What Fluff is

Was looking through some blogs while I'm sorting the mail and came across Inside Alex Forrest's Brain and this is what I found. He was relating some posts on his church board and how divided they were:

Then there was bunch of fluff about how Jesus' main concern would be for the poor...

okay, does ANYONE besides me think there *MUST* be something wrong with today's churches if the poor is considered FLUFF????? This, more than any articles I've read, explains to me how Bush's policies can somehow be looked upon as "compassionate conservatism".

Christ was onto something when he said it is harder for a rich man to pass through Heaven's gate than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. You know, there's a really HUGE part of me that hopes God is going to record the day people going to Hell find out exactly who is there, besides Hitler.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias.

Name Dropping Inanity

HUGE HINT TO JOHN KERRY and his campaign!

Stop dropping John McCain's name! One - it TOTALLY *SMACKS* of ass-kissing. Two - it ALSO *SMACKS* of ass-kissing the other side (you are basically handing the 2008 election to McCain right now!). Three - it's REALLY OBVIOUS AS IN APPARENT AS IN SEE-THROUGH! Okay, I'm being redundant, but I was afraid they'd misinterpret what I was saying.

What you believe is happening: Moderates see the bi-partisanship and will flock to join you. Undecided Republicans might mistake your working relationship with McCain as friendship and use it as a strength-of-character point.

What is happening in REALITY: Democrats are wondering what the hell you're doing; questions get raised as to whether you can do it on your own (or with Edwards) and whether you need McCain; swing-votes see you as the guy in McCain's wake trying to use his breaking down of the wind to propell yourself easier through. (It's a phenom in Bicycle racing... i don't know what the term is) AND we hear John McCain saying "Friend? He's a good colleague"

Look, John McCain ISN'T that nice. If he was, he wouldn't be in politics cause the rule in politics is, every man for himself. John is NOT going to help you to the presidency. John LIKES the position he's in, with both candidates seeming to clamor for his approval. Let Bush show how weak he is, that he needs John's pull to the middle. John is building a highway to the future and it doesn't include you OR Bush. Every time you or your campaign use John McCain's name, it makes us wince. So stop it! It'll only help you out. Cause you know what we see? We see John next to Bush. Not you.

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Innovative Workplace

Just glanced through an article about Maverick: The Success Story behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace. I think I'm going to pick this book up over the weekend. One of the things the article said about this place of work is how you can roam from job to job within the company before deciding on what's the best fit for you.

Oh man, would that every company is like this. I long for the simplicity of being a toll-taker some days. Some days, I want challenges. Another innovation this company talked about is having come-back vouchers (my own terminology) from retirement. Say you retire from this company and decided retirement's too complacent for you. You could go back to work using these vouchers. (I think the concept is, you earmark $ for retirement. When you retire, you earmark some of these $ for possibility of going back to work. Basically you're paying yourself to work, but hey, work is work right? I may be wrong in my interpretation since I'm basing this on a loose reading of an article of a book I haven't read yet. So bear with me.)

I believe the basic human enjoys a good hard day's work, that there is satisfaction and joy that can be derived from it. However, I believe that we play up the concept of weekend too much. Therefore, in comparison, the work week looks drab, dreary by comparison. In order to avoid this trap, I look for jobs that can teach me something I never knew before. Therefore, I go to work on Mondays whistling, thinking I'm getting paid to learn. What suckers. (By the way, this is called the Ah-Q way of thinking. At least that's what my mother calls it. To put it bluntly, it's a dumb but happy Pollyanna viewpoint of things).

Filed under Ms. Cell Annie.

Possibilities

I just watched Michael Moore's The Awful Truth Season 2. The one episode that has me pondering possibilities was the one where Michael ran a ficus tree against an incumbent Republican and in the first precinct that they were allowed to hear the results from, the ficus tree won, 40 votes to 10. (how embarassing for that congressman)

Moore's reasoning behind this act was to prove voter apathy caused by a lack of good candidates. By running the ficus, he was basically saying even a tree would be better than some of these public servants we have in D.C. who serve anyone but the public.

I like his idea. I like the idea of putting forth a candidate who doesn't want to (okay, okay in this case, it was unable to) speak for themselves. But exactly who would I put out there as a viable candidate for the presidency?

