I'm Charlotte
07.31.05 (6:16 am) [edit]
I guess this makes it official. . .
You are Charlotte. Beautiful, shy and girly. All
you really want is a huge wedding and a
wonderful husband but you are slowly working
your way through the male population in your
quest to find mr right, not that you'd readily
admit it! You always end up with mr
perfect...but.. and the but is usually some
kind of bizarre or disappointing bedroom
activity.
"A 'Sex and the City' quiz"
brought to you by Quizilla
 | You Are Most Like Charlotte!You are the ultimate romantic idealist You've been hurt before, but that hasn't caused you to give up on love. If anything, your resolve to fall in love is stronger than ever. And it's this feminine optimism that men find most appealing about you. Romantic prediction: That guy you are seeing (or crushing on)? Could be very serious - if you play your cards right! Which Sex and the City Vixen Are You Most Like? Take This Quiz Right Now! Find the Love of Your Life (and More Love Quizzes) at Your New Romance. |
Take the quiz: "What Sex and the City girl are you?"
Charlotte
You are Charlotte!
Quiz
07.28.05 (11:38 am) [edit]
Ha. They seem to have my number. . .
| How You Life Your Life |
 You seem to be straight forward, but you keep a lot inside. You say whatever is on your mind. Other people's reactions don't phase you. You tend to have one best friend you hang with, as opposed to many aquaintences. You tend to dream big, but you worry that your dreams aren't attainable. |
7 Types of Intelligence - Which is yours?
brought to you by Quizilla
OOOH! Pretty and Sparkely. . .
07.28.05 (9:23 am) [edit]
Here's dreamin'.
Bored on the net and surfin' around.
The one I tried on just for fun when I went to Tiffany & Co. the other day was $20,000. Someone wish me good luck getting that one! I think a slightly less expensive version is nice. The one I liked had an 18k yellow gold band, but still a Platinum setting and a 1K diamond.
I've been looking at this kinda thing since I was 13. Been planning my wedding since about that time too. I always joke and say the only thing left was the groom. My boyfriend tends to agree with that joke being a reality. LOL! I think I'm worth this and then some. :wink:
Don't get all excited, I'm not officially engaged yet. I'm just shopping around for fun.
I think this is the only one I'll accept now. With the yellow gold, of course.
::sigh::
Harry Potter and the Fingers That Point
07.25.05 (2:12 pm) [edit]
Touring around the religion section of the tblog server, I found that due to the release of the new Harry Potter book, there seems to be a lot of posts about the young wizard. Interestingly, these are posts by Christians condemning the books as "politically correct paganism."
Now I read some of the posts and I just don't get it.
Mind you, I havn't read any of the books by J.K. Rowling. Political and Historical Non-Fiction interests me more in my reading materials. For Fiction, I go see movies. So far, I've seen all of the HP movies that have come out. And I was greatly entertained. I'd not stop my children from reading one or all of the HP series. . .
Aparantly, there is a movement of people who would though. Why? Because they claim, like the blogs around the server, that the author either is a pagan or advocates the use of that practice and such is against Jesus' law.
Hrmm. So lets suppose for a moment that these people are correct in their assumption. Kids can't read about those practices? There's no difference between [i]reading [/i]and [i]doing[/i]?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the prohibition of pagan practices. It's against Jewish law (and it was that way before Jesus was even a glimmer in Joseph's eye). One is not allowed to place any other gods before the one true God. But there is no law against learning about other people's practices. On the contrary, it is the intelligent scholar that seeks to understand other customs. In my studies, I find it even reinforces my belief in God because I can appriciate where others went wrong.
But the stories are not about any religious practice -- pagan or monotheistic.
In reality, J.K. Rowling is not a pagen. I did a google search to try and find out whether she was or not and was unable to find out what her actual religion was. However, I was able to track a press release refuting that she was a pagan of any kind. I guess we can all breath a sigh of releif.
But let's look at the stories in a little more depth. Is any religious entity, pagan god or otherwise, mentioned in these books? It seems not. No religion is mentioned at all.
