I gotta be honest here. No matter how many times you tell me that affirmative action and quotas in hiring and school admissions are a good idea, I will never agree. “But aren’t you for equality?” Of course I am. “Don’t you want things to be fair?” Well, yeah, duh. But the only way hiring — or anything else, for that matter — will ever be completely equitable is for people to give no regard whatsoever to race or sex and focus solely on the credentials of the applicant.

Before we go further into this topic, let’s take care of the elephant in the room. I am a 28-year-old, well-educated, white woman from a middle-class background. I grew up in a two-parent home in a relatively safe, rural community, and atttended small schools where I received a lot of personal attention. In short, I’ve had a lot of advantages.

Quota-based acceptance rates are often geared toward supporting those who haven’t had the same advantages I have, but this isn’t about keeping down the other guy. The central reason is that I don’t think they actually do anything positive for the other guy — or for me, or for anyone at all. In fact, I think they make things worse. Here’s why.

Scenario:

Sue is a hiring manager. She’s narrowed her applications to two candidates for the open position. Applicant A, male, 34, is supremely well-qualified for the position, interviewed well, and is available to start immediately. Applicant B, female, 29, is less qualified with less experience, but also interviewed well and is available to start immediately. Sue reviews her notes carefully, and makes her decision. She wants to hire Applicant A, and the position’s manager and subordinates all agree that he’s the best choice. But when Sue presents her proposal and the offer package to her supervisor for approval, her recommendation is quashed because of a new hiring mandate geared toward evening the gender ratio in the workplace by hiring more women, and the numbers are way off. In other words, no way can they hire a new man. Applicant B gets the job.

Commentary:

This is the essential problem with quota-based hiring: It’s just as discriminatory as its non-quota-based counterpart. The man doesn’t get the job because he’s a man. How is that any different from someone not getting a job because they’re female or black or from a bad neighborhood? If you ask me, it’s the same thing.

Something you’ll here us say on this blog a lot is, “Who says it’s a man’s world?” Women have been increasingly present in the workplace and in their own entrepreneurial ventures over the last several decades, and I would hate to think that it’s because some quota forced companies to hire unqualified people simply to meet some arbitrary requirement. How is that fair? Getting a job because you happened to be more fill-in-random-physical-or-geographical-characteristic-here than the other applicants despite the fact that you’re less qualified is not a good thing.

Take a look at our scenario. Who’s going to feel good about this hiring decision? Well, Sue sure isn’t. She knows that the less qualified applicant got the position, and she’s probably going to feel resentful toward her supervisor for making her offer the job to the wrong person, and she’s also going to resent the new employee for making her feel impotent in her job as hiring manager. The person supervising the new hire isn’t going to feel good about it because he knows the wrong person got the job, too, and that his new employee isn’t as well qualified as the one he wanted and thought he would get. The subordinates of the new hire, who were involved in the interview process and are familiar with the appplicants’ backgrounds, aren’t going to feel good about it because they got the less well-qualified supervisor.

And Applicant B, who just got the job, probably isn’t going to feel too great about it either, not when she gets to work and finds that her boss and the people who answer to her are standoffish and sullen. She may not know why, but if she finds out that they’re mad a less qualified position got the job, that will do little for her confidence in the position or her relationships with her coworkers. If she doesn’t find out, she may feel that she’s being treated that way because she’s a woman (and technically, she’ll be right).

A Better Solution:

I’m all for diversity in the workplace, but it needs to be natural diversity, not the charade of forced quotas. How does that happen? Diversity-focused recruitment efforts. Companies need to attend career fairs, networking events, and university employment events in a variety of geographical and demographic areas. Need a more international workforce? Don’t just hire the first guy from China who applies. Target international career fairs and visit college campuses with a strong international component. Need more women? Try career fairs at women’s colleges, and advertise your openings with professional organizations for women. The more diverse your applicant pool, the more your raise your changes of having a top applicant who will add a unique background and social experience to your organization.

