Posting of the Hating Bush article.

Just thought I would post this article, which I believe I mentioned before... just incase my link goes bust!

Mad About You
by Jonathan Chait

I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.

There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling." Columnist Robert Novak described it as a "hatred ... that I have never seen in 44 years of campaign watching."

Yet, for all its pervasiveness, Bush hatred is described almost exclusively as a sort of incomprehensible mental affliction. James Traub, writing last June in The New York Times Magazine, dismissed the "hysteria" of Bush haters. Conservatives have taken a special interest in the subject. "Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush--a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological--unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around," writes Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine. "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from." Even writers like David Brooks and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard--the sorts of conservatives who have plenty of liberal friends--seem to regard it from the standpoint of total incomprehension. "Democrats have been driven into a frenzy of illogic by their dislike of George W. Bush," explains Caldwell. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks, noting that Democrats have grown "so caught up in their own victimization that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering."

Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.

One reason Bush hatred is seen as inherently irrational is that its immediate precursor, hatred of Bill Clinton, really did have a paranoid tinge. Conservatives, in retrospect, now concede that some of the Clinton haters were a little bit nutty. But they usually do so only in the context of declaring that Bush hatred is as bad or worse. "Back then, [there were] disapproving articles--not to mention armchair psychoanalysis--about Clinton-hating," complains Byron York in a National Review story this month. "Today, there appears to be less concern." Adds Brooks, "Now it is true that you can find conservatives and Republicans who went berserk during the Clinton years, accusing the Clintons of multiple murders and obsessing how Vince Foster's body may or may not have been moved. ... But the Democratic mood is more pervasive, and potentially more self-destructive."

It's certainly true that there is a left-wing fringe of Bush haters whose lurid conspiracy-mongering neatly parallels that of the Clinton haters. York cites various left-wing websites that compare Bush to Hitler and accuse him of murder. The trouble with this parallel is, first, that this sort of Bush-hating is entirely confined to the political fringe. The most mainstream anti-Bush conspiracy theorist cited in York's piece is Alexander Cockburn, the ultra-left, rabidly anti-Clinton newsletter editor. Mainstream Democrats have avoided delving into Bush's economic ties with the bin Laden family or suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq primarily to benefit Halliburton. The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard.

A second, more crucial difference is that Bush is a far more radical president than Clinton was. From a purely ideological standpoint, then, liberal hatred of Bush makes more sense than conservatives' Clinton fixation. Clinton offended liberals time and again, embracing welfare reform, tax cuts, and free trade, and nominating judicial moderates. When budget surpluses first appeared, he stunned the left by reducing the national debt rather than pushing for more spending. Bush, on the other hand, has developed into a truly radical president. Like Ronald Reagan, Bush crusaded for an enormous supply-side tax cut that was anathema to liberals. But, where Reagan followed his cuts with subsequent measures to reduce revenue loss and restore some progressivity to the tax code, Bush proceeded to execute two additional regressive tax cuts. Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state.

And, while there has been no shortage of liberal hysteria over Bush's foreign policy, it's not hard to see why it scares so many people. I was (and remain) a supporter of the war in Iraq. But the way Bush sold it--by playing upon the public's erroneous belief that Saddam had some role in the September 11 attacks--harkened back to the deceit that preceded the Spanish-American War. Bush's doctrine of preemption, which reserved the right to invade just about any nation we desired, was far broader than anything he needed to validate invading a country that had flouted its truce agreements for more than a decade. While liberals may be overreacting to Bush's foreign policy decisions-- remember their fear of an imminent invasion of Syria?--the president's shifting and dishonest rationales and tendency to paint anyone who disagrees with him as unpatriotic offer plenty of grounds for suspicion.

