For those of you who don't follow the "Comments" - I've been infiltrated by an "anonymous" virus. Seems someone without the chutzpah to use their own name - or an identifiable pseudonym – has chosen to take issue with what I have to say on MY blog.
Now, in general I don’t really mind “anonymous” comments. I can usually winkle out who they really are (gradeschool bud, Melissa, Mike the drunk, etc). What annoys me is that someone will hide behind their anonymity and make accusations or snotty-snide comments about me or my postings, without giving a clue as to their own “identity”. Witness to this the ‘Anonymous Virus” that attacked my blog a few days ago.
Now, this “Anonymous” chooses to attack my suggestion that George Walker Bush is not a particularly moral, upright, or honest individual by indicating that he/she/it is more of an authority on morality than myself. Anonymous doesn’t tell us what his/her/its qualifications for Morality Policeindividual are, but I’ll tell you mine.
I spent the first 16 years of my life in a highly sheltered, exceptionally religious and suffocatingly Missouri Synod Lutheran existence. Church every Sunday. Sunday School every Sunday. Vacation Bible School in the summer – Parochial School. Don’t tell me to read my bible – I’ve read it cover-to-cover numerous times in several translations.
Anonymous said:
“Let me see...in other words, you are the ultimate authority on what is moral and what is not. Christians, by your definition, are supposed to be moral. Therefore, any Christian who takes a stand that is not in agreement with yours is hypocritical and decidedly immoral. Ok, I get it now!”
But see – Anonymous really does NOT get it. I know what Christians are SUPPOSED to be like. Love one another. Turn the other cheek. Forgive not 7 times, but 70 times 7. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. Judge not, lest ye be judged, condemn not, lest ye be condemned. Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your brother’s. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not covet. Do not lie. Do not do the horizontal bop with your neighbor lady. Let the one among you who has never sinned cast the first stone.
Stuff like that.
So when someone who CLAIMS to be a Christian starts to tell lies about others (Swiftboat Vets, anyone?) or starts a war to obtain revenge for a personal issue, I’m gonna call a digging implement a digging implement and call him/her/it a hypocrite.
Now, Anonymous also seems to have a problem with the way I’ve responded to someone named “Gayle” in my blog. Gayle is a relative. She’s the daughter of one of my Mom’s cousins – a woman somewhat older than myself. Not entirely sure how that works out in terms of relationships because I really don’t give a rats ass about that kind of stuff.
She’s not my daughter, Anonymous. If you want to see how I deal with my daughter, you might could want to go back to the blog entries from March and April of this year – when my Mom was dying. My daughter is Amanda.
Obviously, I don’t know for certain who you are – perhaps you are just another random lurking body in the vast world of blogdom. I’ve had visitors from there before, and welcome their visitations. I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me. I won’t just let a “challenge” to my position sit there unanswered, however.
I also give a lot more credibility and respect to someone with the cahones to post their name or nick, or their link to their own blog – than someone who hides their identity for fear of being seen for who/what they really are. I post comments on other people’s blogs. People from all over the world. However, I always use my nick (Sewmouse) and for anyone on Blogger, that means that they also automatically get a way to link back to MY blog here. That’s how BBC and Jules and Croila found me – to name a very few.
Please understand, “Anonymous” – this is MY home. You’re more than welcome to visit. You’re more than welcome to leave a comment, but it’s really much more polite to leave one with your “signature” rather than a generic white calling card. I never delete comments with which I do not agree. I only delete advertisements, or strings of useless obscenities from unidentified individuals.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Why I'm lucky to have a Republican for a Congressional Representative
Blue State/Red State.
I live in a predominantly "Blue" state. Blue - the color of peace, of tranquil oceans and storm-free skies. Blue, a color that evokes calm, coolness, quiet sensibility to me.
As opposed to a "red" state - Blood, War, Mars, Hate, Embarassment, Heat, Hell, Conflict.
But back to the topic...
