girl
name: mysieage: 34
locale: seattle
sign: capricorn
seeks: beauty
all about me
currently
feeling:
craving: motivation
surfing: fire mountain
wishing: x, x, x
blog
CurrentJanuary to April 2006
Archives
creative
jewelryfiction
poetry / misc.
photos
movie reviews
site
wwwmysies
goodies
duran duran
pets
domain
support
contact
guestbookcontact
link me
more buttons here
THU 07.31.03 @ 10:06pm
It has been too hot to move around here, let alone think. At least people in the Midwest and the South believe in air conditioning. Here, we just tell everyone we have a "mild, temperate climate". Then we have those weeks in the summer where everyone feels like they're going to die because it's 90+. Argh.
It actually was kind of mild today. The day started with our bedroom being COLD when we woke up. Wow. It was definitely not cold today, but liveable. Even in the house. Although we still didn't want to stay in it.
Today is Eric's birthday. I came home and took him and Stephanie for dinner at the mall. Even on his birthday, he refuses to cheat on his diet. So we went to the mall where he could get something that he knows the dietary information on, and we can get something tasty. Then I bought him a pair of running shoes, my only requirement that price not be a consideration. I told him I'd already bought all his presents, and I wanted him to have something he wouldn't normally buy for himself: high quality running shoes. I was a little surprised at the price, since they weren't Nike or Adidas, but I was glad he was getting something to keep him healthier. Last thing he needs is to do himself damage with bad shoes.
After that, we went to see Tomb Raider 2. Of course, I'd heard awful things. And didn't really care for the first one. But I found this one entertaining enough. Eric thought it was boring. I said it was better than LXG. God, that movie SUCKED. It was soooooooo fucking ridiculous. When the "Gentlemen" threw in hands like they were going to cheer for their team or something, I about vomited. The only good thing about that movie was the Nautilus. It was very cool. Tomb Raider just had awesome breastage. And some damned fine male eye candy. Talk about a hunka hunka burnin' love. Holy Shit. Am I a sucker for a Scottish accent or what? Gerard Butler is fine. Swoon.
So now we are home and waiting for the bedroom to cool off from the days heat so we can go to bed. A task that should be much easier to perform than it has been all week, since it's been IMPOSSIBLE. Heat sucks.
Saturday, it's back to Port Orchard for the official birthday celebration, complete with Spiro's pizza, gift exchange, and a rowsing game of 500.
Then it's back home to clean up this mess of a house and hopefully do some laundry. Things really need some work around here, especially if we're really going to have that housewarming BBQ at the end of August.
FRI 07.25.03 @ 5:58pm
Here is another fascinating short-film link, this one much-less offensive, and quite work-safe. Batman: Dead End. It is 8 minutes long and 43mb, so it takes awhile to download, but it's well worth the wait!
There is an entire commentary board over at Seagoth about the flick, which is where I heard about this. But there's no way I would jump in with my 2¢ about it there: everyone commenting seems to take it way too seriously, as if Batman is a religious experience.
Granted, there are many things I treat religiously, but after reading just a few posts there, I'm sure I would either be ignored or mocked for my lack of insider-information into the Batman franchise.
So my 2¢ is that I really liked the film. Upon seeing Bats' attire, Eric commented that they must not have had much of a costume budget. Personally, I think it looks more like what I've seen in cartoons and comic book covers. Plus, over the years I've been given the impression Batman was supposed to be a vigilante, not really a full-blown super-hero. There's something more gritty and real about this Batman's uniform.
The look and feel of the film in general are wonderful. Great camera work, great visuals. The Joker, about whom everyone on the board agrees, was great: soooo much better than Jack Nicholson. Let's face it, Jack only ever plays himself. At least in all the movies I've ever seen him in.
I will ignore the lovely surprises in the 2nd half. I thought they were nifty. If this were a trailer, I would be salivating over the release of the film. As it is, I'm already wondering if there's anything I can do to convince someone to make it into a full-length film.
TUE 07.22.03 @ 2:06am
Holy mother fucking god: Papa Smurf Can I Lick Your Ass?
Soooooo not work appropriate.
Migraine + Insomnia = you can find the weirdest shit on the internet. (ok, someone else found it and I found their post)
SUN 07.20.03 @ 10:26pm
One more weekend gone. They're never long enough. I remember when I had a job at the UW, every Monday morning the woman who sat at the desk next to me would inquire about my weekend. No matter what I told her, she would always end the conversation by remarking, "They're never long enough." Sometimes, I would think of something to say, like an upcoming 3-day weekend to look forward to. Or holidays. Or vacations. Or that, god forbid, I was actually looking forward to the workweek. But it didn't take long before I wanted to smack her every time she said it. She was generally a very lovely, older woman, if a bit scatter-brained at times. Made me wonder if she just didn't realize she said it *every* Monday morning.
We went to see the Pirates Saturday night. We both enjoyed it. In some ways it was better than I expected, in others worse. I think everyone did a great job. It was funny, the characters interesting and well played, and everything looked very appealing. But... It's hard to explain, to even put my finger on it. The closest I can come to voicing my disappointment is that I wish it hadn't have had to be so funny. Johnny Depp was once again brilliant. But him and all the site gags were distracting. And that was probably a good thing, because the plot wasn't quite *that* captivating. It was, but it wasn't. Anyway, I just wish it had been... better. That's all.
Oh, I just remembered. I have been getting really annoyed with all the "I want to be a pirate" moaning I've been reading on the web lately. "It's about freedom, blah, blah, bloody blah..." So I went into the movie wondering what all the damn fuss was about. Never really ever had a thing for pirates as a kid. Never quite understood exactly what all the fuss was about the ride the two times I was at Disneyland (although I liked it well enough), so definitely didn't understand why the movie should be heralded like the 2nd coming of Christ. I mean, that's what T3 was for, right? Well, except this one had lovely eye candy: Orlando, Johnny, Keira (can she look any more like Natalie Portman???).
