Saturday, June 30, 2007
Tags: canadiana, commercials, fun, I Just Have To Say, molson
Monday, June 25, 2007
the fat capitalist pigs and those with the biggest power hard-ons have and continue to build an entire layer of capitalism, based on keeping people scared, based on telling them that terror lies just over that next hill. check out this article, written by naomi klein.
so ... are ya feelin' lucky, punk? are ya?
Tags: fear, political, society
Saturday, June 23, 2007
in this bad-girl song, roxi passes you the keys you drop on the floor of the movie theatre ... what's she doing on the floor of the movie theatre during a movie? haha. being a bad girl ... that's what! listen .... yeah, i know, its another amcient tune!
oh, but i like it.
and i promise soon, you'll see another post about something intelligent ~ a post about the parents of a murdered teen and how they embraced their daughter's killer. i know ~ i pick the tough ones. but ... if parents can forgive the killer of their daughter ... why can't the rest of us forgive .... just about anything else?
Tags: I Just Have To Say
Friday, June 22, 2007
fucking microsoft ~ godddamned BIG BROTHER of the digital world.
I HATE MICROSOFT! HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!!!!
how fucking DARE THEY? how dare they STRIP AN ATTACHMENT from my email, sent to myself? what's up with that bullshit? so, now i cannot send some fucking benign c-sharp code to myself in a .txt file, attached to my hotmail email account? what gives?
i will say it again. MICROSOFT SUCKS.
fuck you, microsoft and everything that's not a mac. FUCK, do i ever hate the non-mac world today! and check the side bar for the linux penguin, doing what i dearly would LOVE to do right this minute - beating that fucking microsoft butterfly! go tuxie, go! swat that pesky vermin!
[that's tuxie growling] didja know that penguins GROWL? yeah, they do.
Tags: I Just Have To Say
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tags: funky, good things, music, smooth
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
IT'S ODD, how we can remember the banalities of life, the tiny minutiae that radiate outwards from the throbbing core of a traumatic event. Even when, sometimes, the details of the trauma itself are unrecoverable.
Jane Doe does not know, to this day, if the 12-inch butcher knife that her rapist held against her throat in the early hours of Aug. 24, 1986, came out of her own cutlery drawer. Perhaps it was one of those spare kitchen utensils her mother was always pressing on her, when she went home to visit. Perhaps the rapist -- the same man who had already sexually assaulted four other women in downtown Toronto -- had brought the knife with him.
It was never recovered.
But Jane Doe can recall, as she told a Toronto courtroom yesterday, the warm drip-drip of her rapist's sweat, falling against her bare skin, as he repeatedly penetrated her.
In relating this to her lawyer, Sean Dewart, Jane Doe's left hand fluttered to her throat, and she rubbed her fingers against the hollow of her neck, as if trying to remove the acidic stain of such an intimate violation.
She has a sharp, fox face, keenly expressive, her eyes widening with the effort of her own attempts to remember, her voice a sibilant whisper, but emphatic.
Despite her tiny, fragile appearance, she is battle-hardened. And she has not lost her humour, as she proved yesterday with the occasional ironic observation.
Jane Doe has told this story so many times in the 11 years since she was raped as she fought for, and won, the right to sue police for negligence; as she attempts, now, to hold them accountable for not giving her proper warning as a potential target of this particular rapist, given what they knew about his habits and how closely she fit the profile of other victims.
She is the heart of the matter: her account of the "invasive" post-rape procedure a chilling indictment of the system as it existed a decade ago; her recalled conversations with police investigators a shocking example of what her lawyer has called the systemic gender-based discrimination against women that allegedly existed on the force.
It had been, Jane Doe told the court, such an unexceptional day. Though a Saturday, she was working at a demanding job, but had managed to squeeze a few hours of free time to take her 5-year-old niece on a birthday shopping outing.
She returned to work till about 7 p.m., stopped for a slice of pizza and a Coke, picked up a video, went out later in the evening to buy some fruit at the corner store, watched the news on TV, read for a while and fell asleep with the bedside light still turned on.
"I was actually shaken awake. I felt somebody shaking my body. a man had his hand over my mouth, was in my bed and had a knife to my throat."
For about an hour, the rapist subjected her to various sexual acts, all the time asking her questions: How old was she? What did she do for a living? Did she have a boyfriend?
