February 02, 2004
I am in a very good mood right now because in just a few short hours, I will go see The Good Doctor. He has been out of town for the weekend, which is the time when I usually see him, and I miss him. It's also raining and I like the rain.
ummm... when I started this post it was going in a different direction, but I don't think we should rage against the muse, so I'm going to leave this as is.
The end. Thank you.
I just found out from my classmates about the Janet Jackson Free Breast Stunt at the Super Bowl. No, I did not see the Super Bowl. No, I still do not have TV. No, I still do not intend to get TV.
Anyway, I did see the picture over at this week's featured blog, The House of the Future, but I thought it was like Li'l Kim's pancake-size Pasty.
Remember when Diana Ross fluffed it? I screamed like a lady when that happened. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Soooo... Janet's boob was on TV. I've seen boobs before. Hers looked painful.
I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is. Was it trashy? Yes. Of course it was. We're talking about Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. They nasty.
Was it something I'd watch on TV? Maybe sometimes. (Sometimes you feel like a nut, I guess.) But mostly not.
I think folks make too big a deal about obscenity. Yes, there is obscenity in America. Yes, we all know where to find it. TV happens to be one such place and Super Bowl XXXVIII or something was the host this time.
Now, the FCC is investigating.
I'm a prude when it comes to my personal conduct, but when it comes to what other folks do, I don't really have much interest. But alas, Puritanism still isn't dead in America.
February 01, 2004
My iPod's name is "Poppet."
It was either that or "Mr. Happy," but that really doesn't truly describe the bliss my iPod brings me.
When it comes to romance, I'm far from expert. (I'm not even sure what "expert" means in the context of romance.) But I am honest, loyal, and fairly sensitive. But in the context of romance, I'm also very non-verbal. It is difficult for me, if not impossible for anyone, to describe the shades of love directly and concisely. I've found that action is both easier and more precise.
But from time to time it's good and necessary to speak one's mind on the topic in words, which brings me to two truths I've come to know in my few years of experience.
1) It's a lot easier to dislike than it is to like. Disaffection reflects a statement of qualities that an individual counts as undesirable or wrong. When it comes to being wrong, there are infinite combinations. But affection is a statement of self-recognition. When you love someone, you're saying, "This person possesses those virtues which I value as most high." That's a big deal.
2) When it comes to trust in romance, all statements are self-referential. By that I mean that when someone says, "I trust you," or, "I don't trust you," they're talking about themselves and not the person to whom they’re speaking. The man who constantly suspects his lover of infidelity is generally very close to being unfaithful himself.
Really, in love time is spent mostly talking about yourself even if the subject of your statements is your partner.
I don't think that it's possible to over-intellectualize things, unless that means that one thinks without or in place of acting, but love is such an all-consuming topic that it is difficult to analyze.
I just wanted to tell you right now that Starbucks has White Chocolate again so that you would not be kept up at night wondering how I am able to go on without this luxury. But that's not what I want to talk about.
What I want to talk about is Ugly Jerk-Playa. I just ran into him on the street on my trip for coffee.
You may know someone like him. He is not attractive. He is an ass. And yet he gets lots of girls. They aren't ugly girls either. Well, some of them are.
When I see him with a female, I always want to go up to her and check her vision and hearing. Something is clearly amiss with the miss to get her to crawl up on that dude.
I mean, he's pretentious. He does nothing really well but he still brags about it and patronizes everyone who dare tries the subject. He claims to enjoy Kant, James Joyce, and Faulkner.
Around men he's obnoxious and aggressive. He's the guy who is always punching you in the arm and threatening to beat you up. He's not that big. He's not that strong. He's not that fast. He's just not that good. So, actually taking him up on the offer would likely end in an uncomfortable discussion about why you made him cry in front of his friends.
Everything about this guy is fake from his colored contacts to his fashion, which follows the fad of the college guys which are a decade or so his junior.
I guess he's not FUGLY but he's not a hottie or anything, so his looks can't make up for his crimes of personality. If he were really sweet then average looks would be fine. But he's an ass.
And girls go out with him. I don't get it. LOTS of girls want to go out with him, too. I've been to several parties where girls are all aflutter over him.
One time I had my share of Jim Beam and Coke going and I had to ask a girl with whom I hold some platonic affection about it. "Dude. He's an ass. Why don't you forget about him?" And she did naught but shake her head.
