Sunday, April 29, 2007

Again, with the Definitions! Why? Because the NEED for them never seems to go away. Today's Necessary Definition?

(** I actually typed this up on Sunday past, and shit. Dontcha know that it did not take for even ONE BLOODY WEEK for me to read something so ugly on that I was inspired to post it. An afterword shall be added,**)


First, the set up. Yes, I have been rubbernecking on a particularly vile message board, the Hannity Board. Now I have been known to exaggerate some sometimes but that board is a perfect example of why (based on my experiences there, and what I see there) and how message boards are (often) the worst example of Internet Culture, and can be more vile, more vulgar, and more dehumanizing and more exploitative than the most scuzzy of porn (without necessarilly being a specific hate site like the ones run by NeoNazis or NeoConfederates or other variety of admitted hatemongers.)

And for an example of that, let me fill you in on the RACISM problem there.

Well, that doesn't say it well so let me say that there are way too many people there (in my mind likely borderline or otherwise low level or even perhaps worse, closet racists) who seem to be operating under a totally false definition of what constitutes racism.

Now let me first deal with the Wrong, the False, the Incorrect definition of Racism some of these (what ever descriptive term is most accurate on a case-by-case basis) folk seem to operate under.

NO! NO NO NO! Racism is NOT something that only exists when someone uses socially disfavored bad words at people to mock and insult them on account of those people having a different color skin. And NO! NO NO NO! Racism is not something that only exists when someone wraps chains around a live human and attaches those chains to a pickup truck and drags that person to their death on account of them having a different color skin (or any other sort of lynching.)

Those are EXTREME examples of Racism.

Now let us go for the real definition of Racism, as found in a dictionary.


racism Show phonetics


the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:

The authorities are taking steps to combat/fight/tackle racism in schools. The report made it plain that institutional racism (= racism in all parts of an organization) is deep-rooted in this country.

racist Show phonetics


someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly:

Two of the killers are known to be racists.

racist Show phonetics


He furiously denied being racist. They were the victims of a vicious racist attack.

I do not see anything there about using certain bad words, or lynching being a necessary factor for the existence of racism.


The thing that triggered my posting of this saved draft, was a thread on where people were saying "PRAISE THE LORD" that GW Bush was going to veto a hate crimes law. Not only that, but there were people posting in that thread ACTUALLY comparing the spraypainting of a Swastika on a Synagoge to a simple act of grafitti vandalism.

Granted, this is not the whole story but it is because of racist bastards like that I am glad I do not can not post there anymore. I used to fight them.

But you know?? Fighting hatemongers with reason and logic (if not human decency) makes as little sense as trying to combat a aiborne viral epidemic with cough drops and bandaids.


Anyway that is it for me today.

Third Attempt, here.

I just can't find the right note, the right chord, the right key here.

So what should I say??

I know! A false choice. Yes, I know that in the course of a debate, a false choice is exactly that:


But I am going to use that chord for the limited purpose of setting up some statement by myself, and since this is a one way message, it is fair to do so. Anyway, here are my false choices.

If right now, I had the Djinni before me offering me two choices (well not taking either would count as a passive, tacit third) and one was,

have EVERYONE in the world Love Me,

and the other was,

have EVERYONE in the world be nice to each other,

I'd choose the second, without hesitation. Honestly. For me, it would be rather tiresome to have the whole world love me.


I can only handle a small social circle anyway, and not that I am mean or hateful by default, but for the most part, I want most people to just leave me the hell alone.

Now as far as my small ciricle goes, ideally? Ya . I am definitely a big fan of the deeply connected sort of thing. I rather be tight with a small group than deal with a throng. Screw superficial shallow socializing, except as perhaps wallpaper is to a room as opposed to the furniture and other furnishings. Wallpaper is afterall, just the background of a room. The furniture and furnishings are what you actually use for actual support and to add context and meaning to your time in that room.

