Our loan officer for our house is a complete and total prick. Does anybody know anyplace where I can go to review him?
He dropped the ball and didn't get our loan through by closing so he is costing us $622, and he refuses to accept any responsibility for the problem. He is an ass.
RANDY JENKINS
That's his name. He works at Southwest funding in Dallas. If you are ever doing a loan DO NOT go to Southwest funding or especially Randy Jenkins.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Nuclear Option
Okay, so I just have to say, that I'm not completely against the Nuclear Option happening. Why? Well, sure, in the short term our lives would be hell, but just remember the Republicans won't be the majority forever, and when they aren't they'll be hating themselves for getting rid of it.
The Republican's keep saying that they've never used the fillibuster against judicial nominations. Let's look at some history shall we:
"In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees."
Let's also note the fact that confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that Republican senators' "partisanship over judicial nominations" during the Clinton era was "improper" and "wrong."
Republicans are hypocrites and liars. It will come back to bite them in the ass, and I'll just be sitting here waiting until it does. Can someone pass the popcorn?
The Republican's keep saying that they've never used the fillibuster against judicial nominations. Let's look at some history shall we:
"In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees."
Let's also note the fact that confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that Republican senators' "partisanship over judicial nominations" during the Clinton era was "improper" and "wrong."
Republicans are hypocrites and liars. It will come back to bite them in the ass, and I'll just be sitting here waiting until it does. Can someone pass the popcorn?
Dangerous road
This is slightly old news, but the fiance gave me another perspective on it yesterday.
It seems that Bush has eliminated several US delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they supported the Kerry campaign. "A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission." Not only is this unprecedented, but it is also an extremely dangerous idea.
Imagine this, you have a corporation who, naturally, wants their people to be able to go to international meetings such as this, but they know that whatever adminstration is in the white house will exclude them from going if they find out that they supported someone other than them.
Now, you have person A and person B. Both are extremely qualified for the job, and they are equal in all areas, but person A donated to the current administration's campaign, and person B donated to the challenger. Who do you think is going to get the job? Why person A, of course, because they'll actually have a chance to go to the international meeting.
This is a dangerous road the Bush adminstration is travelling down, but I'm not surprised, because loyalty and secrecy have been the definition of their administration. I can't believe that more people aren't distrubed by the loyalty and secrecy of this administration. Part of having a government safe from corruption is the people's ability to question it, but the Bush administration has done everything in their power to make it more difficult to check on what our government is up to, as well as threatening anyone who speaks out against the administration. (can we say dictator?) Frankly, this administration scares the living daylight out of me.
It seems that Bush has eliminated several US delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they supported the Kerry campaign. "A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission." Not only is this unprecedented, but it is also an extremely dangerous idea.
Imagine this, you have a corporation who, naturally, wants their people to be able to go to international meetings such as this, but they know that whatever adminstration is in the white house will exclude them from going if they find out that they supported someone other than them.
Now, you have person A and person B. Both are extremely qualified for the job, and they are equal in all areas, but person A donated to the current administration's campaign, and person B donated to the challenger. Who do you think is going to get the job? Why person A, of course, because they'll actually have a chance to go to the international meeting.
This is a dangerous road the Bush adminstration is travelling down, but I'm not surprised, because loyalty and secrecy have been the definition of their administration. I can't believe that more people aren't distrubed by the loyalty and secrecy of this administration. Part of having a government safe from corruption is the people's ability to question it, but the Bush administration has done everything in their power to make it more difficult to check on what our government is up to, as well as threatening anyone who speaks out against the administration. (can we say dictator?) Frankly, this administration scares the living daylight out of me.
Think Bush is winning the War on Terrorism?
Bush has killed the State Department's annual terrorism report due out to Congress this week. Wonder why? Well as it turns out, there were a record 175 terrorism incidents in 2003. In 2004 this number sky-rocketed to 655. Bush is doing what he does best; trying to keep the information away from the public.
"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir."
Don't worry, terrorist incidents in Iraq increased as well, from 22 to 198.
"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.
"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir."
Don't worry, terrorist incidents in Iraq increased as well, from 22 to 198.
"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
spending money
Yay! Today I finally ordered a bunch of internet stuff that I've been meaning to buy. I got another Flogging Molly CD, I got a Flogging Molly t-shirt. I also finally got some anti-bush bumper stickers! I can't wait to get them. I got some extras to give to friends. I truly think Bush is evil, and he is the worst president I think we will ever have in my life. The good news is that no matter what happens in 2008, it's bound to be better than 2004. Lets just hope Bush doesn't do too much more evil stuff before then.