My first thought, as always, falls on Aaron Sorkin. Any man who can write both sides of the debate, can spot absurdity and present it as absurdity, can see both foreign and domestic issues PLUS understand storytelling (okay so this isn't a trait necessary for the presidency, but damn it, Aaron Sorkin is a god of story-telling and we should acknowledge that) has my vote for President. However, we know all those people with something or another jammed up their teeny openings in the rear will have a major problem with this left-leaning pot smoking genius. (hmm wonder who can tell from this that I'm a HUGE Aaron Sorkin fan?)

No, Aaron just wouldn't be a clear cut choice. So I started running through a list of potential non-entertainers: Stephen Hawking (well, this guy can admit when he's wrong - he recently paid off a bet to another scientist) - no good. People won't react that great to a guy in a wheelchair who needs a voicebox to speak. Mother Theresa - dead and besides, not a citizen here and that whole religious crossover... *shudder*. Lance Armstrong - possible but will people want a cancer survivor? Ben or Jerry - non counter-culture folks will shiver even as they eat their ice cream.

*sighs* Well, it looks like a non-entertainer is out of the question... then who. Who are two of the most respected men in the world, not just for their good looks, but their social activities, their generosities of hearts? The two rascals of two great buddy flicks - Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Paul could be president for 2 years, and then trade places with Robert. AND EVERYONE would vote. Now wouldn't that be a sight to behold?

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Politics & B.S.

Not Pressure, Indignation!

I'm tired.... tired of hating Bush. Tired of rising to the bait every time that dumbfuck opens his mouth. Tired of reading about how people react every time that assinine amoeba-brain makes a move.

But I can't stop. Like Odysseus straining against his bonds to follow the sirens' calls, I feel compelled to point out the obvious. Kerry's no winner. I sit here astounded as Karl Rove and his cronies somehow manage to serve up ace after ace, and as the ground around them gets muddier, somehow they glean whiter and cleaner. Meanwhile, I watch Kerry's team light up as the ground around them gets smoothed out, and yet, they miss lob after lob, serve after serve.

Ever watch a video game between an analytical person and a reactionary person? The analytical person gets creamed every time. Why? Cause a video game (most of them) rely on split second decisions. The analytical person needs more time cause they want the perfect shot, cause they want to understand what the results are if the controls are being jerked one way, then the other.

I don't think there is a soul in the world that would say Bush is an analytical person. This man reacts. And I'm pretty sure that's what most of us who DON'T want him back in the White House is afraid of.

You see, there really are two types of Americans. The nice guy (who usually finishes last) and the bullies. I've had bad reactions to Presidents before. You should've heard me during the Reagan years. But Bush actually scares me more than Reagan did. Reagan was just soulless and brainless with charm. He didn't seem to care if you went against him or not, he was just going to do his thing.

Bush, on the other hand, seems callous and vindictive. No, those aren't the right words. I'm really struggling here to find the appropriate words. Bush perhaps summed it up best when he said if you're not with him, you're against him. But those words are more, when Bush says them then had Reagan said them. To Bush, the act of going against him means retaliation. He lacks the depth to understand layers. And to have that lacking in the presidency is truly scary to me.

*sighs* It happened again didn't it? Yet another piece about why I hate Bush.

Let's just hope football season starts so I can have more to discuss.

OH! If you're an analytical sort and really want a video game you can excel at, try out golfing games.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Politics & B.S.

Hawaii, to the Forefront!!!!

After reading about battleground states, and how some states are getting all the attention, I saw an interactive map. Lots of red states around, some blue states and I look at the bottom of the map and sure enough, on the bottom in an inset picture, are the scattered islands of Hawaii, depicted blue. (Sidenote: NO WONDER most Americans can't figure out where Hawaii is. In most depictions of the U.S., Hawaii is an inset picture placed randomly whereever it can fit and look aesthetically nice.)

Then I thought, poor Hawaii... no one mentions the state ESPECIALLY during election year. So, the gears started creaking and before long, I thought that since no one really paid attention to Hawaii, maybe the governor there and their state council should start a drive to make ALL Hawaiians register as independents. Result? INSTANT BATTLEGROUND state.