However, looking back to one of the movies (and confirming this with someone who did read one of the books) in one story they have a rather large Christmas tree in their school mess hall. This indicates that perhaps Harry Potter, or at least his school, sponsers the Christian god or at least a Christian holiday.
But lets take a moment to ponder this oversized symbol of Christianity. Where does it come from?
The exact origin of the Christmas tree seems under debate, but it is safe to say that this symbol evolved from Pagan tradition.
The Norse pagans and Celtic Druids revered evergreens as manifestations of deity because they did not "die" from year to year but stayed green and alive when other plants appeared dead and bare. The trees represented everlasting life and hope for the return of spring.
The druids decorated their trees with symbols of prosperity -- a fruitful harvest, coins for wealth and various charms such as those for love or fertility.
Scandinavian Pagans are thought to be the first to bring their decorated trees indoors as this provided a warm and welcoming environment for the native fairy folk and tree elementals to join in the festivities.
The Saxons, a Germanic pagan tribe, were the first to place lights on the their trees in the form of candles.
Ancient Romans decorated their homes with greens at the Festival of Saturnalia, their New Year and exchanged evergreen branches with friends as a sign of good luck.
The first Christian use of the Christmas tree symbol is credited to 16th century when devout Christians also brought decorated trees into their homes. This is probably due to the conversion of pagans to the Christian religion. Most likely, they didn't want to give up all of their old customs, so they simply integrated them into their new, Christian ones.
This makes me wonder how many of these people whom are denouncing, burning, and confiscating from their children the Harry Potter stories have and decorate Christmas trees, a pagan symbol, in their homes every year.
Furthermore, I just find it a little odd that people like to point fingers at things because they seem to vary away from what they're used to. In essence I guess they just don't understand. Especially when they have no clue of what their own religion is even about or where its aspects came from.
The Harry Potter stories are nothing more than stories. They're journeys into children's imaginations where magic is used for good, morals are illustrated, and evil is vanquished. What more could a parent ask for?
If nothing else, they fall into the catagory of SciFi/Fantasy ... moreso fantasy. Dragons, witches, wizards, magic -- sounds like all the makings of "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe." Anyone remember that story? It's supposed to be about Christiantity. Do the people who hate HP also hate Narnia?
Furthermore, if you ask me, people who are so afraid of paganism better stop practicing it in their so-called "monotheistic" traditions. That means statues of saints are out, Jesus as lord is out, Christmas trees are out. In essence, I guess when you get right down to it, Christianity is already a form of paganism.
And don't even get me started on Halloween!!!
I think the least anyone has to worry about is a fictional young wizzard with a lightning bolt on his head.
People may point fingers at Harry Potter, but when do they turn it towards themselves?
[line]
Update:
For more, go to [url=http://fairmoon.tblog.com]Fairmoon's blog[/url]
An Avant Guard Poem: The Blog About Nothing
07.25.05 (9:46 am) [edit]
[b]A Blog About Nothing
[i]by Red Tigress[/b][/i]
I need a topic!
Writer's block sucks!
help!
The End.
:!:
Comments? Ideas? SOMETHING? 1,000 tBucks for the best idea! Leave them below. :?