Again, I can't believe anyone could possibly think it's moral to vote for Bush. I question that person's knowledge of Bush. What I've found is that anyone I talk to about Bush, I know more than they do. I've read lots of books, and people are generally surprised by what I have to say. I wish people would read more important things, and less unimportant things. I think people would have a lot harder time living with their choices if they really knew what they were voting for. But then again, maybe they wouldn't. In my experience,the more people learn about anything, especially Bush, the more they see that he just isn't good for the country in any way. They also realize that the Republican party isn't the party of morals, and that you can get your morality other places. I consider myself an extremely moral person, and it is because of this that I can't vote for Bush. There are many Republican candidates that I could get behind, but Bush will never be one of them.
Also I've never heard a real reason for supporting Bush. It's always one of the Republican's catch phrases(morals, the war, etc), or else it's "I just couldn't support the other candidate". I've never heard someone say "I personally believe in this, this and this, and Bush is going to make that happen."
Again, I can't believe anyone could possibly think it's moral to vote for Bush. I question that person's knowledge of Bush. What I've found is that anyone I talk to about Bush, I know more than they do. I've read lots of books, and people are generally surprised by what I have to say. I wish people would read more important things, and less unimportant things. I think people would have a lot harder time living with their choices if they really knew what they were voting for. But then again, maybe they wouldn't. In my experience,the more people learn about anything, especially Bush, the more they see that he just isn't good for the country in any way. They also realize that the Republican party isn't the party of morals, and that you can get your morality other places. I consider myself an extremely moral person, and it is because of this that I can't vote for Bush. There are many Republican candidates that I could get behind, but Bush will never be one of them.
Also I've never heard a real reason for supporting Bush. It's always one of the Republican's catch phrases(morals, the war, etc), or else it's "I just couldn't support the other candidate". I've never heard someone say "I personally believe in this, this and this, and Bush is going to make that happen."
UT, please get that stick out of your butt...
Okay, so UT has some ridiculous rules regarding your EID password. Now, because of these rules, I have forgotten my password about 3 times and had to change it every time. They say these rules are to protect my identity, but what they're really doing is instead of letting me pick a password I can remember, they want me to pick one I can't remember, write it down so I can, and leave that piece of paper somewhere to make it easier for someone to steal my identity. *sigh*
There are several requirements you must follow when setting up your UT EID Password:
* Your password must be between 8 and 20 characters in length.
* You may not re-use any of your last 10 passwords.
* Your password cannot contain blanks.
* Your password must contain letters, numbers, and special characters. The special characters that are permitted are ! @ # $ % & * ( ) - + = , < > : ; " ' ..
* Your password cannot contain any words found in our dictionary or common proper nouns of four letters or longer. In addition, common letter transpositions are not allowed (for example @ for a, ! for i, or zero for O).
* Your password cannot contain your UT EID.
* Your password cannot contain your first or last name.
* Your password cannot contain your birthday in any form.
* Your password cannot contain your Social Security Number.
There are several requirements you must follow when setting up your UT EID Password:
* Your password must be between 8 and 20 characters in length.
* You may not re-use any of your last 10 passwords.
* Your password cannot contain blanks.
* Your password must contain letters, numbers, and special characters. The special characters that are permitted are ! @ # $ % & * ( ) - + = , < > : ; " ' ..
* Your password cannot contain any words found in our dictionary or common proper nouns of four letters or longer. In addition, common letter transpositions are not allowed (for example @ for a, ! for i, or zero for O).
* Your password cannot contain your UT EID.
* Your password cannot contain your first or last name.
* Your password cannot contain your birthday in any form.
* Your password cannot contain your Social Security Number.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
I'm sorry...
Okay, so I feel bad, I'm a little overzealous. I've recently renewed a friendship that had sorta been lost. Part of what sparked the renewal is my learning that she had expanded her political views. Well, anyway, I'm just so excited to have a friend that is interested in politics as well, especially someone that I've been friends with for so long. I'm excited because I feel like we'll be able to have a good conversations. So I think I keep talking (emailing) her ear off about politics and it's probably annoying. I need to remember to breathe.
I can't wait to get to Austin. I really wanted to get involved in the state democratic party, but I figured I probably wouldn't because I'm not very good at getting involved in stuff by myself, but now I have a friend!!! yay!!! And now, due to her husband's change in occupation, she's allowed to be involved. :) Okay, yes, I'm crazy.