"It's terrifying... it's terrorizing," she told the court. "It contrasted so completely with the violence."
The assailant had some difficulty maintaining an erection, and Jane Doe was seized with conflicting fears, thinking, "if he didn't maintain an erection, he would kill me, that it would be my fault. That contrasted with the fear that if he did ejaculate, at the moment of ejaculation he would plunge the knife into my heart."
When the assailant left, Jane Doe called 911. While she was still on the phone, police arrived in her lobby. Once in her apartment, they wouldn't even allow her to use the washroom, unless she left the door open.
She didn't want medical attention, could not understand why police insisted she submit to a hospital exam if she intended to file a rape complaint, saw no need for the stretcher that ambulance attendants brought to her door. Her neighbours were all huddled out in the corridor by now, she told police. She didn't want to be seen being wheeled out of her apartment.
"I was adamant. I didn't want to leave that way. It was very disempowering."
In the end, they compromised. "I sat on the stretcher, with a sheet over my head."
and, so a victim describes her attack and its effects. Jane Doe, victim of the paul callow, known as the balcony rapist, sued the Toronto PD for failing to issue a proper warning about the balcony rapist. the excerpt is from a 1997 interview published in a Toronto newspaper. that inteview took place 10 years ago. and the man who terrorized Jane Doe has recently received his release from prison. so ... now what? i mean, really? Jane Doe will continue to heal, only up to a particular degree, i suppose. regardless of paul callow's fate, she will never achieve her pre-rape state of being. that's a given. but ... what of paul callow? what of the balcony rapist?
i read an article in the commuter rag this morning that detailed the harrassment which paul callow's family - his sister, nephew and brother-in-law - have received in an area of Surrey, British Columbia. you see, paul callow has gone to live with his sister and her family in in Surrey. the residents of their community do not like this. karen callow and her family have received death threats and veiled threats of violence and harassment at work. the community feels adamant ~ paul callow must leave.
i understand the response ... the frenzy of intense emotion. it's only natural people should want to feel safe in their own neighbourhood. unfortunately, i think of that perception of safety as quite mythical. at any rate ... how can a man rehabilitate if his community refuses to acquiesce and give him a guarded chance? for those who believe in some sort of supernal being ... for those who attend that building with the cross and spire each weekend ... does not forgiveness figure prominently in your belief code?
so ... what's ok to forgive? seems to me the answer to that one = everything and anything. and what do we mean when we say 'forgive?' that, my friend, i cannot answer. i believe everyone has their own notion of 'forgiveness.' i don't believe we mean erasing the offensive events from existence or memory. i don't believe we mean condoning the offensive events. i don't believe we mean minimizing the events devastating consequences. or minimizing the reality that perpetrator must account for behviour taken. so ... what's left? surrender. surrender of the hurt the offensive events caused. and what if the perpetrator never did anything to you? do you still need to forgive him for his sins against another, whom you do not know?
just wondering ... and not sure if i have expressed myself clearly.
here is a link that will tell you about the balcony rape victim and her struggle with the Toronto PD. Jane Doe launched her lawsuit against the PD, arguing her 1986 rape might not have happened had officers properly investigated a series of attacks in her Toronto neighborhood and warned women of the rapist. the victim and her lawyer felt the PD attempted to use her [the victim] as bait in catching callow.
here is a link that will tell you about the balcony rapist and his struggle to reintegrate. this news clip does not indicate, but, since his release from prison, callow has found himself unable to secure any funding for and or any psychological counselling. yet ... in much of the release information, law enforcement labels him as high risk to reoffend.
any thoughts? we all can only imagine how we would feel, finding ourselves in the shoes of the surrey residents. however, i cannot help but think they're all making a mountain out of what's yet to even show itself as a molehill. y'know? the man did his crimes. he did his time in prison. does he deserve more punishment? as far as i can see, that's not for me to decide. and i have learned ... anger never healed a fucking thing. as a child, i have suffered ugly things in a powerless position at the hands of lustful men ... on multiple occasions. still, does that preclude me from forgiving? or a friend ... or a loved one ... [on my behalf?]
you tell me.