We also need to remember that diversity is more than just sex and skin color. Diversity can also be about religious beliefs, cultural upbringing, geographical origin, political affiliations, and anything else you can think of that makes people who they are. Focusing on the two most superficial elements of diversity is narrowminded and counterproductive.

The key to a truly equitable diverse workplace is not just getting the numbers right. It’s creating a corporate culture that embraces excellence in whatever form it comes, and striving to open opportunities to a wide group of people. If you’re hiring for five positions and the top applicant in each position happens to be a middle-aged white guy, hire five middle-aged white guys. But if all of your recruiting activities are happening in Portland, Oregon, and that happens, you don’t get to complain about the lack of diversity in your organization.

What do you think? Are quota-based hiring methods critical to workplace diversity? Leave a comment.

NB: A version of this post originally appeared on the now-defunct BizChicksRule.com in January 2008. The editor of the business channel where the site was housed provided the scenario above as a prompt for all of the bloggers in the section. This was my response.

Can someone please explain this to me? I’m seeing it everywhere, but I don’t get it: Women who identify themselves, and people they purportedly like, as “bitches.” You call women you don’t like, women who offend and anger you, “bitches.” Why on Earth would you want to call yourself “bitch”? Why would you want to call someone you like and respect “bitch”?

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: bitch
Pronunciation: \ˈbich\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce
Date: before 12th century

1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
3: something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant
4: complaint

From Wikipedia:

Bitch is a term for the female of a canine species in general. It is also frequently used as a term for a malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, or unpleasant person, especially a woman. This second meaning has been in use since around 1400. When used to describe a male, it may also confer the meaning of “subordinate”, especially to another male, as in prison. Generally, this term is used to indicate that the person is acting outside the confines of their gender roles, such as when women are assertive or aggressive, or when men are passive or servile. More recent variants of bitch are bitchy, ill-tempered (1925), and to bitch, to complain (1930).

The word “bitch” has long been in use to refer to a woman in contempt, as shown in an 1811 dictionary which describes bitch as “the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore.”

Also worth checking out: the Urban Dictionary entry on “bitch.” The synonyms and related words at the top tell an interesting story, if you ask me.

So why would a woman call herself “bitch,” refer to her friends as “my bitches,” or ever let a man call her “his bitch”?

Evidently it’s an effect of “third-wave feminism” and a movement toward reclaiming derogatory and pejorative terms:

Words such as spinster, bitch, whore, and cunt continue to be used in derogatory ways to demean women. Inga Muscio writes, “I posit that we’re free to seize a word that was kidnapped and co-opted in a pain-filled, distant, past, with a ransom that cost our grandmothers’ freedom, children, traditions, pride, and land.” Third-wave feminists believe it is better to change the meaning of a sexist word than to censor it from speech.

Many of these words did not originally have their modern connotations of power. For example, the English word cunt, which is commonly used as a pejorative, is a derivative of the Germanic word “kunton” meaning “female genitalia.” Over time the word has become both a pejorative and a marker of femininity. The words bitch and whore developed in a similar fashion.

You can talk to me about reclaiming words until you’re blue in the face and I still don’t buy it. The swastika used to be a good luck symbol and a religious image until Hitler used it to represent the Nazi party. Should I wear clothes with swastikas on them and just assure horrified passersby that I’m reclaiming it? Should I start calling black people “niggas” because I’m reclaiming “nigger”? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

How about teaching people respect instead? How about not demeaning your fellow women by using offensive terms “to empower them”? I do not find it empowering to be called or to call someone else “bitch” or “cunt.” I find it offensive. In fact, I think that calling ourselves and other women “bitch” and other offensive terms is a form of self-loathing, and I think we need to stop it. I don’t think I should have to call myself “bitch” before someone else does so I can say, “I reclaimed it.” Embracing the label reinforces its use and makes it acceptable and that’s not okay. I don’t think there should be anything pejorative about speaking your mind, asserting yourself, or having an opinion.

