The thing to remember is that all monies used by "the government" to pay for anything come from the public, having been extracted essentially at gunpoint by the IRS. (Don't think so? Try not paying taxes and see what happens.) So whether it costs a thousand bucks or eleventy-gazillion dollars is immaterial. It doesn't cost the people spending it anything, only us, so in general they're never going to care what it costs. What real difference would it make if there had been a line in the article that said "Bush had the Federal Reserve issue $100B in new notes to reimburse the city" ?
It's not an unreasonable question. It's just a distraction from the underlying issue, which is mechanisms by which small numbers of people can control all the rest.
(It will be an issue that will have to be addressed in the transition to a post-capitalist society, though. What people start to see that we're only ever giving or taking money from ourselves ("notes to self: 1. take $1,000,000,000,000 out of wallet to pay self for taking out garbage 2. take out garbage 3. put $1,000,000,000,000 in wallet as payment for taking out garbage"), we'll need to come up with other kinds of agreements on how to structure society.)
The reason there seems to be cooperation between groups who we're told are adversaries (in your question NYC and BushCo) is that they have far, far more in common than they have separating them. While one group of chicken farmers may believe free-range farming is best, and the other argues animal-abusive factory farming maximizes their ROI, it's still a discussion between gentlemen farmers - conducted over chicken dinner.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. American citizens are of the last kind.
You asked what checks and balances the system can provide against abuse by those in power.
That question presupposes that the population giving away their power is a reasonable act. It's not.
Well, for an infantilized population of course it is, in the same way it's good to not let the kids have either the keys to the car or the gun/liquor cabinet (we have combo units here in America!:-) ). But for a mature person or population, giving away one's power is not a good idea - it stops the maturational process, and thus the tendency to give one's power away needs to be excised if the organism is to continue to develop.
So in the funny inverse world of the unconscious (where most behavior originates), it's precisely the abuse of power that causes the healing to begin. One wouldn't want to prevent it (and thankfully one can't).
It's much like a chick pecking its way out of an egg. The eggshell, which once protected the chick, must at some point be outgrown. But it's the struggle to break free of the shell that develops the strength in the chick that it needs to feed itself - without that very struggle the chick will soon die. And so for a population it's the struggle to break free of power - triggered by "abuse" - that develops within it the strength to wield that power and govern itself.
Of course, this cycles through generations, as one can see in the original American Revolution and the upcoming one.
So what from the viewpoint of the immature child is seen as abuse is also from the holos of it the healing, restorative force that allows the child to live independently of the parent. And the rebellion which threatens the parent is also the force which frees the parent from the vampire-like clutches of the child. The force hurts them both. And it frees them both.
Our glass isn't half-empty or half-full. It's half-empty and half-full. Even more than that, really. It simply...is.
(That's why in Judeo-Christianity God, when asked his name, says "I am." Wholeness, unity, divinity, infinity, simply...is.)
Our only decision is would we be willing to feel both sides at once, to feel the abuse as felt by the child, the attack as felt by the parent, appreciate both for how they work together in sacred partnership for the benefit of the whole, and still play our role in it all.
It's at that point that we escape samsara. But not because the cycle stops.
We escape samsara because we no longer see life as samsara.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it was a conscious choice, instead that the unconscious collective need for a powerful parent that previously manifested itself in the adoption and support of a monarchy now manifests itself in an omnipresent surveillance state. It's not a conscious choice at all, so one doesn't look at the consciously expressed desires of individuals, but simply at what happens.
It's the fact that the monarchy isn't as powerful that requires some other symbol to be created. So kind of like squishing a water balloon (hey, let's play collective unconscious whac-a-mole!:-) ), the energy that before could go into supporting a monarchy now must go into something else. Until the collective need for powerful parent gets made conscious, which then frees that energy, it just moves unconsciously from one symbol to another.