I live in a predominantly blue state. Vote early, vote often! However, I live in the most "red" county of the entire state - DuPage. "Where the elite meet to meet and greet in lovely downtown Naperville and Hinsdale - far from those horrible... negroes and homosexual deviants!!" It's also home to thousands like myself who think that DuPage is the most hypocrite-ridden Christian hellhole imagineable. But wtf - it's home.
It's also got a Republican for our representative - Henry Hyde. Been in office since the beginning of time, I believe. And I've always cringed at the thought of more Republican BS coming from someone supposed to represent ME... but then, I wrote him a letter regarding the Dubai Ports debacle - and he actually had an intern answer me.
And that got me to thinking this weekend. I'm actually blessed in a way with this, because having one of the "enemy" at my beck and call (since he needs to get re-elected, dontcha know?) - gives me an advantage. It gives me the opportunity to address the things that are of major concern to me right now, and to do so directly to the Enemy. Imagine if every right-thinking person in our district wrote to Rep. Hyde and told him what we thought about ... things.
So I did. I herein offer my humble offering to you - and strongly urge that if you feel the same, that you write your own "I love America, please save it from the Terrorist Bush" letter and send it to YOUR Republican representative.
Dear Representative Hyde:
It has come to my attention that the House of Representatives is
considering legislation related to the so-called "War on Terror". There
are several points that concern me.
I believe that it is an exceptionally bad move to tinker with the Geneva
Convention agreements. During times of war, it is the only thing that
stands between our soldiers and improper treatment by the enemy. I have a
very dear friend who spent quite a bit of time at the "Hanoi Hilton"
during the conflict in Viet Nam. To this day he cannot speak of the
atrocities that occurred there without becoming emotionally distraught and
unable to continue. Certainly the president cannot be so blind as to
assume that if we, the country that has always prided itself on taking the
moral high ground, begin the long slide into uncivilized behavior with
"Unconventional forms of interrogation", our enemies will not follow suit.
Their lack of any moral grounding would likely lead them to perform worse
and more uncivilized atrocities, perhaps even beginning a snowball effect.
I am also very concerned that the civil rights that were granted to the
people of the United States by the Founding Fathers - the first 10
amendments to the Constitution of the United States - are being thrust
aside. The right of the people to be secure ... from unreasonable search
and seizure, has always meant a right to privacy, a right to hold what is
one's own and not have the government involved in our day-to-day minutia
of living. Wiretapping without a warrant is illegal, and should remain
so. Richard Nixon showed that it is not possible for we the people of the
United States to trust the occupant of the office of the President to
behave honorably. I fear this is the case at this time as well. Mr. Bush
does not appear to have any respect for, nor any understanding of the
Constitution of the United States - a document he twice swore with his
hand on a Bible to "Uphold and Defend, against all enemies, foreign and
domestic."
The so-called "Patriot Act" should never have been approved. It should be
repealed. The fact that Mr. Bush feels it is justifiable to hold
prisoners indefinately without benefit of due process is against the very
foundations on which our country was built - the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution of the United States. The fact that Mr. Bush would have
these prisoners tried and convicted without the opportunity to confront
their accusers, nor the ability to examine the evidence against them is
also a crime against the Constitution. That Mr. Bush wishes to spy upon
Americans with wiretaps without gaining the warrants that would make them
legal (is it THAT hard to walk across a couple of streets to get to the
court building 72 hours AFTER you start tapping?) is of paramount concern
to me as a citizen. If Mr. Bush has no problem with denying rights to
others, how can I trust him to have the honor and morals not to deny those
same rights to American citizens?
When I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, I was taught that the
horrors of the USSR were myriad, but foremost among them was that ordinary
citizens were being spied upon by their government - that there was fear
of the government - that their government imprisoned people without
charges and held them incommmunicado - that their government silenced
dissenters (in much the same way as the "Swiftboating" of our brave
Veterans is being accomplished, or Mr. Bush's favorite "If you aren't with
us, you are against us" quote) - that the Soviets had secret prisons where
they tortured people. Representative Hyde - these same things are coming
out of Washington D.C. now - not Moscow.