Ya. I would make the world live in harmony, as the old Coca Cola Jingle goes, instead of choosing to be the center of the world's attention.

That would be more hellish than few things I could imagine (that do not involve actual physical pain.)

Ok. That is my thought of the day.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

I am not going to PREACH or RANT, but Demagogy, Redux . . .

Just a refresher course, kids.

From our friends at Wikipaedia:

Methods of demagogy

[edit] Methods not involving violations of logic

Apples and oranges — mixing of incomparable quantities. For example, "our government has increased social spending by 5 billion dollars, while the previous government has increased it only by 0.4 percent." Obviously, the latter sounds like less, but one cannot be sure without an absolute value.

Half-truth — making statements that are true only in a strict and relatively meaningless sense. For example, "the opposition have accused us of cutting foreign aid, but actually our government has increased foreign aid by 500 million dollars," not mentioning that (adjusted for inflation) the allocated funds have in fact gone down.

False authority — relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. For example, "the professor read my book, and liked it very much," omitting the fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on anthropology.

[edit] Methods involving violation of logic

False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "Smith is not with us, therefore he is against us," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities.

Straw man — mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization.

Loaded question — posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have. "When did you stop taking bribes?"

[edit] Arguments unrelated to a discussion

Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. For example, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar competitors.

Emotional appeal or personal attack — attempting to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You're stupid!", "You are demagoguing!" or just the classic retort "Shut up!"

[edit] See also
Big Lie
Logical fallacy
Loaded question

Saturday, April 21, 2007

As it ALWAYS seems to be the case, it is in the Definitions . . .

in other words, ya have to be using the right definitions before you can understand the ideas (and discuss them intelligently).

Ok. Let's start here:

hate speech

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

And let us compare that to this:



VERB: Inflected forms: in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See synonyms at offend. b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience. 2. Obsolete To make an attack on.

INTRANSITIVE VERB: Archaic 1. To behave arrogantly. 2. To give offense; offend: a speech that was intended to insult.

NOUN: (nslt)1. An offensive action or remark. 2a. Medicine A bodily injury, irritation, or trauma. b. Something that causes bodily injury, irritation, or trauma: “the middle of the Bronx, buffeted and poisoned by the worst environmental insults that urban America can dish out” (William K. Stevens, New York Times November 12, 1991).

ETYMOLOGY: French insulter, from Old French, to assault, from Latin nsultre, to leap at, insult, frequentative of nsilre, to leap upon : in-, on; see in–2 + salre, to leap; see sel- in Appendix I.


in·sulter —NOUN
in·sulting·ly —ADVERB

And lastly, (as I can get too complicated too fast while doing one of these definitional tutorals):



NOUN: 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew). 2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion. 3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts. 4. The prevailing view: public opinion. 5. Law A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin opni, opnin-, from opnr, to think.

Now comes the discussion.

Opinions are not necessarilly insults or hate speech, but they can be, additionally, one, the other, or both.

Insults generally have an opinion in their origins, however those opinions are naturally negative (if not baseless, hateful or just nastiness).

NOTA! All insults are generally hateful, but they are not necessarilly "Hate Speech."


Go back and look at the definition. "Hate Speech" is a very very very specific thing.

So, if you call either GW Bush or Ted Kennedy an idiot, you are, at the same time, expressing an opinion and making an insult. In other words, don't believe for one damn second you can skip liability for the insult, merely because it is based on your opinion. When did you become LORD GOD, Master of Reality in this Universe? If you ain't the Master of Reality, the mere fact your puny weak mind has formed an opinion DOES NOT mean that opinion has any close relationship to Objective Reality.

I hope that part is clear. Now to the last part of the discussion.

Hate speech, as mentioned above, is a particular form of hate flavored communication.

So if you say that one person is an idiot, you are being insulting, but you are not likely engaging in what is, by definition, actual hate speech . . . unless the insult is so wedded to that person being a member of some particular social and or ethnic group that your insult can be viewed to be against that person for merely being a member of that group.

