Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Happy Leap Day!

Ahhh, February 29, the day that only comes around once every four years. It's kind of a magical day, no? An extra day in the month to do something you wouldn't normally do. And you get to meet Leap Day William, the monopoly man who happens to be a huge University of Michigan fan. 

Kenneth is my favorite 30 Rock character.
He gives you candy for your tears, so what better way to spend another work day you don't want to be at then by getting free candy?

I've never really considered it before, but Leap Day is an opportunity to do something you wouldn't normally do. Try a new food or book a travel excursion, text your ex you've been dying to get back together with, or maybe tell your boss how you REALLY feel about that assignment.

But why bother to have Leap Day anyway? What's so special about February? It's just a tedious month filled with sappy love references and bad weather. Well, the Huffington Post has an excellent article about the history of Leap Day, if you're interested.

In short, the reason we have an extra day is because Julius Ceasar noticed the calendar wasn't lining up with the solar calendar--the amount of time it takes the earth to orbit the sun. So he decided to add an extra day to the last month of the year, which happened to be February. Voila! The Julian calendar was born. Aside from being one of Rome's greatest ruler (if not THE greatest) Julius Ceasar also saved our holiday schedule as we know it.

But there were still some problems with the timing, so Pope Gregory XII moved the calendar up by 11 days and came up with a new calendar that would more accurately reflect the timing of the earth's orbit. Now we have the Gregorian calendar, which is what we still use today.

So go out, enjoy a few Leap Day beers and do something impulsive before settling back into your office cubicle and your real life. Maybe you'll see Leap Day William while you're on the street. 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Well don't just stand there, snoopers, come on in!


Privacy--how is it not an issue?

The Inquirer (not the ENquirer, the amusing supermarket tablet) published an article about Google's upcoming privacy changes, which take effect March 1. Several reports claim the majority of Google users are ignorant, which is depressing, but not surprising.

Yes, anywhere from 12 percent (Inquirer) checking the new policy out to 7 out of 8 people NOT checking it, the stats are pretty low when it comes to people caring about who views their information over a multitude of platforms, uses it and packages it in the form of "tailored content"--searches designed specifically relate to your past history.

But when the EU and U.S. attorneys general become concerned, maybe it's time for people to sit up and listen. Claims of violations and fears of invasion of privacy from a number of respected people who actually know how to read that policy junk shouldn't be taken lightly.

So what is happening with the privacy policy? More details can be found here but the basic gist is that the separate privacy policies of Google (Gmail, Youtube, Android, etc etc) will be combined into "one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google," as their overview page states. Well, that's nice but what if someone doesn't want that? 


OK, so John's a woman. But you get the point.


Let's use an example. Say John has a Youtube account, a Gmail account, regularly uses Google in his searches and has an Android phone. Say he also works in a public office where anyone can have access to his computer and, if he's not careful, his email account (if he doesn't log off.) He has to be careful what he searches on Google, because he doesn't want to be caught looking at porn while he's at work. 


But say he loves to look at puppy videos on Youtube when he's at home, or searching for the latest movie trailers starring Sylvester Stallone. Or say he's super lonely and likes to look at pictures of women he can never date. He's not going to be doing anything like that at work (unless he's bored or stupid) and would prefer to keep his work computer as clean as possible. His job depends on it.


Then say he uses his phone to check his banking information while he's at work, because he doesn't want to leave a history of his account number or banking website on his computer. His phone is a nice, personal way to check his account to see if anyone's stolen his identity or to find out if he can take the office to lunch. 


What Google is planning to do is to create a policy that will combine all those separate searches into advertising that will reflect what you're searching for. So now, when John's at work diligently researching the latest accounting trends or shortcuts for Photoshop, he might get ads popping up that show the best places to adopt dogs or cats, where to work out to get buff like Sylvester Stallone, singles dating sites or XXX sites, or banks that have the lowest fees for opening a savings account. Some of that is damming information when you're at work. If Bill happens to pop by the desk and see the ads on the sides of the page, he can deduce quite a number of things about his coworker that he would never have been able to otherwise.


And can I just add that the idea of suggesting search queries is A, not new (as Google seems to suggest--I have tried to search "What happens when you get lost" and have not gotten past "what happens" when the search box is filled in with "What happens when you get pregnant") and B, annoying. Maybe I don't WANT to search Columbus, Ohio just because I recently looked up driving directions to Chicago, maybe I'm interested in Christopher Columbus! Leave me alone and let me do my own searching!


