Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2006 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
Faces of the American Dead in Iraq
Baghdad Burning - an Iraqi Blog
Common Dreams
American Civil Liberties Union
Polling Report
All About Gilbert
blogactive - Outing Political Homophobes
Party List
Dead People Server
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Life's short,
Laugh often
|
| The Funniest Damn Thing I've Seen In Years |
| 06.24.04 (8:27 am) [edit] |
This qualifies in my book as one of the top 2 tributes to Ronald Reagan ....
[url=http://www.hazza316.co.uk/rea...]Reagan Tribute[/url]
|
|
|
| |
| Messing Around with the Republicans |
| 06.23.04 (6:37 am) [edit] |
I really like this strategy – it’s taken straight from the Ashcroft school of changing the topic. It’s simple, really. Whenever an opponent makes a major announcement, or whenever the Administration gets caught in another scandal, simply trot out another terror alert or another ‘terrorist’ you’ve had stashed away to get the public’s mind off all that boring political stuff….
According to a Reuters’ [url=http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...]article[/url] , a NY promoter is putting together a huge ass concert at Giant’s stadium at the same time Dubya will be making his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention on September 1. He’s also trying to get Bruce Springsteen to head the concert lineup. With Springsteen onboard, he’ll then get the concert televised so that more people will tune into it than into the convention. As part of that, there is a petition [url=http://www.draftbruce.com/]website[/url] to convince the Boss that should do it. I’ve already signed it.
I love this ploy!! Even if it fails, I love that activists are taking the Bushies’ strategies and not only using them but doing it in a much more amusing way (and hopefully effective way) Personally, I think that there are a lot of people who would tune out Dubya in favor of Springsteen and REM …. If it happens, I will be watching
|
|
|
| |
| Sweet Sixteen |
| 06.19.04 (10:15 pm) [edit] |
Today is Gilbert and my 16th anniversary. (first of all - My GOD, where did all those years go?)
My gift to him was a gift basket (ok, bowl) full of things that start with G (for Gilbert and Geoff - heh) He got the following stuff:
Glassware
George Michael CD (which also counts as Gay)
Girls will the Girls movie (with the number of drag queens in it this also counts as Gaudy)
Gonzo
Gum
Gel
Green Grapes
Glittery lip Gloss
For my gift, he's taking my car to have the oil changed, all the fluids checked then giving it a good clean and wash - all things that I absolutely hate to do.
I'm thinking it's time to start thinking about number 20. On our 5th anniversary, I promised him we'd go to Europe for number 10. We ended up doing a 10-day tour of the UK for that one. (OK, so that's not Europe in everyone's book - 'specially some Brits - but it's close enough).
Dunno what I'm going to do though. Been thinking about it off and on. I know a couple that did a 3week Pacific Cruise that pretty much circled the entire thing. Maybe I'll start thinking on that scale... Maybe I'll think smaller like getting a little cabin somewhere.....
Maybe we can finally get legally married here in Texas.
|
|
|
| |
| Auntie 'Em! Auntie 'Em! |
| 06.19.04 (9:51 pm) [edit] |
In the Big Ass storm that came through dallas the day after Memorial Day, along with a big chunk of tree getting blown off, I also lost about half the figerglass roof over my back patio. The next night, another storm came through and I lost more panels.
Now it's three weeks later, and we did the Homo Depot thing and got new panels - a set of really cool smoky translucent ones. Spent the better part of the morning and early afternoon taking down the remaining old broken ones and started putting up the new ones.
About 2pm we saw some dark clouds far off in the distance - figured we had an hour or so before we'd have to clean up and call it a day if they headed toward us. About 15 minutes later they were alot bigger and alot closer.
The wind kicked, we started cleaning up. The wind kicked up another couple notches and started plowing things around - including some of the panels that weren't all the way screwed down. Now it was a mad dash to catch things, put everything up and screw down the loose panels all at once.
So I was up on a ladder with a power drill when the rain started. Fun. Fun. Fun. We rescued everything and got in the house before the REAL rain started and all that. But I think that God has decided that our patio looks better without being covered .... I'll have to see what happens if we pick up where we left off tomorrow.
The good part is that the sections that were done were properly sealed with only one teeny leak.
|
|
|
| |
| My Theory on Everything |
| 06.17.04 (10:53 am) [edit] |
When I was 28 I formed a new theory on life, the universe and everything: "Nobody believes a word you have to say if you're 20-anything." It worked for me.