The United States of America should never, ever, resort to torture. It is
well documented that torture never produces accurate results, that at some
point even the strongest individual will begin to say anything at all that
they believe will please the torturer - just to make the torture stop.
Mr. Hyde, I beg you - please be a voice of reason in Washington. Please
support Mr. Powell, Senator McCain and others who are working to return
America to it's pre-November 2000 beauty and honor.
Sincerely,
[my real name]
[my real address]
I live in a predominantly "Blue" state. Blue - the color of peace, of tranquil oceans and storm-free skies. Blue, a color that evokes calm, coolness, quiet sensibility to me.
As opposed to a "red" state - Blood, War, Mars, Hate, Embarassment, Heat, Hell, Conflict.
But back to the topic...
I live in a predominantly blue state. Vote early, vote often! However, I live in the most "red" county of the entire state - DuPage. "Where the elite meet to meet and greet in lovely downtown Naperville and Hinsdale - far from those horrible... negroes and homosexual deviants!!" It's also home to thousands like myself who think that DuPage is the most hypocrite-ridden Christian hellhole imagineable. But wtf - it's home.
It's also got a Republican for our representative - Henry Hyde. Been in office since the beginning of time, I believe. And I've always cringed at the thought of more Republican BS coming from someone supposed to represent ME... but then, I wrote him a letter regarding the Dubai Ports debacle - and he actually had an intern answer me.
And that got me to thinking this weekend. I'm actually blessed in a way with this, because having one of the "enemy" at my beck and call (since he needs to get re-elected, dontcha know?) - gives me an advantage. It gives me the opportunity to address the things that are of major concern to me right now, and to do so directly to the Enemy. Imagine if every right-thinking person in our district wrote to Rep. Hyde and told him what we thought about ... things.
So I did. I herein offer my humble offering to you - and strongly urge that if you feel the same, that you write your own "I love America, please save it from the Terrorist Bush" letter and send it to YOUR Republican representative.
Dear Representative Hyde:
It has come to my attention that the House of Representatives is
considering legislation related to the so-called "War on Terror". There
are several points that concern me.
I believe that it is an exceptionally bad move to tinker with the Geneva
Convention agreements. During times of war, it is the only thing that
stands between our soldiers and improper treatment by the enemy. I have a
very dear friend who spent quite a bit of time at the "Hanoi Hilton"
during the conflict in Viet Nam. To this day he cannot speak of the
atrocities that occurred there without becoming emotionally distraught and
unable to continue. Certainly the president cannot be so blind as to
assume that if we, the country that has always prided itself on taking the
moral high ground, begin the long slide into uncivilized behavior with
"Unconventional forms of interrogation", our enemies will not follow suit.
Their lack of any moral grounding would likely lead them to perform worse
and more uncivilized atrocities, perhaps even beginning a snowball effect.
I am also very concerned that the civil rights that were granted to the
people of the United States by the Founding Fathers - the first 10
amendments to the Constitution of the United States - are being thrust
aside. The right of the people to be secure ... from unreasonable search
and seizure, has always meant a right to privacy, a right to hold what is
one's own and not have the government involved in our day-to-day minutia
of living. Wiretapping without a warrant is illegal, and should remain
so. Richard Nixon showed that it is not possible for we the people of the
United States to trust the occupant of the office of the President to
behave honorably. I fear this is the case at this time as well. Mr. Bush
does not appear to have any respect for, nor any understanding of the
Constitution of the United States - a document he twice swore with his
hand on a Bible to "Uphold and Defend, against all enemies, foreign and
domestic."
The so-called "Patriot Act" should never have been approved. It should be
repealed. The fact that Mr. Bush feels it is justifiable to hold
prisoners indefinately without benefit of due process is against the very
foundations on which our country was built - the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution of the United States. The fact that Mr. Bush would have
these prisoners tried and convicted without the opportunity to confront
their accusers, nor the ability to examine the evidence against them is
also a crime against the Constitution. That Mr. Bush wishes to spy upon
Americans with wiretaps without gaining the warrants that would make them
legal (is it THAT hard to walk across a couple of streets to get to the
court building 72 hours AFTER you start tapping?) is of paramount concern
to me as a citizen. If Mr. Bush has no problem with denying rights to
others, how can I trust him to have the honor and morals not to deny those
same rights to American citizens?
