Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:11 PM

Well, Boopsie's off with Judy (where she'll be staying while we're off to Chicago for the weekend). We've got a little last-minute packing to assemble and then we're set.

One final bit of catblogging I've been meaning to post about.

If you haven't already discovered it, you should read the online comic strip Two Lumps.

PS: I'm not bringing my laptop on this trip, nor do I expect internet access anyway, so if anything happens, if you write or see anything you think I should read, please drop me a comment so I don't miss it. Thanks.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:00 PM

Using our laptops from bed brings us that much closer to Boopsie. Which offers all kinds of interesting insights into animal behavior.

Among them, this post of Ian's from last weekend:

Sites my cat wants me to visit.

AaaaaaaaIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Well, at least, that's what she typed into the URL field.

Then she turned the volume down, and attempted to set a "Favorites" key on my keyboard.

Okay, actually, she just walked across the keyboard, but at least she didn't try to sleep on it this time.

In response, someone pointed us to the LiveJournal of ripley_the_cat, which simply must be seen firsthand. Be sure to read the comments to his posts for the fullest experience.

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:55 AM

Variations on a theme, with apologies to Carl Sandburg:

Any other versions you know or care to share?

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:01 AM

From an email my mother forwarded along:

I can't get over that last one. You know there are other cats in that household that might want to sleep in one of those beds. Heck, look closely and you'll notice the smaller bed is already occupied!

Oh, and one final photo, non-feline for my sister-in-law.

In all these cases, you may click the images to enlarge them.

And if you can't get enough of these kinds of pictures, may I recommend CuteOverload.com (cuteoverload on LiveJournal) for high intensity animal cuteness when you need it.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:54 PM

Other people pointed these out to me and I'm passing the laughter on to you:

• Bad Dog (41 seconds)
• Floating Dog (in Airplane) (23 seconds)

Both are freebies from Google Video.

Assuming I have time, I've got more catblogging goodness planned for tomorrow.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:40 PM

Good news: Guess who made it into the New York Times (online content)?

Blogger Reaction to the Alito Hearings

Published: January 12, 2006

As Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. continued his public drive for confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, bloggers registered their reactions. Following is a selection of posts in reverse chronological order.

[...]

Riba Rambles by Lis Riba
Wednesday, January 11 10:55pm ET
Some settling may occur
"Jack Balkin has an interesting post about what the Alito questioning says about the current state of the constitution:The Alito hearings make clear that at this point in American constitutional history..."
• More from Riba Rambles: Nice is different than good

Bad news: After checking SiteMeter and my website logs, I've gotten only one hit referred from this page in the over eighteen hours since it was posted.

Good news: That hit comes from an IP address associated with newshour.org, a domain registered to MacNeil Lehrer Productions. [Hey, and they managed to read the one page I've mentioned their show, too!]

While part of me feels like preening at the attention, it also seems sadly insular.

The only folks who noticed the New York Times' "Blogger Roundup" enough to follow the link come from another national news organization.

How did I get notice? Near as I can tell, about ten minutes after I made that post, somebody (from an Illinois IP) did a Technorati search on Alito. Right place, right time, though I'm sure something in my writing probably boosted me ahead of the other 40,000 posts with that keyword.

Speaking of interesting SiteMeter findings, I also regularly get hits from the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms @ senate.gov. I don't think I have a regular reader there; these also come out of technorati searches -- these on the names of Senators. So be forewarned, if you blog about a senator, they may see it.

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:00 AM

Two further thoughts inspired by last night's post on constitutional catechism and beliefs that are off the table.

First of all, in Alito's hearings, Republicans keep making the point that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't disqualified for her opinions on abortion. Well, Mahabarb has her testimony and it was far more open than Alito's being. More to the point, though, this shows that Ginsburg's position is the mainstream one, acceptable to the general public.

