Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Armadillos and Georgia O'Keefe...or not
So eight of us packed out carryon bags and headed off to Arizona this weekend to visit Josh, and because it was only $29 each way to fly. I also went in search of Georgia O'Keefe's home, and an armadillo to kick, to see if they really curl up into a ball. When I arrived, I learned that Georgia O'Keefe lived in New Mexico and Armadillos live in Texas. doh.
We went to Sedona on Saturday. I've never really cared for desert scenery until now...it is truly beautiful over there. Huge looming sedimentary red rock formations and cacti reminded me of the Roadrunner and Wil E. Coyote cartoons. We took a Jeep tour along the rock formations, and cimbed our way up huge bumps, whilst clinging to the sides of the truck for dear life. Then we went to soome touristy restaurant and bought prickly pear margaritas which tasted like shit, and cactus fries which were delicious.
On Sunday, we had nothing to do and Chester had the brilliant idea of checking to see whether a basketball game was going on in Phoenix. We found that lo and behold, the Lakers were in Phoenix that day, and we got tickets for $30!!!!! Not bad seats for $30 either. This almost makes up for Chester's other brilliant idea of the night before, when he decided it would be a good idea to rub a cactus pad (yes, a live prickly i-have-spines-do-not-touch-me cactus pad) on his bare cheek.
I ate a lot this weekend and can no longer fit into 60% of my clothes. I also think it's that time of month that I have extremely intense cravings for chocolate everything, so I expect to be in a muumuu by next weekend.
Also, I dreamt Saturday night that Tim was cheating on me with a girlie pop-star who had hired him as a topless Michael-Jackson impersonating stage dancer. Crotch grabbing, hip swaying and all. And very very tight black pants. I guess if this really happened I wouldn't be as upset as I'd be rolling on the floor laughing.
So eight of us packed out carryon bags and headed off to Arizona this weekend to visit Josh, and because it was only $29 each way to fly. I also went in search of Georgia O'Keefe's home, and an armadillo to kick, to see if they really curl up into a ball. When I arrived, I learned that Georgia O'Keefe lived in New Mexico and Armadillos live in Texas. doh.
We went to Sedona on Saturday. I've never really cared for desert scenery until now...it is truly beautiful over there. Huge looming sedimentary red rock formations and cacti reminded me of the Roadrunner and Wil E. Coyote cartoons. We took a Jeep tour along the rock formations, and cimbed our way up huge bumps, whilst clinging to the sides of the truck for dear life. Then we went to soome touristy restaurant and bought prickly pear margaritas which tasted like shit, and cactus fries which were delicious.
On Sunday, we had nothing to do and Chester had the brilliant idea of checking to see whether a basketball game was going on in Phoenix. We found that lo and behold, the Lakers were in Phoenix that day, and we got tickets for $30!!!!! Not bad seats for $30 either. This almost makes up for Chester's other brilliant idea of the night before, when he decided it would be a good idea to rub a cactus pad (yes, a live prickly i-have-spines-do-not-touch-me cactus pad) on his bare cheek.
I ate a lot this weekend and can no longer fit into 60% of my clothes. I also think it's that time of month that I have extremely intense cravings for chocolate everything, so I expect to be in a muumuu by next weekend.
Also, I dreamt Saturday night that Tim was cheating on me with a girlie pop-star who had hired him as a topless Michael-Jackson impersonating stage dancer. Crotch grabbing, hip swaying and all. And very very tight black pants. I guess if this really happened I wouldn't be as upset as I'd be rolling on the floor laughing.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
I have added comments to the end of my blogs! And a survey column!
No, I don't have anything better to do at 6am. I have been up all night writing my Lawyering skills paper, the thesis of which is: The facts of the instant case are insufficient to establish actionable Title VII sexual harassment....zzZZ....three-prong test.....ZZzzz....severe and pervasive...hostile work environment....*slumps over dead in chair*
oh well, the good thng about staying up all night is that I get to go to the dining hall breakfast buffet at 7am.