Oh the other GREAT thing about Austin is we can get Green Energy!!! Yay for doing something to help the environment. I can't wait to live in a city that cares about the enviroment.
As excited as I am to move to Austin, I will be sad to leave the Texas 17th which is Chet Edward's district. Although he's a pretty conservative democrat, I think he's honest, and genuinely wants to do what's best for our district which includes Texas A&M. That's what I want most out of a congressman. Thanks, Chet, for being such a great congressman!
I can't wait to get to Austin. I really wanted to get involved in the state democratic party, but I figured I probably wouldn't because I'm not very good at getting involved in stuff by myself, but now I have a friend!!! yay!!! And now, due to her husband's change in occupation, she's allowed to be involved. :) Okay, yes, I'm crazy.
Oh the other GREAT thing about Austin is we can get Green Energy!!! Yay for doing something to help the environment. I can't wait to live in a city that cares about the enviroment.
As excited as I am to move to Austin, I will be sad to leave the Texas 17th which is Chet Edward's district. Although he's a pretty conservative democrat, I think he's honest, and genuinely wants to do what's best for our district which includes Texas A&M. That's what I want most out of a congressman. Thanks, Chet, for being such a great congressman!
Friday, April 22, 2005
Goldwater
Good quotes from Barry Goldwater. A true conservative.
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
~ The Washington Post (July 28, 1994)
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
~ The Congressional Record (1981)
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
~ The Washington Post (July 28, 1994)
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
~ The Congressional Record (1981)
For my Catholic Peeps...
A strong Republican ally, Focus on the Family has been saying democrats are attacking religion. Focus on the Family isn't exempt from attacking religion themselves.
A board member of Focus on the Family, R. Albert Mohler Jr., said Thursday he stands by the comments he made in March 2000 on the cable news show Larry King Live.
"I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel," Mohler said at the time. "And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) has called on James Dobson to repudiate Mohler. That has yet to happen, and I doubt it will ever happen.
A board member of Focus on the Family, R. Albert Mohler Jr., said Thursday he stands by the comments he made in March 2000 on the cable news show Larry King Live.
"I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel," Mohler said at the time. "And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) has called on James Dobson to repudiate Mohler. That has yet to happen, and I doubt it will ever happen.
Bush's "Environmental" Policy
Okay, so this is too important. I think too many people listen to what spin is coming out of the white house and accept it as the truth, and don't know/care what's really going on within the Bush administration. So here's some of the environmental policy that him and his corporate cronies have ruined.
1. The EPA weakened mecury reduction requirements for power plants.
2. Passed an air pollution plan that allows various industries to opt out of a Clean Air Act provision that requires reductions in toxic emissions by 2007. This plan would also delay until after 2018 power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission cuts that were supposed to occur by 2010 under the Clear Air Act. It rolls back a requirement to reduce mercury emissions by 90% by 2008. (Mercury has been linked to birth defects)
3. Bonds that have been posted by oil and gas industries to drill on federal lands have fallen drastically short of the projected cleanup cost, leaving taxpayers with upwards of $1 billion in cleanup costs after the development ends.
4. Rewrote the forest rules to allow for more logging saying that it will decrease forest fires. Forest fires are actual extremely natural and healthy for forests. The rewrite also eliminates the environmental review process for forest management plans which provides the public with information about forest planning and a chance to participate in management decisions about public lands.
5. The EPA signed off on legeslation that allows U.S. Farmers who grow tomatoes and strawberries to continue using methyl-bromide, an ozone-depleting, cancer-causing pesticide that, according to U.S. and international treaties, had been scheduled to be phased out worldwide in 2005.
6. Superfund: The Bush administration is against "polluter (aka industry) pays" policies, instead adopting policies of the government (aka taxpayers) pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites. They favor a policy where they use current funds to cleanup projects that are currently underway, and don't list new hazardous waste sites for cleanup.
7. Let us not for get about the Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge policy.
There are so many more, I just don't have time to go on. The National Resources Defense Council has a complete list of all the environmental policies of the Bush administration.
1. The EPA weakened mecury reduction requirements for power plants.
2. Passed an air pollution plan that allows various industries to opt out of a Clean Air Act provision that requires reductions in toxic emissions by 2007. This plan would also delay until after 2018 power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission cuts that were supposed to occur by 2010 under the Clear Air Act. It rolls back a requirement to reduce mercury emissions by 90% by 2008. (Mercury has been linked to birth defects)
3. Bonds that have been posted by oil and gas industries to drill on federal lands have fallen drastically short of the projected cleanup cost, leaving taxpayers with upwards of $1 billion in cleanup costs after the development ends.