It was not always this way. During the 2000 election, liberals evinced far less disdain for Bush than conservatives did for Al Gore. As The New York Times reported on the eve of the election, "The gap in intensity between Democrats and Republicans has been apparent all year." This "passion gap" manifested itself in the willingness of many liberals and leftists to vote for Ralph Nader, even in swing states. It became even more obvious during the Florida recount, when a December 2000 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Gore voters more willing to accept a Bush victory than vice-versa, by a 47 to 28 percent margin. "There is no great ideological chasm dividing the candidates," retiring Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan told the Times. "Each one has his prescription-drugs plan, each one has his tax-cut program, and the country obviously thinks one would do about as well as the other."

Most Democrats took Bush's victory with a measure of equanimity because he had spent his campaign presenting himself as a "compassionate conservative"--a phrase intended to contrast him with the GOP ideologues in Congress--who would reduce partisan strife in Washington. His loss of the popular vote, and the disputed Florida recount, followed by his soothing promises to be "president of all Americans," all fed the widespread assumption that Bush would hew a centrist course. "Given the circumstances, there is only one possible governing strategy: a quiet, patient, and persistent bipartisanship," intoned a New Yorker editorial written by Joe Klein.

Instead, Bush has governed as the most partisan president in modern U.S. history. The pillars of his compassionate-conservative agenda--the faith-based initiative, charitable tax credits, additional spending on education--have been abandoned or absurdly underfunded. Instead, Bush's legislative strategy has revolved around wringing out narrow, party-line votes for conservative priorities by applying relentless pressure to GOP moderates--in one case, to the point of driving Vermont's James Jeffords out of the party. Indeed, when bipartisanship shows even the slightest sign of life, Bush usually responds by ruthlessly tamping it down. In 2001, he convinced GOP Representative Charlie Norwood to abandon his long-cherished patients' bill of rights, which enjoyed widespread Democratic support. According to a Washington Post account, Bush and other White House officials "met with Norwood for hours and issued endless appeals to party loyalty." Such behavior is now so routine that it barely rates notice. Earlier this year, a column by Novak noted almost in passing that "senior lawmakers are admonished by junior White House aides to refrain from being too chummy with Democrats."

When the September 11 attacks gave Bush an opportunity to unite the country, he simply took it as another chance for partisan gain. He opposed a plan to bolster airport security for fear that it would lead to a few more union jobs. When Democrats proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security, he resisted it as well. But later, facing controversy over disclosures of pre-September 11 intelligence failures, he adopted the idea as his own and immediately began using it as a cudgel with which to bludgeon Democrats. The episode was telling: Having spent the better part of a year denying the need for any Homeland Security Department at all, Bush aides secretly wrote up a plan with civil service provisions they knew Democrats would oppose and then used it to impugn the patriotism of any Democrats who did--most notably Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee veteran running for reelection who, despite his support for the war with Iraq and general hawkishness, lost his Senate race thanks to an ugly GOP ad linking him to Osama bin Laden.

All this helps answer the oft-posed question of why liberals detest Bush more than Reagan. It's not just that Bush has been more ideologically radical; it's that Bush's success represents a breakdown of the political process. Reagan didn't pretend to be anything other than what he was; his election came at the crest of a twelve-year-long popular rebellion against liberalism. Bush, on the other hand, assumed office at a time when most Americans approved of Clinton's policies. He triumphed largely because a number of democratic safeguards failed. The media overwhelmingly bought into Bush's compassionate-conservative facade and downplayed his radical economic conservatism. On top of that, it took the monomania of a third-party spoiler candidate, plus an electoral college that gives disproportionate weight to GOP voters--the voting population of Gore's blue-state voters exceeded that of Bush's red-state voters--even to bring Bush close enough that faulty ballots in Florida could put him in office.

But Bush is never called to task for the radical disconnect between how he got into office and what he has done since arriving. Reporters don't ask if he has succeeded in "changing the tone." Even the fact that Bush lost the popular vote is hardly ever mentioned. Liberals hate Bush not because he has succeeded but because his success is deeply unfair and could even be described as cheating.