(Sorry that did not flow well, I admit.)

So if you call George an idiot because you think lowly of his intelligence you are attacking him for being HIM (based on your opinion of the worth of him as being HIM.) However if you call George an idiot

Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Polack/Frenchman/Canadian/nappy-headed ho,

you have crossed over to the land of hate speech, whether you wanted to or not. That is the funny (not ha ha funny, but strange funny) thing about hate speech. Intent, while not totally irrelevant, is not really all that important. The mere fact you are that insensitive, and thoughtless (plus saying the wrong damn thing) is enough to get you in the shit.

Oh . . . one last thing. There is the (more obvious) broad categorical examples of pure hate speech, like saying that all (or merely inferring all) members of a social/ethnic group are (fill in your evidence of hateful thought here.)

For example, running around saying things like all (or even if the word all is not specifically used, but only inferred you mean all)

Muslims/Jews/Catholics/college graduates/college dropouts/never-even applied to college/ NASCAR fans/blacks/Mexicans/Arabs/
Commies/Socialists/Gays/Straights/ evoloutionists/antievolutionists/


are idiots, is classic pure hate speech.

(I keep returning to this topic in this life if mine, as the work never seems to go away.)

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Rewriting my old line. I used to say, we are talking about HUMANS, not some intelligent species. Now maybe it should be . . .

"We are talking about HUMANS. Not some decent, caring and wholesome species."

(And fair warning, I am about to tie in the "commentary" following the Imus sexist racist hate fest, to that following the VT mass slaughter.)

I am disgusted to call myself a HUMAN. Right now, this minute, I would trade places with a slug. Last week it was the puss-drenched, foul spectacle of the rancid offal, bigot-apologists, whos' individual and collective response to Imus getting busted for what was (even if accidental) HATE SPEECH, was to basically (no matter what words they used) call for a world where we can still:




or otherwise wail and bemoan any action that makes hatemongering a high priced and dangerous activity.

And this week? Now we have the even more unsavory, more un wholesome, more . . . repugnant activity of people using the VT mass slaughter to grind what ever putrid, nasty axe they carry. Foul, nasty, and naturally, shamless partisan mongering of such a level that I have to say again, I would feel more enobled to be among the slugs than the human species, today.

Monstrous people blaming the victims for not fighting back.

Monstrous people blaming gun control laws.

Monstrous people blaming "liberals" for one insane man's bloody homicidal rampage.

Sick freaks:

Again, I am that disgusted.

I do (and props to Thomas Friedman, for the phrase) hope to someday live in a world where

"Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide,"

is taken so seriously that there are none left, even in capitivity, but shit. The events of this past week show me that world is far away from the one I live in now.


Monday, April 16, 2007

I really ought to just drop the subject . .

I think maybe that the attention I have been paying to not really the Imus Broough ha ha, but perhaps to the more rabid and hateful apologists who have slimed out of the woodwork, has me riled up some.

Like I said in my last post, I used to fight these hate mongers all the time on the net. I don't bother anymore. However, that does not mean that they do not get to me still.

Anyway, the urge came to me, based on my non-too-original observation that when it is all said and done, and stripped of the bullshit wrapping, all the apologists are advocating for is HATE SPEECH. Don't let their crap about "Freedom of Speech" fool you one minute. What these people are trying to protect is the right to hate and not be punished by the marketplace, for embracing and promoting hate.

Charming (not.)

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Well Done, Matt & Trey, and your show reminds me . . .

why I gave up debating politics, particularly Race Politics on the Internet.

Of course, I am now wondering why THE HELL it takes two rude crazy white boys to convince other non-nonwhites that they "JUST DON'T GET IT," when it comes to race and racist trash talking?