4. Rewrote the forest rules to allow for more logging saying that it will decrease forest fires. Forest fires are actual extremely natural and healthy for forests. The rewrite also eliminates the environmental review process for forest management plans which provides the public with information about forest planning and a chance to participate in management decisions about public lands.
5. The EPA signed off on legeslation that allows U.S. Farmers who grow tomatoes and strawberries to continue using methyl-bromide, an ozone-depleting, cancer-causing pesticide that, according to U.S. and international treaties, had been scheduled to be phased out worldwide in 2005.
6. Superfund: The Bush administration is against "polluter (aka industry) pays" policies, instead adopting policies of the government (aka taxpayers) pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites. They favor a policy where they use current funds to cleanup projects that are currently underway, and don't list new hazardous waste sites for cleanup.
7. Let us not for get about the Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge policy.
There are so many more, I just don't have time to go on. The National Resources Defense Council has a complete list of all the environmental policies of the Bush administration.
AccuWeather vs. the NWS
Okay, so I really want to post about Earth Day and all the crap that Bush has done to the environment while telling the public how environmentally friendly he is, but I'm not sure I have the time or the energy to dive into that right now. So I'm going to write about something I'll call AccuWeather vs. the NWS.
Let me preface this with saying that AccuWeather is a private company who probably supplies the forecast to your newspaper or radio. They have a reputation of not having the most accurate of forecasts. Giving them some credit, it's hard to have accurate local forecasts when you're forecasting nationally.
Anyway, there has been a bill introduced in the Senate by Santorum (R-Pa) that would make it illegal for the National Weather Service to put free forecasts online. I just have to say that this is ridiculous. The bill technically prohibits federal meteorologist from competing with private meteorologists. So basically what it is doing is prohibitng the NWS from doing it's job. They do forecasts, they do severe weather, the do hurricanes. They'll do the forecasts reguardless of being allowed to release it to the public or not, so why shouldn't they be allowed to release it to the public?
I gotta say that I prefer the weather service information over anything AccuWeather or the Weather Channel have to offer, and there's good reason for that. (Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention that these private companies get their data from the NWS?)
Let me preface this with saying that AccuWeather is a private company who probably supplies the forecast to your newspaper or radio. They have a reputation of not having the most accurate of forecasts. Giving them some credit, it's hard to have accurate local forecasts when you're forecasting nationally.
Anyway, there has been a bill introduced in the Senate by Santorum (R-Pa) that would make it illegal for the National Weather Service to put free forecasts online. I just have to say that this is ridiculous. The bill technically prohibits federal meteorologist from competing with private meteorologists. So basically what it is doing is prohibitng the NWS from doing it's job. They do forecasts, they do severe weather, the do hurricanes. They'll do the forecasts reguardless of being allowed to release it to the public or not, so why shouldn't they be allowed to release it to the public?
I gotta say that I prefer the weather service information over anything AccuWeather or the Weather Channel have to offer, and there's good reason for that. (Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention that these private companies get their data from the NWS?)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Callie update
Yay! Callie has been found. She came into the garage last night to eat the tunafish that my sister had left out for her. Of course, she brought a friend with her...
Get that kitty a microchip!!!
Get that kitty a microchip!!!
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Callie
My sister's kitty, Callie, that I had taken care of has run away. :( She was having a difficult time adjusting to life back at their house, and she got out last night. I am very very very sad. She was a great kitty. Hopefully she will be found.
This is a picture of her as a kitten:
This is a picture of her as a kitten:
Monday, April 18, 2005
Another Picture of Lily
Okay, so I had to leave Lily at a friends house this weekend while I went to Austin. When I got back and picked her up, HOLY RUSTED METAL BATMAN, she had grown overnight!!! I weighed her, and she weighed 7.4 pounds. Last vet visit on 4/7 she weighed 4.6. She gained almost 3 pounds in just under 2 weeks. It's crazy. So anywho, here's the most recent picture of her, she's barking at me. :)
try-outs galore
Okay, well I tried out for the UT pom squad this weekend and, big surprise, I didn't make it. Going in I figured my age would either be a positive or a negative, not neutral. Well, I think it was a negative. It's not a big deal, I didn't really have time to do it anyway, it's just something I've always wanted to do and I thought it would be fun. If on friday I had been a senior in high school, I think I could've made it. Makes me wish I hadn't hated the Aggie Dance Team director so much, and I could have done that. Oh well. Now I'm just gonna try out for the Austin Wranglers Cheerleaders. I've got alot of working out to do before then becuase a better body will give me a better chance. I might try out for the UT dance team too, but just for practice.