It looks like Google is going ahead as scheduled with its new policy, despite calls from several watchdog groups to delay it. What this means for the EU is up for grabs; I don't live in Europe so I don't really care. But for the millions of people here who use multiple Google services, you better start clearing out your history and preparing separate accounts if you use Google at work and at home. 

Monday, February 27, 2012

And the winner is....

Oscar time! I didn't watch the ceremony (applying for jobs and not having a TV were the factors in my decision) but reading the results I found that "The Artist" won Best Picture. And deservedly so! I saw it this weekend, and loved just about everything about it. I think it helped to know going in that it was a silent movie, because I don't always like surprises, especially when it comes to movies.

Jean Dujardin accepting his Best Actor award. Photo from LA Times

What was there to like about the movie? Great acting, storytelling and production. (And a cute dog, so it was the icing on the cake.) Jean Dujardin as George Valentin was outstanding, as was his lady counterpart, Berenice Bejo. But it was the story that particularly was driven home for me. "The Artist" is a tribute to silent cinema, but also shows the effect technology can have on those who are stubborn to resist it, as Valentin was. With everything that is being revolutionized now that things are easier, faster and available to everyone, there are ultimately those who still wish they were living in the past and believe things will return that way. Watch "The Artist" and you will see what happens if you don't get with the times. It was that, more than anything else, that really held sway for me.

Moral of the story: I highly recommend seeing the film if you haven't (and that's growing more unlikely since people will most likely flood theaters to see it after it won Best Picture.)

But the awards aren't the best part of the show for me, it's the fashion. I'm a sucker for pretty gowns. And this year, Milla Jovovich had the prettiest, in my opinion. She looked absolutely beautiful.
Soooooo pretty! Photo from Just Jared
 Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Angelina Jolie, whose dress looked really inappropriate for such a glam night. And she looked so pale, a little too pale for me. But she usually looks pretty fabulous, so I think she can be excused one night.

Too much leg, and too depressing. It's like a
stripper funeral dress. Photo from Superficial.
Overall, a pretty successful night for the Oscars it seems. I don't think there was anything particularly exciting or memorable about it, but certainly not one of the worst nights. Congratulations to everyone who won awards!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Chris Brown, you've done it again

Congratulations, Chris Brown. You've unnecessarily proved that you are still king of the douchebags.
Photo from zap2it.com


Gawker posted this item about a police report filed in Miami by a woman who accuses Brown of taking her iPhone when she tried to snap a picture of him. He was allegedly quoted as saying ""Bitch, you ain't going to put that on no website," before driving off with her phone.

Lordy, give it a rest already, will you? This is what happens to celebrities time and time again, especially since he's recently been catapulted back into the spotlight (thanks, Grammys). I don't blame him for lashing out, especially with paparazzi swarming all over the place. I can't imagine the irritation that comes with having your picture taken just because you're famous. I can only thank God that I don't have to deal with it. However, that does not give Brown the right to drive away with someone else's property. If he had just asked her not to take his photo, or covered his face or did something to prevent the photo from being taken (in a legal way, obviously) then his image (no pun intended) could have remained somewhat intact, rather than face another legal dispute.

Anyone else notice that he called this woman a bitch? You could certainly argue heat of the moment reaction, but it's hard to ignore that he was degrading to the woman.

Looks like this could turn into a mini-series of postings about why Chris Brown is King Douchebag. Stay tuned for more updates!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The impossible just happened: Betty White is cooler than before

Just when I thought Betty White couldn't get any more awesome, she totally did.

Yaaay Betty White!

I just finished her book, "Betty White: Here We Go Again" and loved every page. Not just because it's Betty White (though that's pretty much a given) but because I genuinely enjoyed her writing style and learning about the history of television. You see, that's really what the book is about--her life, as seen through TV shows over the past 60 years. For a minor history geek, not to mention a Betty White fanatic, it's one of the best combos that could be dreamed up.

I've only seen Betty White in Golden Girls, but after reading her book, I want to go out and find every show she's ever been in. Unfortunately, her earliest shows were before the invention of tape (wow!) so no luck there. But there are plenty of other shows that, with a little luck, I could find. And believe me, after reading some of the sketches she did, I will be looking.