Now, at 38, I think I need a new theory for the upcoming transition to my 40's..... dunno what it's going to be though.
I've been told that your 40's is the best decade cuz you're making the most money while you still have your health and the kids are out of the house finally. That could all be true, but it's alittle cumbersome as a soundbite all-encompassing theory....
Maybe it has to do with the expectation of an upcoming Mid-life crisis: "My second childhood's just around the corner - where's my sports car?" ... hmmmm
|
|
|
| |
| Early Retirement Anybody? |
| 06.17.04 (10:32 am) [edit] |
My group's secretary and I have decided that we're never going to win the lottery, so we've come up with a backup plan for early retirement:
I'll sexually harass her. She'll get pissed and push me down the stairs. Then we'll both sue the company, take the proceeds and retire.
Seems like a plan to me, but I'm sure I'm overlooking one or two entangling details ... :D
|
|
|
| |
| DJ Josh Gram in Dallas |
| 06.16.04 (1:13 pm) [edit] |
Josh Gram, who's a fantastic DJ in addition to being a friend, will be in Dallas Saturday June 19th at Club One. If you haven't heard him spin, come on out ... if you have heard him spin, come and bring friends :D
![]() =http://img76.photobucket.com/...
For more details, you go go to his [url=http://www.djjoshgram.com]website[/url]
|
|
|
| |
| This Won't Hurt Much |
| 06.16.04 (10:15 am) [edit] |
(I came across this on another blog this morning, but it was so funny I had to pull it into mine as well. Kudos to Terry Jones, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/]The Guardian[/url] and to [url=http://lynne.tblog.com]Lynne[/url])
[b]This won't hurt much [/b]
Terry Jones
Wednesday June 16, 2004
The Guardian
For some time now, I've been trying to find out where my son goes after choir practice. He simply refuses to tell me. He says it's no business of mine where he goes after choir practice and it's a free country.
Now it may be a free country, but if people start going just anywhere they like after choir practice, goodness knows whether we'll have a country left to be free. I mean, he might be going to anarchist meetings or Islamic study groups. How do I know?
The thing is, if people don't say where they're going after choir practice, this country is at risk. So I have been applying a certain amount of pressure on my son to tell me where he's going. To begin with I simply put a bag over his head and chained him to a radiator. But did that persuade him? Does the Pope eat kosher?
My wife had the gall to suggest that I might be going a bit too far. So I put a bag over her head and chained her to the radiator. But I still couldn't persuade my son to tell me where he goes after choir practice.
I tried starving him, serving him only cold meals and shaving his facial hair off, keeping him in stress positions, not turning his light off, playing loud music outside his cell door - all the usual stuff that any concerned parent will do to find out where their child is going after choir practice. But it was all to no avail.
I hesitated to gravitate to harsher interrogation methods because, after all, he is my son. Then Donald Rumsfeld came to my rescue.
I read in the New York Times last week that a memo had been prepared for the defence secretary on March 6 2003. It laid down the strictest guidelines as to what is and what is not torture. Because, let's face it, none of us want to actually torture our children, in case the police get to hear about it.
The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith".
What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only "torture" if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else - such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice - then it is not torture.
Mr Rumsfeld's memo goes on: "a defendant" (by which he means a concerned parent) "is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control".
Couldn't be clearer. If your intention is to extract information, you cannot be accused of torture.
In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent "has a good-faith belief [that] his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture". So all you've got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn't think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy!
I currently have a lot of my son's friends locked up in the garage, and I'm applying electrical charges to their genitals and sexually humiliating them in order to get them to tell me where my son goes after choir practice.
Dick Cheney's counsel, David S Addington, says that's just fine. William J Haynes, the US defence department's general counsel, agrees it's just fine. And so does the US air force general counsel, Mary Walker.
In fact, practically everybody in the US administration seems to think it's just fine, except for the state department lawyer, William H Taft IV, who perversely claims that I might be opening the door to people applying electrical charges to my genitals and sexually humiliating me.
So I'm going to round up all the children in the neighbourhood, chain them and set dogs on them. I might accidentally kill one or two - but I won't have intended to - and perhaps I'll take some photos of my wife standing on the dead bodies, and then I'll show the photos to the other kids, and finally, perhaps, I might get to find out where my son goes after choir practice. After all, I'll only be doing what the US administration has been condoning since 9/11.
· Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python
|
|
|
| |
| Can Bush Ever Be the New Reagan? |
| 06.16.04 (7:04 am) [edit] |
Now here's a little something I didn't know ....