When I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, I was taught that the
horrors of the USSR were myriad, but foremost among them was that ordinary
citizens were being spied upon by their government - that there was fear
of the government - that their government imprisoned people without
charges and held them incommmunicado - that their government silenced
dissenters (in much the same way as the "Swiftboating" of our brave
Veterans is being accomplished, or Mr. Bush's favorite "If you aren't with
us, you are against us" quote) - that the Soviets had secret prisons where
they tortured people. Representative Hyde - these same things are coming
out of Washington D.C. now - not Moscow.
The United States of America should never, ever, resort to torture. It is
well documented that torture never produces accurate results, that at some
point even the strongest individual will begin to say anything at all that
they believe will please the torturer - just to make the torture stop.
Mr. Hyde, I beg you - please be a voice of reason in Washington. Please
support Mr. Powell, Senator McCain and others who are working to return
America to it's pre-November 2000 beauty and honor.
Sincerely,
[my real name]
[my real address]
Friday, September 15, 2006
Top 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
(Blatantly stolen from somewhere... but I don't remember where?)
Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
women are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed, as well as all 87 of Liz Taylor's.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry
because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in North America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, and take children away from widows and widowers.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
women are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed, as well as all 87 of Liz Taylor's.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry
because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in North America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, and take children away from widows and widowers.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
G'Morning World Rainy Day
I really like rainy days. The lack of bright sunlight makes it easier to drive, and the world smells good. I wish we had mass transit around here so I could take a nap or read on the way to work. The Road Construction Season is still upon us. Illinois only has 2 seasons. Winter and Road Construction.
It occurred to me last night that someone who hasn't listened to me rant about the "Stay at home Mommy" rant before probably might could get the wrong idea from that last post.
I have nothing against the choice to stay home with your kids - but it's not the right choice for me. What I have a problem with is the Unemployed Mommys who treat us Employed Women as if we were some kind of lower species, because we didn't aspire to the "heights" of unemployment when we had our kids.
These would be the Mommies who schedule "Mothers Club" meetings at school at 1:00 in the afternoon. The ones who make arrangements for the children to give plays or have parties with "mommy" during standard business working hours. The ones who try to guilt-trip you for being responsible, independent and employed.
These would be the Mommies who volunteer for farking EVERYTHING, then cast aspersions on those of us who can't do so because we are EMPLOYED. I suppose it is their way of trying to feel as if they are important, when all they really are is a leech on their husband's paycheck.
I hated having to explain to my daughter that "Some mommies go to work, and some mommies don't" when she wanted me to go along on school field-trips. Yes, I damn well felt bad then - and still do now. I hated having to ask my Mom to go to the "Mother's Tea" for me, because I'd used up all my personal time off staying home with the child when she was legitimately sick.
But then - the "Stay At Home Homeschool Mommie Brigade" has to find validation in SOME way, now, don't they?
Perhaps this is a suburban phenomenon. I don't know. I do know that to this day I feel very defensive and get more than a little bit unpleasant when confronted by one of these "holier than thou, I stayed home with MY darling children" Mommies From Hell. Interestingly enough - most of them are Xtians.
There are plenty of reasons to stay home and not work. Just don't come flaunting it at me as if it were some badge of honor. The minute someone does that - they fall into one category with me: UNEMPLOYED.
It occurred to me last night that someone who hasn't listened to me rant about the "Stay at home Mommy" rant before probably might could get the wrong idea from that last post.
I have nothing against the choice to stay home with your kids - but it's not the right choice for me. What I have a problem with is the Unemployed Mommys who treat us Employed Women as if we were some kind of lower species, because we didn't aspire to the "heights" of unemployment when we had our kids.