Second, it explains part of the vehemence on both sides over Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). You don't put organizational memberships on job applications unless they have some meaning to the hiring managers. Clearly, Alito thought that mentioning CAP would give him added credibility with the Reagan administration. And what did CAP represent? A lot of prejudice that couldn't be written openly. It's coded speech, which Alito intended to be read in a certain light. And now they're trying to distance themselves from that meaning.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:55 PM

Jack Balkin has an interesting post about what the Alito questioning says about the current state of the constitution:

The Alito hearings make clear that at this point in American constitutional history, a Supreme Court nominee must recite a catechism of belief if he or she is to be confirmed.

The nominee must state that he or she (1) believes that there is a right to privacy, (2) that Griswold correctly protected this right of privacy at least as to the right of married persons to purchase and use contraceptives; (3) that Eisenstadt -- which extends Griswold to single persons-- is correctly decided as to its result; (4) that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided, (5) that Plessy v. Ferguson was incorrectly decided, and (6) that the one person one vote principle in Reynolds v. Sims is correct.

The nominee must also agree that Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania are Supreme Court decisions that are entitled to the weight of stare decisis. However, the nominee need not agree that these decisions are correct or beyond reexamination in the way that Griswold, Eisenstadt, Reynolds v. Sims and Brown are.

What explains this particular catechism? [... T]he reason why this particular catechism has developed is that it reflects the views of the current dominant national political coalition about what constitutional questions are off the table for revision.

[...]

Note, however, that the constitutional status of Roe and Casey have mutated over time, and we can see this in the rhetoric that John Roberts and Samuel Alito have used. Both state that Roe and Casey are precedents of the Court entitled to the respect of stare decisis. That may not seem like much to pro-choice advocates, but what it does suggest is that Supreme Court nominees may no longer denounce Roe directly as Bork did in his hearings. I would venture to state now that any nominee who directly and forthrightly stated that Roe and Casey were illegitimate decisions and should be overturned would not be confirmed.

Given all that, I find it extremely fascinating that (as far as I've been able to tell) Alito hasn't been asked directly for his opinion on Lawrence v. Texas. What does that imply regarding mainstream acceptance?

Also, regarding that last sentence I quoted, multiple polls have confirmed that a majority would oppose Alito if they believed he'd overturn Roe. Thus his cagy rhetoric. What actually surprises me about the Senate questions is how much Republicans are pushing back. Neither side seems willing to accept ambiguity, even though the GOP might be more likely to get their way if they were willing to shut up about it...

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:10 PM

Been following the Alito hearings mostly through SCOTUSblog's minute-by-minute liveblogging of the day's questions, followed up by NPR's coverage over my evening commute and Jim Lehrer's wrapup once home. [Supplemented by commentary from other blogs as well.]

Watching the Daily Show segment on the hearings, Ian was struck by all the Republicans praising Alito's character. What does that have to do with the guy's qualifications for the Supreme Court?

Then Ian realized their fallacy. They don't believe that someone can be a good person and still be wrong. Thus, if you establish they're a good person, then clearly they must be in the right.

That, of course, is a load of bull. There are many people whom I respect yet still think are utterly wrong on certain matters. Likewise, there are people I loathe on my "side."

Last month, I made a note of this post by Matt Stoller which I meant to blog. In it, he criticized Barack Obama's stump speech:

I ask, for instance, why in speeches is Obama saying that Bush is not a bad man? Why is he saying that Bush loves his country? How does that help us make the case that Bush is a liar and a fraud? It doesn't. It in fact undercuts our case, and the fact is, we are right and he is wrong, and it is important that our case base be made. I know I'm going to get pushback in the comments, but let me ask you this. What in the world is the difference between Tweety saying that "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs" and Senator Obama saying that Bush isn't a bad man and loves his country?

At the time, I just found it an interesting perspective. But if people really do conflate likeability and nice-guyness with correctness, then we need to respond to that in our rhetoric.

That's not to say that we should become character assassins ourselves, but if we intend to bury Caesar, don't praise him at the same time.

Speaking of Alito, Glenn Greenwald wrote an essay yesterday that I agree with so strongly that I've been trying to figure out how to blog it. There's no easy place to cut it, making me tempted to just quote it in its entirety.