[i]Published on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 by the New York Times [/i]
[b]Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It
by Sheryl Gay Stolberg[/b]
WASHINGTON - As Republicans try to cloak President Bush in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, their biggest obstacle may be Mr. Reagan's own family.
Even before Mr. Reagan died, Nancy Reagan and her daughter, Patti Davis, made their opposition to Mr. Bush's policy on stem-cell research well known. But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy that castigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush.
The remark has provoked intense debate among Republicans about precisely what the younger Mr. Reagan meant. Some saw the reference to religion as a message to the administration on stem-cell research. Others saw it as a possible critique of the war in Iraq. Still others insist there was no deeper message at all.
But a friend of the Reagan family, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Reagan, who did not return a call seeking comment on Monday, was deeply uncomfortable with the way the Bush administration intertwined religion and politics and felt compelled to say so at the burial of his father, a ceremony watched by millions."
I think he was making a more profound statement about style," this friend said, "and the danger of religion in politics."
First families often cause trouble for presidents. Jimmy Carter, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton each had brothers who made them uncomfortable from time to time. But rarely does the family of one president step on the toes of another. The Reagans and Bushes, who have had famously strained relations throughout the years, may be an exception, as Nancy Reagan and her children guard Ronald Reagan's legacy, fending off efforts by both the right and left to trade on it for political gain."
I think Nancy would not want that," said Barbara Kellerman, a Harvard expert on leadership who has written a book on first families. "She is not mad about the Bush family, and the last thing she intends is for W. to inherit her beloved and sanctified husband's mantle."
Ron Reagan, a television commentator who has frequently been critical of Mr. Bush, has already said as much. In 2000, he fired a shot at Mr. Bush in Philadelphia during the Republican convention, which featured a tribute to his father. "What's his accomplishment?" Mr. Reagan asked then. "That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
Last year, in an interview with the online magazine Salon, Mr. Reagan renewed his critique, making clear his distaste for the Bush administration."
The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," Mr. Reagan said then. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the 80's. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's - these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."
Mr. Reagan was not quite so pointed on Friday night. "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man," he told mourners gathered at sunset at the Reagan presidential library. "But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians - wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."
The remarks caused jaws to drop in California and Washington. One Republican strategist, who would not be identified for fear of repercussions to his business, said he interpreted the remarks as a clear reference to stem-cell research, which Mr. Bush opposes on moral grounds because they require the destruction of human embryos."
I thought clearly Ron Jr. was sending a message to the administration to be tolerant and understanding of this issue," the strategist said.
He said he was also struck by Mr. Bush's eulogy during the service at the National Cathedral. "I thought his speech was deliberately biographical in nature about Reagan, to try to show people that his biography is close to Bush's."
A number of Republicans are openly making that association. "Bush's name may be Bush," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, Mr. Reagan's former chief of staff, reiterating a comment he made last week, "but his heart belongs to Reagan."
But Mr. Duberstein, who is close to Nancy Reagan and guided her in her advocacy of stem-cell research while her husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, said that did not mean Mrs. Reagan would let the stem-cell issue subside."
Nancy Reagan is not somebody who walks away from anything," Mr. Duberstein said. "When she takes on a cause and a belief, she is very much like her husband. I think this one is very dear to her heart."
It is also dear to her family. Ms. Davis wrote passionately about her father's illness in the online version of Newsweek, this week and last month. "A messy, horrible war that has spun out of control could very well determine the next election," Ms. Davis wrote before her father's death. "So should the miracle of stem-cell research - a miracle the Bush White House thinks it can block."
Such pronouncements could spell trouble for the president, said James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. "Nancy Reagan is now an icon, related to someone that America thinks very highly of who had the disease that might be cured by stem-cell research," he said. "That's pretty powerful."But Republicans who are promoting the idea that Mr. Bush is Mr. Reagan's political heir say the dispute over stem cells and the Reagan family's comments will not put a dent in the association.
"Ronald Reagan has to be looking down from heaven and smiling at the way the current president, generally speaking, stands and the things he's doing, even though they might well disagree on some specifics," Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said Monday. He added, "In eight days of nonstop nationwide focus, you get on the ninth day a slight hiccup."
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
| |
| Now Entering Low Carb Hell ... |
| 06.15.04 (1:35 pm) [edit] |
Here's a useful newsflash: Coca-Cola now has a [url=http://www.cokec2.com/home.ht...]low carb[/url] version ready for market.