To that end, I took a romp through the internet to see how women are using “bitch” to describe themselves. If you pay a visit to Heartless Bitches International, you’ll find that they’re not exactly doing anything to ameliorate the term. The Bitch Girls Blog seems to preach imply say that having an opinion of any sort makes a woman a bitch, and the author dubbed herself “Bitter.” Gee, that’s appealing. I’ve met The Daily Bitch and Angry Black Bitch and found them both to be articulate, interesting, atractive, and clever, and am baffled as to why they would give themselves such an unkind label. Then I found Bitch PhD and again found smart women with a lot to say. And then we have Bitch magazine, whose title and tagline, “Feminist Response to Pop Culture,” together seem to imply that opinions of any sort other than “I like baking and raising babies, I do declare” are equal to bitchiness.

Why do we need to hide behind the label of “bitch” to feel okay with expressing opinions — or to slap it on others to make them feel like they shouldn’t express theirs? When are we going to stop being “bitches” and just be women?

I’m worried that you may be missing out. This is important, and it could change your life, so listen up:

You “deserve” anything you give so much as a passing thought to — and even stuff you may not have thought of at all.

If you want that new television, go ahead and buy it even if you can’t afford it! Don’t worry, they offer no-interest financing for 12 months. And by the time your first payment is due, maybe someone will magically offer to pay for it on your behalf. Same thing with the dream house that’s way out of your price range. You deserve it, so don’t take no for an answer

See that ridiculously oversized meal that’s new at Arb McWendkingway? All 4,000 calories of it? Get it, baby. You don’t need to sully your incredibly worthy hands by actually preparing a meal. And of course don’t worry about how unhealthy it is; you’re clearly entitled to excellent health no matter what you put into your body.

Oh, and that minor fender bender you were in a few weeks ago? The one that caused zero damage whatsoever? You deserve justice. Call your local ambulance chaser legal professional right away before someone else gets your money, because you are clearly the victim here.

By the way, you’re worth it. Whatever it is, you’re worth it.

You deserve everything, and if you don’t get what you want when you want it, you need to fight back against the people who are oppressing you. You are entitled, and you can’t let anyone take advantage of you by standing in your way.

Okay, enough of that. Let’s get real now.

Where did this concept of “deserving” things come from? If you don’t earn something, you don’t deserve it. Maybe we should share this brilliant insight with the parents who go after teachers for failing their cheating kids — and the principals and school boards who support those whackos. Or maybe we should share it with basically everyone in this country under the age of 65, at which point someone seems to have poured stupid juice into the US water supply to make us think we get something for nothing.

Wanting things does not entitle you to them, and acquiring things comes with consequences. If you want a McMansion, be prepared for a McMortgage. If you want a spouse, be prepared to work for a good relationship. If you want kids, be prepare to raise them. If you want a promotion at work, be prepared to go above and beyond, and stay there.

I heard some great insight for a former sales manager that really resonated with me. She talked about how she always taught her employees that making 100% of quota was the minimum expected of them, not something to toot their horn about. “100% is a C,” she said, “and if you want an A [raise, promotion, etc.], you have to do more that only what we hired you to do.”

In some ways, I think this entitlement thing is generational, but it’s a larger cultural issue. The buy-now-pay-later mentality that has become the basis of our [crumbling] economy has supported the expectation for instant gratification. There’s no delayed satisfaction anymore, no investment, no hard work. We see it in the insane upswing of lawsuits where before there wasn’t even a second thought. We see it the young employees who sulk if they don’t get a gold star every day for showing up for work, because that’s what they were accustomed to by an indulgent and ineffective school system. And we see it in advertising, which although never having our best interests at heart, is now blatantly preying on our baser instincts.

Where I think I see entitlement’s effect the most strongly is in self-esteem. Schools, entertainment, magazines, advertising — it’s all about having great self-esteem. Yet mysteriously no one seems to have it. Why is that? It’s because self-esteem is earned. It’s respect you have for yourself because of your character and your actions and your achievements. There is hardly a real achievement anymore; showing up is good enough. Every kid who plays in the league gets a trophy, because we’re all winners here. Everything must be inclusive at all times. And God forbid anyone deny you something you want, you’ll sue him.