Nope, I should not wonder, that is a no brainer. 'Cause the kind of person who has no idea "they don't get it," what it means to be other than themself, will still labor under the distorted misconception that everyone else either (a) thinks 'zactly like they do, or (b) should.

Now I need to do some 'splaining myself. I am obviously referring to something having to do with race, but for those you who did not get the Matt and Trey reference, I was talking about the creators and producers of "South Park."

Now earlier today I found a link to a pirated copy of a fairly recent South Park episode (title of it was something like . . . apology to Jesse Jackson,) and the issues of racial insensitivity and racist talk, and "not getting it," were the themes of that episode. I will try to be brief and mention the most important part; Stan seemed to be fumbling and fumbling in dealing with Token (the token black kid in the show) over his inability to make things right between him and Token, after Stan's dad utters the N word on nationwide tv. Stan does not seem to get it, that every further thing he says just pisses off Token more, and more. The more Stan says the depper in the shit he gets.

But Stan is a smart kid (well cartoon kid.) He finally "Gets it." He finally gets it that "He doesn't get it," about how the N word makes African Americans feel cause He has NO CLUE what it means to be African American and to have to deal with that shit.

Oh it was brilliant (lots of other brilliant things in this episode but damn Skippy, that part was the best, to my eyes.)

Oh, and back to what I said about me giving up fighting with people on the internet particularly about Race Matters? I have done that many times . . . granted I used the expression,"You just DON'T get it," for more than the topic of Race, but I really really meant it, when I was dealing with racial topics. OH! OH! And if Juney-June ever sees this, I have to say June, I meant it as a statement of fact, not as an insult when I said to you,"You just don't get it."

Just as much as I never will get it, how it feels to have menstural cramps, leave alone carry a baby to term and give birth to it, you ain't really ever gonna get how it feels to be Black in America. And YES. America can still be a hostile place for a middle aged middle class white chick, sometimes. It is STILL more (Way More) hostile for black chicks or dudes. You just don't get it! And ya don't have to be called a Nappy Headed ho (or have your daughter, sister, wife, neighbor) for the hostility to be very real!

But ya know you might some day. Way I hear it, Imus was shown the light, Goory Gee! After his meeting with the Lady Scarlet Knights, he was officially forgiven by the team.

I guess they managed to convince him that he did not get it; and he at least now gets it, that he did not get it.

I will stop there for now. Try to see that South Park if you haven't yet.

It is on the web somewhere . . .

Friday, April 13, 2007

Why Do (some) People ## DELETED ##

Ya I was in an ass kicking mood last night.

Looking at what I posted yesterday made be feel like I was channeling the vitrol of some vile critter.

Changing topics, not all that much (as if you wanna clue why I was so wound up and wanting to kick ass . . .)

I really really hope my temp job from hell finally ends this month.

Next time I go on a tear I might not do it on the basically safe (as in this shit is all fake ain't it?) digital turf of the internet.

There is one ray of hope for me, next week. My coworker, who drives me crazy with his craziness, will be gone for most of the week.


I need a spell of low to no stress.

And very soon I hope to be taking that very long vacation, that I really really need!

Thursday, April 12, 2007

One (toxic bullshit spewing) Info-tainer Down, About a Dozen to go . . .

Imus has left the building . . . or to be more accurate, has been LOCKED OUT!

It is a great day for America. And like Lear and Kaplan say, it could not have come at a better time, save SOONER.

Here is a chunk from Kaplan's post:

A merely curmudgeonly cowboy would not pull big numbers, and neither the political class nor the punditocracy would return his bookers' calls. What makes the powerful kiss his ring, and what makes people tune in, is how badboy - how rude, disrespectful, licking-the-razor - Imus is. Clearly, large audiences like to gasp at what he gets away with, and CBS and NBC have been champs at spinning those OMG's into ka-ching.