There's the same need in any society, as we both have said, but in the American case the level at which it becomes directly assigned to the government requires a greater external motivating energy before it happens. A difference of scale factor. And in America the idea of indomitable monarchy had been transferred onto the capitalist myth, the story of the indomitable economy driven by the rugged individualism of the business leaders (the new knights of the realm, now dressed in suits and riding on Learjets). Whether the all-present, all-powerful parent of business cares for the population any more than the all-present, all-powerful monarchy is irrelevant (clearly:-) ) - it's the fact that the population unconsciously needs to believe in it that literally commands it into existence.
Thus the historic call, "Fiat sux!" (Hey, there's a small opportunity for collective unconscious/auto buff/bad pun humor - I gotta take it where I can get it.:-) )
The re-emergence of leaders as the descendents of a small set of elite, monied familes that you rightly note here in the US is at the collective level exactly the same as the way a person in midlife begins to resemble their parents. While the US thought it was rebelling from monarchy (like any teenager rebels against their parents), one can't rebel against one's genetics, and by the time mid-life rolls around we - shockingly!:-) - look pretty much like old mom and dad.
(It's also important to distinguish the public face of leadership, Bush, Blair, and the rest, with the real forces of government, which are far more entangled on both sides of the pond than the public gets to know.)
Gotta go now...there are black SUV's parked in my driveway and someone's knocking on my door.
This is one of the ripples forward through time of the affinity for monarchy, I think. While most European governments in present day have leaders that are elected, there are still the remnants of monarchy, which are held on to quite firmly and even fondly. This unconscious collective desire for protection by a good and powerful parent has to manifest itself in other ways now, one of which is wide-scale state surveillance. In an era where "God Save The Queen" doesn't in and of itself mean much when the Queen's just a nice old lady on telly, there needs to be some other symbol for the collective unconscious to latch onto.
Of course, that doesn't mean the parent is in fact either good or powerful, just that the desire for it on the part of the population has them see it that way.
In America a similar thing seems to be true (because the culture descended from European culture), but the anti-monarchy element that lead to the Revolution means that it seems to require a larger perceived threat before people are willing to accept it. Hence the need for 9/11 and the saturation advertising for the war on terra.
Did Bill lobby for more visas for HS students too?
on
High Tech High 2.0
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The failure of HTH clearly shows the lack of high school students we face in this country. There simply aren't enough American teenagers available! If HTH had been able to recruit teenagers from India, they'd be thriving. But no, anti-free-market immigration laws have put the school out of business.
Would *you* ever want to be described as a "committee politician"?
Government generally works for the benefit of the governed in the same way Frank Perdue works for the benefit of the chickens. This has been true since the days of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
And I've been involved for a very long time, though of course that's independent of the truth of my assertion.
In the future, some kind of factual rebuttal to the statements might work better than simple emotional projection, assuming your intent is to further the discussion rather than just make unconscious statements about yourself in the form of personal slurs.
All of these suggestions, well intentioned as they are, are the political equivalent of Dilbert making suggestions to his PHB.
Government, like its successor corporate management, does not operate for the benefit of the governed. That much should be obvious just from the name.
And we long ago shifted from being a start-up country focused on customer satisfaction and innovation to an entrenched monopoly focused on management bonuses and defense of market share.
"How many Senators does it take to screw up a law bill?" "100." "100?!!" "Yeah, it's in the Constitution."
A few thousands, or even tens of thousands, of motivated criminals (outside of the ones who "own" the country, of course) are of no real threat to the established order - they will almost always prey on the populace.
A few million, or tens of millions, of motivated citizens are absolutely a threat to rule by the few - which is why anything that allows the populace to realize their predicament and then organize to change it must absolutely be stopped.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are free in the latter sense.
And we all know anyone part of a cabal evil beyond imagination would when asked be honor-bound to answer "Well...we are part of a conspiracy to overthrow the last vestiges of western democracy and enslave you and your descendants forever, yes."
I guess that's the logical equivalent of those big, flashing "SELF-DESTRUCT" buttons evil villains always seem to have in their command centers.
As far as the constant response of "move along, nothing to see here" (in this case quite literally!), a metaphor from Ted Geisel describes it best:
And the Grinch grabbed the tree, and he started to shove
When he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and he saw a small Who!
Little Cindy-Lou Who, who was not more than two.