These would be the Mommies who schedule "Mothers Club" meetings at school at 1:00 in the afternoon. The ones who make arrangements for the children to give plays or have parties with "mommy" during standard business working hours. The ones who try to guilt-trip you for being responsible, independent and employed.
These would be the Mommies who volunteer for farking EVERYTHING, then cast aspersions on those of us who can't do so because we are EMPLOYED. I suppose it is their way of trying to feel as if they are important, when all they really are is a leech on their husband's paycheck.
I hated having to explain to my daughter that "Some mommies go to work, and some mommies don't" when she wanted me to go along on school field-trips. Yes, I damn well felt bad then - and still do now. I hated having to ask my Mom to go to the "Mother's Tea" for me, because I'd used up all my personal time off staying home with the child when she was legitimately sick.
But then - the "Stay At Home Homeschool Mommie Brigade" has to find validation in SOME way, now, don't they?
Perhaps this is a suburban phenomenon. I don't know. I do know that to this day I feel very defensive and get more than a little bit unpleasant when confronted by one of these "holier than thou, I stayed home with MY darling children" Mommies From Hell. Interestingly enough - most of them are Xtians.
There are plenty of reasons to stay home and not work. Just don't come flaunting it at me as if it were some badge of honor. The minute someone does that - they fall into one category with me: UNEMPLOYED.
An admission a week...
Lessee - last week, GWB admitted to having secret CIA prisons offshore - something he's been denying via Tony Snow(job) for months.
This week it appears it is Dead-Eye Dick's chance to admit that the Iraqi insurgency was underestimated and that he was wrong when in May, 2005 he declared the insurgency "in its last throes." He did so on Sunday on "Meet the Press"
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said, adding that "major, major work ... is ahead of us."
Now, this leads me to wonder - if the Shrub's administration is so blinded by their own political rhetoric that they are unable to make intelligent statements to the country without LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH or exaggerating for political gain, how can we trust them to know the truth when it slaps them in the face like a damp trout?
Cheney is obviously no brain surgeon. This isn't the first time he has opened mouth and inserted foot. Does he really think that admitting that he didn't have a fucking CLUE what was going on down on the ground in Iraq is going to give the American people the confidence in the country's leadership to hand them another 2 years of damn near dictatorial rule?
I think he does.
I hope we don't.
This week it appears it is Dead-Eye Dick's chance to admit that the Iraqi insurgency was underestimated and that he was wrong when in May, 2005 he declared the insurgency "in its last throes." He did so on Sunday on "Meet the Press"
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said, adding that "major, major work ... is ahead of us."
Now, this leads me to wonder - if the Shrub's administration is so blinded by their own political rhetoric that they are unable to make intelligent statements to the country without LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH or exaggerating for political gain, how can we trust them to know the truth when it slaps them in the face like a damp trout?
Cheney is obviously no brain surgeon. This isn't the first time he has opened mouth and inserted foot. Does he really think that admitting that he didn't have a fucking CLUE what was going on down on the ground in Iraq is going to give the American people the confidence in the country's leadership to hand them another 2 years of damn near dictatorial rule?
I think he does.
I hope we don't.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
I'm NOT a "Feminist"
Oh, some folks want to call me that. Or a "Femnazi". I know why. I'm NOT particularly "Sweet and submissive and delicate and understanding". I'm not willing to admit on any level that men are superior to women. I don't believe that "Stay at home mommy" is a job description - it's a choice. Just as "working mommy" is a choice.
Whoo boy - I can see it coming now - the "Stay-At-Home-Homeschool-Mommy-Brigade" is going to decend upon me with their feather dusters and TV guides at the ready to do battle... Before you get completely bent (too late?), remember what I just said - it is a CHOICE you made. You COULD have gone back and been employed - instead you chose to stay home and be unemployed. Just as I could have chosen to go on welfare and stay home with my child, but I chose to be independent and self-supporting. Everything is about choices.