The same could be said of the envelope-pushing by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and the dozens of other circus acts in the infotainment freak show. Their effect may be to debase discourse, inflame prejudice, sow ignorance, exculpate criminality, incite rancor, ruin reputations, and stoke the right-wing base - but their effect is not their job. Their job is to make money for the corporations that employ them. We may revile them for being Rove's toadies, but we're chumps if we ignore how relentlessly the companies that employ them monetize their noxious shtick.

Hmmm. Now if it is true, as it seems, that the US of A is curing itself of its pathological desire to consume the most vile shit that it can consume, time to time, can we only hope it sooner than merely eventually will give up its addiction to all forms of that toxic bullshit, known as "Infotainment?"

Oh, and I have not plugged the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK OF THE PAST 100 YEARS lately, so I will.

If you have not read Prof. Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit," yet, you really need to read it.


Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Laura Ingraham ROCKS!!!

I love it!

She walked off the Hannity & Colmes set, disgusted in the way the Imus (Was it SEXIST? Or was it RACIST? Or was it BOTH?) Rutgers U. Women's B-Ball team story was being distorted.

I commend her.

She could have further participated in the shit-fest, but before the break, said the following to Hannity:

“No, I’m not speaking. I’m boycotting you. I’m out.”

You go girl!

Oh, and MSNBC has dumped the simulcast of Imus.

WTG! It only took the advertisers exodus to do it, seems.

(You will have to scroll down for the story. The direct URL was endless.)

** Edite to Adde**

Alt. link:

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

I am even MORE DISGUSTED by the apologists, but . .

Here is my MAIN remark about the Imus Incident.

(Granted, I had the first version in my head, edited it, and I have managed to remove specific racial terms from the lesson.)


If you are not now, nor never were from "Da Hood,"

and/or if you are not now nor never have been a Frequent Flier, in "Da Hood,"



Buy all the Ludacris and Fiddy-Cent CDs ya want. But if you do not have walking papers for any recognized 'Hood (I got 'em for Harlem, Jersey City, Dixwell Ave., in New Haven, N'East and West Philly, and as well, Baltimore), use ghetto rap at your own damn risk.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Any Man who DENIES this is either LYING, or is as Queer as Liberace.

Sally: We are just going to be friends, OK?
Harry: Great, friends. It's the best thing...You realize, of course, that we can never be friends.
Sally: Why not?
Harry: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape, or form - is that men and women can't be friends, because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: You only think you do.
Sally: You're saying I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: How do you know?
Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally: So you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive.
Harry: No, you pretty much want to nail them, too.
Sally: What if they don't want to have sex with you?
Harry: Doesn't matter, because the sex thing is already out there, so the friendship is ultimately doomed, and that is the end of the story.

I usually am not one to mess with brilliance and genius, and that dialouge is some of the most brilliant/genius stuff ever done on film (or any other medium).

However, I woud ONLY add the following.

Given a straight man dealing with a woman he did not find visually or sexually attractive from the get go, if for some reason they get to know each other well enough and the guy finds things about the woman he likes, that are not directly related to the most superficial and or visual aspect of sexual attraction,

he pretty much wants to nail her too. (yes. There can be women who a straight male would not want to nail, BUT BUT BUT, the women would have to be REPULSIVE on most if not all practical levels, for that to be the case.)

That is the one bit of truth missing from the dialouge.

Other than that, it is a thing of perfection.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Appropriate for Easter? This is as close as I will likely get.

Well now, I manged to stumble across tell of the book titled:

"12 "Christian" Beliefs That Can Drive You Crazy."

An on-line sales page has the following to say about this book:

Drs. Cloud and Townsend identified twelve teachings that
sound plausible because they each contain a nugget of truth.
At some point, however, when Christians try to apply the
truths, a breakdown occurs. The person needlessly suffers.To
their shock, they found that Christians who had been raised
with minimal Bible training were less injured by these false
assumptions, supposedly biblical teachings, than Christians
with extensive Bible training were. In other words, Christians
who know their Bibles the best are often injured the most.