So there I am, probably working from a bias, but what the hell. And everything I see convinces me more, "What are all these people on about anyway???" Freedom is one thing, but the totally anarchy of raping and pillaging and stealing and murdering is just not my cup of tea. They did manage to tone down the raping a bit from what the original ride portrayed, but it was still there. And still a sore sight-gag in one spot as well. How depressing.
So what is so god-awful wonderful about being a fucking pirate??? I don't get it. So Jack Sparrow was pretty much a big softie. He still shot a bunch of people, didn't he?
OK, I will get down off my soap box. I don't know if I'm working up to writing my first real review of a film in months, or some lame-ass master's thesis on the evils of pirates being glamorized by modern-day society. Jeez, Mysie, take yourself serious much? It's just about fun! I know, I know. Nobody yell "arrrrr" at me, ok? I did pretty much like and enjoy the film.
I believe the word I'm searching for here is "...Aaaaaanyway."
I have just been surfing Linens 'n Things and Bed Bath and Beyond, looking for a new comforter or quilt. We got our new carpet Saturday, and it's so soft and bouncy. So today we were finally able to put some things in there permanent places. Like our bed in our proper bedroom. And I *so* want a matching bed ensemble again. Our sheets are all so old and, shamefully, variously stained. I am desperate to just go out and buy new sheets, but each time I tell myself, wait until you know what colors you're going with for the room. Because knowing me, I will buy light purple sheets and end up later buying a quilt with lots of red, and feel completely dumb ever using the sheets again.
Do men ever think about this sort of thing? I'm sure most of them don't. And normally I don't. But I remember the first time I splurged and bought a complete ensemble, oddly enough in light purple, and when the bed was all made, it was like it was new again. And the room was so bright, and so welcoming. It was really great for quite awhile. Then the comforter got ruined, then the pillow cases, and eventually the sheets (god, we must be filthy!!!), which we're wearing down to their last damned thread.
I don't know why this is a rant about sheets and comforters, except I was completely disheartened by the selection on the web. Nothing was "me". I was hoping with a little more time, I could find something, since I felt the exact same way when I was looking right after we bought the house.
But the same problems arise. Too frilly. Too masculine. Too bright. Too dark. Blah, blah, blah. I had one moment where I saw something I really liked, got all excited, told myself to move on and take in all the other items first just to be sure. Then I went back and for some reason the damned thing looked all wrong!
What is wrong with me? I don't know, but I don't think I should be shopping online for something this expensive that looks are so important to me for. Grr.
WED 07.16.03 @ 10:47pm
Right now I am tired and smelly. Tired, because I woke up extra early to take my car into the shop for a "recall" repair. This right after waking up early yesterday to drop him at the vet for his heart murmur testing. So two days of early mornings and up too late. And, well, I'm always tired anyway.
Smelly because I spent a good portion of the evening preparing tomorrow's dinner: my world famous teriyaki chicken. First, this entailed cleaning the kitchen, which was a horror. Finally got to scrubbing up the rice cooker, and there is a pin-hole in the bottom of it! So I finally had an excuse to go get a Hello Kitty Rice Cooker!!! Yay!!!!
Then it was back home to prepare the marinade. Based on what I can remember from when I was quite young watching my father's method for teriyaki marinade, I normally empty a large bottle of soy sauce over the chicken, then add a handful or so of freshly chopped ginger (which he would get from our yard, and I have to get from the store), and as much garlic from a bulb that I can peel and chop before I want to run from the room because of the smell. Unfortunately, everytime I do this, my hands smell like garlic for the next 24 hours, no matter what I do.
This time, I purchased a store-bought marinade, which I wasn't so sure about, so I was pleased that it wasn't enough to cover the chicken. After adding all the ginger and garlic, I filled the rest of the dish with soy sauce. Now *that's* Hawaiian teriyaki!
I've always wondered if I leave something crucial out, but it turns out brilliantly every time, so I don't sweat it. Oh, I forgot that I throw in a can of pineapple rings and the juice right before cooking, in case anyone's writing this down.
I think I'm a pretty good cook when I set my mind to it, which isn't often. And I'm not exactly inspired. If I'm cooking meat, the only spices I throw in are garlic powder, onion salt, paprika, and maybe some pepper. Possibly a dash of Greek Seasoning, which I discovered a few years ago does wonderful things to chicken after dinner at Jenni's. Of course, if I'm cooking sweet things, then there's cinnamon and nutmeg and SUGAR. And that's about it. A few of my mother's recipes call for bay leaves or cumin or oregano, but I never seem to make those recipes anymore, so I've got 9 year old unopened cumin, etc. in my cabinets.
It's just frustrating cooking for one. Eric doesn't really like anything I know how to cook. The only thing I ever used to make that he liked was parmigian chicken, and I made that so often that I got sick of it within a year. He seems to like the teriyaki though, so that's one meal we can have together.
So I'm excited. Me, my husband, and our niece, all having a nice sit-down dinner together. And *she* gets to do the dishes after. Yesssssss!!!
TUE 07.15.03 @ 9:18am
I just got back from taking Kitty to the vet for his heart work-up. He has a heart murmur, and they need to check that out before doing any surgery on him. This is step 2 out of... I think 4 steps in the neutering process. Poor little guy. In other news, I think my brother-in-law may be running for office sooner than we all thought. It's an interesting read though.