Think of the payoff, Hawaiians! Not only will you get to see these ads that CNN, MSNBC, Fox and all them are talking about, you will get visits from the candidates themselves. PLUS, for the cost of two, you actually get the secret service guys (i'm sure they get SOME time off, think of the tourist dollars!), you get the press corps travelling with the two, you get their whole campaign, and ... and if you're truly lucky, you get the spouses and kids. (QUICK, PHOTOGRAPHERS AND JOURNALISTS, start promoting this idea!!!! You get to take snapshots of the twins in bikinis, drinking margaritas!!!!)

Hawaiians, you are a state heavily dependent on visitors. What better than to make YOUR government work for you and pony up? Become a battleground state. GO INDEPENDENT. Force these guys to at least mention your state ONCE this year. PLUS you get the benefit of laughing at them when you say "Shakabra" to a journalist when they ask your opinion.

Okay, this was my brilliant idea for the year. I can rest now.

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Playing Telephone - a demonstration by the press

I love how journalists, the bastions of truth and facts, play telephone.

Here's how it goes: Dick Cheney gets asked how he feels in his heart about gay marriages. He answers, it's best left up to the states. Pretty plain and simple right? First off, he never really gives a solid answer. All he really says is America is a place of freedom, freedom for everyone. And that the states have been and should be the ones to determine whether marriage gets extended to us lesser folk. (yes, i'm queer.) (Another aside: man, if that's what's in his heart, I really feel bad for Lynne. I can just see the passionate dialogue between them now - Lynne: Dick, I love you. Dick: Lynne, well, from the definition under Section 9.28b, I can say with certainty that I "care" for you too. But under the definition under Section 13.2c, the emotion I feel falls under "love" so yes, Lynne, I love you too.

Here's the astounding thing. Everyone chimes in and interprets what is pretty much a straightforward non-answer. Conservatives see him as going against the policies of Bush, Liberals see him as playing the middle of the road.

FOLKS, GET WITH THE PROGRAM. DICK CHENEY SAID NOTHING! NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL. You're all getting pulled in by the flashing lights again. As a storyteller, I can tell you that Karl Rove is beside himself with glee right now. He is achieving the brass ring of story-tellers: he says jump and you all leap!

This is what we story-tellers call a red herring. A distraction so the audience will be surprised and not expecting the up-coming twist.

And what's the twist? Hell, I don't know. Karl Rove is the one spinning it.

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Responsible, but not culpable

Interesting words, eh? I'm quoting General Paul Kern here, the appointing authority on the latest report on the Iranian prisoners and abuse.

"We did not find Sanchez culpable, but we did find him responsible for the things that happened," Kern said.

Unclear on the concept, I decided to enlist the help of our handy dictionary.com:

cul·pa·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klp-bl)
adj.
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

Hmm... no mention of responsibility. Okay, so let me get the right. Sanchez is responsible, but he's not to blame. Okay. I'm still confused here. Let's now try the definition of blame.

blame ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blm)
tr.v. blamed, blam·ing, blames
To hold responsible.
To find fault with; censure.
To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.

WHOAH!!!!! HOLD THE HORSES!!!!!

So, not being culpable means he's not deserving of blame, that is, he's not deserving of being held responsible, YET he's responsible.

Hmmm... wonder if this will work with the IRS for me. "Yes, I'm responsible for filing my taxes, but I'm not culpable."

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Repartee & Witticisms

Just read this report on how Bush/Cheney reinvents what Kerry says. I don't understand the Kerry/Edwards team. If I were them, I'd turn right around and say to the press, "Hmm, could this be an real-time demonstration on how the Administration misheard and misread all the reports to them about Iran? I say one thing, they hear another. The CIA tells them one thing, they hear another. It's beginning to look like a pattern folks. Seriously, you want people with wax-filled ears in the White House?"

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Quick Impressions

My reaction to the Swift Boat Veterans Ad?

Here's the mental image that runs on an endless loop in my mind: Bush/Cheney/Rove looking out one window saying "Ut oh, they're on to us" - next panel: The three of them throw a bone out the window away from them and the journalistic hounds (acting like Odie the Dog) chase after this bone that barely has any meat. The three men then turn to each other saying "Amazing how that works every time."