Oh, and actually, I found that book while googling the wide open question,"Can crazy people make you crazy?" Anyway, googling the title of that book brought me to the following website:

Now this is not a new idea, however after a quick look over, this site seems very interesting.

Here is a sample:

Spiritual abuse occurs when someone in a position of
spiritual authority, the purpose of which is to 'come
underneath' and serve, build, equip and make God's people
MORE free, misuses that authority placing themselves
over God's people to control, coerce or manipulate them
for seemingly Godly purposes which are really their own.


Now considering how much the Republican and Conservative leadership/punditry have wrapped themselves up in the mantle of RIGHTEOUS GODLINESS, could we not say they are not only abusers of the political process and democratic process, but that EACH AND EVERY DAMNED TIME they minimally project the message that they are any more Godly, Holy, or Righteous than a two-toed sloth, that they are in fact being spiritually abusive (on top of all their other shameful misdeeds)?

My opinion is YES they are, but hey that is only my opinion.

It is sorta (to me at least) like that old joke about how it is not crazy to talk to God, but only Crazy People hear God talking to them?

Welll I take it several step further, and say that it is easy to spot the people who are very very far from God, as they are the ones who claim to be close to God and or either know his will or are doing his will.

And let us not get too far into the perversion of the word "christian."

Was a time when that meant, and ONLY meant, a conscious, if not conscientious follower of Jesus Christ.

Here in America, in the 21st century it seems to mean:

(a) a member of a of socio-political movement that

favors Right Wing causes, and

(b) has more to do with the person's (who describes

themself as a christian) identification with those

Right Wing causes, and their own self image as

being that kind of person, than anything else, and

(c) Let us be honest; it has absolutely

NOT A DAMN THING to do with Jesus Christ, anymore.

I am sure many so-called christians will disagree with me there, but hey . . . I only call 'em as I see 'em.

We live in the age of Christ-less Christianity. After all, Jesus' lessons about caring for the weak/poor/sick, and treating all people as if they were HIM (I am not making this stuff up, He did say that. It is in the SCRIPTURES) sorta gets in the way and distorts the Political Message and that message is:

We are the right people, and we are the right kinda people and everything we want we should get, because we are the right people.

Ya. For the record, I want no part of that sort of Christianity. If that is the meaning of being a christian, I will gladly call myself a Heathen, a Heretic, and an Apostate.

Not that I am a perfectly selfless soul, but shee-it, I will take my chances going solo and trying as I best can to be more generous as a person, as opposed to adopting The Religion of Group Self Interest and Political Partisan Hegemony.

Take another look at my post about the difference between a person, and people.

I am going to remain a person; them christians are no more than people, seems to me.

Oh and they are scary . . .

Hmmm . . . granted, I made a bit of political overlap there, but I suprised myself by going that far on a religious theme. I don't mean to mock anyone's faith, but as far as the social and political opinions go, I affirm everyone's right to have a different opinion. I disagree, and sometimes I disagree VERY STRONGLY.

Oh and I almost forgot to say . . . Happy Easter (or what ever you choose to celebrate.)

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Special BONUS Two-Fer Post . . . I'm In LOVE . . .

Well not literally, but while waiting for the fine fishfolk of YouTube to email me my password (lost that damn thing again, flushing out cookies or something) I discovered this JEWEL of a vid blogger.


Hmmm I really love her sass, at the least. Guess I am going to have to subscribe to this channel.

Over due for an update, and yet not well inspired, so . .

let's maybe try this; stupid, mean, ugly, selfish people (been there done that already, I am sure.)

Honestly, I deleted the bit I had typed, and that was merely one of my teasers; where I set it up and back away from the topic?

I decided that even that was too much attention on what and who is wrong in the world.

So what is there left to talk about?

Hmm didja catch "LOST" last night?

Wicked excellent Chick Fight between Kate and Juliet.

Mmm mmmm good!
Add to Technorati Favorites