But back to "feminism" accusations, my favorite quote is somewhat open to misinterpretation as well:
"Why would any intelligent, independent female choose to subject herself to the whims and tyrannies of a husband? I assure you, I have yet to meet a man as sensible as myself" Amelia Peabody Emerson
First time I read that paragraph, I laughed so hard it brought tears to my eyes. I read it again, promptly memorized it, and it's been my personal slogan ever since. WHY SHOULD someone who can be independent shackle themselves to someone else? There's really only one reason - because you love someone and want to be with them.
And in the end - isn't it better to know that the person you are with is with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they leave?
I've been reading some "Feminist" blogs - and I can see where some guys are coming from with their accusations of "Femnazi" - some of these wenches want to make decisions for all their "sisters". Rather than husbands, they think the other women should subjugate themselves to THEIR demands. Mustn't dress attractively! Must believe THUS. Must vote THUS. Dasn't agree to THIS. Seems as if they want their "sisters" to shed the slavery of marriage only to don the slavery of Feminism.
Unacceptable.
What I prefer to think is that I am a "humanist" - not in the philosophical religious sense, but in the sense of equality. I am an accountant. I don't believe that a man with the same educational background, doing the same job, to the same level of competency, for the same amount of years of seniority - should get ONE PENNY less than I do.
or more.
Whoo boy - I can see it coming now - the "Stay-At-Home-Homeschool-Mommy-Brigade" is going to decend upon me with their feather dusters and TV guides at the ready to do battle... Before you get completely bent (too late?), remember what I just said - it is a CHOICE you made. You COULD have gone back and been employed - instead you chose to stay home and be unemployed. Just as I could have chosen to go on welfare and stay home with my child, but I chose to be independent and self-supporting. Everything is about choices.
But back to "feminism" accusations, my favorite quote is somewhat open to misinterpretation as well:
"Why would any intelligent, independent female choose to subject herself to the whims and tyrannies of a husband? I assure you, I have yet to meet a man as sensible as myself" Amelia Peabody Emerson
First time I read that paragraph, I laughed so hard it brought tears to my eyes. I read it again, promptly memorized it, and it's been my personal slogan ever since. WHY SHOULD someone who can be independent shackle themselves to someone else? There's really only one reason - because you love someone and want to be with them.
And in the end - isn't it better to know that the person you are with is with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they leave?
I've been reading some "Feminist" blogs - and I can see where some guys are coming from with their accusations of "Femnazi" - some of these wenches want to make decisions for all their "sisters". Rather than husbands, they think the other women should subjugate themselves to THEIR demands. Mustn't dress attractively! Must believe THUS. Must vote THUS. Dasn't agree to THIS. Seems as if they want their "sisters" to shed the slavery of marriage only to don the slavery of Feminism.
Unacceptable.
What I prefer to think is that I am a "humanist" - not in the philosophical religious sense, but in the sense of equality. I am an accountant. I don't believe that a man with the same educational background, doing the same job, to the same level of competency, for the same amount of years of seniority - should get ONE PENNY less than I do.
or more.
Dear Mr. George Walker Bush:
Over the course of the last six years, you have done a number of things that have angered me, that have outraged me, that have disgusted me and that have caused me to seriously question your mental capabilites.
Your father was a poor president, and I have vigorously opposed your election to the office on two occasions - as I feel you and your family are representative of all that is WRONG with America.
Last night, however, you surpassed even my most dire expectations. You have offended me to the core of my being by using... USING... tragedy of 9/11/01 as an ELECTIONEERING device. You have turned the deaths of thousands into nothing more than a manipulative device to further your personal political agenda and that is without question the most heinous, Machiavellian, unethical, immoral and heartless thing you could have done.
You used the greif of thousands of Americans and uncounted others around the world as a POLITICAL stepping-stone. You, Sir, are scum.
SHAME ON YOU.
Your father was a poor president, and I have vigorously opposed your election to the office on two occasions - as I feel you and your family are representative of all that is WRONG with America.