Tags: forgiveness, news, past hurts, rehabilitating criminals
Monday, June 18, 2007
Tags: eccentric, freaky, weird
Thursday, June 14, 2007
above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone.
so writes christopher hitchens, in his book, god is not great: how religion poisons everything.
i saw hitchens the other night, on the hour. he made some shocking, but very valid points. such as: how we think, not what we think that matters more ... religion will destroy the world through the marriage of messianic ideology and apocolyptic technology. hitchens sees religion as a toxic-to-the-core celestial dictatorship. try as we may, we can never make it go away. but theoretically speaking we could domesticate the beast known as religion.
while i find hitchen's angry, almost vitriolic persona somewhat unbecoming, i do think he makes some excellent points. and ... i must admit, i laughed @ his cynical quip about the catholic church: "no child's behind left." and i laughed even harder when he quoted an american politician as follows: "if english was good enough for jesus its good enough for me." i mean ... if one wants to worship, s/he could at least inform oneself on the true details of one's belief ... read: jesus did not speak english, you fucking lug-nut!
so ... on a good day the whole concept of religion ... the supernatural ... the spiritual confuses me. and then people like hitchens, his buddy dawkins weigh in on the 'con' side and that other dude alastair mcgrath weighs in on the 'pro' side. and then dubya starts telling us about evil and how he must champion humanity by 'smokin out' the evil. and then there's islam ~ no need to comment on all the conflict and confusion raging in that religion. and then there's christianity ~ accusing islam of wantin' to take over the world, when it [i.e. christianity] already has!
i mean, what else do you call it when the religious holidays of ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION become embedded into the cultural fabric of at least an entire hemisphere of the world? do i need to remind anyone that judaism, islam, nor hinduism honour either christmas and easter? that despite friday and saturday being the 'day of rest' for judaism and islam, christianity's 'day of rest' finds itself enshrined into our law as a definitive, nationwide weekly holiday?
don't get me wrong, here. i'm not really knocking the notion that anyone believes ... or the specific doctrine of any particular belief. that's pointless. i mean to express here my doubt that any human-formed - and therefore political - establishment could ever represent the supernal being. i see religion as serving different purposes for different types of believers. religion provides the guts of that intimate connection between one's philosophical view of truth and one's spiritual self. whatever religious perspective one chooses to weave into his/her cultural matrix speaks to his/her larger view of truth, the universe, humanity, and how life got here. essentially, religion must serve a purpose if we cling to it so fearfully. what purpose? you decide.
1. religion as a social construct
- a manifestation of some psychological or moral pathology?
- a pernicious and deliberate falsehood, spread and encouraged by rulers and clerics in their own interests, in an effort exercise control over others?
- seeing religions as marginally useful constructs which encode instructions or habits useful for survival in a society
- seeing religion as ‘the opium of the masses’
2. religion as progressing toward a higher truth
- reflections of an essential truth?
- seeing religious truth as relative, due to its varied cultural application and/or expression
- seeing prophets as messengers of god — individuals given to extraordinary spiritual insight during periods of social decay and acting as purveyors of balance and social survival.
- seeing religion as evolving over time in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis-great awakening paradigm
3. religion as absolute truth
- the exclusivist view
- one belief system … one holy book … one supreme being
- seeing all things and individuals incongruent with the one belief system as ignorant, devious, false, misguided
- a sort of arrogant view of truth (”our view is the RIGHT view, all others are wrong”)
- providing an unwavering perspective that requires individuals to conform to its truth
i do not have the answers ... i don't have the questions, either. but i think that whatever a person believes, its never so cut and dry and absolute and neat and tidy and the same everyday. i think the mistake devout people make lies in denying any opposition to their perspective. to deny opposition makes one sort of a totalitarian. it closes the mind. it closes the spirit. it closes off the entire grand possibility of intellectual expansion.
so ... i guess i just think, for those who believe in heaven and hell, ' stop telling me i'm going to hell for blaspheming. concentrate on how you plan to get into heaven. concentrate on the fact that, some days, keeping one's faith seems as easy as squeezing a fat man through the eye of a needle. and the more any of us berate another for a different belief, the more distant our own faith becomes, if we had one to begin with. even atheism requires belief and faith, in case anyone's wondering.
lately, i find i've spent much of my time squeezing that fat man into the eye of my own faith's embroidery needle. i know ... intrinisically i know ... of a supernal existence. i've felt it. and ... that's an intimate matter ~ each individual has their own concept and experience with the supernal force(s). still, i wonder, each day ~ will this path take me where i want to go? ah ~ but, my dear Self ... you must wait until you get there to find out. and so it goes.
in other news ~ note the change. i felt the need for minimalism for a while. so ... no sidebar, no links, no bling. just a blog. and a tiny bit of eye candy. so, call this the naked blog, if you want ... for a while anyway.