Democrats cannot meekly accept defeat on Alito

The Democrats are a party in urgent need of a good fight. And the Alito nomination presents the perfect opportunity for Democrats to demonstrate that they are willing to wage a real battle for the things they believe in. Two core Democratic principles, at least, are at stake in these hearings, and are clearly threatened by the Alito nomination:

(1) whether we live in a country where the President has the right to declare himself to be above the law and can freely violate whatever laws he wants; and, (2) whether the privacy rights which are the bedrock of individual liberty in this country will be decimated by the Supreme Court, thereby returning us to the days where women were prohibited by the state from having abortions and where the Federal Government is able to intervene in our lives and restrict our liberties in the most personal and private spheres, from our most intimate relationships to the way we die.

If Democrats are unwilling to fight for these principles, what are they willing to fight for? And if Democrats crawl away from this battle, meekly convincing themselves before even engaging it that they are destined to lose and therefore shouldn't even bother to try, how can Democrats possibly object when they are perceived as being weak, irresolute, and afraid of taking a stand for their beliefs?

I've seen diaries in DailyKos and this BuzzFlash essay saying that Dems have been "keeping their powder dry" waiting for the right opportunity to use it most effectively.

Well, guess what, this is it. The perfect storm. As Glenn points out:

The President is weak and unpopular. His party is engulfed by scandal. The nominee is stiff, unlikeable, and even vaguely creepy; he looks and smells liberty-infringing. And the President just got caught breaking the law on purpose and then claimed in the most Nixonesqe manner possible that he has the right to violate the law.

And those are exactly the issues at stake in this hearing. Democrats should be frothing at the mouth to engage this fight. It couldn't have been scripted better. There are great benefits to gained from this fight even if Alito ends up being confirmed. There is certainly more to be gained by a principled fight than there is to be gained by meekly and impotently accepting defeat without a fight, and thereby looking yet again like the nice, good losers.

Most Americans pay virtually no attention to Washington except when the big events occur. We should want Americans to pay attention to what this Administration is doing right now and should therefore crave a big event in order to capture their attention. If there is a real war over Alito -- rather than some pompous Senatorial ceremony where his confirmation is pre-ordained -- then Americans will pay attention.

Sure, we may not succeed. Sure, even if we do succeed, the next nominee might be just as bad. But that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court ought to be earned, and this serial liar doesn't deserve it.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:54 PM

I was going to post this link for a professional author I know, but realized that many of you might find this useful.

McSweeney's offers writing advice: Fondling Your Muse: Fighting Procrastination (by the author of earlier articles on "Breaking Through Writer's Block" and "Rounder Characters in No Time Flat")

An illustrative excerpt:

Word and time quotas are for the disciplined and focused, the kind of people who pay their bills on time and never get caught without change at the tollbooth. The kind of people who throw out the Christmas tree before it becomes the St. Patrick's Day fire hazard. Setting goals isn't enough. A goal is merely a pledge; you need a plan. Saying you're going to do something doesn't mean it's going to happen -- just ask President Bush about that whole liberating the Middle East thing. Research shows it's even easier to break promises we make to ourselves than those we make to others, particularly when there are no immediate consequences to our promise-breaking. Therefore, an effective plan involves an elaborate system combining reward and punishment.

For example, if you've hit your word-count goal for the week, give yourself a treat -- like that decadent cupcake you always spy in the display case at the bakery but resist in the name of your waistline. If you reach a monthly goal, step up higher on the pleasure ladder and take a day of beauty at the local spa.

Been good for a series of months? Give in to your wildest unfulfilled fantasies and pay an eccentric billionaire for a week on his remote island, where you will hunt the ultimate prey -- another human being.

Of course this close to New Years, some of his motivational ideas might help people with other resolutions.

Oh look, he's got a book out, published by Writer's Digest of all places...

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:00 AM

Remember the Cory Maye case? [If not, refresh yourself with my first post on him from December, or get the detail view from Radley Balko's aggregated posts]

Well, here's the latest from Radley Balko:

Cory Maye's lawyer on appeal is Bob Evans, who also happens to be the public defender for Jefferson Davis County. For ten years, Evans has also served as the public defender for the town of Prentiss, the seat of Jefferson Davis County.