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Distortions of the Past

I hate this. I hate having new knowledge that makes me have to review my memories.

I had a pleasant memory of playing with my father's ring while he wore it, cleaning the ring for him, of running my fingertips over the uneven surface of prongs over gem.

As the memory grew warmer, a new lens suddenly dropped in front of the view as I realized that ring was probably given to him by his mistress of 20+ years. So now, I'm wondering if my father appreciated the irony of his daughter liking his mistress's ring so much, if my father even saw the irony, if my father understood that because of his actions, my whole family has to review their memories from a different perspective.

Strange how we can live in denial all these years. My mother knew... as did my sister, and I. We all knew, but we didn't. And while he was alive, none of us felt the need to review memories. Why now? Why after the discovery... no, let's be truthful here. Why after the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that there was a mistress, do we have to distort our memories?

For me, I think it was the realization that my father had this mistress while I was still living in his house, still back in Singapore. I doubt my sister remembers all the times Daddy had to lengthen his trips to Hong Kong and Taiwan. I don't think she remembers Mom making us go to the phone to beg Daddy to come home.

So much more makes sense now. But I'm not sure the clarity of blinders is worth the fuzziness of reality/truth.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Bloodsport, err Relatives.

Rudeness and a way to curb it

Received a call for my boss on my phone earlier... ours is one of those systems where you either know the party's extension, or you dial the directory, or you dial the operator. Guess who's the stand in for the operator?

So, the call went something like this.

Caller: umm... you there! (says name of boss)

Me: I'm sorry, but he's not in right now. (What I should've said was, umm no, I'm not him. I'm a woman, can't you tell?) I can put you through to his voice mail though.

Caller: Good! (in a tone that sounded like "Well! it's about time someone did their job," which one can readily guess, made me ever so eager to help him out)

Me: His extension is 202.

Caller: (hrmphs as a response).

Since we deal with lawyers here, I've NO doubt that was an attorney who called up. It's amazing to me the sheer arrogance of some attorneys out there.

I'm kicking myself right now cause I only thought of this after I hung up. However, I will start using the following as a lesson for rudeness.

• Receive rude call.
• Tell caller right extension
• Transfer to wrong extension.
• Wait.
• If phone doesn't ring again, lesson learned.
• If phone rings again, repeat extremely gratifying subversive maneuvers again.
• If phone rings yet a third time, submit caller's name to powers that be, and hope for caller to be included in next year's Darwin Awards.

I can't wait for my next rude call now.

* * * * *

Minor observation: It's *REALLY* obvious that some people come from New York. I picked up my GF from the airport the other day and some people just screamed out "I'm from NY!" with their walk, their attitude, their mode of dress. OH! and New Yorkers, please don't read anything into the fact that this tidbit appears under a title of "Rudeness." (sheepish grin)

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias.

The Poll I'd really like to see

I just read this on Washington Post's website: "The survey also found a "sharp increase" in the number of Americans who have doubts about whether the Iraq campaign has helped curtail the war on terrorism. Only 45 percent say it has helped, down from 62 percent in February."

I wonder what the results would be if *this* question was asked:

Would you agree with the statment: The war in Iraq has helped INCREASED terroristic thoughts among non-Americans.

I would answer a resounding "YES!" to this.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Politics & B.S.

Revving at a higher RPM

So, my partner tells me this about myself - that I *HAVE* to have something to worry and fret about, otherwise I'm uncomfortable. I guess it's that syndrome of waiting for the other shoe to drop... and I'm told it's a common syndrome of abusal.

Now, mind you. I'm not saying that I was beaten up as a child, at least physically. Emotionally, I was akin to a captive, totally and utterly dependant on a woman (as I can see now in hindsight) suffering from a dependence on a cheater. I was this woman's scratching post, guilt, hopes, dreams, etc.

Hindsight is a lens I longed for, and yet now that I have it, I'm finding it distorts the images of the past, casting incredulity upon past and present interpretations. I'm finding I don't trust my memories anymore.

This scares me. I am a person who relies on my mind so much more than any other part of my body. All I am, is defined by my recollections, my interpretations and my reactions. If my memory (as defined by me) is incorrect, then what about me?

Anyway, this wasn't what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Revvin'.