Bush lied about Iraq¹s WMD by Ian Cairns
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration based its case of Iraq¹s WMD, its main justification for going to war, on faulty and dubious intelligence. The Bush administration has now admitted to using faulty intelligence on more than one occasion. This coupled with the strong criticisms from experts outside the administration, including U.N. weapons inspectors and former intelligence officials, as well as those still in the intelligence community make a formidable case against Bush¹s ³bulletproof² evidence.
The Niger uranium incident is only the latest in a series of revelations about faulty intelligence. The cracks in Bush¹s case for war first started to appear in September of 2002 when Bush and Blair cited a 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Association as saying that Iraq was 6 months away from producing a nuclear weapon. As the Whitehouse would later admit the report did not say that Iraq was currently 6 months away from a nuclear weapon, but had been prior to the 1991 Gulf war and the weapons inspections that destroyed Iraq¹s nuclear weapons capability, as reported by NBC on September 7, 2002. In fact the report went on to say ³based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.²
The Bush administration has also cited as evidence of Iraq¹s WMD its importing of aluminum tubes, which could only have one purpose: use in a centrifuge used to enrich uranium. Or could they? On March 7 Director of the International Atomic Energy Association, Mohammad ElBaradei, said it was unlikely that these tubes were used for that purpose, according to a March 10th report by ABC News. In a January 24 article by the Washington Post the aluminum tubes received further criticism, this time from enrichment experts within the Department of Energy and officials within the State Department. As one intelligence analyst angrily told the The New Republic on June 30th, 2003, ³You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that¹s just a lie.² Finally the CIA¹s case that the tubes were used for centrifuges was debunked by a very detailed report by David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and President of the International Institute for Science and International Security. Albright told the Washington Post on January 23, 2003, ³In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons." Albright¹s report can be read here: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html
Finally we have the latest example of the Bush administration¹s blatant misleading of the American public, intelligence use to justify President Bush¹s claim in his State of the Union Address about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa has turned out to be faulty. Michael N. Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said on July 9th "We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged." Mr. Anton went on to say that "other reporting that suggested that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Africa is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that such attempts were in fact made. Because of this lack of specificity, this reporting alone did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech.² The BBC also reported on July 9th 2003, that a CIA official confirmed that a former US diplomat, Joseph Wilson, had traveled to Niger in March 2002 and established that the claims of an alleged transaction where in fact false, giving the Whitehouse almost a full year to verify the veracity of this claim before including it in the State of the Union Address.
The critics of Bush and his handling of intelligence are not simply liberals with political motivations; many come from within the intelligence community itself and are former U.N. weapons inspectors. The New York Times reported on July 9th strong criticism of the administration¹s use of intelligence by Gregory Thielmann, who served as a director in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence until he resigned in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam. Thielmann is quoted as saying ³I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq². Mr. Thielmann also told the UK Guardian on July 10th 2003, that as of March 2003 when the US began military operations, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." Finally Theilmann concludes ³This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude ... 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support those answers'.²
Theilmann is not the only one in the intelligence community to accuse the Bush administration of twisting the facts. Former CIA director Stansfield Turner was quoted in the USA Today on June 18th as saying ³There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it." Finally, out of concern about the gross misuse of intelligence, many former CIA and other intelligence officials, who still maintain many contacts within the intelligence community, wrote a letter to President Bush in which it stated among other things ³In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin ‹ cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq², as reported by the London Times on May 31, 2003. The letter goes on to say ³While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.²
Many prominent weapons inspectors have been skeptical of the Bush administration¹s intelligence. Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector during the latest round of Iraq inspections, when asked about U.S. intelligence was quoted by the BBC on June 6th as saying ³Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say.² Blix was also quoted in the UK¹s London Times June 5th as saying ³We concluded that the information provided by the intelligence services of the United States and other nations was not solid.² Blix is not the only weapons inspector to have criticized the Bush administration. Former chief U.N. weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 Scott Ritter has sharply criticized the Bush administration for what he feels is a completely unjustified war. Ritter is co-author of the book War on Iraq: What the Bush Team Doesn¹t Want You to Know and explains how the inspections from 1991 to 1998 accounted for almost all of Iraq¹s weapons and those that it may have missed are useless now because they have past their shelf life and are no longer viable weapons. Bernd Birkicht, another former U.N. weapons inspector, was quoted by the London Times on June 5th as saying that ³Basically, all the intelligence information we got and tried to verify turned out to be wrong.² With such a strong consensus amongst the people on the ground actually conducting the inspections and who have first hand seen how patently false U.S. intelligence is how can we possibly believe the Bush administration¹s case for war?
In fact there have been blatant contradictions between public intelligence reports and the administration claims. A September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a summary page obtained by Bloomberg News on June 6th that ``There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.² This report lead Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iraq's military for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, when told of the contents by Bloomberg to remark that there was ³substantially more uncertainty than was stated by senior administration officials² concerning WMD in Iraq. Former U.N. weapons inspector and senior research fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace Jonathan Tucker gave an equally sharp interpretation of the DIA report, ³The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.² Finally as reported by the UK Guardian on June 8th one official told the New York Times, ³As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq.² How can we believe Bush about Iraq¹s WMD when its own intelligence agency reports that Iraq had no such weapons?
Criticism of the intelligence used to justify the war is not limited to the U.S. either. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under increasing pressure to explain the lack of WMD evidence in Iraq. In fact Blair¹s Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned in protest of the war against Iraq, reported on June 17th about the dubious nature of the intelligence dossier¹s used to justify the war. He is quoted as saying in the June 17th Guardian that it was ³now clear that Saddam Hussein did not represent a 'clear and serious threat.² Cook has been highly critical of the so-called ³dodgy dossier², that is a the September dossier of intelligence against Saddam Hussein, used by the British and American governments alike, that was largely plagiarized from a California graduate student¹s thesis, then ³sexed up² to make the threat Saddam poised seem more imminent and then passed on as genuine intelligence, as reported by the UK Guardian on June 17th. Blair¹s government would ultimately admit that the dossier was based largely on the graduate thesis, as reported by ABC News on March 10th.