The 'Settler' from Western Jerusalem
07.25.05 (6:12 am) [edit]
by Brian Blum I have very deliberately avoided presenting any particular political or religious point of view, and have turned down a number of offers for interviews with the international media, always afraid that my neutrality as an author would be compromised. So it was with no small amount of trepidation that I agreed to be profiled in the San Francisco Chronicle. The reporter actually found me through my blog, and said he was writing a series of articles about the real people behind the headlines living their normal lives in the Middle East. As a former San Franciscan, I would be perfect, he assured me. With a pickup line like that, how could I say no? Imagine then my shock when I read the headline of the article about me that appeared in Sunday's SF Chronicle (July 24): 'Settler Hopes for Peace to Take Root.' The last time I checked, we residents of western Jerusalem were not considered 'settlers'. I wondered: Had the western media, which already dehumanized Israeli residents of the West Bank and Gaza as problematic 'settlers' and interlopers, come to consider all of Israel a controversial 'settlement'?! As a writer and a reporter, I know what happens in the editing process, and I know that the reporter who interviewed me, Matt Stannard, was not responsible for the headline. Indeed, Stannard sent me an apologetic e-mail shortly after the article came out, expressing how he feels 'terrible' and 'sabotaged' by whoever made what he said was a last minute overnight change. Still, it highlights a general problem with 'balance' when it comes to media reporting in this part of the world. TWISTED SENSE OF 'BALANCE' When I first started writing 'This Normal Life', I approached the Chronicle, my hometown paper, and suggested that they print my blog as a weekly column. The editor I spoke with said the only way they could do that is if they gave equal time and space to a contrasting Palestinian viewpoint. I argued, to no avail, that my writing was not political; it was just charming little stories about daily life from an expatriate San Franciscan. So now, when I see a headline describing me as a settler, I have to wonder ― was that the result of a complete lack of awareness by the headline writer as to what the term 'settler' connotes? A deliberate attempt to spice up the story ― to say 'look, here's a real settler who supports peace, isn't that special?' Or was it something even worse ― a not-so-hidden political agenda to radicalize a simple Israeli? Whatever the intention, the words are loaded and the result tarnishes Stannard's mostly-accurate portrayal of my life. But then, I had no illusions that the article would avoid a political point of view in the end. Stannard told me up front that he was planning on 'twinning' me with a similarly 'normal' Palestinian from Ramallah, and indeed, the cover of the Sunday Chronicle has both of us in full color. A BELATED CORRECTION After the article appeared, Stannard intervened and ensured that the headline of the article was changed ― several times in fact. Within hours of its original appearance on the web, 'Settler' changed to 'Resident' before settling (no pun intended) on 'Man from Berkeley hopes for peace'. But the newspaper that hundreds of thousands of San Francisco Bay Area readers opened with their morning coffee this Sunday had already gone to print ― with me cast as 'settler'. Looks like I'll be avoiding the press for a little while longer. Brian Blum is a journalist and entrepreneur. His latest startup Bloggerce offers publishing services to budding bloggers. He lives in the Baka neighborhood of Jerusalem with his wife and three children.
For the past three years, I have been writing a decidedly non-political weblog called 'This Normal Life'. My goal has been to present slices of what passes for 'normal life' in today's troubled Israel. 
I'm gonna flip out like a ninja
07.22.05 (3:29 pm) [edit]
... And spaz out FOREVER! Check out this flash movie from 7 seconds of love and you'll be hooked! Can't see it below? Check out this site: http://www.7secondsoflove.com/ninja/" title="http://www.7secondsoflove.com/ninja/" target="_blank"http://www.7secondsoflove.com... |
Elegance and Beer!
07.22.05 (2:26 pm) [edit]
It's friday afternoon and I've made delicious things for Shabbos (the sabbath) and I'm now just trying to enjoy the air conditioning. It's so hot here. 'Bout 100 degrees F, I'd say.
Yesterday I was in El Centro, CA because I went to that funeral for my friend's mother that I mentioned in an earlier post. It was SO hot out there! I heard it was about 120 out there and it was very humid too. On the way driving back, we got caught in a lightening storm. Very cool. We're just recouperating today.
So since I have nothing better to do now, I'll tell you what the meal plan is for this Shabbos. . .
First we have Wine. I have a gordious 2002 Cabernet Sovignon by Abarbanel. I know what you're thinking. "Tigress! I thought you were boycotting France! How dare you have a French wine! You Hypocrite!" Let me explain. It is a Kosher wine and thus, made only by Jews. I may boycott France, but I do not boycott my fellow Jews who live in that place. You can still boycott while still supporting the Jewish community.
At any rate, there is Challah after that and then comes a lovely and simple green salad with cucumbers and onions as well as fresh basil and a lovely balsamic vinegarette with pine nuts.