It doesn't help that this also happens to be a pretty compelling explanation of how Bush achieved his station in life. He got into college as a legacy; his parents' friends and political cronies propped him up through a series of failed business ventures (the founder of Harken Energy summed up his economic appeal thusly: "His name was George Bush"); he obtained the primary source of his wealth by selling all his Harken stock before it plunged on bad news, triggering an inconclusive Securities Exchange Commission insider-trading investigation; the GOP establishment cleared a path for him through the primaries by showering him with a political war chest of previously unthinkable size; and conservative justices (one appointed by his father) flouted their own legal principles--adopting an absurdly expansive federal role to enforce voting rights they had never even conceived of before--to halt a recount that threatened to put his more popular opponent in the White House.

Conservatives believe liberals resent Bush in part because he is a rough-hewn Texan. In fact, they hate him because they believe he is not a rough-hewn Texan but rather a pampered frat boy masquerading as one, with his pickup truck and blue jeans serving as the perfect props to disguise his plutocratic nature. The liberal view of Bush was captured by Washington Post (and former tnr) cartoonist Tom Toles, who once depicted Bush being informed by an adviser that he "didn't hit a triple. You were born on third base." A puzzled Bush replies, "I thought I was born at my beloved hardscrabble Crawford ranch," at which point his subordinate reminds him, "You bought that place a couple years ago for your presidential campaign."

During the 1990s, it was occasionally noted that conservatives despised Clinton because he flouted their basic values. From the beginning, they saw him as a product of the 1960s, a moral relativist who gave his wife too much power. But what really set them off was that he cheated on his wife, lied, and got away with it. "We must teach our children that crime does not pay," insisted former California Representative and uber-Clinton hater Bob Dornan. "What kind of example does this set to teach kids that lying like this is OK?" complained Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.

In a way, Bush's personal life is just as deep an affront to the values of the liberal meritocracy. How can they teach their children that they must get straight A's if the president slid through with C's--and brags about it!--and then, rather than truly earning his living, amasses a fortune through crony capitalism? The beliefs of the striving, educated elite were expressed, fittingly enough, by Clinton at a meeting of the Aspen Institute last month. Clinton, according to New York magazine reporter Michael Wolff, said of the Harken deal that Bush had "sold the stock to buy the baseball team which got him the governorship which got him the presidency." Every aspect of Bush's personal history points to the ways in which American life continues to fall short of the meritocratic ideal.

But perhaps most infuriating of all is the fact that liberals do not see their view of Bush given public expression. It's not that Bush has been spared from any criticism--far from it. It's that certain kinds of criticism have been largely banished from mainstream discourse. After Bush assumed office, the political media pretty much decided that the health of U.S. democracy, having edged uncomfortably close to chaos in December 2000, required a cooling of overheated passions. Criticism of Bush's policies--after a requisite honeymoon--was fine. But the media defined any attempt to question Bush's legitimacy as out-of-bounds. When, in early February, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe invoked the Florida debacle, The Washington Post reported it thusly: "Although some Democratic leaders have concluded that the public wants to move past the ill will over the post-election maneuvering that settled the close Florida contest, McAuliffe plainly believes that with some audiences--namely, the Democratic base of activists he was addressing yesterday--a backward-looking appeal to resentment is for now the best way to motivate and unite an often-fractious party." (This was in a news story!) "It sounds like you're still fighting the election," growled NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." "So much for bipartisanship!" huffed ABC's Sam Donaldson on "This Week."

Just as mainstream Democrats and liberals ceased to question Bush's right to hold office, so too did they cease to question his intelligence. If you search a journalistic database for articles discussing Bush's brainpower, you will find something curious. The idea of Bush as a dullard comes up frequently--but nearly always in the context of knocking it down. While it's described as a widely held view, one can find very few people who will admit to holding it. Conservatives use the theme as a taunt--if Bush is so dumb, how come he keeps winning? Liberals, spooked, have concluded that calling Bush dumb is a strategic mistake. "You're not going to get votes by assuming that, as a party, you're a lot smarter than the voters," argued Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed last November. "Casting Bush as a dummy also plays into his strategy of casting himself as a Texas common man," wrote Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne in March 2001.