These blatant examples of the Bush administration misleading the American public and Congress can only lead to one conclusion: The Bush Administration wanted a war with Iraq and was willing to do whatever it took to get it. Indeed, this conclusion has been supported time and time again by those in the intelligence community. The LA Times reported on October 11th 2002 that ³CIA officials who brief Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraq routinely return to the agency with a long list of complaints and demands for new analysis or shifts in emphasis.² Another government official told the LA Times that CIA analysts ³"are constantly sent back by the senior people at Defense and other places to get more, get more, get more to make their case." The Houston Chronicle also reported on October 8th 2002 such pressure on intelligence analysts. "Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, with a dozen others in agreement, speaking on condition of anonymity. This argument gains further credibility after Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in a May 28 interview that, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." In other words there was no threat of WMD and everyone who wanted the war settled on WMD because it was the easiest sell for their war.
Now compare this information with what the administration has said in an effort to justify its war.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
The sad truth is that these examples of gross misuse and misinterpretation of intelligence are only the tip of the iceberg. Much of the intelligence used to justify the war is still classified and will probably never become public. I have also left out other examples of other dubious claims by the Administration, such as the so-called mobile bio-weapons labs and the threat of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are only two of many other examples. This administration has deceived the American public and congress into accepting a war that has cost American lives, and continues to do so at a frightening pace, as well a $4 billion a month, as freshly reported by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9th, which is conspicuously double what the administration said in April. General Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Allied forces in Iraq, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq ³for the foreseeable future², however long that is. This act of malfeasance is beyond comprehension considering that President Bush was making what should be the most difficult decision of his presidency, whether or not to go to war and put our nation¹s best and brightest uniformed personnel in harm¹s way by doing so. The bottom line: President Bush lied to America and the world to get this war, and innocent Americans and Iraqis died because of it.
SUN 07.13.03 @ 10:22pm
mlph. it was brought to my attention that mysie.com was looking like shit [my word] in Safari. I hate Safari. I don't know what my fucking problem is. I think it's just my hatred of change, learning new things, etc. But I'm too tired to psychoanalyze myself right now.
Site no longer looks like shit in Safari, which I was just debating trying out recently, so that's good - got my toes wet. I just hate my CSS code. It makes no sense. I swear to fucking NOB there are contradictary lines of code in it. Like the Bible or something. Weird. And I hate trying new things. Like Safari.
I am rambling. Also misspelling every other word. And leaving words out. I must be *really* tired.
Saw T3. Ate Chang's Mongolian Grill. Is it just me, or is does "Ate" look funny. "ate" doesn't look quite as funny. Yes it does. Oh god. I think I should be in bed. Do I have food poisoning? Am I delusional?
"G'night everybody." Yakko
I miss the Animaniacs. I searched Hi and Lois for anything with Dot or the Brain or anybody on it at Six Flags, with no luck. Six Flags was largely a rip off, at least for me.
I have not discussed Six Flags here. I have not mentioned the trip at all. I wonder if I will find the time and energy to do that sometime soon? It was a good trip. Yep. 'Night.
SUN 07.13.03 @ 12:39am
If I could make a movie, I wish I could have made this one. Everything was so real, gritty, right down to the squeaks of the couch. Simple shots, basic wardrobe, almost no makeup. And yet the characters and settings are still visually appealing. The story kept me in there, even if the motivations of the characters were a little hazy. I can't believe I haven't seen this sooner.
Then I wasted the rest of the evening clicking around the web:
brilliant satire
fucking brilliant satire
please feed the bear
creepy, politically-timely Flash poem as a cartoon
my new crush
is it wrong to want this?
i think it would go great with this and this. don't you?
THU 7.10.03 @ 11:10pm
I am in love. With pink. Somebody hurt me, quick.
A sign that I spend way too much time at suicidegirls is that I now want a pair of ruffle-butt panties! So I stopped by Victoria's Secret this evening. I did not find any ruffle-butts, but I managed to pick up a new bra and TEN new panties. As I was driving home, I realized that about half the panties I picked up were pink or predominantly pink, and so was the bra.
Eek! When did I start liking pink? It's so... GIRLIE!!! I really have to blame Hello Kitty, I think. Or Torrid. Or both. When I was down in Portland I picked up an awesome retro sweater in pink and black, with matching t-shirt, plus pink and black shoes, and a pink and black Hello Kitty Shirt.
Since then, I've added THREE more pink Hello Kitty shirts to my wardrobe. And a pink and black skull-and-crossbones tank from Girlfriends LA (please don't tell anyone I've bought stuff from them). And a pink tee that says "Aloha from the Big Island", a true find from The Bon.
So what's happening here? Since my childhood I have refused to own anything pink, especially any pink clothing or hair accessories. I was a tomboy when I was young, and although I got slightly more feminine the older I got, I still insisted on being feminine on my own terms. I don't cross my legs just because I wear a skirt. In fact, I don't often wear skirts. I only shave when *I* want to. I don't need to wear make-up to feel pretty, and don't understand women who wear it everyday. And who wants to be cute and feminine in pink, when you can be sexy and feminine in red, my favorite color.
Now, somehow pink has sneaked into my wardrobe, and it's almost taken over as the dominant color. Well other than my staple, black. Now, I find myself eyeing pink purses. And hair thingies. And nail polish. And lipstick.