There is nothing like jumping on the bandwagon of a diet fad. Mr. Coca and Mr. Cola's mothers must be so proud ....
In other dietary news: Today I bought my first pairs of pants with 36in waists. :P Now I have lost 28 pounds since Thanksgiving and gone down two pants sizes from a 40 .... even though I just replaced much of my wardrobe over the last few months, I'm perfectly happy to do it again as long as it's for smaller clothes.
(That being said, the Hostess cupcakes I just got out of the vending machine were real yummy.)
|
|
|
| |
| How Dare You Not Vote For A Democrat |
| 06.15.04 (9:07 am) [edit] |
On June 14, 2004, a [url=http://www.commondreams.org/v...]commentary[/url] was published by Gary Younge in The Guardian UK on both the US’ Democrat and the UK’s Labour parties’ assumption that Liberal voters belong to them. While discussing the Democrats’ relationship with Ralph Nader, he really summed up my feelings toward the entire topic:
[i]The N-word should not be spoken in polite liberal company. Once his name has been uttered all camaraderie and bonhomie evaporate as readily as if the miscreant had confessed to relieving himself in the host's sink. There is a ready-made vocabulary Democrats use to describe how they feel about George Bush. When it comes to Nader, and by association those who voted for him, words fail them … The source of their anger is that they believe his votes are rightfully theirs. The logic of their campaign is that if Nader is removed from the equation the votes will automatically return to their rightful owner - John Kerry. [/i]
I really found it disconcerting in 2000 that the Democratic approach to the Green Party candidate was to say that a vote for Nader is just throwing your vote away. The same argument is being used this time – along with the argument that we need to do whatever is necessary to get rid of Bush. Now, the latter argument does hold more weight than the former. A moderate conservative President is preferable to a radical religious conservative in my mind. However, the Democrats do not automatically get my vote as a matter of course. Why should I give my vote to a political party that does not share my opinions on most issues?
I lean more toward the Green Party’s positions on many issues than the Democrats. This is mostly because the Democrats are spending so much time trying to be Moderates to attract the independent middle that they are continuously moving to the Right. In my opinion, the Democrats need to give voters a choice that is a contrast to the Conservative positions of the Republicans as opposed to just a toned down version of the same thing. I have never voted straight ticket in any election. I vote a mixture of Green, Libertarian and Democrat. I’ve also voted for the occasional Republican when I think they are the better candidate – although not in the last decade.
In Texas, as it stands today, Dubya will win our electoral votes regardless of who I vote for. Given that, why would I vote for a party that takes my vote for granted while not supporting the issues I stand for?
|
|
|
| |
| In the Name of Jesus |
| 06.14.04 (1:49 pm) [edit] |
This past weekend we went to see the movie [i]Saved![/i]. What a seriously fun flick. :D The movie is set in a Christian High School and pokes fun at evangelical Christians and their relationship to everything from Christian Rock to unbelievers.
Now, we all know that not all conservative Christians are judgmental hypocrites – but some are. In fact, I know lots of very religious people that do their utmost to live their life according to the dictates of their religion.... but, I can’t think of a single thing in the movie that I haven’t already seen personified – just taken to a slightly further extreme.
Unfortunately for the Evangelicals, many of the most vocal figures from their movement are just as close minded and judgmental as one person can be. These are the people being spoofed in the film. Curious what was being said about the movie, I googled it. As I suspected, some Christians are bent all out of shape about the movie. [url=http://headlines.agapepress.o...]Take this as an example[/url] .
All I have to say to them is: Get a sense of humor already. While I understand that you may think you are setting an example to others on how life should be lived and that your religion has given you the one true answer, to those of us that do not share your beliefs your certainty is just arrogance.
Here’s a few suggestions that everyone can be free to ignore or try on as they see fit (Yeah, I recognize the irony of my being arrogant enough to suggest how you should live your life ...):
1. If someone doesn’t ask you to Witness to them, then are you really doing anything more than indulging yourself?
2. Perhaps sinners would be more interested in listening to you if you stopped telling them they are going to hell.
3. If you disapprove of something, then maybe you should consider not doing it instead of campaigning to ensure that no one can.
|
|
|
| |
| Ghoul Pool - part 2 |
| 06.11.04 (1:00 pm) [edit] |
The newest additions to the Ghoul Pool list are:
Marlon Brando
Courtney Love
The Prime Minister of Iraq (we decided his actual name probably isn't necessary)
That brings the total up to a grand and glorious 13 - a nice round, lucky number ....