No, I don't have anything better to do at 6am. I have been up all night writing my Lawyering skills paper, the thesis of which is: The facts of the instant case are insufficient to establish actionable Title VII sexual harassment....zzZZ....three-prong test.....ZZzzz....severe and pervasive...hostile work environment....*slumps over dead in chair*
oh well, the good thng about staying up all night is that I get to go to the dining hall breakfast buffet at 7am.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Some 5am thoughts on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J. Res. 56/ S.J. Res.26
Here's the text of the proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution:
SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Now, curious and inquisitive in these matters as I may be, I am not planning on marrying a person of the same sex. But it certainly offends my notion of freedom to not have this option available to me should I choose to exercise it. Moreover, I am worried about the language in the second sentence. While most of the opposition is centered around the "gay marriage" controversy, I am extremely worried that this Amendment seeks to forever preclude unmarried cohabitants the right to legal benefits afforded even the most dysfunctional marriage.
In France, unmarried cohabitants can enter into a "Civil Solidarity Pact," whereby they have joint taxation benefits after three years, inheritance rights after two years, plus access to one another's health benefits. Similar statutes have been enacted into law in Canada, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark.
In my opinion, what the proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are essentially saying is that a man and a woman can enter into a morally depraved, abusive, horrible marriage, and as long as it is on paper, they will be extended all the benefits of marriage, whereas a loving and committed heterosexual couple, or an equally loving and committed gay couple, are denied those benefits. With the divorce rate hovering above 50%, who's to say that marriage is as sacrosanct as the proponents of the amendment seem to be implying?
I am somewhat alright with a state statute prohibiting gay marriage, if that's what floats the legislature's (and constituents') boat, but to go so far as to weave the requirement of heterosexual marriage into the fabric of this country's Constitution is in my opinion a step back towards the days of moral patronism, and ignores the reality of the increasing number of unmarried cohabitants in this country.
What's next, prohibition (again)?
Here's the text of the proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution:
SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Now, curious and inquisitive in these matters as I may be, I am not planning on marrying a person of the same sex. But it certainly offends my notion of freedom to not have this option available to me should I choose to exercise it. Moreover, I am worried about the language in the second sentence. While most of the opposition is centered around the "gay marriage" controversy, I am extremely worried that this Amendment seeks to forever preclude unmarried cohabitants the right to legal benefits afforded even the most dysfunctional marriage.
In France, unmarried cohabitants can enter into a "Civil Solidarity Pact," whereby they have joint taxation benefits after three years, inheritance rights after two years, plus access to one another's health benefits. Similar statutes have been enacted into law in Canada, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark.
In my opinion, what the proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are essentially saying is that a man and a woman can enter into a morally depraved, abusive, horrible marriage, and as long as it is on paper, they will be extended all the benefits of marriage, whereas a loving and committed heterosexual couple, or an equally loving and committed gay couple, are denied those benefits. With the divorce rate hovering above 50%, who's to say that marriage is as sacrosanct as the proponents of the amendment seem to be implying?
I am somewhat alright with a state statute prohibiting gay marriage, if that's what floats the legislature's (and constituents') boat, but to go so far as to weave the requirement of heterosexual marriage into the fabric of this country's Constitution is in my opinion a step back towards the days of moral patronism, and ignores the reality of the increasing number of unmarried cohabitants in this country.
What's next, prohibition (again)?
Monday, February 16, 2004
Valentine's Day
A year of complaints regarding the lack of flower gifts and general sweep-me-off-my feet tactics have paid off.
I was fed a very impressive home-cooked dinner of cheese fondue, lobster, steak, spinach ravioli, and chocolate fondue (with strawberries, pound cake, and bosc pears for dipping), amid the requisite dozen roses and two tulip plants. Who knew he was such a great cook?
Then we played poker with friends till the wee hours of the morning. And got drunk and passed out. A more perfect Valentine's day I could not have wished for.
In return, I gave him two sweaters and a shirt, all exactly one size too small. Yup, I know my man.
A year of complaints regarding the lack of flower gifts and general sweep-me-off-my feet tactics have paid off.
I was fed a very impressive home-cooked dinner of cheese fondue, lobster, steak, spinach ravioli, and chocolate fondue (with strawberries, pound cake, and bosc pears for dipping), amid the requisite dozen roses and two tulip plants. Who knew he was such a great cook?
Then we played poker with friends till the wee hours of the morning. And got drunk and passed out. A more perfect Valentine's day I could not have wished for.
In return, I gave him two sweaters and a shirt, all exactly one size too small. Yup, I know my man.