So, I don't get it. It's one of those mysteries of nature that will likely remain beyond my grasp for the rest of my mortal years.
um. Scrabble. I was playing Scrabble...with myself.
I used all the letters and got a score of 519 and that was even on the rinky-dink dictionary which did not recognize all of my words.
So, click here and enjoy lots of time playing with yourself. You can even blame Kate for it if you'd like.
January 31, 2004
State Assemblyman Leland Y. Yee, Democrat of San Francisco, has introduced a resolution that urges the California Building Standards Commission to adopt standards that would aid feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of promoting health, harmony and prosperity through the environment.I guess I shouldn't worry. Heaven will help them, I'm sure. In fact, I got a petition from the Easter Bunny in email yesterday asking me to sign it and forward it because once there are 5,000 email signatures it will be sent to the Moerae who will realign the Karmic Wheel of Destiny back in California's favor.
Money Murry! Now I'm going to be pissed off about California all day. AGAIN.
I wasn't done being pissed off about Georgia yet!
State School Superintendent Kathy Cox joined us via satellite from the Dark Ages on Thursday to say that the reason the proposal was made to change the word was not, as rumor would have it, to halt the damage to the self-esteem of those troglodytic, religious nuts and their children whose conceptual development has been mutilated thanks to regular brainwashing by mysticism.
Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.To clarify: the reason for the proposal is to allow cowardly teachers to facilitate "socially conservative people" in their evasion of reality and aide them in their epistemological abuse of their children.
"If teachers across this state, parents across this state say, 'This is not what we want,' then we'll change it," said Cox, a Republican elected in 2002.
She also announced that the phrase "socially conservative people" will heretofore be used in place of all references to Christians, Muslims, Pagans, et al in place of "religious nuts," "paint chip eaters of mysticism," "fairy worshipers," and "anti-reason bozos." There has yet to be a discussion of what those words will refer to in the future.
But science is a democratic process in Georgia. So, if Australopithicus afarensis jesuii can rally enough votes then they will not be forced to either
evolve Oops! “biologically change over time” or go extinct. Yay for them.
January 30, 2004
The world is a big and mysterious place, I tell ya.
Followed by a quart of orange juice.
I think I'm gonna hurl.
A raid in April found nearly two pounds of a cyanide compound and other chemicals that could create enough poisonous gas to kill everyone inside a space as large as a big-chain bookstore or a small-town civic center.I am a person who stands on principle. The second amendment states very clearly, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Thus, I do not see any reason to restrict the ownership of weapons of all sorts from the hands of citizens.
But what about nuclear weapons?
Should I be allowed to have my own Fat Man?
It's very easy to say that there are some weapons that are so destructive that just anyone should not be allowed to have them on the grounds that merely possessing them is sufficient reason to think that you will nuke something and most likely lots of someones. If a certain Palestinian mommy came frollicking into a strip mall near you pushing her Little Boy in a buggy, what do you think is about to go down?
But isn't that the same argument that has been used to keep people in some states from owning firearms of a caliber any higher than a warm serving of Jiffy Pop?
In the case of the Palestinian woman with a nuclear bomb, we have a very specific set of contextual data to draw a reasonable conclusion.
Speculate on this: An American Army General pulls into a service entrance of the Pentagon in an APC full of weapons of all sorts. What's going to happen? Who knows?
The problem is that restricting ownership of anything on the grounds that it may be used to hurt someone or lots of people is legislating potentials. Potential outcomes may be said to have statistical probabilities but they are far from certainties.
In the case of nuclear weapons, the statistical probability that the outcome of civilian ownership will be disaster seems pretty high. I don't know how to work a nuclear weapon myself, but I'm sure I could still put an eye out with one given enough effort.
But should it really be illegal? As a person of principle, making laws against possible outcomes makes me nervous and restricting my right to own anything makes me irritable.
If we say that it's not reasonable to own a nuclear weapon, what makes it unreasonable? Is it reasonable to let folks own ICBMs? C4? Hand grenades? M80's? Poppers? Upon what principle would an ideal government draw the line?
The Amateur Gourmet
I like that he blogs about food and somehow manages to bring Faulkner into it. I don't like Faulkner so much, but did you ever think that Vardaman knew fried chicken like that? And of course, there's all the sex. Gotta love that.
The Binary Circumstance
There are people who claim to be Objectivists or Students of Objectivism but don't rely so much on reason as they do Ayn Rand. The Binary Circumstance is not like that and I really enjoy that dedication to reason.