|
|
|
| |
| Rock 'n Roll 'n Radiation |
| 06.11.04 (10:16 am) [edit] |
I was reading an article by Harvey Wasserman on [url=http://www.commondreams.org/]Commondreams.org[/url] today in which he shared his opinion that it was the Western Youth Culture and Chernobyl that brought down the Soviet Union more than Reagan’s military buildup. I never really thought about it in that light but I have to say that I like the idea. The demand for Rock music and blue jeans was a powerful force before the fall of the Iron Curtain’s fall. I have a Soviet Army great coat tucked away in a closet to prove it too … if the pressure for western culture got to be too big, then why couldn’t it be a source of change?
Here’s the article for your viewing pleasure:
[b]Rock & Radiation, not Ronald Reagan, Brought down the Soviet Union [/b]
by Harvey Wasserman [i]Published on Thursday, June 10, 2004 by the[url=http://www.freepress.org/] Free Press[/url] [/i]
No greater nonsense will accompany Ronald Reagan to his grave than the idea that he brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.
Among the many causes of Soviet collapse two words stand out, and they aren't Ronald Reagan.
They are rock and radiation.
The GOP military's 1980s attempt to "spend the Soviets into oblivion" certainly feathered the nests of the defense contractors who contributed to Reagan's campaigns here, and who still fatten George W. Bush. Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton and an unholy host of GOP insiders have scored billions in profits from Iran-Contra to Star Wars to Desert Storm to Iraq.
But these were not the people who brought down the Kremlin. If anything, they prolonged Soviet rule with the unifying threat of apocalyptic attack.
No, it was rock & roll that wrecked the USSR. From the late 1960s on, the steady beat of the Beatles and Motown, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix, shattered Stalinism at its stodgy core.
Precisely the things most hated by the Reagan's rightist culture warriors here eroded and helped dissolve the old-time Soviet culture there. Beamed in by radio, smuggled in on records and tapes, the "youth music" was unstoppable.
When Mikhail Gorbachev announced Perestroika, it was at least in partial response to the irresistible subversion of the western counterculture. Rock and roll was doing to the remnants of Stalin's Russia what it had already done to Eisenhower's America.
The final blow came not from Ronald Reagan's beloved nuclear weapons, but from the Soviets' own Three Mile Island.
After Chernobyl Unit Four exploded on April 26, 1986, Swedish radiation monitors detected huge clouds of radiation pouring out of the Ukraine. Gorbachev lied about it. Critical days passed before his "open" regime acknowledged the catastrophe.
As apocalyptic radiation poured over their land and into their bodies, millions of Soviet citizens were infuriated to learn from sources outside their country how horrific the disaster really was---and that their lives were in genuine danger. Cancer, birth defects, stillbirths and more soared out of control. Gorbachev's credibility was forever shattered.
Soon a staggering 800,000 draftees---"liquidators"- -- were forced into deadly manual clean-up. The horrific maelstrom of resulting disease fed a fierce organization parallel to the US's Vietnam Vets Against the War that remains an uncompromising political force throughout the former Soviet Union.
With the fury aimed at Gorbachev came devastating economic fallout. Untold billions went to evacuate and quarantine the Chernobyl region. The costs are still escalating. The danger of a renewed melt-down still boils beneath the surface.
The epidemic of radiation-related diseases has also taken a huge psychological toll, with countless evacuees and victims---many of them children---still in pitiable condition.
Himself a pusher of atomic power since his "Death Valley Days" working for General Electric, Reagan never mentioned the devastating impacts of Chernobyl. He also never thanked the Beatles.
But a cultural revolution and a nuclear malfunction cracked the Kremlin's core. Reagan's beloved Cold War made his GOP buddies even richer. But it was rock and radiation that finally did in the Soviets.
|
|
|
| |
| Ghoul Pool 2004 |
| 06.11.04 (6:30 am) [edit] |
In honor or Ron and Ray's passing, we have started up a Ghoul Pool at the office. So far, the candidates in the pool include:
Pope John Paul II
Nancy Reagan
Micky Rooney
Bea Arthur
Dr. Joyce Brothers
Paul McCartney
Jack Nicholson
Lady Bird Johnson
Phyllis Diller
Fay Wray
Still under consideration are General Pervez Musharraf and the new Iraqi Prime Minister.