What has the world come to? What's wrong with me??? Should I burn all my My Melodies? Or should I revel, and paint my bedroom pink?
These and other moral dilemmas to be debated right here, sometime later when I'm up to it. Same bat time, same bat channel.
archived
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
february/march 2003
2002
HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:30:23 GMT
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
It has been too hot to move around here, let alone think. At least people in the Midwest and the South believe in air conditioning. Here, we just tell everyone we have a "mild, temperate climate". Then we have those weeks in the summer where everyone feels like they're going to die because it's 90+. Argh.
It actually was kind of mild today. The day started with our bedroom being COLD when we woke up. Wow. It was definitely not cold today, but liveable. Even in the house. Although we still didn't want to stay in it.
Today is Eric's birthday. I came home and took him and Stephanie for dinner at the mall. Even on his birthday, he refuses to cheat on his diet. So we went to the mall where he could get something that he knows the dietary information on, and we can get something tasty. Then I bought him a pair of running shoes, my only requirement that price not be a consideration. I told him I'd already bought all his presents, and I wanted him to have something he wouldn't normally buy for himself: high quality running shoes. I was a little surprised at the price, since they weren't Nike or Adidas, but I was glad he was getting something to keep him healthier. Last thing he needs is to do himself damage with bad shoes.
After that, we went to see Tomb Raider 2. Of course, I'd heard awful things. And didn't really care for the first one. But I found this one entertaining enough. Eric thought it was boring. I said it was better than LXG. God, that movie SUCKED. It was soooooooo fucking ridiculous. When the "Gentlemen" threw in hands like they were going to cheer for their team or something, I about vomited. The only good thing about that movie was the Nautilus. It was very cool. Tomb Raider just had awesome breastage. And some damned fine male eye candy. Talk about a hunka hunka burnin' love. Holy Shit. Am I a sucker for a Scottish accent or what? Gerard Butler is fine. Swoon.
So now we are home and waiting for the bedroom to cool off from the days heat so we can go to bed. A task that should be much easier to perform than it has been all week, since it's been IMPOSSIBLE. Heat sucks.
Saturday, it's back to Port Orchard for the official birthday celebration, complete with Spiro's pizza, gift exchange, and a rowsing game of 500.
Then it's back home to clean up this mess of a house and hopefully do some laundry. Things really need some work around here, especially if we're really going to have that housewarming BBQ at the end of August.
FRI 07.25.03 @ 5:58pm
Here is another fascinating short-film link, this one much-less offensive, and quite work-safe. Batman: Dead End. It is 8 minutes long and 43mb, so it takes awhile to download, but it's well worth the wait!
There is an entire commentary board over at Seagoth about the flick, which is where I heard about this. But there's no way I would jump in with my 2¢ about it there: everyone commenting seems to take it way too seriously, as if Batman is a religious experience.
Granted, there are many things I treat religiously, but after reading just a few posts there, I'm sure I would either be ignored or mocked for my lack of insider-information into the Batman franchise.
So my 2¢ is that I really liked the film. Upon seeing Bats' attire, Eric commented that they must not have had much of a costume budget. Personally, I think it looks more like what I've seen in cartoons and comic book covers. Plus, over the years I've been given the impression Batman was supposed to be a vigilante, not really a full-blown super-hero. There's something more gritty and real about this Batman's uniform.
The look and feel of the film in general are wonderful. Great camera work, great visuals. The Joker, about whom everyone on the board agrees, was great: soooo much better than Jack Nicholson. Let's face it, Jack only ever plays himself. At least in all the movies I've ever seen him in.
I will ignore the lovely surprises in the 2nd half. I thought they were nifty. If this were a trailer, I would be salivating over the release of the film. As it is, I'm already wondering if there's anything I can do to convince someone to make it into a full-length film.
TUE 07.22.03 @ 2:06am
Holy mother fucking god: Papa Smurf Can I Lick Your Ass?
Soooooo not work appropriate.
Migraine + Insomnia = you can find the weirdest shit on the internet. (ok, someone else found it and I found their post)
SUN 07.20.03 @ 10:26pm
One more weekend gone. They're never long enough. I remember when I had a job at the UW, every Monday morning the woman who sat at the desk next to me would inquire about my weekend. No matter what I told her, she would always end the conversation by remarking, "They're never long enough." Sometimes, I would think of something to say, like an upcoming 3-day weekend to look forward to. Or holidays. Or vacations. Or that, god forbid, I was actually looking forward to the workweek. But it didn't take long before I wanted to smack her every time she said it. She was generally a very lovely, older woman, if a bit scatter-brained at times. Made me wonder if she just didn't realize she said it *every* Monday morning.
We went to see the Pirates Saturday night. We both enjoyed it. In some ways it was better than I expected, in others worse. I think everyone did a great job. It was funny, the characters interesting and well played, and everything looked very appealing. But... It's hard to explain, to even put my finger on it. The closest I can come to voicing my disappointment is that I wish it hadn't have had to be so funny. Johnny Depp was once again brilliant. But him and all the site gags were distracting. And that was probably a good thing, because the plot wasn't quite *that* captivating. It was, but it wasn't. Anyway, I just wish it had been... better. That's all.
Oh, I just remembered. I have been getting really annoyed with all the "I want to be a pirate" moaning I've been reading on the web lately. "It's about freedom, blah, blah, bloody blah..." So I went into the movie wondering what all the damn fuss was about. Never really ever had a thing for pirates as a kid. Never quite understood exactly what all the fuss was about the ride the two times I was at Disneyland (although I liked it well enough), so definitely didn't understand why the movie should be heralded like the 2nd coming of Christ. I mean, that's what T3 was for, right? Well, except this one had lovely eye candy: Orlando, Johnny, Keira (can she look any more like Natalie Portman???).