Boi from Troy
I think I can beat up the Boi from Troy, but he doesn't let that intimidate him. Instead, I think he enjoys flirting with disaster. I like that. The Boi from Troy likes football, Republicans, and gay people. Missing 2.75 out of 3 is usually considered a failure but somehow he usually manages to turn things around. I like that, too.
House of the Future
I'm still trying to figure out the House of the Future. Politically, he seems to have the right ideas. If I made a list of gay bloggers that I think would be most cool to hang out with, he'd definitely be on the list.
I like Ilyka. I like Ilyka because within hours of calling me names and describing me with the F!bomb she made it to my blogroll and I to hers. Much like myself, I imagine she likes to shout and complain about stuff. Does she mean it? Yes, she does. Is that all it's about? Of course not. Ilyka has a good time.
The Musings of Brian J. Noggle
Have you ever met someone that you thought is perhaps the funniest person in the world, but you don't get the joke? Or someone with whom you laughed at the time but thought later they were serious? Brian J Noggle is like that sometimes and I respect him quite a bit. And like most people, my respect comes probably for his independence, rationality, and excellent taste in women.
I see eye-to-eye with Quibbles on most things, but what I really like about him (and his wife) are the way they go after things. Quibbles aspires to be the next great American horror writer. So, what does he do? He writes and I like determination.
Single White Male
Joey is relatively new to the world. As far as I can tell, he's in high school, but the quality that I enjoy about his blog is his enthusiasm. Again, it's a matter of joie d'vivre. I dig that.
Kevin made it to my blog list by helping me out of a bind. As far as I'm concerned he's the MT guru of the bloggiverse, so it is natural to conclude that WizBang! is a gigantic mountain of remote location upon which he sits contemplating the meaning of life. It's good that there are gigantic mountains of remote location because that's where gold and precious stones come from.
I spent most of the day playing in Photoshop with an idea that just wouldn't let go of me.
And there were about 75 THOUSAND little interruptions, but that's characteristic of almost every single day.
Now everyone has gone home and I can finally concentrate. It's quiet except for the beats I'm now free to crank.
So, now I'm going to work.
Office Record so far: 319
Warning: Will bend the space-time continuum around you.
Wednesday they didn't have it so I had Vanilla.
Thursday they didn't have it so I had Raspberry.
Friday they still don't have it, so I'm trying Irish Cream.
I don't like any of those. All I want is a White Chocolate Mocha.
At least Barista Kate hooked me up again this morning for free.
What's going on at Starbucks these days? I'm really starting to wonder about them.
January 29, 2004
But I still haven't completed everything I had planned to do during the last redesign. My individual archive files are still jacked and they're difficult to update thanks to my inability to rebuild my entire site.
I have my suspicions about the causes of some of those problems.
Further, I've heard there's a new version of MT out there plus some nifty scripts that might be fun to use.
Further still, I've been bitten by the design bug and I have an itch to play in Photoshop.
Finally, to top it all off, The Good Doctor is going out of town this weekend.
The only thing that is tempting me not to stay in and do some damage on this site this weekend is a desire to start a fire in my fireplace and read the hours away.
I gotta be honest, it's a coin-toss so, watch out!
2 pigs = 1 cow
The more common pigs are the more pigs you'll have to have to afford a cow and visa-versa. Scarcity, even in a system of barter, determines price.
Pretty basic, huh? Let's take it up a notch.
Money, which came long after barter was common practice, is a convenient tool by which we expand the trade of goods and services. Money is the medium of exchange and much like the amount of goods and services in existence is finite so is money.
2 pigs = $20 = 1 cow
In the broadest of contexts the ratio of money to goods and services is what determines the value of a single unit of money. It's what determines how much a dollar will buy. If dollars really did grow on trees, it would be so common as to be worthless and we couldn't use them for money. We might even pay children in leaves to come get all the dollars out of our yards.
One of the favorite expressions in economics is "there's no such thing as a free lunch" because making lunch costs something even if it's not dollars. It's not for lack of trying on the part of those in politics, but the effort is akin to an effort to ignore the four basic forces of the universe. (Can the other geeks out there name them?)
Still with me? Of course you are. It's so basic; it almost can't bear being repeated.
That's why is surprises me when otherwise intelligent people, particularly those in political office, seem to lack a grasp of basic economics especially those who are always screaming for more free stuff like medical care.