Tags: culture, humanity, religion
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
and don't make any stupid, lame excuses for such brutish behaviour that makes me feel ashamed of my membership in the human race. many, many humans bear witness to unspeakable horrors, death, carnage, suffering ... and these people do not make children utter pornographic statements, or torture and brutally kill innocent animals! we each take responsibility for our own actions, attitude and behaviour. and we lackc that capacity, then we belong locked up in a psychiatric institute. simple as that. no one will convince me otherwise.
war sucks. when will anyone learn its simply NOT the answer. and it never has provided the answer. one does not simply pull out a bigger gun or a bigger stick with which to beat the opponent who pisses us off, or strikes some humility into us by reminding us we do not own or control the fucking universe! guess what? that's called bullying. its resulted in columbine, taber, and there have been other bully-related shootings, i'm sure. unless you've been in a coma for several years, you know of what i speak. how can we, in all honesty or seriousness, tell our children violence solves no problems, all-the-while we systematically engage in some fucked up politically shrouded religious war?
i have had ENOUGH of this disgusting hypocrisy! am i alone, here?
here's a novel thought. how about we just drop that mythical notion that any religion anywhere in the world represents pure evil? that means lose the islam-bashing. its lame. its old. its no different than anti-semitism, or hatred of people with coloured skin. IMHO. before you protest loudly ... ask yourself, have you ever endured feeling the taunts and hatred of another, simply based on your ethnicity or skin colour? i'm guessing most of the loudest protesters have no idea what that feels like.
that's all. just wanted to colour this page with a little 'brown crayon' ... (that's what they called me when i was a kid). coz ... in the end ... we all hold membership to that same certain party ~ HUMANITY. remember that?
ps. liars! watch the video ... dubya's watch, indeed did get lifted from his wrist. undeniable. no, dubya did not put it in his pocket! if you expect anyone to believe that, then i'm guessing those are the ones who are still waiting to see where those WMDs might have gotten stashed by saddam. HA HA.
its official. i feel embarrassed to call myself human. and i feel that way at least once daily. and ... i have this growing urge to somehow apologize to the earth and the other (i.e. non-human) species that occupy said earth for the carnage, stupidity and downright brutality my own species has and continues to inflict upon this planet ... and universe, even (hey, we're even littering space, now).
let's face it ... WE SUCK. what shall we do about it? anything? or just pretend we're on the titanic ... and do sweet fuck all?
Tags: CBC, hate, I Just Have To Say, iraq, rants, war
Monday, June 11, 2007
Shall I tell you
what I find beautiful about you?
You are at your very best
when things are worst. (starman, Starman movie)
do you ever wonder why we bother looking for extraterrestrial life? i mean - why bother sending out signals to tell them we're here? what do we think we'd do if we ever found an extraterrestrial, on earth? i'm inclined to think we might very well kill it. kill the very thing that intrigues us so. because ... well .. that's we do. destroy that which we do not understand. i wonder ... why do we invite that which we cannot host? like ... perhaps as a planterary society humanity simply has not evolved to the point at which we could accept and co-exist with ALFs.
this does have a religious connection to ... because ... do we think we would recognize the messiah if he came in our life time? what if he did walk the earth - in the form of some one life anwar sadat or yitzak rabin or ghandi or martin luther king or JFK or RFK - and we killed him? because we did not understand him ... his message. what if? do we get another chance? this movie ... starman ... it made me think these things.
it starts out with that message we sent out with voyager ... a message representing all humanity and inviting the intergalactic listener to visit earth. and so ... the aliens visit. the space ship crashes. an energy source disembarks and assumes the form of a dead man ... having found some DNA on a hair clipping that the man's grieving widow had near her. the couple have quite an adventure, dodging police and federal agents and the military (who want to capture and kill the alien), as they try to get to arizona so the alien can meet his mother ship and return home.