So there I am, probably working from a bias, but what the hell. And everything I see convinces me more, "What are all these people on about anyway???" Freedom is one thing, but the totally anarchy of raping and pillaging and stealing and murdering is just not my cup of tea. They did manage to tone down the raping a bit from what the original ride portrayed, but it was still there. And still a sore sight-gag in one spot as well. How depressing.
So what is so god-awful wonderful about being a fucking pirate??? I don't get it. So Jack Sparrow was pretty much a big softie. He still shot a bunch of people, didn't he?
OK, I will get down off my soap box. I don't know if I'm working up to writing my first real review of a film in months, or some lame-ass master's thesis on the evils of pirates being glamorized by modern-day society. Jeez, Mysie, take yourself serious much? It's just about fun! I know, I know. Nobody yell "arrrrr" at me, ok? I did pretty much like and enjoy the film.
I believe the word I'm searching for here is "...Aaaaaanyway."
I have just been surfing Linens 'n Things and Bed Bath and Beyond, looking for a new comforter or quilt. We got our new carpet Saturday, and it's so soft and bouncy. So today we were finally able to put some things in there permanent places. Like our bed in our proper bedroom. And I *so* want a matching bed ensemble again. Our sheets are all so old and, shamefully, variously stained. I am desperate to just go out and buy new sheets, but each time I tell myself, wait until you know what colors you're going with for the room. Because knowing me, I will buy light purple sheets and end up later buying a quilt with lots of red, and feel completely dumb ever using the sheets again.
Do men ever think about this sort of thing? I'm sure most of them don't. And normally I don't. But I remember the first time I splurged and bought a complete ensemble, oddly enough in light purple, and when the bed was all made, it was like it was new again. And the room was so bright, and so welcoming. It was really great for quite awhile. Then the comforter got ruined, then the pillow cases, and eventually the sheets (god, we must be filthy!!!), which we're wearing down to their last damned thread.
I don't know why this is a rant about sheets and comforters, except I was completely disheartened by the selection on the web. Nothing was "me". I was hoping with a little more time, I could find something, since I felt the exact same way when I was looking right after we bought the house.
But the same problems arise. Too frilly. Too masculine. Too bright. Too dark. Blah, blah, blah. I had one moment where I saw something I really liked, got all excited, told myself to move on and take in all the other items first just to be sure. Then I went back and for some reason the damned thing looked all wrong!
What is wrong with me? I don't know, but I don't think I should be shopping online for something this expensive that looks are so important to me for. Grr.
WED 07.16.03 @ 10:47pm
Right now I am tired and smelly. Tired, because I woke up extra early to take my car into the shop for a "recall" repair. This right after waking up early yesterday to drop him at the vet for his heart murmur testing. So two days of early mornings and up too late. And, well, I'm always tired anyway.
Smelly because I spent a good portion of the evening preparing tomorrow's dinner: my world famous teriyaki chicken. First, this entailed cleaning the kitchen, which was a horror. Finally got to scrubbing up the rice cooker, and there is a pin-hole in the bottom of it! So I finally had an excuse to go get a Hello Kitty Rice Cooker!!! Yay!!!!
Then it was back home to prepare the marinade. Based on what I can remember from when I was quite young watching my father's method for teriyaki marinade, I normally empty a large bottle of soy sauce over the chicken, then add a handful or so of freshly chopped ginger (which he would get from our yard, and I have to get from the store), and as much garlic from a bulb that I can peel and chop before I want to run from the room because of the smell. Unfortunately, everytime I do this, my hands smell like garlic for the next 24 hours, no matter what I do.
This time, I purchased a store-bought marinade, which I wasn't so sure about, so I was pleased that it wasn't enough to cover the chicken. After adding all the ginger and garlic, I filled the rest of the dish with soy sauce. Now *that's* Hawaiian teriyaki!
I've always wondered if I leave something crucial out, but it turns out brilliantly every time, so I don't sweat it. Oh, I forgot that I throw in a can of pineapple rings and the juice right before cooking, in case anyone's writing this down.
I think I'm a pretty good cook when I set my mind to it, which isn't often. And I'm not exactly inspired. If I'm cooking meat, the only spices I throw in are garlic powder, onion salt, paprika, and maybe some pepper. Possibly a dash of Greek Seasoning, which I discovered a few years ago does wonderful things to chicken after dinner at Jenni's. Of course, if I'm cooking sweet things, then there's cinnamon and nutmeg and SUGAR. And that's about it. A few of my mother's recipes call for bay leaves or cumin or oregano, but I never seem to make those recipes anymore, so I've got 9 year old unopened cumin, etc. in my cabinets.
It's just frustrating cooking for one. Eric doesn't really like anything I know how to cook. The only thing I ever used to make that he liked was parmigian chicken, and I made that so often that I got sick of it within a year. He seems to like the teriyaki though, so that's one meal we can have together.
So I'm excited. Me, my husband, and our niece, all having a nice sit-down dinner together. And *she* gets to do the dishes after. Yesssssss!!!
TUE 07.15.03 @ 9:18am
I just got back from taking Kitty to the vet for his heart work-up. He has a heart murmur, and they need to check that out before doing any surgery on him. This is step 2 out of... I think 4 steps in the neutering process. Poor little guy. In other news, I think my brother-in-law may be running for office sooner than we all thought. It's an interesting read though.
Bush lied about Iraq¹s WMD by Ian Cairns
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration based its case of Iraq¹s WMD, its main justification for going to war, on faulty and dubious intelligence. The Bush administration has now admitted to using faulty intelligence on more than one occasion. This coupled with the strong criticisms from experts outside the administration, including U.N. weapons inspectors and former intelligence officials, as well as those still in the intelligence community make a formidable case against Bush¹s ³bulletproof² evidence.