Maybe Bush's limited brainpower hasn't hampered his political success. And maybe pointing out that he's not the brightest bulb is politically counterproductive. Nonetheless, however immaterial or inconvenient the fact may be, it remains true that Bush is just not a terribly bright man. (Or, more precisely, his intellectual incuriosity is such that the effect is the same.) On the rare occasions Bush takes an extemporaneous question for which he hasn't prepared, he usually stumbles embarrassingly. When asked in July whether, given that Israel was releasing Palestinian prisoners, he would consider releasing famed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, Bush's answer showed he didn't even know who Pollard is. "Well, I said very clearly at the press conference with Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Abbas, I don't expect anybody to release somebody from prison who'll go kill somebody," he rambled. Bush's unscripted replies have caused him to accidentally change U.S. policy on Taiwan. And, while Bush's inner circle remains committed to the pretense of a president in total command of his staff, his advisers occasionally blurt out the truth. In the July issue of Vanity Fair, Richard Perle admitted that, when he first met Bush, "he didn't know very much."

While liberals have pretty much quit questioning Bush's competence, conservatives have given free rein to their most sycophantic impulses. Some of this is Bush's own doing--most notably, his staged aircraft-carrier landing, a naked attempt to transfer the public's admiration for the military onto himself (a man, it must be noted, who took a coveted slot in the National Guard during Vietnam and who then apparently declined to show up for a year of duty). Bush's supporters have spawned an entire industry of hagiographic kitsch. You can buy a twelve-inch doll of Bush clad in his "Mission Accomplished" flight suit or, if you have a couple thousand dollars to spend, a bronze bust depicting a steely-eyed "Commander-in-Chief" Bush. National Review is enticing its readers to fork over $24.95 for a book-length collection of Bush's post-September 11, 2001, speeches--any and all of which could be downloaded from the White House website for free. The collection recasts Bush as Winston Churchill, with even his most mundane pronouncements ("Excerpted Remarks by the President from Speech at the Lighting of the National Christmas Tree," "Excerpted Remarks by the President from Speech to the Missouri Farmers Association") deemed worthy of cherishing in bound form. Meanwhile, the recent Showtime pseudo-documentary "DC 9/11" renders the president as a Clint Eastwood figure, lording over a cringing Dick Cheney and barking out such implausible lines as "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me. I'll be here!"

Certainly Clinton had his defenders and admirers, but no similar cult of personality. Liberal Hollywood fantasies--"The West Wing," The American President--all depict imaginary presidents who pointedly lack Clinton's personal flaws or penchant for compromise. The political point was more to highlight Clinton's deficiencies than to defend them.

The persistence of an absurdly heroic view of Bush is what makes his dullness so maddening. To be a liberal today is to feel as though you've been transported into some alternative universe in which a transparently mediocre man is revered as a moral and strategic giant. You ask yourself why Bush is considered a great, or even a likeable, man. You wonder what it is you have been missing. Being a liberal, you probably subject yourself to frequent periods of self-doubt. But then you conclude that you're actually not missing anything at all. You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.

There. That feels better.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at TNR.


snow and other flacky stuff...

I can't believe this weather. Here it was getting all warm out, and now this! For those of you not looking out my window, it is snowing like crazy outside... with these monsterous winds throwing the stuff all over. Hopefully this will mean that I get to go home early!!

So I just found the most ridiculous article online, from the AP.

Court: Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy
CHICAGO - An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.

The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.

He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.
Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare," court papers state.

Irons responded that her alleged actions weren't "truly extreme and outrageous" and that Phillips' pain wasn't bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips' lawsuit in 2003.

But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips' story is true, Irons "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences."

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

Phillips is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

"There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."