If we want self-esteem, if we want to have nice things and satisfying relationships and a good education, we have to stop coasting. We have to stop falling back on this “But I deserve it, I’m worth it!” mantra. If you haven’t worked hard toward a specific goal you don’t deserve it. And you know it. That’s why so many people feel so empty inside, no matter how many material possessions they have — because what they really need is a sense of SELF-worth, and all they’re really building is shelf-worth.

Here’s my advice. Shape up. Or at least make sure that in all of your material pursuits (what you can fit in between your frivolous law suits, that is), you don’t purchase a mirror. You wouldn’t want to have to look yourself in the eye.

This is Part 2 of a 3-part rant. Read Rant Part 1: YES – If You’re Fat, You Need to Lose Weight

No wonder Americans are so fat: Popular culture and advertising keep telling us day in and day out that we don’t need to take responsibility for any of our actions and we’re fine just the way we are, and people are believing this crap.

Example: More to Love, FOX Broadcasting Company, Tuesdays at 9ET/8CT

The official description from FOX:

Luke Conley is a 26-year-old former college football offensive lineman who stands 6′3″ and weighs over 300 pounds. He’s a successful sub-contractor and real estate investor who has his sights set on building a long-lasting relationship. Luke’s ideal woman is intelligent, passionate, down-to-earth, full-figured and comfortable in her own skin.

This eligible guy will have the chance to find the woman of his dreams when 20 voluptuous ladies vie for his heart. These unique women have careers ranging from waitress to teacher to lawyer to rocket scientist, but they all have one thing in common: They are also looking for love.

This brawny prince is searching for one curvy Cinderella to take on the romantic adventure of a lifetime. Throughout the course of his journey, Luke will wine and dine these women during romantic outings, where some will experience their first real dates. As Luke narrows the competition each week through emotional elimination ceremonies, he will be one step closer to finding the woman who is his perfect fit.

Watch the More to Love preview on YouTube

So apparently FOX thinks “real women” means fat women. And I guess I can understand that, because since well over half of Americans (64%!)  are overweight or obese according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; source), it’s hard to find anyone, man or woman, who isn’t fat these days.

But here’s the thing: IT’S NOT GOOD TO BE FAT. It’s bad for you. And vilifying people who assert that overweight and obesity are bad while parading these poor women who clearly have zero self-esteem and would benefit from psychological intervention up in front of America isn’t doing anything to change that, nor could it. It’s just exploiting them and suggesting that viewers should feel sorry for fat people because they’re victims of a society that refuses to accept them. Um, no.

Show creator Fleiss was quoted at The Live Feed as saying, “We want to send the message that you can be the size you are and still be lovable. We aren’t going to thin these girls down so they can find love — that’s a backwards message.” I agree. But it’s not exactly a forward message to find the most emotionally unstable, fame-hungry single fat girls in America and splash them on the prime time screen with their height and weight superimposed for the world to see while they wail about their horrible lives. Nor is it a forward message to see these women pandering to this slimeball and his inappropriate, disrespectful behavior to stay on TV, as is the case with all of these awful dating shows.

I mean, seriously, what self-respecting woman of any size would want to get with a schmuck who goes on national TV to stroke his overinflated ego by having 20 insecure women compete for his favor while he attempts to get it on with all of them? I’m not the only one who thinks this is ridiculous, btw.

Ladies and gents, it’s time to stop believing this “you’re just fine the way you are” crap. (Not to mention the “having a boyfriend / husband / child will solve all of your problems for you” crap, but that’s another blog post that you can be sure will also mention this appalling show.)  If “the way you are” is obese or overweight, “fat acceptance” isn’t going to change the negative health consequences you will experience for most if not all of your life as a result of your weight. That is not fine.