The Niger uranium incident is only the latest in a series of revelations about faulty intelligence. The cracks in Bush¹s case for war first started to appear in September of 2002 when Bush and Blair cited a 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Association as saying that Iraq was 6 months away from producing a nuclear weapon. As the Whitehouse would later admit the report did not say that Iraq was currently 6 months away from a nuclear weapon, but had been prior to the 1991 Gulf war and the weapons inspections that destroyed Iraq¹s nuclear weapons capability, as reported by NBC on September 7, 2002. In fact the report went on to say ³based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.²
The Bush administration has also cited as evidence of Iraq¹s WMD its importing of aluminum tubes, which could only have one purpose: use in a centrifuge used to enrich uranium. Or could they? On March 7 Director of the International Atomic Energy Association, Mohammad ElBaradei, said it was unlikely that these tubes were used for that purpose, according to a March 10th report by ABC News. In a January 24 article by the Washington Post the aluminum tubes received further criticism, this time from enrichment experts within the Department of Energy and officials within the State Department. As one intelligence analyst angrily told the The New Republic on June 30th, 2003, ³You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that¹s just a lie.² Finally the CIA¹s case that the tubes were used for centrifuges was debunked by a very detailed report by David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and President of the International Institute for Science and International Security. Albright told the Washington Post on January 23, 2003, ³In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons." Albright¹s report can be read here: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html
Finally we have the latest example of the Bush administration¹s blatant misleading of the American public, intelligence use to justify President Bush¹s claim in his State of the Union Address about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa has turned out to be faulty. Michael N. Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said on July 9th "We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged." Mr. Anton went on to say that "other reporting that suggested that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Africa is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that such attempts were in fact made. Because of this lack of specificity, this reporting alone did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech.² The BBC also reported on July 9th 2003, that a CIA official confirmed that a former US diplomat, Joseph Wilson, had traveled to Niger in March 2002 and established that the claims of an alleged transaction where in fact false, giving the Whitehouse almost a full year to verify the veracity of this claim before including it in the State of the Union Address.
The critics of Bush and his handling of intelligence are not simply liberals with political motivations; many come from within the intelligence community itself and are former U.N. weapons inspectors. The New York Times reported on July 9th strong criticism of the administration¹s use of intelligence by Gregory Thielmann, who served as a director in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence until he resigned in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam. Thielmann is quoted as saying ³I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq². Mr. Thielmann also told the UK Guardian on July 10th 2003, that as of March 2003 when the US began military operations, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." Finally Theilmann concludes ³This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude ... 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support those answers'.²
Theilmann is not the only one in the intelligence community to accuse the Bush administration of twisting the facts. Former CIA director Stansfield Turner was quoted in the USA Today on June 18th as saying ³There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it." Finally, out of concern about the gross misuse of intelligence, many former CIA and other intelligence officials, who still maintain many contacts within the intelligence community, wrote a letter to President Bush in which it stated among other things ³In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin ‹ cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq², as reported by the London Times on May 31, 2003. The letter goes on to say ³While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.²
Many prominent weapons inspectors have been skeptical of the Bush administration¹s intelligence. Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector during the latest round of Iraq inspections, when asked about U.S. intelligence was quoted by the BBC on June 6th as saying ³Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say.² Blix was also quoted in the UK¹s London Times June 5th as saying ³We concluded that the information provided by the intelligence services of the United States and other nations was not solid.² Blix is not the only weapons inspector to have criticized the Bush administration. Former chief U.N. weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 Scott Ritter has sharply criticized the Bush administration for what he feels is a completely unjustified war. Ritter is co-author of the book War on Iraq: What the Bush Team Doesn¹t Want You to Know and explains how the inspections from 1991 to 1998 accounted for almost all of Iraq¹s weapons and those that it may have missed are useless now because they have past their shelf life and are no longer viable weapons. Bernd Birkicht, another former U.N. weapons inspector, was quoted by the London Times on June 5th as saying that ³Basically, all the intelligence information we got and tried to verify turned out to be wrong.² With such a strong consensus amongst the people on the ground actually conducting the inspections and who have first hand seen how patently false U.S. intelligence is how can we possibly believe the Bush administration¹s case for war?
In fact there have been blatant contradictions between public intelligence reports and the administration claims. A September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a summary page obtained by Bloomberg News on June 6th that ``There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.² This report lead Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iraq's military for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, when told of the contents by Bloomberg to remark that there was ³substantially more uncertainty than was stated by senior administration officials² concerning WMD in Iraq. Former U.N. weapons inspector and senior research fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace Jonathan Tucker gave an equally sharp interpretation of the DIA report, ³The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.² Finally as reported by the UK Guardian on June 8th one official told the New York Times, ³As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq.² How can we believe Bush about Iraq¹s WMD when its own intelligence agency reports that Iraq had no such weapons?
Criticism of the intelligence used to justify the war is not limited to the U.S. either. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under increasing pressure to explain the lack of WMD evidence in Iraq. In fact Blair¹s Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned in protest of the war against Iraq, reported on June 17th about the dubious nature of the intelligence dossier¹s used to justify the war. He is quoted as saying in the June 17th Guardian that it was ³now clear that Saddam Hussein did not represent a 'clear and serious threat.² Cook has been highly critical of the so-called ³dodgy dossier², that is a the September dossier of intelligence against Saddam Hussein, used by the British and American governments alike, that was largely plagiarized from a California graduate student¹s thesis, then ³sexed up² to make the threat Saddam poised seem more imminent and then passed on as genuine intelligence, as reported by the UK Guardian on June 17th. Blair¹s government would ultimately admit that the dossier was based largely on the graduate thesis, as reported by ABC News on March 10th.