My partner had just called up, and finding me all revved up, asked what I was stressed about. Basically, the only I really am stressed about is work. It's piling up on me, through no real fault of mine, and I'm struggling to keep control over it.

As a result, I can feel myself revving at a much higher speed. Maybe it's the caffeine... but I doubt it. When I stress like this, I sit still, and yet can feel my molecules vibrating at a higher frequency than usual. I hate this feeling. I know, cut out the caffeine and it might help.

Does anyone else out there feel yourself buzzing at a higher frequency?

Filed under Bloodsport, err Relatives and Reveries & Paranoias.

Random Brain Rustlings

Something I read on the web: (This was on a transcript of a live discussion on WashingtonPost.com)

I'll have to edit the exact wording later... my internet is acting funky and I can't bring up the Washington Post to quote verbatem.

Q. Can you explain why the media pundits all claim that Kerry is the most consistent liberal Senator and yet claim he flip-flops?

A. Hmm... That's actually quite amusing.

Something I heard on the radio today:

John Madden queried, "How is it you're cold when you go into a swimming pool, and you're cold when you get out?"

I love Madden for this type of random brain rustlings!

PTE report: Had to look up several information I keep on the palm. Oh! and forgot I played games on my partner's the other day while I waited for her to get a psychic reading in which the psychic told her *not* to tell me about the $500 cure-all that will presumably solve the problems between us.

Hmm if this psychic was *that* good, wouldn't she have been able to "read" that my lover and I keep no secrets? What was funny about this little episode was, prior to getting the reading, my lover looked at me and asked, "can I use $ for this?" and I said, sure, but then decided not to take the offer for two readings at a discount. Therefore, the psychic thought I held the pursestrings in my household. *HAH!!!!!*

So advice to all you psychic seekers out there. Have a little tussle over $ in front of the psychic but reverse your roles. If the psychic gets it right, then s/he is worth the $. Otherwise, treat yourself to a nice book.

* * * * *

I wonder if there's been any research done as to how much the cost of going out has inflated. I'm realizing I have a very hard time paying for a movie that's *NOT* matinees... and as I'm passing the bills to the attendant, I'm wincing. I know Chinese food prices haven't gone up much (it's still possible to get a HUGE heaping of food for $5-6) but what about nicer restaurants? When they say Inflation hasn't hit hard, *WHAT* are the economists looking at? I look at comic books, a 300% increase (at least!) from the mid 1970's. Movie tickets? I remember Dollar Tuesdays! Okay, that's more like a 125%-200% increase for those. However, I will say that VHS/DVD players and cassettes/discs have stayed about even, or even gone down.

Okay, from these statements, it's pretty obvious I'm a cheap bastich, eh? Heh.

*Resigned to being a very tiny minority - idealists

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias.

Who's behind this?

My partner, who's fairly young, was lamenting the fact that two weeks ago, while she was in Hong Kong and Taipei on business, she could toss back a few sakes with no legal ramifications. Yet next week, in New York it would be illegal for her to do so. (Her 21st birthday is coming up before the end of the year).

She im's me.... Why??? Why can I die for my country, vote to see which sleazebag gets to send us off to war but not toss one back? (Okay, okay! I threw in the political commentary but you get the gist).

As usual, I start to toss off a glib response to her... but as I started to type it out, it seemed there was truth to my response....

hey... the government doesn't care if you give up your life for the country. What it does care is the insurance people getting pissed off at the government for having to pony up and pay for damage done while drunk

My logic went like this: see, if the government allows you to drink, and you drive & crash, guess what, the insurance people will have to pay. HOWEVER, if it's against the laws, then wow, hey, the insurance people can say you broke the law, we're not liable.

Makes sense, eh? Okay, all together now, everyone sing out "I hate Insurance Companies!"

* * * * * *

PTE Report: Using Thoughtmanager, I created a list of questions to ask different folk. You know how you always think, "Ah, I should ask her this"... Now I'll be able - if I remember to look at that program when with that person.

* * * * * *

Okay help out here - this is waaaaaaaaay too long:

Optimists see that the glass if half-full. Pessimists see it as half-empty. Idealists see the potential to keep the glass full, as well as the potential for equitable distribution.