When Clinton (either, but one in particular) calls for universal health care, she's calling for a system by which the monetary worth of a set of goods and services will be reduced to nothing.
The mistake they make is confusing price with cost. In a barter system, price and cost are one and the same. In a monetary system, price is how much money you give to get what you want. And cost is how many resources are on the other side of the dollar equation to produce whatever it is you want.
2 pigs = $200 = $1 cow
Unfortunately, the reality is the medicine doesn't grow on trees either and some people still cling to the notion that keeping doctors as slaves is dangerous and barbaric. And still the Clintons of the world persist.
Canada has universal health care and look at them. They're having trouble. Why?
It's like putting a gigantic pile of money in everyone's front yard and telling them, "Only spend this if you absolutely need it. If you do need to spend it, spend as much as you want, we'll refill your stack. Don't worry." Upon this analogy, surely you know what is happening to Canada's health care system.
If I said, "Here's $10. Only spend it if you need it," how long would it take you to find need?
If value is how much you can get in exchange, what do you think that does to the value of Canadian money?
In the case of medical care, the devaluation of money over the entirety of the market is dispersed and appears to be relatively small. And it's the money that loses value, not the goods and services themselves because more medicine has not been produced, only more dollars to pay for it. Thus, the impact can immediately be seen in the price of a unit of medical care.
$2 pigs = $2,000 = 1 cow
Even systems of Medicare and partially subsidized care have already had an impact on the cost of health care in this country.
Ask your doctor how much of his time you can buy for $1. Let me know when he stops laughing. Don't worry. I'll still be here.
What takes the Clintons' error from ignorance down to the depths of stupidity is the audacity they have to complain about the price of health care. It is their very efforts that have driven up those prices!
The answer to lowering the price of health care is to stop giving it away. Allow market forces to drive the prices down naturally. Not only will the result be lower prices but better care and more powerful technology.
There isn't a limit to the number of dollars that can be printed. But scarcity is a fact of Reality and there will always be a limit to the number of doctors and the amount of medicine available.
2 pigs = $2,000,000 = 1 cow.
Â¿Ã‹Â·RÂªÂºÂ·|ÂÃ»Â±zÂ¦nÂ¡II'm sold. Aren't you?
Mail2000 Â«ÃˆÂªAÂ¤Â¤Â¤ÃŸÂ¦Ã›Â°ÃŠÂ¦^Ã‚Ã�Â¨tÂ²ÃŽ Â·qÂ¤W
It's even better than this one:
UEsDBAoAAAAA ALxxPTD KJx+eAF gAA ABYAAAMA AAAZ G9jdW1lb nQucGlm TVqQ AAMAAA AEAAAAWTF?
UEsD BAoAAA AAA LxxPTDKJx+ //8A
ALgA AAA AAA AAQAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAA A AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAA AAAAA qA AA AAAAAAA AA AAA
AAA AAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAA AAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAAAA AAA
AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAA AA AA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAUEU AAE wB Aw AAAAAAA AAA AAAA