For those that don't know how to play, you buy into the pool (for us it's a dollar per) and name your celebrity. Whoever's celebrity dies first gets the pot.
And a fun time will be had by all....
|
|
|
| |
| OK, I'm Going to Say It |
| 06.10.04 (1:06 pm) [edit] |
A former US president has died. Does that mean that there has been no other newsworthy events this week?!
Its time the media moved on to another topic already.
|
|
|
| |
| Republican Survivor |
| 06.09.04 (7:21 am) [edit] |
Have you seen [url=http://www.dtriptv.org]this[/url] ?!? It's a cartoon version of Survivor as played by our favorite Republicans.....
I think my favorite bit is Antonin Scallia as the 'Immunity Fairy'.
|
|
|
| |
| Taking A Rest From My Vacation |
| 06.09.04 (7:02 am) [edit] |
This morning I didn’t even hear the first four times my alarm went off. I’ve been dragging all week. Maybe it’s a case of I’m-sick-of-my-job-itis , but I think it’s more of a case of being exhausted from my week of vacation.
Memorial Day weekend started everything out at a nice pace – hanging out with friends, dancing, playing with the puppy…. Then came Tuesday. The day was full of sorting boxes of bric-a-brac for our upcoming garage sale. The evening was about soothing my puppy as he cowered from the massive storm that came through. We lost power, we lost the roofing to our patio and we ended up with a large portion of a tree lying across our roof. It was really not a fun evening. That meant that Wednesday was about dealing with the insurance company and getting someone out to chop up the damaged portions of the tree. We ended up losing about a third of the tree’s canopy which translates to about half the shade in our back yard is now gone.
So I stressed out over that. I stressed out over the storm that came through Wednesday night as well. Thursday was the day before the garage sale so I spent a big portion loading and unloading my car as I took everything over to Tommy and Kirby’s house to get ready. We stayed up pretty much all night to finish pricing stuff and setting up. I didn’t believe that things would be busy on a Friday morning, but now I know better – there were tons of people that stopped in on their way to work.
That night had rain predicted again, so we hauled everything inside the garage then back out the next morning. One more day of selling and then it was time to box everything back up and haul it away again.
I had a hell of a lot of fun (well, after the tree thing was sorted out) and earned enough in the garage sale to cover the cost of having to chop out a huge chunk of tree, but I’m still exhausted and could do with a 3 day nap.
BTW, did you catch Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee? What hubris. Hell, the man lost an election against a dead guy.
|
|
|
| |
| Speaking Ill of the Living |
| 06.07.04 (12:25 pm) [edit] |
The first election I was old enough to vote in was the 1984 Presidential election. At the time, I was still close enough to my Republican upbringing that I voted for Reagan. By 1986 I was a gay activist protesting the government’s lack of interest in the AIDS crisis. Even adding in the huge deficit spending, the growing homeless problem and general disinterest in the poor, Ronald Reagan was a saint compared to the current President. The Reagan administration did a lot to bring the country up out of the general malaise and cynicism brought on by the end of Vietnam and Watergate. They also successfully bankrupted the Soviet Union which went a long way to end the Cold War.
The Bush II Administration, however, does not have any redeeming qualities to help offset the massive harm they are causing to the nation. What have they done that actually is an improvement to the United States as a whole? They’re bankrupting the Federal government with tax cuts and spending increases; they’ve inciting violence against Americans with their ‘anti-terrorism’ policies; they’re shreading the Bill of Rights. It’s disgusting.
I have nothing against Conservatives as a group – even if I often disagree with them. I think that we are better off with a healthy dialog between conservatives and liberals. But, the Bushies aren’t even conservatives in any normal sense. They’re a bizarre combination of religious zealots, greedy corporate executives and Nineteenth Century imperialists.
Given a choice between the two Administrations, I’d much rather have Reagan back. At least he and his Administration actually cared for the US and wanted to make it great – whether or not I agree with what they thought were improvements. The Bushies are only out build an empire and enrich themselves in the process.
|
|
|
| |
|
All About Geoffrey Snyder
I am a 40yo guy living in Dallas, Texas with my partner of 18 years, Gilbert, and our puppy, Rex. I'm both a fun loving, happy guy in my everyday life and a loud mouthed Progressive.
I love to travel and meet people. My goal in life is to go everywhere and meet everyone.
So, pull up a chair, make yourself at home, enjoy my mental wanderings and feel free to drop me a line to tell me what you think...
|