Optimists = half-full
Pessimists = half-empty

Idealists = half-baked?

*sighs*

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias.

Anger and writing

Strange. I only want to broadcast my thoughts to the world when I'm pissed. (and usually at the Administration) - wonder why?

Here are a few things I'd like to write about here over the next few months - Cultures, indulgings, role-playing (& buying into systems), gaming, fads, etc.

Speaking of fads - we bought ourselves (my partner and I) Palm Tungstens E. (Hers and hers?) I wish to record how I'm using the palm... as a way to ensure that our $200 ea. (approx. after the software we downloaded, the new cases, etc.) doesn't go to waste.

PTE report: no usage today. Forgot it at home cause I overslept. However, I *really* should put my own banking stuff on there.

I have to look on this website's terms of service. Will I be able to keep any of the rights if I publish my ruminations here? God, intellectual property laws are so filled with landmines now due to the internet.

How should I end blogs? Should I have a regular saying like I did with my journals? Or should I just end it.... decisions. *sighs*

Optimists see that the glass if half-full.
Pessimists see it as half-empty.
Idealists see the potential to keep the glass full,
as well as the potential for equitable distribution.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias.

Division, subtraction just don't add up

I got into an argument with someone over Edward's speech about two Americas. That person said, to claim that America is divided, is divisive itself.

This person came from Thailand, was poor when she came over with her family... and through hard work, that family managed to become middle class. "See!" she claimed, "The American dream still works!"

I still hold that there are two Americas: And here's a good explanation of what I mean - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52954-2004Aug9.html. In order to have a higher standard of living, a family must be two-incomed. One income cannot suffice. And for that two-incomed family, any crisis that hits, will send that family reeling.

Every month for the past two years, something in my life requires me to go off budget. A broken tooth, a car accident, broken furniture... something. AND, to replace it, wasn't mere dollars and cents. It was at least 3 figures.

I remember during the 80's watching Comic Relief, wondering how all those people got homeless. Apparently, it's easier than one suspects. Consolidate all your bills into a secured debt that puts your house on the line. Fall behind cause you lost your job. Get a new job that pays less. you pay 70 cents on the dollar, hoping to catch up one day but each month passes with a new emergency... before you know it, a year has passed and NOW you're 4 months behind cause you weren't able to catch up. Your house goes into foreclosure.

Let's see any politician with *this* problem... or a Halliburton exec... or hell even an Enron exec. Sure, those guys are going to jail now... but I BET you anything, when they come out of jail, the house they go to... will still be able to fit my condo into their swimming pool.

Filed under Politics & B.S.

Idealism by another name

I've been called a bleeding heart liberal. Actually, make that I've been yelled that.

I disagree.

I consider myself an idealist. Always have, always will.

My idealism stems from the fact:

• I was a sickly child and had more time to spend by myself than with others.
• I was one of ones who were almost always last picked for a team

Being what I was, I longed for understanding, acceptance, anything that would make me feel part of the whole. The older I got, the more I used my outsider status to observe and analyze. However, I've charm; charm enough to allow me insider status if I wanted, but I find myself distrusting that. But I digress.

You see, my politics stem from a deep desire to see no one gets left out (like I did)... no one gets punished for circumstances beyond their control (like I experienced)... that everyone gets a chance to decide for themselves if they wish to participate.

How does this attitude harm anyone? I think I've figured out a reason why "conservatives (for lack of a better term)" fear people like me.

They think there's a finite amount to things - that to give something to someone means taking away from someone. We're so used to budget mentality that this is how we operate. To afford this, we have to take away from that.

What I want to know is, IF we're taking away from people, WHY are we taking away from the masses, rather than the few? I hope I get some answers, cause I really want to know. Something about all of this just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's say there's a large dining table and we ran out of food. Do you take from the guy who's plate is heaped high? or the guy who has a couple of peas, a few nibbles of corn and half a hot dog?

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Politics & B.S.

Musings

Two things I'm wondering about today:

1) If George Bush believes so much in the rightness of the invasion of Iraq, and he knows that the armed forces are lacking in personnel, why isn't he sending at least one of his daughters?

2) Why people are so quick to believe simplistic models presented to them.

Filed under Reveries & Paranoias and Politics & B.S.