These blatant examples of the Bush administration misleading the American public and Congress can only lead to one conclusion: The Bush Administration wanted a war with Iraq and was willing to do whatever it took to get it. Indeed, this conclusion has been supported time and time again by those in the intelligence community. The LA Times reported on October 11th 2002 that ³CIA officials who brief Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraq routinely return to the agency with a long list of complaints and demands for new analysis or shifts in emphasis.² Another government official told the LA Times that CIA analysts ³"are constantly sent back by the senior people at Defense and other places to get more, get more, get more to make their case." The Houston Chronicle also reported on October 8th 2002 such pressure on intelligence analysts. "Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, with a dozen others in agreement, speaking on condition of anonymity. This argument gains further credibility after Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in a May 28 interview that, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." In other words there was no threat of WMD and everyone who wanted the war settled on WMD because it was the easiest sell for their war.
Now compare this information with what the administration has said in an effort to justify its war.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
The sad truth is that these examples of gross misuse and misinterpretation of intelligence are only the tip of the iceberg. Much of the intelligence used to justify the war is still classified and will probably never become public. I have also left out other examples of other dubious claims by the Administration, such as the so-called mobile bio-weapons labs and the threat of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are only two of many other examples. This administration has deceived the American public and congress into accepting a war that has cost American lives, and continues to do so at a frightening pace, as well a $4 billion a month, as freshly reported by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9th, which is conspicuously double what the administration said in April. General Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Allied forces in Iraq, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq ³for the foreseeable future², however long that is. This act of malfeasance is beyond comprehension considering that President Bush was making what should be the most difficult decision of his presidency, whether or not to go to war and put our nation¹s best and brightest uniformed personnel in harm¹s way by doing so. The bottom line: President Bush lied to America and the world to get this war, and innocent Americans and Iraqis died because of it.
SUN 07.13.03 @ 10:22pm
mlph. it was brought to my attention that mysie.com was looking like shit [my word] in Safari. I hate Safari. I don't know what my fucking problem is. I think it's just my hatred of change, learning new things, etc. But I'm too tired to psychoanalyze myself right now.
Site no longer looks like shit in Safari, which I was just debating trying out recently, so that's good - got my toes wet. I just hate my CSS code. It makes no sense. I swear to fucking NOB there are contradictary lines of code in it. Like the Bible or something. Weird. And I hate trying new things. Like Safari.
I am rambling. Also misspelling every other word. And leaving words out. I must be *really* tired.
Saw T3. Ate Chang's Mongolian Grill. Is it just me, or is does "Ate" look funny. "ate" doesn't look quite as funny. Yes it does. Oh god. I think I should be in bed. Do I have food poisoning? Am I delusional?
"G'night everybody." Yakko
I miss the Animaniacs. I searched Hi and Lois for anything with Dot or the Brain or anybody on it at Six Flags, with no luck. Six Flags was largely a rip off, at least for me.
I have not discussed Six Flags here. I have not mentioned the trip at all. I wonder if I will find the time and energy to do that sometime soon? It was a good trip. Yep. 'Night.
SUN 07.13.03 @ 12:39am
If I could make a movie, I wish I could have made this one. Everything was so real, gritty, right down to the squeaks of the couch. Simple shots, basic wardrobe, almost no makeup. And yet the characters and settings are still visually appealing. The story kept me in there, even if the motivations of the characters were a little hazy. I can't believe I haven't seen this sooner.
Then I wasted the rest of the evening clicking around the web:
brilliant satire
fucking brilliant satire
please feed the bear
creepy, politically-timely Flash poem as a cartoon
my new crush
is it wrong to want this?
i think it would go great with this and this. don't you?
THU 7.10.03 @ 11:10pm
I am in love. With pink. Somebody hurt me, quick.
A sign that I spend way too much time at suicidegirls is that I now want a pair of ruffle-butt panties! So I stopped by Victoria's Secret this evening. I did not find any ruffle-butts, but I managed to pick up a new bra and TEN new panties. As I was driving home, I realized that about half the panties I picked up were pink or predominantly pink, and so was the bra.
Eek! When did I start liking pink? It's so... GIRLIE!!! I really have to blame Hello Kitty, I think. Or Torrid. Or both. When I was down in Portland I picked up an awesome retro sweater in pink and black, with matching t-shirt, plus pink and black shoes, and a pink and black Hello Kitty Shirt.
Since then, I've added THREE more pink Hello Kitty shirts to my wardrobe. And a pink and black skull-and-crossbones tank from Girlfriends LA (please don't tell anyone I've bought stuff from them). And a pink tee that says "Aloha from the Big Island", a true find from The Bon.
So what's happening here? Since my childhood I have refused to own anything pink, especially any pink clothing or hair accessories. I was a tomboy when I was young, and although I got slightly more feminine the older I got, I still insisted on being feminine on my own terms. I don't cross my legs just because I wear a skirt. In fact, I don't often wear skirts. I only shave when *I* want to. I don't need to wear make-up to feel pretty, and don't understand women who wear it everyday. And who wants to be cute and feminine in pink, when you can be sexy and feminine in red, my favorite color.
Now, somehow pink has sneaked into my wardrobe, and it's almost taken over as the dominant color. Well other than my staple, black. Now, I find myself eyeing pink purses. And hair thingies. And nail polish. And lipstick.
What has the world come to? What's wrong with me??? Should I burn all my My Melodies? Or should I revel, and paint my bedroom pink?
These and other moral dilemmas to be debated right here, sometime later when I'm up to it. Same bat time, same bat channel.
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
february/march 2003
2002