Blog Comments

  1. prosperonline's Avatar
    Well, thanks, indeed, that's very educating. I had a feeling somehow it would relate to wine just as now, or after the nespresso machines, some wine terminology is being used refering to coffee as well. Just a question, by any chance, do you think Creed would make a mistake writing its own address on a bottle? Thank you.
  2. kumquat's Avatar
    This person who shall henceforth be known as; Bubble Boy, is without a doubt a control freak. And I say it's 'War'! He (or she) has no right to object to such a faint odor unless it causes that person immediate respiratory distress. In that case, one wonders, as you say, how they can even get along in the real world anyway? I would ignore these complaints. You should complain of his breath.
  3. mimielle's Avatar
    This is very interesting, I am new to reading here (so much later in December 2013, haha!) and was wondering about this as well so I'm really glad you posted it for me to reach back and find.
  4. C0ldf1re's Avatar
    Very educational. I once came across a Judge as logical and merciless as Piso.
  5. Jeannemarie's Avatar

    First I'm looking at "the dresser-top collection," and then onto "the bookshelf collection." I am speechless! I am without speech.
  6. Jeannemarie's Avatar
    Absolutely LOVED this, lol!
  7. Aiona's Avatar
    I like ROtto's theory, but I suspect Orgoglio italianO's theory is probably the more likely.
  8. Orgoglio italianO's Avatar
    I think somebody is just being an ass... If you stopped wearing fragrance on Sunday and you smell frags on other people even after you stopped they still complain. I think it's just that person just being difficult for some reason. It was nice of you to even do that most people would have ignored it and said tough. It was nice of you :-)
    I just get the feeling this person has some kind of weird make it difficult for you syndrome for some reason. You did a good deed to please someone because of their problem (so called). I say tough Cannoli to that person. Their just being ridiculous
  9. ROtto's Avatar
    Have you ever seen Todd Haynes's movie "Safe"?

    Since there is a strong link between fragrance and memory, perhaps you once wore something the person couldn't stand, and now everytime that person sees you, they "smell" that fragrance.
  10. JaimeB's Avatar
    Fred 360,

    I wouldn't go out of my way to harm or unnecessarily provoke this person. What I might well do is continue to use my usual soaps and other personal care products and eliminate or drastically tone down the amount and style of scent I use to the point where it might just smell like soap, and perpetrate a pious fiction by saying I am using nothing at all. If what the others are using can’t be detected, then I should be safe doing this. I'm not out to punish this person, just to protect myself from an intrusion into my most personal choices and habits, within reason.

    By the way, I already use unscented deodorant and shaving products; my haircare stuff is routine, and only very lightly scented. The shower gel is use is the only moderately scented thing, and that mostly washes off my body...
    Updated 29th November 2011 at 11:39 PM by JaimeB
  11. ECaruthers's Avatar
    The choir director sets the rules for the choir. Many that I know about ban fragrances. Your choir or your choir director is more liberal than those. I hope the new person doesn't ruin it for everyone.
  12. Fred360's Avatar
    I think you have gone well beyond what is required and should quietly let the entire choir know about the requests. I sense it is actually something else. You have been way too honest and kind. Don't admit to bathing. . Suggest they see a doctor for their imagined sensitivity. How close are they to you in choir? Wear your most civet-y sent in the side closest to them.
  13. JaimeB's Avatar
    @ Saintpaulia:

    For my part, I too agree with you that much of the problem is in Washington. The problem is that legislators depend on special interests to fund expensive election campaigns, and then become captive to those interests to one degree or another. Now those interests have become so powerful that it is no longer a question of asking legislators for what they want, but rather of imposing it on them and their (also captive) constituents.

    As for your other points about the 16th Amendment (the Income Tax) and the Federal Reserve, I can say two things: first, the U. S. is far from the only large industrial country to have these things, and it is not practical to turn back the clock a hundred years; secondly, I do not think that these ideas were bad, as long as they functioned the way they were designed — it is the tinkering with them to benefit corporations and the rich that have thwarted them to some degree from their original, socially productive purpose; but they can and should be restored to that original purpose. As to arguments about their constitutionality, everything I have been able to read about these indicates that the arguments on historical and legal grounds are hard to take seriously.

    - - - - - - - - -

    I see the beginnings of our crisis in the anti-tax movements and the pro-corporate policies of people like Karl Rove and his tutees Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, as well as their British admirer, Margaret Thatcher. Their notion is to “starve the beast” (i. e., in their estimation, the government) so that it can no longer protect the sovereignty of the people against the power of large economic interests.

    These policies have inaugurated a new era of the Robber Barons and re-monopolization, negating all the laws that restrained them.