It now appears that the Prentiss Board of Aldermen have fired Evans as the Prentiss public defender. His transgression? Representing Cory Maye. Evans told me last month that he'd been warned that if he agreed to take this case, he could well be fired. Looks like whoever warned him was correct.

Radley has more, including an email from Evans and conversations with town officials. Sounds like retaliation, or at least nobody's offering any evidence to the contrary. Wonder what it will take for the mainstream/traditional media to take notice of this case...

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:50 PM

I find myself agreeing with today's Jeff Jacoby column.

Because today, Jacoby is writing about the Jack Abramoff scandal. After three paragraphs on his crimes and crassness, each concluding with the comment "But that isn't the worst that can be said about him," Jacoby finally builds to what he feels is the worst aspect of the situation:

The worst is that Abramoff is a Jew. Not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew -- someone who claims to be committed to strictly observing Jewish law and faithfully adhering to the Torah's ethical standards. But instead of upholding those ethical standards Abramoff trampled on them, and a ''religious" Jew who behaves so corruptly disgraces not only himself but all religious Jews. He brings his faith into contempt. He is guilty of what Jewish tradition calls, with disgust, ''chillul ha-Shem" -- a desecration of God's name.

For me -- also an observant Jew -- that is the worst thing of all.

Honesty in financial dealings is not optional in Judaism; it is mandatory. The Talmud teaches that when a person is brought to judgment in the world-to-come, the first question the heavenly tribunal puts to him is: ''Did you conduct your business affairs in good faith?" A Jew who takes the values of his religion seriously must be scrupulous in his transactions with others. To be sure, even the saintliest people -- not to mention the rest of us -- sometimes fall short of the values they profess. But Abramoff's criminal deeds and sleazy manner are a lot worse than mere lapses in judgment. One who behaves so unethically and illegally drags more than his own reputation through the mud. He is an embarrassment to his religion and his community, and that comes close to being unforgivable.

At least Abramoff has started showing contrition (according to Jacoby).

That's more than can be said about David Brooks -- not the columnist, but the man who's been profiting off selling bad armor to troops. Here's something Ian wrote about the buy last month:

Elizabeth Brooks' father is David H. Brooks, a defense contractor who made hundreds of millions of dollars selling sub-par body armor to the United States Army.

Her Bat Mitzvah included Aerosmith, Tom Petty, Kenny G, and 50 Cent as acts. It cost an estimated $10,000,000.

He also stiffed the help, paying them HALF what he agreed to. As Susan Felber realized, her brother, who barbacked the event, made less money for 44 HOURS of work than any one of the guests got in their goodie bags.

My question: can we find out what shul David H. Brooks goes to, and do we have any connections to the rabbi of that shul -- and can we have that rabbi issue a cherem against Mr. Brooks?

(As one comedienne commented, "At the kiddush, Mr. Brooks drank a large glass of the blood of Christian children, just to make certain that he didn't miss any potential offensive stereotypes.")

There comes a level of crudity that turns into a . . . well, the only word that comes to mind is shonda. I mean, no word in English seems to have the emotional impact.

And I think that this is a case where the Jewish community as a whole has to stand up and say that we don't stand for 1) selling substandard body armor to the army of our own country, 2) stiffing the help, or 3) turning a celebration of a religious event into a FUCKING LAUGHINGSTOCK OF OVER-THE-TOP CONSUMERISM. I mean, I can't even find a word in YIDDISH to express what this. . . THING is. "Ungepatch" is far, far to kind. "Shonda fur di goyim" is certainly a part of the problem -- when you act THIS badly, THIS obviously, in ways that reinforce preexisting negative stereotypes, well, that's what the phrase "shonda fur di goyim" is for. But, hell, he'd deserve a cherem even if this happened entirely within the Jewish community.

So: how do we go about contacting his community and issuing a cherem? I doubt HE'D care much -- I doubt he goes to shul. But I think it would send an important message to the world: this isn't who we are.