Says the CDC (boldfacing mine):

Overweight and obesity may raise the risk of illness from high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, certain types of cancer, arthritis, and breathing problems. As weight increases, so does the prevalence of health risks. The health outcomes related to these diseases, however, may be improved through weight loss or, at a minimum, no further weight gain.

Because of the importance of these issues, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers overweight and obesity among the 10 leading health indicators in Healthy People 2010, the health objectives for the Nation. The potential benefits from reduction in overweight and obesity are of considerable public health importance. (source)

The CDC summarized the results of a comparison of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; boldfacing mine again):

• The percent of obese adults varied little from 1960 to 1980 but increased considerably between 1980 and 1991, from 13 to 21 percent among men and from 17 to 26 percent among women. This trend continued in 1999–2000, with an increase in obesity of 28 percent of men and 34 percent of women.

• The percent of adults with healthy weights declined approximately 10 percent from 1960 to 1994, with an additional decline of approximately 8 percent from 1994 to 2000. (source)

So in case you missed the point, being fat is bad for you, and the proportion of Americans who are fat is climbing significantly. Weight is not an issue of your value as a human being, but it may be an issue of how you value yourself as a human being and how much you value the well-being of the people in your life who will be affected by your being overweight or obese. It’s selfish not to do something to solve problems that are under your control, and it’s arrogant to expect the world around you to accommodate your failure to act.

I do not hate fat people. I do not blame people with legitimate medical issues that affect how their body metabolizes appropriate portions and types of food for their overweight or obese condition, who are a small number of the large and growing overweight/obese population in the US. But I also do not accept that people who are overweight or obese (or, for that matter, smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and other people who make life choices that hurt them and the people around them) do not have to take responsibility for themselves.

I’m not judging whether you’re a decent human being, nor, as show creator Fleiss suggests, whether you’re “lovable.” I’m saying that if you’re doing something that makes you unhealthy or less healthy, you should knock it off and straighten out your priorities. Would you rather be alive and health, or would you rather be an indignant victim? I’d pick alive and healthy, but maybe that’s just me.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

Dear Rude Boy:

If you hadn’t crashed into my sister-in-law and me multiple times in the wave pool this weekend, I wouldn’t have said anything. I know what it’s like to splash around and have fun with your friends, and sometimes you get distracted and bump into someone. I get that. But when you do it repeatedly despite the fact that we’ve been consciously moving away from you, and then I see you kick a little girl in the head while you’re trying to drown your pal, it’s not inappropriate for me to do what I did.

As I’m sure you remember, the next time you came splashing toward me with no regard for the people around you, I put my hand on your back and straightened my arm to keep you from knocking me over (again). As I’m sure you’ll also remember that my exact words to you when you turned around, aghast, were, “You guys need to be more aware of your surroundings, okay? You’ve crashed into us multiple times.” 

Now, what I expected you to do after that happened was to say, “Oh, sorry,” and move somewhere in the pool where there were less people. Imagine my surprise when you shot me a look before moving closer to your friend and looking pointedly at me while acting like you were talking to him and snarled, “How about if people don’t like it they move the hell out of the way.” 

Here’s the thing, kiddo: We did move out of the way — more than once. And you and your pals were so self-involved that you basically terrorized the entire rear half of the pool for more than an hour.

How would you have felt if someone had continually knocked your girlfriend (you know, the too-young-for-you, scantily clad girl you were hanging on and salivating over when you weren’t crashing into other swimmers?) down in the pool and then, when she asked him politely to stop, he not only didn’t apologize but then made snarky comments and glared at her? I’m guessing a fight would likely have ensued, with you as the aggressor.

I get the impression that you were trying to impress your pals with your devil-may-care, no-one-tells-me-what-to-do attitude and show them how manly you are, but in actuality, you really just acted like a petulant 4-year-old who, frankly, needed a time out and was way overdue for a spanking. Not cool, young man, not cool at all.