I also made an incredible beef chuck roast. First, I sauteed in olive oil one whole onion, chopped, with 4 cloves of garlic, also chopped. I took fresh thyme, sage, and basil to this saute' as well. Then I added a Baron Hertzog Cabernet Sovignon (a cheaper wine that will mirror the wine I have for drinking) to the pan. By the way, a good tip that I can give is never cook with a wine you won't drink yourself. If it doesn't taste good enough to drink, why use it in your food? The Baron Hertzog is good. Not as good as the Abarbanel, but I didn't mind saving a glass of the BH for myself while I was cooking. :wink:
I let all of that simmer until the alcohol was cooked out of the wine and then I poured it over the roast and covered it in foil to allow it to permiate while the oven was pre-heated. Then it went in at 450 degrees F for 15 minutes in order to sear in the juices. After that, I knocked it down to 350 degrees F. That was at about 3 o'clock pm here and I'm letting it just roast in the oven until sundown (about 8 o'clock) and then I'll just leave it in the turned off oven until it's time to eat it so that the juices and redistribute and the meat can rest. We're having brussel sprouts on the side and blueberries for dessert. That's dinner and I can't wait to eat it! The whole house smells like yummy beef!
Lunch is a little more simple because it's going to be hotter tomorrow and I didn't want too much fuss.
What are we having? Hot wings and beer! In shtark contrast to our elegant dinner, we're having bar food for lunch, LOL! I found a lovely hot wing sauce at the store and decided to try it out. I got free range, organic, zero hormone chicken wings from the local Whole Foods Market. I battered them in an egg wash and spiced flour dredge and deep fried them. The flour containted chilli powder, cayanne pepper and a little bit of garlic Mrs. Dash.
Tomorrow, in order for them to remain crispy, I'll heat them up again and then add the hot wing sauce at that point. We're gonna top all that off with some Coronas (my favourite beer -- next to Guinness, that is)! We got limes for the Corona and everything! It's gonna be sweet and I'm very excited!
Now you know what we're eatin'! I'll let you know how it all came out. If anyone else wants to try out these things that I kinda made up, then go for it and let me know how it goes!
I guess I'd better go relax now. :wink:
Have a good Shabbos!
Great Blogs
07.18.05 (12:19 pm) [edit]
I've decided to start recognizing and publicizing some of the most unique blogs around the blogsphere. I've been looking around and a lot of what's out there can be run of the mill.
There are many blogs out there in cyber land. The ones that seem to dominate the most are the teenage angst blogs. They're the dark and goth-looking ones that talk a little too much about suicide to the point of obsession all for the sake of someone's great need for attention. After that, you also have uncreative political blogs that can be rather bland and you have just diaries that detail a person's life. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to think that every blog is truly unique, but sometimes some blogs are just more individual than others.
So today, I'd like to honor the blogs that I found truly impressive because of what they have to say and their ability to be a little more meaningful than the rest. These blogs could never be duplicated because they're just way to different than anything else you'll find.
Here's what I've had the pleasure of finding this week:
1. [url=http://TheJongleur.tblog.com/...]TheJongleur[/url]: This blog is amazing. His artwork is so amazing, but more importantly it is so meaningful. His work belongs in a Contemporary Art Museum, not just on his blog. He also shares some interesting points of view.
2. [url=http://judypatooote.tblog.com...]judypatooote[/url]: This is one of the most incredible blogs I've seen. This blog is completely devoted to sharing random memories in this woman's life. Some happy, some sad, some thoughtful. All incredible and artfully done. The blog is simple in design, but very complex in content.
Please have a look at these blogs and give a pleasant hello to their administrators! I think everyone will really enjoy them :)
Dedicated To The Politics Section on tBLOG
07.18.05 (9:24 am) [edit]
I found this quote this morning and thought it was more than appropriate, what with all the little tiffs that go on here at the server.
[b]"[i]At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.[/i]" --Frederich Nietzsche[/b]
Now I'm not saying anyone here really actually does that. But I'm sure the thought has crossed some people's minds, one way or another. LOL!
Sad Circumstances
07.18.05 (8:49 am) [edit]
One of my closest friends moved to Miami 2 years ago. She used to live down the street. She and I keep in touch as regularly as we can. I used to work with her oldest son when he was in kindergarten and am very close with all of her kids. I've visited her and her family a couple of times since she's moved and she's been back here as well. Last year when she had her 3rd child I went out for a visit and to help. Of course we really havn't seen each other much since the move. We send care packages back and fourth and I was planning on sending another this week when yesterday I got a voicemail of a very tired friend who had been up at 1am because there had been some bad news.