Well, Jeff Jacoby? Think this is material for another column?

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:01 PM

John Aravoisis is on a roll this weekend.

Did you know Anyone can buy a list of your incoming and outgoing phone calls, cell or land-line, for $110 online!

Furthermore, Republicans in Congress know and are trying to overturn state privacy laws to protect consumers.
And naturally, industry has no interest in regulating itself: Cingular Wireless says 3rd parties buying your phone records is "an infinitesimally small problem".

Even if you have nothing to hide, these services don't care who's asking or who the phone belong to. The Chicago Police Department felt it necessary to issue an internal bulletin:

"Officers should be aware of this information when giving out their personal cell phone numbers to the general public," the bulletin said. "Undercover officers should also be aware of this information if they occasionally call personal numbers such as home or the office, from their [undercover] ones."

Something like this endangers our national security far more than the New York Times article last month.

I agree with Digby:

I support the idea of Democrats introducing a constitutional amendment to codify a right to privacy once and for all. I have heard some say that we should not do this because people will then realize that we don't already have that right. I think that's weak. The only people who are currently concerned with that argument in any practical sense are judges and they understand the issue very well. This is about taking a public stand and fighting for something that most Americans, not just Democrats, believe in and care about.

A constitutional amendment is a very difficult thing to do and would probably require decades to accomplish, but it is something that we can hang our hats on as a matter of fundamental principle. It should be a standard Democratic line along with "health insurance for all Americans" or "equal rights under the law." People need to understand that when the Republicans say there is no right to privacy in the constitution, they like it that way --- and that we disagree. Strongly.

Between this, the administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping, and other outrages, maybe we're finally at the tipping point to make something like this work.

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:33 PM

Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow.

Knight Ridder looks at his record:

As the Bush administration defends its right to eavesdrop on Americans without court permission, a look at Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's record on search and seizure matters reveals how few limits he has imposed on the government's power to gather evidence.

A Knight Ridder analysis of more than 300 written opinions by Alito, for example, reveals that he has almost never found a government search unconstitutional and that he has argued to relax warrant requirements and to broaden the kinds of searches that warrants permit.

There are a few exceptional cases in Alito's record, notably a 1998 ruling in which he rejected the search of a black driver's car for a handgun because police practically admitted that race influenced their decision to stop the man. But overall his record in this area has produced near uniform results in favor of government authority.

Incidentally, when I looked at the source code of this webpage to snag quotes, I found a few more paragraphs commented out:

In one 2004 case, for example, Alito didn't find fault with an 18-month, round-the-clock surveillance operation that was never approved by a judge.

"His record suggests an extremely strong pro-government bias," said Robert Gordon, senior vice president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Gordon separately examined 12 search and seizure cases where other 3rd Circuit judges disagreed with Alito. The Supreme Court nominee did not oppose the government in any of them, he said.

Gordon found Alito particularly likely to question the need for warrants.

"The general idea is that we require warrants because we think advance judicial consent is an important restraint," he said. "He seems fundamentally skeptical of the value of advance judicial approval. That's what the domestic spying cases are all about, too."

Back to that 18-month unwarranted surveillance, even another judge called Alito's ruling "Orwellian."

Of course, this is in addition to the fact that Alito has proven himself to be an unrepentant serial liar. Fortunately, it looks like some Senators are paying attention.

[via iocaste]

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:48 PM

Several stories in recent news that I've been meaning to blog:

According to Congressional Quarterly:

TSA Wants Access to Veterans' Files to Add 'Mental Defectives' to Watch List

Is there an efficient, legal way to keep crazy people off airplanes altogether, like the manic depressive man shot dead at the Miami airport last week?

As it turns out, the government was taking steps in that direction almost a month before Rigoberto Alpizar was plugged by U.S. air marshals after he ran down the Jetway with a bundle in his hands while saying, according to the government, that he had a bomb.

A Nov. 15 notice put out by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is always thinking about new ways to keep potentially dangerous people off our airliners, states TSA is looking for contractors to add a number of new databases for screening passengers and airport workers.