AAD gAA8BCwEH AA BQAAA AEAAAAGA AA GC +AAAAcA AAAM AAAA AASgAAE AAA AA IAAA QA AAAA AAAA
AADg AA8B CwEHAA BQAAAA EAA AAGAAA GC+ BAAA
AAAAA AAA0 AAAABA AAAA AAAACA AAAAA AQAA AQA AAAA BAAA BAAAAA AAAAQAAA AA AA A A AAAAA Dow QAA
MA EAAA DAA AD oAQAAAA AA AAAAAAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA AA AAAAA AAAAAA AAA AAAA AA AA AAAAA AA AAAA
AAA AAAAAAA AAA AAAAAAA AA AAAAAAA A AAAA AAA AAAA AAAA A AAAA AAAAA AA AAAAAA AAA AA AAA A AAAA
AABV UFgwA AAAA ABgAA AA EAA AAAA A AAAEA AA AAA AA AA AAA AAAAAC AA AD gV VBY MQA AAA AAUA AAA HAA
AA BQA AAABAA A AA AAAAA A AAA AAAAA QAAA 4C5 yc 3JjA AAA ABAA AADAAAA AB A AA AFQAAA AA AA AAAA AA
AAA AA EAAAM AAA AAA AA AAAAAA AAAAAAA AA AAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AA AAAA A AAAAA AAAA AAA AAA
AAA AAA AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAA A AAA AAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAAA AA AAAA AAAAAA AA AAA AAAAA AAAAA AAA
AA AAAAA AAAAAA AAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAA AA AAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAA AA A AAAA AA AA
AA AAA AAAAAA AAA AAAAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAAA AAAA AA AAAA AAAAA AA AAA AAAAA AAAA
AAA AAAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAA
AAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA AAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAAA
AAA AAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA
AAA AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAA AAAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA
AAAA MS4yNABVUF ghDAkCCUh+ iY/UN hyBKZYA AFNOAA AAgAA AJgEAxe6 HApIAUCZKA EAD/bJp
AAAA MS 4yNABVUFg hDAkCCUh +miwQ
BPQl6A EAS85p mm7ZH8gqw AO4sKimaZ qmoJiQi ICapmma eHBoYF hQzWCfa UgARA c4MDRN 03QDKCQc
GBDT LLvXCC MD+Cnw6E 3TNE3g 2NDIvLQ0 TdM0r KSclIzO Nk3Ti HxwaClvX Kbpms EHVEwDRDia
GBDT LLvXCCM D+pmma
LCQcFA wEaZrO bfwofwP07 OSma Zqm3NTM yLyap mmatKyko JiQZ5u maYyAeHA oe2jebNN1 B1wDVEwo
//sL drb740 APNC j3LC8Dmq YZ+S QoShwU DARp ms7sm/w nA+z o4KZpmqb Y1MzI wJq mabq4J7 CsqKCY
aZqm aZSM iIR8pGm apnR sZFxUa Zqm G0wDREA 4MKZ pmqYoIBgQ CJqm c5sA+ CbP A+jg2G ebzm1U
aZqma ZSMi IR8pGm apnRs ZFxUaZq mG0 wDREA4 MKZp mqYoIBg QCJq mc5sA+ CbPA+N EMD
QDQ0 24r// // /nVrQ 2uX0Bh8 zTmx yTtgCl1+ SyAE 9fL5DS5bkN YngOp f///// 91r AKZUEdu tj3lzd
Yehy/4 8iuFHt jC7TeybU DTnwq mf/////J +qwe UUU5ru Tbkw tEfjiz7 +yqK GdnJ6jq 7bE1ek AGjf/
////V 3qgyfU kVovD /jx9 wQhSn+9Cm PFNrA5z2 0a0JZkQ igf/ ////hwqQGa lqP7yw 9Ko+BIs SmuP
tuAN PXCm3x tafOEn Vcn// ///Em C+GGXVOJ4Xc +JUiUG8 muM/xlCNb QCWT8 tqDLFDerL /////c xfO
iEcFyI pXI/LEm XFMLgvv1sC tnZCGD 3t6fJG JlKL ///// s8fe+hU1 WH6nwwI0e aHcGlu P5 jBtzSB2
zyuK/F G5JJL/////A 3fua OVl6G6 Xg4N 2jJWhsM LX7wooSW2 UvusbT oS9+T j// ///er8HU qDx RWyW
U7Ma fOVRwDK nH5oYmR2 kLrtL3n QNqUj //// /6o834 pBB9axmI+O mbDUB0 KJ3T yoI6c20n ot7bmRd
WVj/////W l9ncoCRp bzW 8xM2XIW x4BJHf 7r4O X3ED lur/lSt CT3// // /m nenAn DhV cwGw0P G XNVh
YWR qc3+M oLXN6AYn S3Kcyfn///// LGKbVx ZYfbBgJv4 jetQxk eRawy/ OEIX9 dPZ3+ 4AMmSn/
vFLrh ybIbR XAbh +TikT hlNQS Id+ug FUtGO bHq/J 8aVn/ // //Tk I7Nzg4 PUVQXm +D mrT R8RQ 6
vFL rhybIb RX Ab h+TikThlNQ SId+Y8++
8OVs tuQjW/ e8Yaj/ ////0 DuJ7 nM8Y/i Z4M VLkRe hId4isz8/ VEhRe29 +1s/Zbp X/3/ 7/KQ Mj6ZQJ
v+bzp UEQpn wyaW uAIQstx0 7SEI Js+f ////9 zp3feFIcHB/tS qgFhwCyb9 yaW3ZedImAP Rp7N