Anyway, go read the book if you find it! And I'm not just saying that as a Betty White fan. I love the six degrees of separation idea, and there's plenty of that in this book. TV shows are all eventually connected to each other through actors, producers, directors or networks. All the work that she's been in, from Life With Elizabeth to covering Thanksgiving parades for 20 years, (I didn't know that!) to the Mary Tyler Moore Show, to Golden Girls and beyond is discussed and without a hint of egoism or bragging. Sure, she's proud, but who wouldn't be if they managed to stay relevant in television for 60 years?

If you're looking for serious background on the history of TV I wouldn't really recommend it, since that's not really the point of the book. It just gives you her history and how she took her first steps in showbiz, the format of game shows and getting shows on networks has changed. Basically, it's just enough so that you understand what she's going through at the time, but for a complete TV un-know-it-all (ie, me) it was just the right amount.

And, if you're one of those people who likes pictures with their books, this can help you out, too! Lots of photos included, including a nice color section. It helps get a sense of who all the people from "the old days" are.

I thought I knew a little something about Betty White and her TV history, but this book showed more of the incredibly warm, bright, funny, engaging woman than I could've imagined. With her career taking off once more, here we go again, indeed. I can't wait to see what she will do next.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Racial ad removed from Senate campaigner's Internet activity

Continuing the half theme of Superbowl commercials, Michigan Senate campaigner Pete Hoekstra has removed his racially tinged Superbowl ad from his Facebook and Youtube pages, according to ABC News. (Of course, because anything on the Web stays on the Web, it will always be associated with him anyway. Silly man.)


The ad, which was only aired in Michigan, was certainly one of the more talked-about ads even if it wasn't one of the exciting ones. Personally, I think there's a bigger backlash against it than necessary, but that seems to be the way with everything these days. I have to admit the broken English was a bit much, as I'm sure there are plenty of people in China who know how to speak English--and probably better than their American counterparts. 

What I find interesting is that even though Hoekstra has removed the ad, he is still valiantly defending it as not being racial in any way, shape or form. Why is he bending to such pressure then if he still thinks he made the right call? Obviously he's trying to please both sides by catering to ethnic groups' whims on one hand and conservatives who hate the policies in place with China, but sooner or later he'll have to take a side. (Also, please. No, the ad's not as racist as having someone dress up pretending to be Chinese, but the background images and broken English clearly imply stereotypes that are reflected as being negative. There could've been a different route taken.)

Hopefully the situation will resolve itself quickly so we don't have to hear about it any more (though admittedly it hasn't gotten much Michigan press) and the action groups who are protesting the ad can find better examples to devote their time to. I'm sure they'll have plenty of work to do; people are always being insulted in one form or another.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Song on repeat for the day

I'm still tired from my drive back from Chicago, so I've had little to no energy to think about what to post. So what's on tap for today? The song I'm 'currently listening to, and have been listening to since 9:10 a.m.  It's most popular from the Chevy Sonic Super Bowl commercial, (see below) but I've also posted the whole song here.

I'm not sure how I feel about cars bungee jumping, but that doesn't mean the song's
 not awesome.


The full-length song.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Delicious recipe(s) of the day

I am extremely hungry right now, so I figured the best use of my time would be to look up delicious recipes I can salivate over. These will never come to fruition for me because I hate to cook, but what the heck? I can dream.

Photo from allrecipies.com

The Best Meatballs (from allrecipes.com

Prep Time:
10 Min
Cook Time:
20 Min
Ready In:
30 Min




Serves 8

Ingredients

  • 1 pound ground beef
  • 1/2 pound ground veal
  • 1/2 pound ground pork
  • 2 cloves garlic, minced
  • 2 eggs
  • 1 cup freshly grated Romano cheese
  • 1 1/2 tablespoons chopped Italian flat leaf parsley
  • salt and ground black pepper to taste
  • 2 cups stale Italian bread, crumbled
  • 1 1/2 cups lukewarm water
  • 1 cup olive oil

Directions

  1. Combine beef, veal, and pork in a large bowl. Add garlic, eggs, cheese, parsley, salt and pepper.
  2. Blend bread crumbs into meat mixture. Slowly add the water 1/2 cup at a time. The mixture should be very moist but still hold its shape if rolled into meatballs. (I usually use about 1 1/4 cups of water). Shape into meatballs.
  3. Heat olive oil in a large skillet. Fry meatballs in batches. When the meatball is very brown and slightly crisp remove from the heat and drain on a paper towel. (If your mixture is too wet, cover the meatballs while they are cooking so that they hold their shape better.)