I’m not sure what you were so afraid of, or why it was so completely off the table for you to simply acknowledge what the problem was and stop doing it, but this style of handling conflict does not bode well for your future relationship, or for your girlfriend. If you’re so concerned about what your homies or crew or whatever the word is these days think about you that you completely overlook basic manners and decency, I shudder to think how you’d behave if there were some kind of serious conflict, or perhaps if your girlfriend disagreed with you. 

Was I threatening your masculinity by asking you not to run into me repeatedly in a large body of water? Did I emasculate you by asserting my right not to be assaulted by inconsiderate strange males in public places? Were you concerned that my request that you respect my personal space would cause a lightbulb to go on in your girlfriend’s head, leading to her ultimately standing up to you when you pull your undoubtedly common immature crap?

Man up, little boy. Real men don’t need to behave like big weenies in order to feel manly. They don’t avoid admitting it when they screw up or to treating women with respect for fear of losing street cred. And they don’t hang out with people who would consider taking responsibility, being polite, and demonstrating respect as weaknesses.

I hope you seriously consider everything I’ve said. It will save you a lot of trouble in the future. Honestly. Give it a shot: Grow up.

Oh, and by the way, if you touch me again, I’ll have you thrown out of the park.

Love,

Kristen 

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

(photo credit: Marcelo Terraza)

(http://kristenking.com) — The flap surrounding President Barack Obama’s nomination of Hispanic female Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who remarked, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” almost 10 years ago) to the Supreme Court has drawn a flurry of indignant comments about reverse racism.

Newsflash, all you so-called experts waxing eloquent on the news channels: Racism means discriminating on the basis of someone’s race. The races of the discriminator or discriminatee are completely irrelevant; any discrimination based on race is racism. That means that, gasp, if a Hispanic person makes discriminatory comments about a white person or group of people, it’s still racism.

Wanna talk about indignation? I find it completely absurd that we have nationally embraced the concept that only white people can be racists, and everyone else has to be “reverse racist.” How’s that for racism?

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — I had no idea that trying on that turquoise eye shadow would lead to THIS. Thanks, persistent makeup counter girl with the unpronounceable name. I now look like a cheap whore who was attacked by a peacock, and my husband can’t stop laughing.

Said my friend Betsy, who was there with me, “It was so bad, it was all I could do not to laugh. I wanted to grab that girl and say, ‘Stop doing that to my friend!’” I wish you had, Betsy; I wish you had.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — Really, folks, someone is going to tell him sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

This week, Scott MacIntyre’s hair was some bizarre kind of cross between Ryan Seacrest and a labradoodle. Last week, they put him in pink corduroys, a pink and green paisley shirt, and a brown pinstriped jacket.

Jesse and I had identical reactions:

“I know he’s blind, but oh my God,” he said.

“The stylists must have a lot of fun dressing a blind guy,” I said at the same time.

What is up with this? Dude has no business in the competition; the least they could do would be to dress him well. Or, at the very least, not make him look like he dressed himself. Come ON.

They make Megan Joy look awesome week after week even though she’s, let’s face it, doing the VFTW crew proud. They can’t throw poor Scott MacIntyre a bone? I mean, after all he’s done to make Paula “forget” about his “challenge”? (No need to remind her that blind people can do everything you can with the sole exception of seeing… And driving, I guess. Whatever.)

Again, it would all be quite impressive if he were deaf-mute. But I’m still not feeling it. Let’s hope we get some good news tonight. If he ends up going home (pleaseohpleaseohplease) I’m sure it will be a nice break for him to stop being the poster child for AI’s inclusiveness for a few months.

Until the tour starts, anyway.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — We ran out of dishwasher detergent last week and I had this really bizarre realization: I’m 27 years old, on my second home, and have been out of my parents’ house for going on 9 years, yet I have never bought dishwasher detergent in my life.  

This is particularly strange because of the two homes we’ve owned in 4 years, both had dishwashers, which we used regularly. Prior to that, we lived in small, cheap apartments that didn’t have level floors, much less the luxury of a fancy machine to wash our plates and silverware for us. We were lucky to have a four-burner stove with a single working burner.