Up first are the files of the Defense Department (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA), which the TSA says it wants scoured for "mental defectives."

[...]

For TSA data-hunters, though, it's just the beginning.

"We plan to add two new data sources per year," its notice said.

This is not rumor or urban legend, but already policy and going up for bid.

The primary criticism of this article has been focused on the shameful treatment of veterans, but this policy threatens anybody who's ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.

[First seen on Suburban Guerrilla]

So, who else is the no-fly list grounding? How about James Moore, author Bush's brain: how Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential, Bush's war for reelection: Iraq, the White House, and the people, and Rove exposed: how Bush's brain fooled America.

Moore recounts his recent airport experience:

"Mam, I'd like to know how I got on the No Fly Watch List."

"I'm not really authorized to tell you that, sir," she explained after taking down my social security and Texas driver's license numbers.

"What can you tell me?"

"All I can tell you is that there is something in your background that in some way is similar to someone they are looking for."

"Well, let me get this straight then," I said. "Our government is looking for a guy who may have a mundane Anglo name, who pays tens of thousands of dollars every year in taxes, has never been arrested or even late on a credit card payment, is more uninteresting than a Tupperware party, and cries after the first two notes of the national anthem? We need to find this guy. He sounds dangerous to me."

"I'm sorry, sir, I've already told you everything I can."

"Oh, wait," I said. "One last thing: this guy they are looking for? Did he write books critical of the Bush administration, too?"

I have been on the No Fly Watch List for a year. I will never be told the official reason. No one ever is. You cannot sue to get the information. Nothing I have done has moved me any closer to getting off the list. There were 35,000 Americans in that database last year. According to a European government that screens hundreds of thousands of American travelers every year, the list they have been given to work from has since grown to 80,000.

[via AMERICAblog]

BTW, Moore isn't kidding about the contents of this list being secretive.

From the end of the Congressional Quarterly article above:

[T]he FBI quietly announced via the Federal Register on Dec. 2 that it was putting the Terrorist Screening Records System beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

I could go on and on about the no-fly list: Asking the purpose of forbidding people to travel when they're apparently not dangerous enough to take any other steps to protect society. Why is it a national security threat to let people know the existence of FISA eavesdropping in general, yet airports can tell people they're on the no-fly list with impunity. Not to mention all the innocents, including infants (at least 14 according to the November Harper's Index) caught up in this overbroad net...

But there are even greater outrages ongoing:

The IRS has been collecting political affiliations of taxpayers from several states, including Massachusetts:

As it hunted down tax scofflaws, the Internal Revenue Service collected information on the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of an appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the IRS, said the practice was an "outrageous violation of the public trust" that could undermine the agency's credibility.

IRS officials acknowledged that party affiliation information was routinely collected by a vendor for several months. They told the vendor last month to screen the information out.

"The bottom line is that we have never used this information," said John Lipold, an IRS spokesman. "There are strict laws in place that forbid it."

So if it's illegal to use, why permit anybody to collect it?

Via AMERICAblog, though MyDD raises the important point:

There's another piece of this that's potentially problematic, and that's the use of data vendors. I don't know anything about data vending, but it seems to me that if rogue data vendors are collecting whatever they want, then even if the IRS civil service isn't politicized there's an easy way to do an end-around on the professional public class in the agency, and the compliance procedures are breaking down.

Worrisome, considering the possibility of separate political relationships with government data vendors.

BTW, the other 19 states whose taxpayers' voting records were scrutinized were "Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin." Mostly blue states, aren't they?

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:40 AM

Last night, I saw Cadbury Creme Eggs and Cadbury Caramel Eggs on the shelves of the local drug store.

Four months before Easter.

Twice the lead time from Halloween to Christmas.

This sucks.

Among other reasons, I happen to like Cadbury Creme Eggs and Cadbury Caramel Eggs when they're in season. I don't want to buy them this early, because that will encourage retailers to put them on sale earlier and earlier. Yet the last several years, stores have sold out of them in the month before Easter, because they've gone on sale so darned early.

So what's a Cadbury-egg-lovin' gal to do?