Nutrition Information:
Amount Per Serving  Calories: 613 | Total Fat: 53.2g | Cholesterol: 155mg


Peanut Butter Truffle Brownies (from BettyCrocker.com)

Photo from BettyCrocker.com


  • PREP TIME
    20 min
  • TOTAL TIME
    2 hr 40 min
  • SERVINGS
    24

Ingredients:
Brownie Base
1
box (1 lb 2.4 oz) Betty Crocker® Original Supreme Premium brownie mix
Water, vegetable oil and egg called for on brownie mix box
Filling
1/3
cup butter, softened
1/3
cup creamy peanut butter
1 1/3
cups powdered sugar
1 1/2
teaspoons milk
Topping
3/4
cup semisweet chocolate chips
3
tablespoons butter

  • 1Heat oven to 350°F (325°F for dark or nonstick pan). Grease bottom only of 8-inch or 9-inch square pan with cooking spray or shortening. (For easier cutting, line pan with foil, then grease foil on bottom only of pan.) Make brownies as directed on box. Cool completely, about 1 hour.
  • 2In medium bowl, beat filling ingredients with electric mixer on medium speed until smooth. Spread mixture evenly over brownie base.
  • 3In small microwavable bowl, microwave topping ingredients uncovered on High 30 to 60 seconds; stir until smooth. Cool 10 minutes; spread over filling. Refrigerate about 30 minutes or until set. For brownies, cut into 6 rows by 4 rows. Store covered in refrigerator.
Nutrition Information:
1 Serving (1 Brownie)
  • Calories 220
    • (Calories from Fat 100),
  • Total Fat 11g
    • (Saturated Fat 4 1/2g,
    • Trans Fat 0g),
  • Cholesterol 20mg;
  • Sodium 120mg;
  • Total Carbohydrate 29g
    • (Dietary Fiber 1g,
    • Sugars 22g),
  • Protein 2g;
Percent Daily Value*:
  • Vitamin A 2.00%;
  • Vitamin C 0.00%;
  • Calcium 0.00%;
  • Iron 6.00%;
Exchanges:
  • 1/2 Starch;
  • 0 Fruit;
  • 1 1/2 Other Carbohydrate;
  • 0 Skim Milk;
  • 0 Low-Fat Milk;
  • 0 Milk;
  • 0 Vegetable;
  • 0 Very Lean Meat;
  • 0 Lean Meat;
  • 0 High-Fat Meat;
  • 2 Fat;
Carbohydrate Choices:
  • 2;
*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.

Mmmmm.... so yummy. Whip up some pasta for the meatballs and grab a glass of milk for the brownies and you're good to go.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Erin Morganstern's "Night Circus" shows promise, but a maddeningly slow read

I recently finished "Night Circus," written by Erin Morganstern. And while I was immediately overcome with a desire to have a seizure when I saw the dizzying black and white stripes, I enjoyed this book, though I have to say I was getting more frustrated with it as the story went on.

Photo from http://.erinmorganstern.com

Before I get started, let me first describe what "Night Circus" is about--or supposed to be about. The story takes place over the course of many years, first starting in the mid-late 1800s, and winding its way into the 1900s. It tells the story of two people, Marco and Celia, who have been training since childhood for a challenge that eventually pits them against each other, though they don't know it. The stage for this challenge is the Night Circus, or Le Cirque des Rêves,a magical circus open only at night. Many lives are affected as Celia and Marco eventually fall in love, and the people of the circus as well as the circus itself hang in the balance as the challenge is played out. 


Not the greatest description, but considering how I felt about the book I think it's pretty accurate. What is NOT accurate, is Good Read's description, seen here:


But behind the scenes, a fierce competition is underway—a duel between two young magicians, Celia and Marco, who have been trained since childhood expressly for this purpose by their mercurial instructors. Unbeknownst to them, this is a game in which only one can be left standing, and the circus is but the stage for a remarkable battle of imagination and will. Despite themselves, however, Celia and Marco tumble headfirst into love—a deep, magical love that makes the lights flicker and the room grow warm whenever they so much as brush hands. 


Spoiler alert: The description makes it sound really enthralling and exciting, when in fact it isn't. 