v+bzp UEQp nw yaWu AI Qst x07S EIJ s+/SxA
f/////+Ts tLxCSBYd mhjXVBSU VNqZHcBLMXvVDC8 VxE8zp1 Xbv/ // /8g46 1g2 tFSF c5m X7dBw BTk
ZZO feP5y DbznapV 7exN2dv/ ///99HA0t8vb 0sPHR53 n63U xlo/8nbIz dC9uMG6 m9d Yc7T //////b
FIJCF AlFzIIP +mK3K XP7FYPn HpN+tC RpKf+9 KMvqTv //7f93D jqwv/dU1 Ox zmA FNBp3y oq/C
FIJ CFAlFzI IP+ mK3KXP7FYP nHpN +tC RpKf+YvPl
XjffBXFS/ ////wf4G0B+ VD6nqU8 sAn0wy OcG0lQqGm tMAZ0E9mr6 HccG/4X///g dkAS rlgAGB hAr
75nUT v8XeAuTxvh 1IYyk/////1// zHJr62/+pf3s 0EHJeJHZxKw mx+jgqbcaX W/sKRCj///// 7zz
7fVvU SE1jdZ THEgpGOO 3XD+duM3Q UlXjtUPqvmfj/ /// /6CgM uLOSTo kLzAK j66E4X VA oWKY
7fVvU SE1 jdZTHE gpG OO3XD +svUw
SuDj/ 5GBw ScH/// //3eI Z49Us4UI4v6CR athjnTauy o4rvBK 1BicF4pI wrW8// /// 577H 1bmb pDg
O0e zoBq3 0qq8xPe TSKYBw AT/BhKL XanY//// /72UMfgf6 FpjPt/WCspC1 QxeYE ly9fSu 9FMX/BYV
8o6a/ ////3 NwPIKx4o43W1 MWoieU VFissTU3 Pqp1ZZU hbusahIF q/////+YKG D86lZ+Bgu NzpEc9
CQL WLojCp 9U/ilzqn 1Y7Xz1 K/9L//8 N5X0MJ uPCrms 4esoXZ S8HUO 17P3/Z H+Ur3 9j7L bSK
Z2L/W K0RjCL3 W8tY3 4X8rO Bl2uu XlOJg CO8// ////zzj7 H8QjmB+3U2 b5J0F G5d628y z+zePJfE5
HbJ8Gv Ud///// x+9n+n G6unrPt mWcP07 2kUl9vO k59YEIU w5/lukh4 mS////C 53TsFuN KjZCG8rR
5DRQr MMcxe Fmimxb M1FC/// //+0 +I6ti1+6U9DS y6dVJ rF4 mrrx teWeVW zeGpII9 rofD ///// 4ew
gLbfQ 9+7i4Bl Lx6oMs u1KpM3 Q3niYjRa uu1pXG wi/////6wY1 XPh68iGL1p JT/FD8zfLbz YY
ofGYQhK4 DcHK/7f xu10OyJ JnKCosPli CtPdBm/5s6 3IEp 1IL///
January 28, 2004
While I was in Peru, I bought a Red, Inka Cola T-shirt. (La bebida de Perú!) It's very cool.
Well, when I got back to the good ol' US of America I had to do laundry. It was either do laundry or start a fire in the backyard. Initially, I was down for the fire thing but somone told me there are laws or something. So, I cranked up the Maytag and started sorting clothes.
In spite of Peru being world-reknown for producing well-made, color-fast clothing, I thought it best to not wash my new, RED, Inka Cola shirt with my other clothing, so I set it aside. During the ohhhhhh... week or so it took to do the four loads of wash, somehow that red shirt got in the pile with my other clothes.
And I washed them all together.
I now have a pair of pink running socks, a pair of 'tighty-pinkies', which used to be called 'tighty-whiteys,' and a pink undershirt. Even though those are whites, they were somehow (I know how and why but I'm not saying.) in the load with my dark knits. And one of my favorite gray shirts has a big red splotch on the back. Oddly, the rest of the load managed to stay pretty not pink.
This morning, I woke up and picked out a pair of dark blue, flat-front slacks (Is that an old person word? I think that's an old person word.) and a khaki, knit pullover. (If you're curious, I also got out my khaki dock shoes and a pair of blue striped socks and a pair of blue boxer shorts. Yes, I match my underwear most of the time.) And I put my clothes on the bed while I showered and shaved.
Then I got dressed and went to work.
As I got out of the car and the dawn sunlight struck my chest, my peripheral vision caught a flash of pink. I looked down and realized that my khaki pullover is not actually khaki but, as Mama Laverne put it, titty pink. Naturally, I pulled my jacket closed and went on into work and proceeded directly to my buddy Boring Man's office to show him my shirt.