Dodging and squirming
This is an actual excerpt of the Feb. 10th press briefing, from the White House website.Read the entire transcript here.
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President, a short time ago, concluded his meeting with some economic leaders. This was a good discussion about the steps that we have taken to strengthen our economy, and the additional steps that we are calling on Congress to take to strengthen our economy even more, so that we can create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
A lot of the issues that were discussed centered on addressing rising health care costs, promoting trade, making the tax cuts permanent, and passing a comprehensive energy plan. Those are all important parts of the President's six-point plan to strengthen our economy even more.
And that's the quick readout from the meeting. With that, I'll be glad to go right into your questions.
Q On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get --
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early '70s.
Q Scott, a couple of questions I have -- the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records --
Q That wasn't my question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records --
Q Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: These records -- these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President --
Q I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like --
Q Well, if you would address it -- maybe you could.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.
Q I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.
The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. And the payroll records, that I think are very important for the public to have, clearly reflect that he served.
Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?
MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.
Q Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people -- you know, comrades-in-arms --
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.
Q But you said you were looking for people -- and I take it you didn't find any people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we -- Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.
Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents --
Q Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on --
MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --
Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When --
Q I understand --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear --
Q Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the facts are clear --
Q -- you can't read them. Have you looked at these? You can't -- how are we supposed to read these?
This is an actual excerpt of the Feb. 10th press briefing, from the White House website.Read the entire transcript here.
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President, a short time ago, concluded his meeting with some economic leaders. This was a good discussion about the steps that we have taken to strengthen our economy, and the additional steps that we are calling on Congress to take to strengthen our economy even more, so that we can create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
A lot of the issues that were discussed centered on addressing rising health care costs, promoting trade, making the tax cuts permanent, and passing a comprehensive energy plan. Those are all important parts of the President's six-point plan to strengthen our economy even more.
And that's the quick readout from the meeting. With that, I'll be glad to go right into your questions.
Q On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get --
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early '70s.
Q Scott, a couple of questions I have -- the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records --
Q That wasn't my question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records --
Q Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?
MR. McCLELLAN: These records -- these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President --
Q I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like --
Q Well, if you would address it -- maybe you could.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.
Q I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.
The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. And the payroll records, that I think are very important for the public to have, clearly reflect that he served.
Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?
MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.
Q Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people -- you know, comrades-in-arms --
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.
Q But you said you were looking for people -- and I take it you didn't find any people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we -- Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.
Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents --
Q Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on --
MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --
Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When --
Q I understand --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear --
Q Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the facts are clear --
Q -- you can't read them. Have you looked at these? You can't -- how are we supposed to read these?
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Today I had a glorious, gigantic fuji apple, at the very pinnacle of ripeness. It was easily the size of both my fists put together, and filled my car with an enticing fragrance. I have never seen a more perfect apple. It sat in the driver's seat as I listened to a Norah Jones interview on NPR and thought of how many wonderful ways I could eat it. Then, I stopped at a red light right next to a homeless panhandler. I marveled at my good fortune, since I always want to give homeless people food but I rarely have food in the car with me. I rolled down the window.
"Want an apple?"
"Thank you, I love apples," he said.
Then, he smiled, and I realized that I had just given a very firm apple to a very nearly toothless man.
"Want an apple?"
"Thank you, I love apples," he said.
Then, he smiled, and I realized that I had just given a very firm apple to a very nearly toothless man.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Er, Al Sharpton for President??
I just took AOL's Presidential Match Test and found that I'm 100% in agreement with Dennis Kucinich (never heard of him)..but was quite surprised to learn that I agree with Al Sharpton 97% of the time! Hmmm.... Then it's Kerry at 86%, Dean at 81%, Edwards at 77% and Clark at 76%. And god save me, Bush at 20%.
Then, I clicked on Kucinich's profile and was disconcerted to find that "Peace activists, New Age gurus and people who practice alternative religions are among Kucinich's donors"
but wait! -- "many of them attracted to the Ohio congressman's stand on less-than-mainstream issues, such as a call for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and his support for medical marijuana." Oh. no wonder i like this guy.
I just took AOL's Presidential Match Test and found that I'm 100% in agreement with Dennis Kucinich (never heard of him)..but was quite surprised to learn that I agree with Al Sharpton 97% of the time! Hmmm.... Then it's Kerry at 86%, Dean at 81%, Edwards at 77% and Clark at 76%. And god save me, Bush at 20%.