I don't know about you, but I love a good story. As discussed in a previous post,  I really need a good story to get me through a book or movie. And "Night Circus" didn't deliver. The story line was extremely vague and slow, and the pace was even slower. I think in hopes of keeping the reader interested and to bide her time, the author inserted many, many, many passages of excellent description. And they were quite amazing. But when I wasn't vividly imagining the circus tents or smells, I was desperately trying TO imagine what was going on in the story. The "challenge" that Marco and Celia are forced to be in? There wasn't even the merest hint of what it was supposed to be about until 10 pages from the end. The rules were vague, and I as a reader was just as frustrated as the characters who weren't given any idea on what was supposed to be going on. The strings being pulled by Marco and Celia's masters (who, by the way, are HORRIBLE people, as this reviewer points out) are not so much strings as thin bits of thread--you can't even see that they're being pulled because there's nothing to pull.


As for the "remarkable battle of imagination and will" that was supposedly going on throughout the story, it's Marco and Celia building tents for each other in the circus. They collaborate on the project, so I was highly displeased with the choice of words the summary gave me. You can't collaborate with each other in a battle, otherwise it's not a battle. Granted, they're very nice tents, but it really took away from the suspense the book seemed to promise.


And as far as the love story is concerned, I wasn't as bothered by it as other reviewers. It's true that there isn't much development as there could (and probably should) have been, but I've read other books about lovers who can't be together due to various circumstances, evil masters, bad timing, etc. etc., and it's something I just don't mind as much as other aspects of the story like action or dialogue. Maybe I'm just used to it. Or, maybe I'm too cynical to care--after all, half the time the lovers end up separated or killed. 


But don't get too discouraged! Are you a fan of wondrous description? "Night Circus" definitely knows how to take a cue from that. And if you don't mind a meandering story, especially one about circuses, then I would recommend this book. I think it shows potential from the author and I would read something else by her on the hopes that she has upped her game and will provide a story with a little more substance while still combining her fantastic use of imagery.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

A Grammy doesn't mean you aren't a violent douchebag

Chris Brown, the noted R&B singer now most famous for beating then-girlfriend Rihanna (who might be back together with him, but let's talk one thing at a time), is lashing out at critics who questioned his recent comeback at the Grammys.

Photo from guardian.co.uk/PictureGroup/Rex Features
Seriously, why are we supporting someone who obviously is king of the douchebags?

He tweeted, "“HATE ALL U WANT BECUZ I GOT A GRAMMY Now! That’s the ultimate F**** OFF!” but then later recanted, and came back with this doozy:


"“IM BACK SO WATCH MY BaCK as I walk away from all this negativity #teambreezygrammy.”
He then tried to delete that tweet from his account, too. Step one of Internet 101: Anything you post to the Web stays there FOREVER.

Photo from http://tkoblogextreme.com/
Aside from the obvious mentions I could make about capitalization, punctuation and spelling, this is not someone we should be idolizing. He pummeled a woman with his fists. And because he has a new song we're going to accept the fact and pour adulation on him? Or even suggest he beat us up, too? What kind of message does that send to women, especially those who have already been victims of domestic violence? We as society repeatedly send the message that it's not OK to beat women (think Stop Violence Against Women campaign), yet when someone ordered to undergo domestic violence counseling performs at an awards show--twice--and is loved on by fans, there's something wrong.

As for the possibility of Rihanna and Chris back together, I sincerely hope those reports are just rumors and not based in fact. That she would get back together with her abuser is a terrible mistake and sends the message that it's OK to reunite with someone who punched your face because he won a cool music award. I can practically see the thought bubble of "Oh, he didn't mean it last time" coming out of her head.

Just because you won a Grammy doesn't mean you aren't a total bastard who deserves absolutely no respect.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Happy overly commercialized and sappy holiday!

For all you Valentine's Day haters, here's a list of unhappy facts about Valentine's Day that might make you feel better.

Suck it, all you happy couples out there, who needs your flowers and candy and sexy lingerie?