So other than that Danny and I spent the rest of the weekend eating. I hadn't let myself eat yummy things in a while, so I engorged myself. Now it's back to trying to eat fairly healthy and running every night. Speaking of which, did you know you're supposed to run on the balls of your feet? All this time I've been running heel-toe. Turns out that's bad bad bad. Makes my shins hurt. So not only do I have to work on running farther, but I have to learn to run on the balls of my feet. That wouldn't be as hard if I didn't run so slow. I also realized that Danny can walk as fast as I run, so he's probably going to beat me in the 5K we're gonna do. *sigh*
So other than that Danny and I spent the rest of the weekend eating. I hadn't let myself eat yummy things in a while, so I engorged myself. Now it's back to trying to eat fairly healthy and running every night. Speaking of which, did you know you're supposed to run on the balls of your feet? All this time I've been running heel-toe. Turns out that's bad bad bad. Makes my shins hurt. So not only do I have to work on running farther, but I have to learn to run on the balls of my feet. That wouldn't be as hard if I didn't run so slow. I also realized that Danny can walk as fast as I run, so he's probably going to beat me in the 5K we're gonna do. *sigh*
Friday, April 15, 2005
One more reason
I just remembered one more reason why I'm a liberal.
Civil liberties. I understand that religious marriage and government marriage aren't required to be one in the same. Religions are allowed to discriminate all they want. The governement isn't. I don't think it's fair that two people that love eachother and want to share their lives with eachother can't do that.
I think it's a ridiculous claim that this would harm the sanctity of marriage in the US. Come on, divorce has already done that. And let me note that Massachusettes has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Also, I'm tired of people waving their bibles around using that as an excuse. The only difference I can see between this "sin" and any other sin is that it's a lifestyle. BUT, getting divorced and remarried is also a lifestyle, and according to the Bible, that makes you an adulterer. So what's the difference? People have been getting divorced and remarried for centuries, and people are afraid of two people of the same sex being in love. Just yesterday I had to sit at lunch and listen to people talk about how they wouldn't want to hang out with a gay guy.
So yeah, people used the Bible to support segregation, that didn't hold, and I don't think this gay marriage thing holds either.
The most important thing in a marriage to me is love. I think that should be all that matters.
And remember, even if the government makes it legal, your church still doesn't have to recognize it. That's why we have a seperation of church and state in this country. To protect the church. Keep it that way.
Civil liberties. I understand that religious marriage and government marriage aren't required to be one in the same. Religions are allowed to discriminate all they want. The governement isn't. I don't think it's fair that two people that love eachother and want to share their lives with eachother can't do that.
I think it's a ridiculous claim that this would harm the sanctity of marriage in the US. Come on, divorce has already done that. And let me note that Massachusettes has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Also, I'm tired of people waving their bibles around using that as an excuse. The only difference I can see between this "sin" and any other sin is that it's a lifestyle. BUT, getting divorced and remarried is also a lifestyle, and according to the Bible, that makes you an adulterer. So what's the difference? People have been getting divorced and remarried for centuries, and people are afraid of two people of the same sex being in love. Just yesterday I had to sit at lunch and listen to people talk about how they wouldn't want to hang out with a gay guy.
So yeah, people used the Bible to support segregation, that didn't hold, and I don't think this gay marriage thing holds either.
The most important thing in a marriage to me is love. I think that should be all that matters.
And remember, even if the government makes it legal, your church still doesn't have to recognize it. That's why we have a seperation of church and state in this country. To protect the church. Keep it that way.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
My linguistic profile
Trying to distract myself from the disaster that is my thesis... :(
Your Linguistic Profile: |
75% General American English |
15% Dixie |
10% Yankee |
0% Midwestern |
0% Upper Midwestern |
Proposal
My thesis proposal is submitted. So as long as it's accepted, step 2 of graduating is done. Now I just have to get my darn thesis done and defend it. :-/
Graduation
I don't think I''m going to graduate. My stuff isn't really working, and I'm out of ideas for what I should do. My prof isn't any help, and the only person who could probably help me is in China. I'm starting to get extremely frustrated and I don't know what I'm going to do. This sucks.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
New layout
Yay! I finally got away from one of those standard blogspot layouts! I got this one from here. There's a few things I'd like to change, but I should be working on my thesis, not doing that. So....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)