as i watched more and more of the film the biblical theme ... symbolism ... struck me like a brick in the head. powerful. messianic, i found the story quite messianic. a special man, with healing powers and infathomable knowledge of the universe descends from the sky. the rulers of the society in which he lands find out about him and they fear him ... they have a morbid curiousity of him. he means them no harm ... not in a real sense ... however, they wish to kill him. just because they can. what really made me think of the bible ... of mythology? well, the fact that he impregnated her. she told him that docs had told her she could not have babies. similar to the story of mary, mother of jesus, the alien tells the woman that he impregnated her - that she will have a boy baby. that he will have his father's knowledge. that he will serve as a great teacher. the impregnation of a previously barren woman makes me think more of sarah, though.
the movie - its a good one. i won't spoil it for you by telling you of the ending. you gotta find out for yourself!
Tags: movies/film, pop culture, society
Friday, June 08, 2007
I have this sense that yours is a very old soul ... that your spirit has travelled, cycled through the universe of life for a long time. i'm not sure why .... there's just something about you that tells me this; it intrigues me. i believe that people have had past lives. my sense tells me you have had many. just wanted to mention that to you.
and thus began my forging. of this connection. that i know. as in ... knowledge from a past life. he asked me 'how do you get that sense about me?' and i answered, 'i just know. i don't know how. i just know.' and then he quietly admitted to me that indeed, he does feel like an old soul. i feel so much light and wisdom glistening in this man's spirit.
i now have a real visceral knowledge of how spirit and energy influence our perception of another human ... right down to rating how they look. a purely, radiant intellectual/spiritual connection. nothing carnal. the connection transcends that dimension. and we discussed. and shared. ideas ... sentiments about spirit ... life ... being. reincarnation. and the connection flowed like liquid honey. sweetly and golden.
i have lived in the prairies, under those prairie skies for most of my life. there ain't nuthin' wondrous about open sky that stretches out as far as the eye can see ... that makes you feel like you're in the middle of fucking, ugly and insignificant nowhere! WTF's so canadian about a fucking sky, anyhow? there's expansive prairie/planes skies in the usa and africa that would dwarf ours.
so ...what gives? you're honestly telling me you think a fucking prairie sky has more canadian identity than haida gwaii? you're lying if ya say 'yes.' coz the impassioned plea for prairie sky as a choice, not the actual quality or meaning of said prairie sky, led you to make the choice you did. fuck that patronizing bullshit.
that's the thing - i believe - that makes canadians so wishy-washy in the eyes of our american friends ~ that whole patronizing-passive-compromise routine. its so fucking lame. we water down the guts of an issue just so we can get everyone to agree. agree on what? if all the contention's got removed ... then what's to agree on? grrrrrrrr. removing the heart and soul of and issue makes the issue a dead one. and it makes agreement meaningless. agreement on nuthin = no agreement.
that's what pisses me off about the whole 7 wonders of canada affair. the compromise ~ the great canadian compromise. they - the organizers @ CBC - call it another wonder of canada. they say compromise; i read, giving up what's in your guts to make things smell nicer. and who cares of the end result does not really accurately reflect reality? its peace we're after, not accuracy of truth. really? me dunno if me likes that. me does know that me won't apologize for my refusal to sanction here the choices made through that flawed process.
haida gwaii belongs on that list. for that matter, the gulf islands do too. canada's all about juxtaposing the untamed, untapped wild and natural resources with urban existence. forests, meadows, green spaces, waterways. there's a fucking expanse of rain forest in canada - even a patch of one that resides right inside one of canada's largest, and certainly canada's loveliest city - and none of it even make the final cut. and that speaks volumes. the list and how we settled upon said list ... they speak volumes about the culture of this country. about how we differ from our american friends. about how we, as canadians, feel so strongly about keeping the peace, that we would gladly dilute reality to get and keep said peace. does that mean we would gladly sacrifice our principles just to keep the peace? i suppose ... this seems to imply that many of us would.
i'm not sure how i feel about that.