What kind of idea has a baby with wings running around shooting
people with arrows? That's just wrong! (Photo from listverse.com)
Oh wait, you're not one of those miserable, depressed people who rip on Valentine's Day? Fair enough. Here, read about famous people in love and have some happy facts instead, courtesy of history.com:


Shah Jahan

Emperor of India from 1628 to 1658, Shah Jahan has gone down in history for commissioning one of history's most spectacular buildings, the Taj Mahal, in honor of his much beloved wife. Born Prince Khurram, the fifth son of the Emperor Jahangir of India, he became his father's favored son after leading several successful military campaigns to consolidate his family's empire. As a special honor, Jahangir gave him the title of Shah Jahan, or "King of the World." After his father's death in 1627, Shah Jahan won power after a struggle with his brothers, crowning himself emperor at Agra in 1628. At his side was Mumtaz Mahal, or "Chosen One of the Palace," Shah Jahan's wife since 1612 and the favorite of his three queens. In 1631, Mumtaz died after giving birth to the couple's 14th child. Legend has it that with her dying breaths, she asked her husband to promise to build the world's most beautiful mausoleum for her. Six months after her death, the deeply grieving emperor ordered construction to begin. Set across the Jamuna River from the royal palace in Agra, the white marble fade of the Taj Mahal reflects differing hues of light throughout the day, glowing pink at sunrise and pearly white in the moonlight. At its center, surrounded by delicate screens filtering light, lies the cenotaph, or coffin, containing the remains of the Shah's beloved queen.

Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

The only child of the famous feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and the philosopher and novelist William Godwin, both influential voices in Romantic-Era England, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin fell in love with the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley when she was only 16; he was 21 and unhappily married. In the summer of 1816, the couple was living with Shelley's friend and fellow poet, the dashing and scandalous Lord Byron, in Byron's villa in Switzerland when Mary came up with the idea for what would become her masterpiece — and one of the most famous novels in history — Frankenstein (1818). After Shelley's wife committed suicide, he and Mary were married, but public hostility to the match forced them to move to Italy. When Mary was only 24, Percy Shelley was caught in a storm while at sea and drowned, leaving her alone with a two-year-old son (three previous children had died young). Alongside her husband, Byron, and John Keats, Mary was one of the principal members of the second generation of Romanticism; unlike the three poets, who all died during the 1820s, she lived long enough to see the dawn of a new era, the Victorian Age. Still somewhat of a social outcast for her liaison with Shelley, she worked as a writer to support her father and son, and maintained connections to the artistic, literary and political circles of London until her death in 1851.

Richard Wagner

One of history's most revered composers, Richard Wagner set his work on the famous Ring cycle aside in 1858 to work on his most romantic opera, Tristan and Isolde. He was inspired to do so partially because of his thwarted passion for Mathilde Wesendonck, the wife of a wealthy silk merchant and patron of Wagner's. While at work on the opera, the unhappily married Wagner met Cosima von Bulow, daughter of the celebrated pianist and composer Franz Liszt and wife of Hans von Bulow, one of Liszt's disciples. They later became lovers, and their relationship was an open secret in the music world for several years. Wagner's wife died in 1866, but Cosima was still married and the mother of two children with von Bulow, who knew of the relationship and worshiped Wagner's music (he even conducted the premiere of Tristan and Isolde). After having two daughters, Isolde and Eva, by Wagner, Cosima finally left her husband; she and Wagner married and settled into an idyllic villa in Switzerland, near Lucerne. On Cosima's 33rd birthday, Christmas Day 1870, Wagner brought an orchestra in to play a symphony he had written for her, named the Triebschen Idyll after their villa. Though the music was later renamed the Siegfried Idyll after the couple's son, the supremely romantic gesture was a powerful symbol of the strength of Wagner and Cosima's marriage, which lasted until the composer's death in 1883.

904: The number of dating service establishments nationwide as of 2002. These establishments, which include Internet dating services, employed nearly 4,300 people and pulled in $489 million in revenues.
1,241: The number of locations producing chocolate and cocoa products in 2004. These establishments employed 43,322 people. California led the nation in the number of such establishments with 136, followed by Pennsylvaniawith 122. (Source:http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/cbptotal.html)
There were 28,772 jewelry stores in the United States in 2004. Jewelry stores offer engagement, wedding and other rings to lovers of all ages. In February 2006, these stores sold $2.6 billion worth of merchandise. (This figure has not been adjusted for seasonal variation, holiday or trading day differences or price changes). The merchandise at these locations could well have been produced at one of the nation's 1,864 jewelry manufacturing establishments. The manufacture of jewelry was an $9 billion industry in 2004.
Fun stuff, right? Thank God I don't have to go buy jewelry or flowers or candy, that shit's expensive.
Happy Valentine's Day!