How unreal is that?! I mean, who does that... there are easier ways to get yourself pregnant. So here's what I'm wondering... how exactly did she get herself pregnant?? I mean, are we talking turkey baster here? Also I just think its unreal that the charges were dismissed because the sperm was considered "a present" ... "he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep." Gee, thanks hunny, how did you know that's what I wanted.
In other news, this past weekend was a very busy one. Friday night I headed to Rochelle's and spent the night. I gave Ro her RSVP cards that I had finished on Thursday, and she loved them... thank god! I was so happy to be rid of those things, althought I am very proud of how they turned out. Saturday morning Ro, Piper, Sabrina, and I went out and found our bridesmaid dress. It's gorgeous... strapless, A-line, floor length, with two bands along the neckline that go all the way around the back and end in these beautiful fabric pieces that hang to about calf length. So pretty. We got them in dark lilac and oyster. But now we have to wait until April or May for them to come in. After that we went out to lunch and then headed up to Athens, PA... where the Bridal Shower was being held (all of the wedding stuff is happening up there as the fiance Patrick is from that area). It was a four hour trip, but it went fast. It's a cute little town, and it was nice because the hotel we were staying in is the same one we will be in for the wedding reception. Plus it has a bar... which we all happily attending that night. Sunday was the bridal shower. It was cute, and you could tell Ro was having a great time... which was the important part. I have to say though, all this is only making me more excited for all my wedding stuff. But that will be here before I know it, so I just have to be patient.

Monday I had off for Presidents Day... one of the few bonus' of working for a non-profit. So I went to look at houses. The final two I looked at were pretty nice, and I LOVED the kitchen and basement in the last one. So Trav and I are planning to go see them together not this weekend, but the following one... as well as a few other places that I found online. I'm really hoping by then to have the pre-approval for a mortgage from the guy our real estate agent recommended, so that maybe, just maybe we might be able to put an offer on one of them.

As for this weekend, Saturday we are going to check out a hotel in West Conchohocken for a tour... its a possible reception site, so I for one am very excited. My mom also recommended we think about the Hotel Bethlehem... which I am, but since the damn thing is a Radisson now, it might be a little bit out of our price range!! We'll see. After that it is up to my parents area for a hair appointment, and hopefully stopping by to see Laura and the kiddies. Since she is preggers again I want to see if she's showing yet!! Then Sunday Miyano and Hiro and baby Yu-Yu are coming over for lunch. They haven't all met Travis before, so it should be a good time. And at that point my weekend will be basically over, and I'm sure I'll be tired from running around the whole time!!! But it will be good, and I am just glad that tomorrow is friday.

Okay, enought rambling.


job loathing

Grr... I hate how up and down and up and down and up and (well you get the idea)... my emotions can be. One minute I'm so excited about house searching, Trav and I getting our own place, and about all the exciting things we have to look forward to in the next few months. But then I get so discouraged, and so down, and it's always about my job.

Let me lay it out.

I ... hate ... my ... job.

While I love my coworkers (for the most part), and the fact that I have a salaried position, the job itself is frustrating. Disappointing. Draining. I work for a foreign policy think tank... which definitely has the potential to be great, except that I lack the experience to get the type of position that I want (doing research), and the hierarchy in this institute isn't set up in such a way as to promote, well, promotions. So it's not like I can hope that after doing grunt work for the VP and Pres for a year (which will be this June already), that I could be moved into a better position. Proving myself does nothing, except get the occational "good job".
And the pay sucks to boot.

All I can think about is findig a better job and leaving here... but what do I look for? I don't know what I really want to do. I love Chinese culture and history and studying their foreign policy; but there are so few places around here that have such a focus (probably less then a hand full), and I don't want to move to DC. I'm beginning to think that IR was a mistake. And I know that you are all thinking that everyone hates their first job, which is probably 90% true, but I'm not looking for the most perfect job... just something that doesn't make me feel like screaming everytime I think about it.
I think I am just not cut out for the typical desk job. I need something different... I would love to work outside, or at least something that takes me outside on a regular basis. Something that gets me moving, and that makes me feel satisfied at the end of the day. If I could only have more days (then not) when I'm not checking the clock every 15 minutes, then I would be happy. I just need to find something different. *sighs*

Moving on. I also just realize I never wrote about Valentine's Day, so I suppose I might as well at least put a paragraph about that. It was definitely a nice night. Trav and I went more low-key this year, which ended up being really nice. It was nice and relaxing. We each got each other two small but fun/meaningful to us gifts. And not like mushy meanigful... but stuff we can actually use, and that we each had wanted. Trav sent me some roses, which made me smile all day (and still today as they are holding up great), and handled dinner as well. He got use a big platter of sushi and sushi rolls, brewed up some green tea, and got some saki. It was great.
And hey, at least I got to end on a happy note.



