skookum sends notice that the inventor of the TV dinner has passed on at the age of 83, of cancer, which we can’t blame on the TV dinners because it turns out he was a gourmet cook and never ate them.
If I gave half a damn I’d go out and buy a TV dinner in memoriam of Gerry Thomas,who figured out what to do with 520,000 pounds of unsold Swanson Thanksgiving turkeys that, as there wasn’t room in the Swanson storehouses for them, were stranded in an American twilight zone of refrigerated railroad cars, going from west to east coast and back again.
“What does the corporate monster look like?” H.o.p. says and hands me a piece of paper from his 3 inch high stack and a pen. “Draw it for me?”
H.o.p. has recently discovered Neopets and he wants a Neopet toy and of course at the Neopet website they have all the toys and where you can buy them. H.o.p. wanted one of them that was written to be only available at Wal-Mart.
Get a grip on it. The Freedom Tower. A sacred subject. Right? No.
The Freedom Tower. Honors those who perished there and the whatever for which the new urban warriors fought daily. Right? Wrong.
I can think of nothing to blog while I’m deep in mangling the look of my site on the side. I’m that kind of dedicated sort of person. But I came across this over at Cupie’s and had to share. You too can make your own baby wipes. Think of the money saved. And all you need is a roll of paper towels, baby soap, baby oil, water, plastic container, measuring cup, tablespoon and table saw.
The first thing that must be done is cut the roll of paper towels in half. I’ve tried doing this with serrated knives or hand saws, but I’ve found that they either squash the roll or produce a very ragged, chewed-up end. The best solution I have tried is the table saw. A band saw would probably do as well, but I don’t have one to test on. First, put on your safety glasses, then raise up the blade as high as it will go. Then, with the plastic wrapper still on the roll, cut the roll down the center. You will probably have to spin the roll to cut all the way through.
Haven’t used baby wipes in years but who can resist saving 2 cents a wipe? The lowest price table saw I’ve found so far is at the link, $110. The “table” space is minimal. The next model up is nearly $300, also with minimal table space, and then the next is $315 and the table area looks like it would be able to accomodate three diners. Important to consider with three individuals living in an 800 square foot apartment.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever. I had to take a tad bit of a fun break. If you haven’t already seen it, the Paris Hilton hamburger commercial is here. I was thinking these people had to be spoofing themselves with the ad until I watched their “Behind the Scenes with Paris” clip (no relation to the above). But perhaps not.
The first Santorum I love Paris in the Spring Time offering (sans Hilton).