    The rich and the large corporate interests, who love to fly the flag and talk of patriotism, are not patriotic enough, it seems, to pay taxes like the rest of us. On top of that, the only purpose they see in government is to provide security for their interests.

    They are very patriotic when it comes to sending other people's children to die in wars that protect the economic interests of the power elites, but not patriotic enough to pay for those wars through making their fair share of tax contributions, even in many cases to the extent of returning a portion of their own war profits.

    Their interest in security has given us a new (and very expensive) branch of the Federal government which has been set up on the basis of maintaining a constant state of fear and threat among the citizenry. With all kinds of statutory exemptions from due process rules, it has brought us closer to becoming a police state, which in combination with the weakening of electoral democracy, is producing an air of repression all around us. What else are we to think when right here in my backyard of Northern California, we see police in riot gear with Pentagon-supplied automatic weapons deployed to deal with peaceful demonstrations?

    U Cal, for example, was first set up in 1868 as a system to provide free higher education for California citizens with their tax money; yet now it seeks to charge $22,000 a year per full-time student. Those students gather to protest, and are beaten by police called from several different agencies, not for rioting, but merely for disobeying an order to disperse. Talk about pre-emptive strikes! Those cops are working on our tax-payer dime, and we should order them to disperse. Clouds of tear-gas waft across our democratic nation, with its glorious free speech and freedom of assembly, as laws are passed which give police and public officials a pretext to cancel those rights because keeping a park closed at night is more important to them than allowing citizens the only means they apparently have left to fight against injustice.

    Now what?
    Updated 12th November 2011 at 11:13 PM by JaimeB
  14. Saintpaulia's Avatar
    Thanks for the info on ALEC. So that's where all those fascist laws get hatched! I always wondered who in the hell was able to come up with bills that were amazingly homogenous in their ability to continue to strip away all the rights granted to The People under the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    I absolutely agree with you in general, regarding the overall 'serfdomizing' of The People at the hands of Corporatism. I do not agree that the solution is more governmental regulation. Government is the problem (it and its mirror image the corporations). The problem has its origins far earlier than any recent "deregulations". What the OWS does not seem to see (although there are exceptions), is that the things that they do not like stem from actions taken about 100 years ago when two items were introduced into American polity. The Progressive (and unconstitutional) Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System's Central Bank (also unconstitutional).

    The derivatives and so forth are a natural outgrowth, in one sense, of the whole Ponzi Scheme known as fractional reserve banking. Henry Ford was dead-on right when he mused: If the American People really understood our economic system, I believe there would be a revolution tomorrow morning.

    The problem is not Wall Street and it isn't in New York City either. The problem is in D.C. (District of Criminals).
  15. laroche's Avatar
    Bonjour Jaime,
    Interesting and enjoyable read. I immediately thought of "Youtube" as an example of the increasingly evident control that commercial interests are having in our lives. Once only a forum for individuals, it would now be more appropriately named "Corporatetube" as you now can't open a video without an advertisement of some sort popping up.
    You asked how it can be fixed. Unrelated to my youtube analogy, but related to being subject to corporate marketing, I've made a serious effort in purchasing locally made clothing and food (from Canada's west coast). For example, I could have bought a pair of mass-produced, house slippers at Wal-Mart, but I decided to hold off. I eventually found a beautiful pair made by a lovely family in North Vancouver, with techniques handed down to them by the First Nations peoples of the Northwest Territories. It feels great to have supported them.
    Perhaps something can be gleamed from my example.
    A tout a l'heure mon ami!
    Updated 10th November 2011 at 10:37 PM by laroche
  16. ECaruthers's Avatar
    I would add one more aspect of corporate influence on our legislatures. In many ways they have legalized fraud. Try to read the 'agreement' that comes with a credit card, or the disclosures that come when you buy a stock or bond. They enable enormous differences between what you are told and what happens. Bernie Madoff goes to jail but no one from the bond rating agencies, or from the companies that created and sold AAA-rated toxic assets. They all obeyed what is now the law.
  17. fredricktoo's Avatar
    As the one-percent pays their agent provocoteurs to infiltrate the protests. I expect the protests will get very weird.

    PS: smacking head, where's my manners? Great post Jamie!
    Updated 5th November 2011 at 12:37 AM by fredricktoo
  18. JaimeB's Avatar
    We thought the country had problems in the 60s, and it did, but what we've got now is a badly broken system that the politicians are too bought-out to solve. Take it to the streets!
  19. fredricktoo's Avatar
    Oh man all this demonstrating soooo takes me back to the 60's man.
  20. lilybelle's Avatar
    Bravo, Jaime! Loved this one.
Page 1 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000