It's amazing the amount of people that have these journals. Little bits of the web devoted just to them... their feelings, complaints, excitements... its almost addicting. But even more amazing is the amount of people who read these journals; which I suppose is also addicting. I have had more visitors to my journal in the past two weeks, then I have had meals. And I eat a lot.

It's exciting in a way. Not that it shows that people care... but at least, if nothing else, they are semi interested. I guess it is the intrigue of knowing what is going on in someone elses mind. Knowing that other people are just as weird as you... or that they over think things (life) like you... etc.

On the other hand, for those writing, it's like a faceless friend. Completely unjudgemental... only listens and never offers unwanted advise or criticism. But this friend passes on your secrets to all your real friends, so that they know, but without you having to tell them yourself. Then, if advise is wanted, you can get it from them. With a journal, you can edit and rephrase, and you are safer then with messy words.

In the end, I guess what it comes down to is that everyone wants to be just a little more understood.
A little more known.
A little more open.


thirsty thursday...

Sorry, no real reason for that title... just haven't gotten to use that phrase for a while.
It's funny the things you miss from college.

So its thursday, and thankfully this week is almost over. Nothing particularly bad about it... but it just seemed long and tiring, and I'm ready for it to be over. Maybe I am just really ready for the weekend and my mom's party to be here. Although I did just have a dream last night about this weird guy (very scary aura) in a mask, and I knew he was going to kill me, yet was strangely resigned to that fact, and in the end not afraid of it. So going to my mom's Marti Gras party this weekend... obviously full of people in masks, should be interesting. I did however find a drink to take, which I'm excited about, called a New Orleans Buck... and sounds good. While its not as traditionally Marti Gras as a Hurricane is, at least it has the right name for the job, and should be easy to make and easy to drink.

Here's the recipe:
Ingredients: 1.0 oz. Club Soda
1.0 oz. Orange juice
1.5 oz. light Rum
3.0 oz. Sour mix

Directions: Shake, and strain into collins glass.

Yum. And this way I won't have to worry about a drink with Chambord or vodka... (barfing sounds). But if any of you have a suggestion for a good light rum to use in this recipe, let me know.

Anyway, I just had to post a little ps. from my entry yesterday. So, Mike is a great guy, and he (thank to a little help from an unnamed birdy... thanks birdy) read my entry and was quick to IM me an assurence.
As he put it:

FBPHondaSI: our place is like vegas...what happens there stays there
FBPHondaSI: woot

and that right there is what I love about boys vs. girls... not only does mike let me know that my fears are ungrounded, but he also gives me amusement in the process. ;-)

Blue Aidan: but your a boy... boys don't talk :-o
FBPHondaSI: believe it or not, we do sometimes
FBPHondaSI: but keep that on the dl, it would ruin our rep

So yes, I was a doof with at least one of my "dilemmas"... and the other, well it's about a year premature! So I'm just not going to worry about it, and enjoy life a little more relaxed because of that. Well, I should probably get back to work. I should be typing an article instead of typing this right now... grr.
Alright, and away I go.


things to do/done & two dilemmas...

What's new, what's new? Well last week and the week before were the weeks of birthdays, 8 birthdays in 9 days. We should have taken out stock in Hallmark.