ok. here's the thing. sometimes ... we need compromise ... sometimes ... compromise works. as in, perhaps, the recent G8 summit. managing climate change and the environment cannot occur without china and the usa at the world table. i grant that. those compromises - of which angela merkel cannot be too pleased - seemed necessary to get to two, messiest and most aggregiously spoiled children to even sit at the table to discuss the issue of carbon emissions, greenhouse gases and the like. to hear dubya finally even admit there's a environmental problem ... i suppose that's a sort of victory.
sorry, but~i love this picture~
but ... how much compromise = too much compromise. how much can we dilute the crux of any issue before we've just hashed it into some twisted notion? when does getting everyone to agree on an issue render that issue meaningless? i really wonder. perhaps i shouldn't, though. or should i?
for the record, here's the official, wishy-washy canada's 7 wonders list: (1) niagara falls, (2) the rocky mts, (3) the igloo, (4) the canoe, (5) prairie skies, (6) old quebec city, (7) pier 21. personally, i would lose the prairie skies from the list in exchange for haida gwaii. and while i appreciate the symbolism of placing canoe on the list ... once again, its not exclusively canadian. a brief [online] historical reseaching of canoe tells me that indigenous people in other parts of the globe used this mode of transport - i.e. the amazon. i would lose the canoe from this list, since the contents of the list must reflect the title 7 wonders of CANADA. and so, pacific rim national park seems more quintessentially canadian than does a fucking boat. IMHO. not that anyone's askin' ... lol.
so. in the final analysis, i guess this all boils down to the fact that sometimes, some issues we need to 'fight' for ... and other times, we can dilute other issues to achieve a compromised resolution. no one can have everything all of the time ~ life's all about give and take. exchange ... equilibrium ... balance ... life's multidimensional and dynamic. just like the human entity. however, i REFUSE to put reality and truth up for grabs in exchange for some contrived and poorly carved out mythical peace. it's false. simply false.
Tags: canada, CBC, culture, lists
Thursday, June 07, 2007
weave - creating a complex pattern from a number of interconnected elements; creating fabric by interlacing long threads; taking evasive action. weave has at least 3 distinct meanings. however, each of these meanings shares the common thread of creating something complex from what's around - in the immediate environment. so - a weaver creates cohesive complexity from fragmented simplicity. this word weave reminds me that, as a human ... as a woman ... as a mother ... i have found myself, repeatedly weaving ... weaving ... weaving. and in so doing, adding another row of stitches to this grand matrix of existence that flows through, within and around me. the word weave speaks to me in this way.
Tags: esoteric stuff, spirit, thinking
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
the fucking war on drugs
we doan need to know why~ jest that it is,
guns & weapons
cell phones and the f*cking GNATs that obssess over 'em
Tags: cynic, humor, pop culture, satire
Sunday, June 03, 2007
1. i don't brush/comb my hair daily. i only brush it right before washing it. its impossible, really ~ my hair. as a tot i would scream when mama tried to pass a comb thru my hair. and my hair usually ends up breaking those hair clips ... and hats just slide off my head (except for straw hats, for some reason) because my hair just makes them. i am so pathetic with my hair ~ could not style it excitingly enough to save my life, i'm afraid ~ and so i usually end up covering it with a bandana, or tying it in a boring pony tail.
2. leggy. they tell me i'm quite leggy. yes ~ they're long, impossibly long. and restless. as a little girl my parents had trouble finding pants long enough for my spindly long legs. shopping for clothes sucked, having to travel across town to Sears Roebucks, the only store with clothing to fit strange, spindly children like me.
3. i don't like when people walk behind me. it makes me ... uncomfortable. yes, it makes me irritable walking from the subway platform and out of the station on my way to school each morning. i especially wanna wack in the face anyone who walks right up behind me.
4. i saw a skunk the other night. crossing the street, running away from our house. and then i saw a couple of slugs. trying to get into the house. EEK. and then, the other day, we saw a tiny snail crossing the back lane. we saved it by putting it in a backyard, under a magnolia tree.
5. i have heard of some parents keeping the placenta from their child's birth and planting it, with some sort of rose bush or magnolia tree or something. apparently the placenta provides nourishment to help the new young tree root. what a different way to commemorate the birth of one's child. interesting ...
6. i have a weakness for Old Navy. and, also, second hand stores.
7. i HATE the taste of white milk and also tap water.
Tags: lists, media, meme, silly