Her husband, a good friend of my boyfriend, had a mother who still lived over here and it turns out that last week she died. What makes this story even sadder is that she had been an alcoholic and from what I knew had a poor relationship with her son and his family in general. She died alone. No one is sure when she died and it seems she was found long after she'd passed, face down and on the floor. I believe his brother found her. He'd been leaving messages and had no replies. Aparantly this was normal due to her excessive drinking. Finally, he went over and found out what had really gone on. Tragic. The thought is that it had been a stroke.
So I gave my friend a call back and found out that she and her family were flying out here again for the funeral. They should have arrived sometime this morning. I'm not awaiting her call.
I was so glad to hear that she was coming! It's been a very long time and I've missed them all. It's just unfortunate that we must meet under these sad circumstances. But so I'm coming with her today to help with the kids and keep my friend company. And now I don't have to spring for postage on the gift package...
I hope peace comes to the family soon and that everyone is happier again. That's why I love to help where I can. And I'll take any excuse to see my good friends.
But why do we do that? In this age and stage of human development on this planet, with all the sad things that go on in the world and at home in personal lives and elsewhere, we're still able to bond and to love and to help and to act for the greater good. Is that a little light going off that is to say that the world may be fakakta, but we still have a handle on it? We can still work for the better.
From all parts of the planet we hold relationships near and dear and we still care for one another.
Perhaps it takes tragedies in order to help us all bounce back. Isn't it true that if there were no bumps in the road, we'd never understand or appriciate the smooth?
In any case, I think we all should work to understand that the bumps will always be there. But then again, so will family and friends.
Well, well! What a surprise! Anyone here as shocked as I am? Anyone? Anyone? Heh?
[line]
Jul 17, 1:25 AM ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - One of the suspects in last week's London bombings visited Israel in 2003 and is believed to have helped plan a suicide bombing by two British Muslims in Tel Aviv, an Israeli newspaper reported on Sunday.
Citing Israeli security sources, Maariv daily said that Mohammad Sidique Khan, who police believed blew himself up aboard the Underground train at Edgware Road on July 7, traveled to the Jewish state two years ago.
During his trip, Khan helped two fellow Britons of Pakistani descent, Asif Hanif and Omar Sharif, carry out a suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv beachfront bar on April 30, 2003 that killed three Israelis, Maariv said citing security sources.
Hanif blew himself up at Mike's Place bar, but Sharif fled after apparently failing to detonate his bomb. His body was discovered in the sea a week later, and investigators concluded that he had drowned.
Who Broke the Ceasefire?
07.17.05 (7:11 am) [edit]
Five months ago, Israel reached a ceasefire agreement with PA President Abbas, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Despite the agreement, the terrorist groups have attempted a constant stream of attacks (most thwarted by Israeli security, and under-reported by the media).
Last week was particularly deadly, with an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing outside a Netanya mall that killed five and wounded 90 Israelis, and Hamas rocket attacks over the Gaza border that claimed the life of 22-year old Dana Glakowitz, who had been sitting on her porch.
In response to these ongoing attacks, Israel acted against the Hamas leadership. Two major media outlets defied all logic and chronology to claim that it was Israel's response that 'ended' the ceasefire:
1) Washington Post reported:
The Israeli military killed seven members of Hamas on Friday in rocket strikes that renewed Israel's policy of assassinating militant Palestinian leaders and effectively marked the end of a five-month truce.
According to the Washington Post, dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks did not break the ceasefire, but when Israel acted, that 'marked the end'. (This WashPost article was also published in the San Francisco Chronicle.)
2) Associated Press:
The Israeli military launched an airstrike Friday on a van carrying Hamas militants and a cache of homemade rockets in a Gaza City street, killing four people in what may be the most serious blow to a 5-month-old truce.
The loved ones of the six murdered Israelis would certainly take issue with AP's suggestion that it was the IDF's subsequent response that dealt 'the most serious blow' to the truce.