The Grinch had been caught by this little Who daughter
Who'd got out of bed for a cup of cold water.
She stared at the Grinch and said, "Santy Claus, why,
"Why are you taking our Christmas tree? WHY?"
But, you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Santy Claus lied,
"There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side.
"So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear.
"I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here."
And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head
And he got her a drink and he sent he to bed.
And when Cindy-Lou Who went to bed with her cup,
HE went to the chimney and stuffed the tree up!
"And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day."
I hope that this link between the aesthetic properties (if not far more) appreciated in the 15th century, and (possibly) greater insight as described by Penrose in the 20th will lead to the consideration that these two aren't endpoints, but merely the first two points in a sequence of understanding.
In other words, a contemplation of the question "Well, they saw the aesthetic properties in the Middle Ages, and they more formally described the mathematical properties in the 1970's. Naturally, after this connection was made, it took only a few years before people recognized the truly world-changing extension to ???."
I'd probably get a nymphomaniac Alessandra Ambrosio clone and a pony
Whoa, kinky. Apparently Bill's now into more than just *marketplace* Dominance.
Though I guess I should have known from Vista's heavy emphasis on DRM. ("Digital restrictions" is just polite language for "data bondage." Only thing missing from the whole scene is the leather mask, really.)
I wonder what kind of "dirty tricks" Alessandra's clone performs? For that matter...how about the pony?
A violent over-reaction to things that are outside their knowledge or belief has been a hallmark of Boston for 300+ years. Were the unfortunate women burned because some people thought they were dangerous witches actually dangerous? Of course not. Exact same behavior here, just substitute "terrorist" for "witch."
"But if they were witches, you'd damn sure be thankful we burned them!"
In a sad way, the Northern witch-burnings were just the white equivalent to Southern lynchings. So much the North and South had in common! Think how history might have been different, if only they'd been able to find this common ground.
It's also sad how it's economically easier for Time Warner to kill the head of Cartoon Network than address the issue, which was the paranoid and incompetent response of the Boston authorities (in which they were much like the elephant blaming the mouse for being so scary).
Of course, most authorities don't become authorities because they're comfortable with anyone actually seeing their paranoia and incompetence, and so TW gets the "Boston Legal" plea bargain of either pretending they were wrong or paying a lot of money. TW, as one would deduce from watching CNN, is in business to make money and not defend principles, and so the outcome here is the one we might despise but should expect.
It is encouraging that so many people are able to see the incompetent paranoia in Boston's initial response, and the craven cowardice in Time Warner's. (In this respect the two parties are just caught in the same split in our national character the Republicans and Democrats act out for us at the national scale.) That people can see these two halves and recognize that neither one is right is (ahem) a good sign.
(The best response to this whole thing would have been for the Boston authorities to admit "wow, we overreacted. But it's because we were really scared by you." And then CN could have meaningfully responded "wow, we're really sorry we did something that had that effect. Is there something we can do to help you feel better?" And then some real connection and understanding and growth could have occurred on both sides. We didn't get that outcome this time. But since we can at least talk about that as a possibility, we're getting closer to the moment when it will be the outcome some next time.)
The original title should be parsed "Working with Apple," not "working with an Apple." As in a working, business partnership.
I was trying to explain in everyday, personal terms what it's like to do corporate-level business with Apple. (I have.) I thought it might make it easier for people to understand why Verizon (as IBM before them) might want to pass on such a flashy, high-profile deal.
The analogy between Apple and supermodels collectively, and Steve and Naomi personally, in particular since the tantrum that lead to her conviction was throwing a cellphone at a hireling that wasn't being subservient enough after displeasing her...well, that was just too beautiful a model of the reality of it not to share.:-)
Glamorous, yeah, and it looks really impressive at PR time. But when the cameras are off and you're just hanging around the apartment trying to have a relationship, you spend a whole lotta time ducking the cellphones being thrown at your head.
IBM decided Apple wasn't worth the pain. Looks like Verizon's making that same call, too.
"Steve Jobs makes Simon Cowell look positively sycophantic."