Last night, however, you surpassed even my most dire expectations. You have offended me to the core of my being by using... USING... tragedy of 9/11/01 as an ELECTIONEERING device. You have turned the deaths of thousands into nothing more than a manipulative device to further your personal political agenda and that is without question the most heinous, Machiavellian, unethical, immoral and heartless thing you could have done.
You used the greif of thousands of Americans and uncounted others around the world as a POLITICAL stepping-stone. You, Sir, are scum.
SHAME ON YOU.
A Few Blog Things from "Blog Things"
| Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 30% Conservative, 70% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Exotic Dancer Name Is... |
 |
| What You Really Think Of Your Friends |
| Lizzie is your soulmate. |
| You truly love Mike H. |
| You consider Randy your true friend. |
| You know that Lori is always thinking of you. |
| You'll remember Susan for the rest of your life. |
| You secretly think Steve is creative, charming, and a bit too dramatic at times. |
| You secretly think that Chris is colorful, impulsive, and a total risk taker. |
| You secretly think that Tom is loyal and trustworthy to you. And that Tom changes lovers faster than underwear. |
| You secretly think Carolyn is shy and nonconfrontational. And that Carolyn has a hidden internet romance. |
| You Are Somewhat Machiavellian |
 You're not going to mow over everyone to get ahead... But you're also powerful enough to make things happen for yourself. You understand how the world works, even when it's an ugly place. You just don't get ugly yourself - unless you have to! |
And just for Geraldo:
| Your Sexy Brazilian Name is: |
 |
SCREW THE NAME - I WANT THE BODY!!!
| You are |
 |
and last but not least, you'll all be glad to know I'm low risk for being a psychopath... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
| You Are 36% Abnormal |
 You are at low risk for being a psychopath. It is unlikely that you have no soul. You are at high risk for having a borderline personality. It is very likely that you are a chaotic mess. You are at low risk for having a narcissistic personality. It is unlikely that you are in love with your own reflection. You are at medium risk for having a social phobia. It is somewhat likely that you feel most comfortable in your mom's basement. You are at low risk for obsessive compulsive disorder. It is unlikely that you are addicted to hand sanitizer. |
Monday, September 11, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Twisting in the Winds of Fate
A friend is coming to visit later this month. All the way from Rio de Janiero, Brazil. I'm so excited. Even if it does mean I need to do some serious housecleaning and minor repairs.
But then - maybe if he wasn't, I wouldn't do it - so fate hands me a great excuse!
I'm still having fits with this whole blood-sugar thing. How the bloody fardleschnocker can my farking blood sugar go UP - when I didn't eat any dinner last night because I fell asleep?
Nothing but water. No "new" additions to make blood sugar go up. Farking body.
It's dreary and rainy. And somebody stole my peony bush! I still can't get over that. It never had even flowered yet. It seems that the little thorny thistles are gone too. I wonder if the mexican landscapers stole it? JESUS???? Where is my Peony????
I found out what the little yellow flower thingys are. Coreopsis. "Tick seed". It sounds ghastly, but it's really rather pretty. I talked to the guy at the nursery and he said that they will spread a lot if I squish the seed pods and just drop the seeds on the ground. We'll see.
I think I may put some of them out in the front of the house too. They're just so darn cheerful and YELLOW.
But then - maybe if he wasn't, I wouldn't do it - so fate hands me a great excuse!
I'm still having fits with this whole blood-sugar thing. How the bloody fardleschnocker can my farking blood sugar go UP - when I didn't eat any dinner last night because I fell asleep?
Nothing but water. No "new" additions to make blood sugar go up. Farking body.
It's dreary and rainy. And somebody stole my peony bush! I still can't get over that. It never had even flowered yet. It seems that the little thorny thistles are gone too. I wonder if the mexican landscapers stole it? JESUS???? Where is my Peony????
I found out what the little yellow flower thingys are. Coreopsis. "Tick seed". It sounds ghastly, but it's really rather pretty. I talked to the guy at the nursery and he said that they will spread a lot if I squish the seed pods and just drop the seeds on the ground. We'll see.
I think I may put some of them out in the front of the house too. They're just so darn cheerful and YELLOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