Trey Givens: Look at my shirt. Is it pink?So, I went about my day until lunch happy in the knowledge that I am not wearing a pink shirt, but a khaki shirt. (You'll note my earlier reference to my pink shirt scare.)
Boring Man: No.
Trey Givens: Are you sure? Because it looked pink when I got out of the car this morning.
Boring Man: I'm sure. It looks tan to me.
Trey Givens: Khaki.
Boring Man: Whatever, dude. Just be glad it's not pink.
Trey Givens: Looking at my shirt I can't really trust your judgment on this can I?
Boring Man: What? How can you say that?
We exchange stares.
Boring Man: Ok you're right. But it really doesn't look pink to me.
Trey Givens: Ok well, maybe there was some reflected light from that red billboard right over my parking space or something.
Boring Man: Yeah, that's it.
Then I went to lunch with Mama Laverne, Precious, and Our Favorite Piano Pedagogue and I asked them about my shirt and the consensus was that it is, in fact, pink. "Titty pink."
I even looked at the stitching closely and there is a distinct contrast between the khaki thread and the now "dusty rose" of the rest of the fabric.
Well, I like this shirt but it is pink so, it will heretofore be referred to as my Pretty Pink Fairy PrincessTM shirt because, hey, what can you do?
Why, wear them with my Pretty Pink Fairy PrincessTM socks, Pretty Pink Fairy PrincessTM undershirt, and Pretty Pink Fairy PrincessTM panties, of course!
The restaurant at lunch was playing Rufus Wainwright's Poses but my companions mistook it for Radiohead (AKA almost the worst band in the world) and insisted that the two sound very similar.
I'm a regular down there. My regular drinks are a White Chocolate Mocha and a White Chocolate Mocha Frappachino. One is hot the latter is cold. And Kate knows it.
When I walk in Kate calls to me, "Good morning, Trey! Grande White Chocolate Mocha?" And I say 'yes' and she makes it up right.
You might be thinking that it's not hard to mess up one of these super-sweet coffee-esque concoctions, oh but you can. There's another barista at my Starbucks that doesn't always do such a great job. She's sweet and all, but egads, woman! If I liked bitter I would order real coffee.
But Kate always makes my drinks perfectly.
This morning I went down to Starbucks and Kate said, "Hey, Trey! Want a --- OH NO!" And she gave a look of shock.
After my scare this morning about whether or not my shirt is pink (more on that later), I did a double-check thinking something horrible was amiss with my appearance. It turned out that they were just out of the White Chocolate syrup.
I said it was OK and that I would just get a Vanilla Mocha instead, but Kate was very upset about this lapse in service. So she gave it to me on the house!
Can you believe that? THAT'S customer service.
Not only does Kate make the absolute best mochas for me, she recognizes the value of regular customers and the need to treat them right.
That is a wonderful, wonderful thing. You can bet that I will continue going to Starbucks for things just like that.
I manage to live most days without much thought to the fact that I'm gay at all. It also wasn't ever my intention to start a "gay blog."
On the other hand, it's hard to ignore issues that hit so close to home so, I guess the gay issues commentary will continue so long as people are hating on me for being gay.
You know what I need to do, right? I NEED to show some linky-love to my blog-buddies. Maybe I'll set up some hard-core ping(a) (Foreign vulgarity alert!) action for my peeps a little later on.
January 27, 2004
Ummm... just from his name, I don't think I care much for Mr. Signorile. I’m sure he wasn’t born with that moniker and if he was he’s stupid for not changing it and I don’t think I care much for his parents.
It reminds me of how in my playwriting class someone named a character "Bobby Fisher" but refused to change it in spite of the light of knowledge being shined onto her ignorance and extensive discussions about how invoking famous names carries with it additional meaning.
It makes me think this guy is severely repressed, but that's neither here nor there.
What makes me sure I don't like Mr. Signorile is his letter to Mary Cheney. I would pull some quotations to fisk, but there's a copyright notice at the bottom that says I can't reproduce any part of the site without written permission from the publisher. I actually may be in violation just by telling you about the nature of the copyright notice. I might ask Kate about it later.
To start, let me say that he makes good arguments to support a claim that Ms. Cheney is irrational and prone to unwise political decisions. However, given that being unwise is en vogue in so many different forums, even without his arguments there's a statistical probability that he's right. And I don't even know Ms. Cheney. Of course, we could as easily say the same about Mr. Signorile without knowing him.