Friday was my brother's, so we went up to my rent's place for that. Nice time, he loved his gift. Left around lunch time on Saturday and made great time home. Ended up in Media a half-hour before we needed to be to meet with the real estate agent. It's definitely a cute little town, and we enjoyed shopping at their big Trader Joe's, and looking thru their shops. (Stella, you would really like "Earth & State"... lots of fun earthy artsy house stuff.) Then headed to meet Jim, whos now, I suppose, our real estate agent. Nice guy, a little much at times... but nice. Showed us the houses we wanted to see... none of which we really liked... (either location wasn't good, or house wasn't good, or something). But at least we took that all important first step. And he helped us do a search in better areas, with hopefully better results. Ended up with a list of 11+ houses we would like to see, so hopefully will hear back from him soon on when we can actually meet to see them! Very exciting.

This weekend should be entertaining... Marti Gras party at my parents. My mom is thrilled to do this, she's been wanting to for years... so we will get lots of great food and drinks and entertainment. We all get to dress wild, and while my mom has banned my father from incouraging flashing for beads, there will be lots of beads to give out. Anyway, it should be a great time, as my parents friends are all a riot. Also, Trav and I finally have a set date for our trip to Arizona... we will be leaving the evening of the 19th, then returning on the 24th. I've never been to the west coast/ south west area (except for a three hour stop over in San Fran)... so I'm looking forward to the experience.

What else is new... hmm. Really house hunting and Arizona are the two biggies. Valentine's Day is just on the horizon, but won't include Trav's presents here... just in case. Looking forward (of course) to Ro's bridal shower. Currently working on her RSVP cards... which I must say are turning out pretty damn good. I'm impressed with myself. It's a bit time consuming, but hey, that's what a bridesmaid is there for. ;-) I got 6 done last night, and now that I know what I am doing, I can probably get another 10 done tonight. We shall see, we shall see.

On a completely unrelated side note, something that has been bothering me lately... Trav and I are living with Mike, a good friend from college. Mostly its been fine, but there have definitely been issues and problems, and since right before Christmas (some of you know that story), it has been a bit strained. In the overall, specific instances aside, not really anyone's fault... I think we just all came into this arrangement with slightly different ideas about what to expect. However, as Mike is seriously dating my former roommate and still good friend Megan, I have a concern. Whenever we get in a disagreement I have this feeling that he complains to her about us... she's never said anything to make me think this way, but it is just a feeling. Now I'm sure when Mike does something that bothers us he doesn't go and tell her, "we got in a fight today because i did this." No, I'm damn sure those times aren't mentioned. So now I'm concerned that it will end up (when we move in end of May, beginning of June) that maybe it will be hard for Trav and Mike to stay friends... and since Mike and Megan will most likely still be together, am I going to be losing Megan as a friend as well? Will she think that's I've changed, and that I'm some jerk for all that I've "done to" her boyfriend? We almost never see each other anymore, and the only time we talk on the phone is if I call. Perhaps the easy comradery that came from living together is already gone... but I have had hopes that it wasn't. Any thoughts?

Dilemma number two... I've been thinking about wedding stuff a lot (especially since working on Ro's stuff)... and I have come across a certain guest list issue. I have a friend from high school (Pal), whom I love and adore... who is dating another friend of mine (Buddy). Buddy has always been great, we would stay up late talking about the most random things and always have a good time together, but has recently been kind of weird. It's like Buddy has become so into Pal, that no one else deserves the time of day. Or if they do, its because Buddy needs them... but never the other way around. Well here is my dilemma: I had always thought that Pal would end up being in my wedding in some way... and originally had thought that Buddy would be as well. Except now I don't know if I want Buddy at my wedding, let alone in the wedding... and since Pal is always with Buddy, and we have been drifting apart because of it, I'm not sure that Pal should be in my party either. However I definitely want Pal to be AT my wedding. So what do I do? Ask Pal to be in the wedding party, but not invite Buddy; invite only Pal, knowing they might not come without Buddy; invite both and just deal with it; or invite neither and possibly end up losing both friends in the process?! I mean, obviously our guest list doesn't have to be finalized for a year or something, so I am really worrying about this way too early... anything could change in that time... but its just been bothering me lately, and I felt like I could use some imput.

Okay, well that is certainly enought blathering for today.