When we moved into our townhouse 4 years ago, we used the previous owner’s leftover dishwasher detergent for about a month and then purchased a water filtration system that came with a 5-year supply of dishwasher detergent, dish soap (for washing dishes in the sink), hand soap, shampoo, concentrated cleaning fluid, glass cleaner, and bar soap.

Apparently we were a little generous with the portions when we ran the dishwasher since we ran out in 4 years instead of 5, but that’s beside the point. I needed to buy dishwasher detergent for the first time in my life and didn’t know what to do.

We didn’t realize we were out until we were COMPLETELY out, so my brilliant husband googled to find household alternatives to dishwasher detergent. (When he recounted for me what happened when he and his college roommate washed a soap-in-the-handle scrubby brush in their dishwasher back in the day — explosive suds everywhere — we agreed regular dish soap was a risk we weren’t willing to take.) Baking soda and Borax or dish powder with white vinegar as a rinse agent, on the other hand, sounded great.

That night, we ran the dishwasher with just vinegar as the green cleaning website suggested, and on Thursday, I went to Costco and picked up the cheapest powdered dish detergent I could find along with a 12-lb bag of Arm & Hammer, brought it home, and mixed it up 50/50. Total cost: $11. Estimated usage: at least 12 months at 1 tbsp/load. We already had more than a gallon of white vinegar for other cleaning.

It was a momentous occasion, this dishwasher detergent purchase. And judging by the remaining levels of laundry detergent and cleaning fluid, there are at least two more momentous occasions to follow in the next few months.

Real adulthood, here I come.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(image)

(www.sass-pants.com) — Is it because he’s blind? Is that it? Because the dude sucks, and I can’t figure out why he’s still on the show and now, God help us, the American Idol Season 8 Tour.

When they named him to the Top 13, I figured Scott MacIntyre would be the hands-down lock for the Vote for the Worst pick for the season and it would be an amusing couple of months as we watched him climb to the top until VFTW follwers’ consciences (or ears) were so damaged that they stopped voting for him. But it turns out, that’s Megan Joy, who, admittedly, has some weaknesses (caw, caw).

Scott is an amazing pianist, a solid musician, and an okay singer. Yes, you heard me, an OKAY singer. He’s clearly not tone deaf, and he has some moments that are slightly less cringeworthy than others. He’s nowhere near as good as some of the folks who have gone home already and some of those who didn’t even make the Top 13 (Ju’Not Joyner, anyone?).

Would he be a great music teacher? For sure. And heck, he’d be a really big fish in the church choir pond. But this boy has NO business in the American Idol Season 8 Top 10, and it blows my mind that the judges keep praising him week after week.

My theory: Scott is off limits because he’s blind. (I am not the only one who thinks his backstory is more appealing than his vocals.) And I don’t think that makes me a jerk.

Why else would Kara and Paula keep saying things like, “Was it a stellar vocal? No. Was it a little pitchy? Yes. But you’re being true to yourself.” Uh, guys? Not sure what the contract they gave you says, but last time I checked this was a contest to find the BEST SINGER and less-than-stellar vocals with consistent pitchiness are BAD THINGS when you’re trying to win the hearts of America as the BEST SINGER.

Or perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps this is a talk-up-the-people-who-increase-the-controversy-and-goodwill-factors-to-get-higher-ratings contest. Maybe that’s why the judges keep telling him he brings “class and poise to the stage” (Kara) and other useless nonsense (or, as Simon would say, “indulgent rubbish”) and blah-blah-blahing about his piano skills instead of talking about how awesome his vocals are — that would be because his vocals are anything but awesome, in case I lost you somewhere.

Jesse, my husband, put it just beautifully as we cringed and groaned through Scott’s performance of “Wild Angels” last week:

See, now, if he were DEAF, this would be really impressive. But he’s just blind. And he sucks. And this isn’t a playing-the-piano competition anyway; this is a singing competition.

Amen, honey. Amen.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King