I suppose it could be written off as chivalry that brings me to Ms. Cheney's aide, but to be honest it's really distaste for collectivists like Signorile that spurns this comment.
'What makes me call him a collectivist?' I'm so happy you asked. I call him that because he is.
His entire letter is about how Mary Cheney owes something to gay people because she's gay and is related to our Vice President. Mr. Signorile is upset because Mary Cheney isn't the kind of lesbian he thinks she should be. He's very clear in accusing her of cavorting with "the enemy." (I'm not quoting him, please don't sue. Those are quotey marks of disbelief.)
It is true that some Christian Fundamentalists, some Republicans, and some Republican Christian Fundamentalists are solidly opposed to same-sex marriage and even civil unions. There are even some who turn violent against homosexuals. GW Bush, to my knowledge, hasn't gone gay bashing but he has made it clear that he is irrational on the subject. I've not heard it myself, but I imagine Dick Cheney agrees.
That's where Signorile blames Mary Cheney. According to him, she should be held accountable for not changing their minds. Or is he just blaming her for trying to change their minds at all? Or is he blaming her for trying to change their minds but not succeeding? Or is he just blaming her for being gay and supportive of Republicans?
Whatever it is he's upset at her about it and it definitely involves her betrayal of all homosexuals everywhere. I'll bet she didn't even know she had it in her. I didn't even notice it myself, but Signorile's rage can't be for naught, can it?
Oh, wait. I always forget that I share some kind of unconditional love-bond with all the other gays. It's what gives us our ability to arrange flowers, you know. It's also how we communicate. Do you know that gay guy at your work? I do. I know all gay people and all gay people know me. It's like that giant thing in outer space that powers Green Lantern's ring except it's kind of opalescent and shimmery with body glitter.
Boi from Troy, you and your friends better be glad you're not related to anyone in politics. He'll blame you, too, if they don't support gay marriage and you'll probably get a letter with the F!bomb in it!
Oh dear. What must he think of me? I hope I don't get one of those letters. Because while I dislike the Republicans, I dislike them less than I dislike Democrats.
And you know what else? I don't give to AIDS coalitions, Rainbow Charities, HRC, or Flowers for Midler. I'm really a complete traitor to gay people if you think about it.
Signorile probably wonders how I dare think for myself. I guess the gay community will just have to turn its back on me. The Gay Mafia is probably going to fit me for a peach velveteen blazer and matching slacks. (To the uninformed, that would be the gay version of a gang slaying.)
Quelle horreur! Quelle tristesse! Quelle cruautÃ©! Pourquoi de phase?
Psh! Signorile sucks... and not in a good way.
Update: The Amateur Gourmet has set me right and noted that Signorile's criticism is that Mary Cheney has taken advantage of young, impressionable gays by tricking them with toys and candy into voting Republican. Oooo... shiny!
I think Sean is disingenuous on this matter. Of course it's personal.
Now, Hannity does like to tease, but I do have to give him credit for not calling names or anything like that. But, apparently, Hannity thinks that making statements without mentioning any one person in particular means that he isn't "making it personal."
I just don't know how he can cast aspersions and make negative judgments about the actions of an individual still think he's not making "personal" arguments.
His hair-splitting technique is something like this:
Personal: Trey Givens is evil.
Not Personal: People like Trey Givens are evil.
I think that Hannity ACTUALLY means to say that he isn't petty in his judgments and that's true. I mean, the man doesn't call people nazis (unless they are) or poo-poo faces.
In a specific example from his show tooday, Sean Hannity was confronted by a lady with the last name Birch from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) on the topic of gays being permitted to adopt children. They had debated the issue previously and Sean is against it on the premise that gay people can't raise children properly.
Birch, a lesbian mother, was personally offended by his statements but Sean denied having made a personal attack. Hannity says she's funny and charming and lively, but maintains that his attack on the issue is not personal. Let's seeee...
1) Birch is a lesbian.
2) Lesbians cannot raise children properly.
3) But Hannity is not saying that Birch cannot raise children properly.
Hannity isn't honest enough with himself to admit it but his comments are very personal. Just like when he says "Liberals are this way or that..." he's referring to everyone who is a Liberal generally and specifically.
Just like all of his claims of humility, selflessness, and particularly those of rationality, Hannity's claims of being specifically non-judgmental make me sick. What a tool!
If you smoke, you a dumbass.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.