● Comments to Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
● Comments to AP: feedback@ap.org
(Hat tip: LGF)
REUTERS CAVORTS WITH JENIN TERRORIST
Zakaria Zubeidi, ringleader of the Al Aqsa Martryr's Brigade in Jenin, is on such good terms with local Reuters reporters that he played a cameo role an an informal film they produced for a friend. YNet reports:
The screening, which occurred in a Jerusalem restaurant last March, involved the showing of a video during a private party. "The video's theme was what Israel would be like in 10 years," said an Israeli government official who attended the party and viewed the video."All of a sudden, at the end, there is Zakaria Zubeidi, playing the head of Reuters. Zubeidi was sitting in Reuters' Jenin office, saying he was Reuters' chief," the official said. The party included guests from the BBC, ITN, the Independent newspaper, and French journalists. "They all thought the video was hilarious," the official said. He added that only a few individuals did not seem amused during the screening.
Zubeidi (at right) heads an organization that has claimed responsibility for more than 300 terrorist attacks in Israel. This is the latest indication that Reuters, whose Mideast reports are widely syndicated in the US and Canada, has lost its neutrality when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Less than a year ago, Reuters' top international editor openly acknowledged that his agency's refusal to call terrorists 'terrorists' has less to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, and is more a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters.
It now seems that that intimidation has carried over into a warm, casual friendship between terrorist operatives and Reuters staffers. How can such a news outlet be counted on to produce objective reporting?
If your local paper uses Reuters wire stories for coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, HonestReporting encourages you to write a letter to the editor, citing this latest example of Reuters' lost credibility.
People, Blogs and Favor
07.15.05 (9:10 am) [edit]
In case some people didn't notice, for the past few months I've been pretty [i]off and on[/i] with my blog. Work, school, and relationships have filled my life so that I had little time for cyber space. Only with the recent summer break from both my job and my own school work have I returned in ernest.
During the time of my pseudo hiatus, I still would post little things here and there. Most of it was photos of things I'd been up to. Not very much of it was political. It was rare to see a post of that nature in a little while. I simply didn't really have the time to concern myself with watching the news, let alone spreading it. (that and I didn't have a television for some time and I rarely made it to the computer).
But in my absence, I learned something: People don't like other people that have opinions.
When I was making my few posts about pet mice or photos of trips I went on, people ate it up. They loved it. No complaints, just admiration and positive comments. People would favor what I had up here. Not what I previously had to say.
Before I left and was a lot more politically active, I was met with nasty opposition. Since my last few posts on political matters, I've gotten not so nice things. I've gotten put downs and negativity. Not all of it is like that. A lot of people disagree respectfully or even like what I have to say.
But when I post fluffy posts, everyone breaths a sigh in unison of positivity.
It's sort of like, "we like you, we think you're cool, but just don't have a mind of your own because we'll disagree and we don't like to disagree. We like it when everyone thinks how we think and we'd rather not hear what you truly have to say. Now show us more bright colors!"
Now maybe I'm just not in the mainstream here when it comes to ideas. I can live with that. I've always been different everywhere else, why should I feel uncomfortable with that here in the blogsphere.
Why is it that if I have no problem being different and/or disagreeing with points, other people have to have a problem with that? I mean, it's really ok to disagree. That's what's great about life! You don't have to be a robot! Trust me, this isn't a complaint about disagreeing with me. Do it all you like.
It's just interesting [i]how[/i] people disagree. That's what I'm talking about here. You can disagree politely. You can disagree sensitively. Heck, you can even disagree angrily and still be a little more toned down.
Just plain disagreeing completely is fine. Wanting to "bust one's balls" over teeny tiny things like linguistical errors or microscopic side issues I may bring up is just weird. It's a false argument. Get to your point. You don't like what you read so you attack my writing styles? My poor spelling at times? That makes anything I have to say stupid because i'm stupid due to my typos? Who's logic is that? That's dumber than poor grammer!