Then, I clicked on Kucinich's profile and was disconcerted to find that "Peace activists, New Age gurus and people who practice alternative religions are among Kucinich's donors"
but wait! -- "many of them attracted to the Ohio congressman's stand on less-than-mainstream issues, such as a call for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and his support for medical marijuana." Oh. no wonder i like this guy.
Torts sounds so much like Torture...
My Torts professor is perhaps the most boring person ever to walk the face of the earth. If the planet were being invaded by malicious aliens, we need only subject them to a Torts lecture, and they would haul their little green asses back to planet X in horror.
Further, as the TA so wisely informed us, it is a great unsolved mystery as to how his pants stay up during class. He has this extremely long torso, yet the pants seem to float in midair, defying all laws of physics. The only thing more disconcerting than the creeping suspicion that gravity has no hold upon this man’s belt is finding myself staring at his navel all period.
My Torts professor is perhaps the most boring person ever to walk the face of the earth. If the planet were being invaded by malicious aliens, we need only subject them to a Torts lecture, and they would haul their little green asses back to planet X in horror.
Further, as the TA so wisely informed us, it is a great unsolved mystery as to how his pants stay up during class. He has this extremely long torso, yet the pants seem to float in midair, defying all laws of physics. The only thing more disconcerting than the creeping suspicion that gravity has no hold upon this man’s belt is finding myself staring at his navel all period.
The drunken escapades of Karen, episode 405
yesterday, i got drunk twice, starting at 4pm and going strong till about 12am, then from 12:45 till i fell asleep.
my school had some reception for the new alumni center (read: free unlimited alcohol and food!), and i was not one to turn down an invitation to get drunk on the school's dime. then, we went to top of the cove for $3 martinis, of which i had only two, but still managed to be quite buzzed when by the time i left. then, i went to scott's house to watch friday and have a hypnotiq and malibu (my new favorite drink). Then i watched Lost in Translation (made me want to go to japan!). THEN i went back to tim's place and drank more.
thus, studying today has become quite arduous.
yesterday, i got drunk twice, starting at 4pm and going strong till about 12am, then from 12:45 till i fell asleep.
my school had some reception for the new alumni center (read: free unlimited alcohol and food!), and i was not one to turn down an invitation to get drunk on the school's dime. then, we went to top of the cove for $3 martinis, of which i had only two, but still managed to be quite buzzed when by the time i left. then, i went to scott's house to watch friday and have a hypnotiq and malibu (my new favorite drink). Then i watched Lost in Translation (made me want to go to japan!). THEN i went back to tim's place and drank more.
thus, studying today has become quite arduous.
Monday, February 02, 2004
malicious content
my ie explorer was temporarily disabled two days ago due to an unnamed male conducting searches for "nude biker chicks" on my computer. the website somehow infiltrated my system and installed a PROGRAM into my program files that disabled ie explorer. i eventually detected and fixed the problem, but am now left in a state of rather acute paranoia...what else lurks in my computer that i am not aware of? further, what kind of webiste would want you to stop being able to use ie explorer? isn't that counterintuitive?
also two days ago, i dreamt that a murderer was on the loose in a downtown area. i woke and told aforementioned unnamed male, but we decided that since everyone in my dream was inexplicably speaking in chinese, this must be a dream about hong kong. anyway, i came home today and lo and behold, all over the news were reports of....a murderer on the loose in downtown san diego. no joke.
my dreams have been strangely lucid lately. i should really start writing them down again.
my ie explorer was temporarily disabled two days ago due to an unnamed male conducting searches for "nude biker chicks" on my computer. the website somehow infiltrated my system and installed a PROGRAM into my program files that disabled ie explorer. i eventually detected and fixed the problem, but am now left in a state of rather acute paranoia...what else lurks in my computer that i am not aware of? further, what kind of webiste would want you to stop being able to use ie explorer? isn't that counterintuitive?
also two days ago, i dreamt that a murderer was on the loose in a downtown area. i woke and told aforementioned unnamed male, but we decided that since everyone in my dream was inexplicably speaking in chinese, this must be a dream about hong kong. anyway, i came home today and lo and behold, all over the news were reports of....a murderer on the loose in downtown san diego. no joke.
my dreams have been strangely lucid lately. i should really start writing them down again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)