I guess I'm just in awe of the human psyche. What drives us to be so embittered when we don't like something we see? I'm not talking crazy! I'm just doing what I think are artful thought exercises. Sometimes I'm tempted to say incredibly outlandish things just to see how ridiculous the responses will be. People are so serious sometimes!
But it's sort of like the reaction I get when people find out I'm Jewish. You see, I have a last name that is rather Irish. That's where my family is from. I have red hair, light skin, green eyes. To look at me objectively, I'm not a Jewish stereotype. In all fairness, I'm more an Irish Catholic stereotype. People respond in that way.
I've gotten people saying things in front of me about Jews or Israel. Generally not good things, while thinking that they're talking around like people, not just like minds. One of two things will happen. I'll make a statement of either "Gee, that's not really Christian of you." or "Actually, as a Jewish person I find that to be perpetuating . . . bla blah."
Once the latter sentence comes from my mouth, another choice of two things come fourth from the original speaker. It's either an apologetic "No, that's really not what I meant. You see, ... bla blah." Or it's an upset, furled brow that starts with confusion and then results in the dismissal of anything I have to say because I'm one of "them."
Getting back to the blog thing, that's kind of how it works. I look like a fun blog with pictures and jokes and stories that are mildly amusing. When you read something that's to the heart of me, like political or religious musings, I either get the overly supportive "I want you to know I'm cool with you're differences" or the "How dare you even think that. You're a bad person. You're a fascist. You're a bigot. You're a dirty Jew. You're a conservative and therefore I'm commanded to dislike you... bla blah."
Since when did people get so bipolar?
And I'll have you know I'm not a fascist. Fascists are the people who want us all to do things the same, like thinking. Conservative means I have traditional values and a generally different outlook on life. But everyone is entitled to a different outlook on everything. That is, except if you're a conservative by some people's definitions. The difference between me and any of the stereotypes that are always untrue is that I care about people. [i]All[/i] people. That statement made, I am a person too.
Take me or leave me, I'm me. I have opinions. I have thoughts. I can be artistic and fun at times, while serious and thoughtful, even downright angry at other times.
I expect the same from other people. Don't worry.
I guess the open minded just need to truly open their minds and put their money where their mouth is.
Otherwise, it's all bullshit.
First London ... Then what?
07.14.05 (8:54 am) [edit]
I'll tell you what. Israel. As of this morning U.S. time, four women are dead at a shopping mall in Natanya. Just peachy. But no one cares. Why? Because this happens to Israel all the time. And what's worse, world opinion is that "them Joos broughten it on themselves."
Poppycock.
There are even some schools of thought that Britain brought it on themselves last week as well because, "Oooooooh! They're bad people for being with the evil United States in Iraq. It's their own fault for supporting fascism."
So what do you people who make excuses for the homicidal maniacs that carry out these attacks support? Freedom? Diversity? Individual rights? There's a reason they're called Islamo-FASCISTS!
I had an idea today. Perhaps Britain should pull out of London and give it to the Arab "militants" because really what they want is a homeland. Perhaps that was the true message of last week. Somehow, that's always the reason why they strike Israel -- because they want a homeland. Funny thing is, they have just as much rights to London as they do to Israel. Therefore, what difference does it make if we give them Jerusalem or London?
Either way, Islamo-fascism won't stop until all the "infidels" are vanquished. That's really what it's all about. Anyone who says otherwise is either blind or has their head so far up their butt they taste hairspray. *cough COUGH* (Hillary) *cough*
It's my opinion they probably won't stop there. From what I know about the Muslim world, they'll unite against the "white devils" but when left to themselves, they gas and maim each other just the same. Look at the poor Kurds! Look at the Sunni/Shiite tango! Look at Jordan and those "Palestinians"!
Has it come to everyones' attention two more times in the last two weeks that we are not dealing with the "religion of peace" but rather the philosophy of insanity?
That's ok all you college professors and TV news talking [butt] heads out there; as well as all you political baboons out there (be you in office or just a pundit). Keep on defending these psycho criminals all you like.
We all know it's a catastrophe when they hit London or New York City. It's just another day in Israel for the rest of us.
I wonder if they'll hit the US again next? That seems to be what it takes to get anyone here to really care enough.