"Oh my, I'm sure that people thousands of years from now will want to know all about me, too."
Maybe somebody should just get over themselves already.
For as long as man has been man the problem of how to bequeath one's experience of life to those who follow has brought us to the contemplation of the true meaning of life. Only now would someone be so self-obsessed that they would want to claim the problem and its solution as their own.
At least the patent doesn't try to claim as one of the implementations "tears in rain."
Live fully in the moment, and eternity will take care of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing to remember is that all monies used by "the government" to pay for anything come from the public, having been extracted essentially at gunpoint by the IRS. (Don't think so? Try not paying taxes and see what happens.) So whether it costs a thousand bucks or eleventy-gazillion dollars is immaterial. It doesn't cost the people spending it anything, only us, so in general they're never going to care what it costs. What real difference would it make if there had been a line in the article that said "Bush had the Federal Reserve issue $100B in new notes to reimburse the city" ?
It's not an unreasonable question. It's just a distraction from the underlying issue, which is mechanisms by which small numbers of people can control all the rest.
(It will be an issue that will have to be addressed in the transition to a post-capitalist society, though. What people start to see that we're only ever giving or taking money from ourselves ("notes to self: 1. take $1,000,000,000,000 out of wallet to pay self for taking out garbage 2. take out garbage 3. put $1,000,000,000,000 in wallet as payment for taking out garbage"), we'll need to come up with other kinds of agreements on how to structure society.)
The reason there seems to be cooperation between groups who we're told are adversaries (in your question NYC and BushCo) is that they have far, far more in common than they have separating them. While one group of chicken farmers may believe free-range farming is best, and the other argues animal-abusive factory farming maximizes their ROI, it's still a discussion between gentlemen farmers - conducted over chicken dinner.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. American citizens are of the last kind.
That node was flagged by the new /. content analyzer as unreachable and optimized out.
Fascinating technology, really. Here's a link to how they do it:
You asked what checks and balances the system can provide against abuse by those in power.
:-) ). But for a mature person or population, giving away one's power is not a good idea - it stops the maturational process, and thus the tendency to give one's power away needs to be excised if the organism is to continue to develop.
That question presupposes that the population giving away their power is a reasonable act. It's not.
Well, for an infantilized population of course it is, in the same way it's good to not let the kids have either the keys to the car or the gun/liquor cabinet (we have combo units here in America!
So in the funny inverse world of the unconscious (where most behavior originates), it's precisely the abuse of power that causes the healing to begin. One wouldn't want to prevent it (and thankfully one can't).
It's much like a chick pecking its way out of an egg. The eggshell, which once protected the chick, must at some point be outgrown. But it's the struggle to break free of the shell that develops the strength in the chick that it needs to feed itself - without that very struggle the chick will soon die. And so for a population it's the struggle to break free of power - triggered by "abuse" - that develops within it the strength to wield that power and govern itself.
Of course, this cycles through generations, as one can see in the original American Revolution and the upcoming one.
So what from the viewpoint of the immature child is seen as abuse is also from the holos of it the healing, restorative force that allows the child to live independently of the parent. And the rebellion which threatens the parent is also the force which frees the parent from the vampire-like clutches of the child. The force hurts them both. And it frees them both.
Our glass isn't half-empty or half-full. It's half-empty and half-full. Even more than that, really. It simply...is.
(That's why in Judeo-Christianity God, when asked his name, says "I am." Wholeness, unity, divinity, infinity, simply...is.)
Our only decision is would we be willing to feel both sides at once, to feel the abuse as felt by the child, the attack as felt by the parent, appreciate both for how they work together in sacred partnership for the benefit of the whole, and still play our role in it all.
It's at that point that we escape samsara. But not because the cycle stops.
We escape samsara because we no longer see life as samsara.
Namaste, everyone.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it was a conscious choice, instead that the unconscious collective need for a powerful parent that previously manifested itself in the adoption and support of a monarchy now manifests itself in an omnipresent surveillance state. It's not a conscious choice at all, so one doesn't look at the consciously expressed desires of individuals, but simply at what happens.
:-) ), the energy that before could go into supporting a monarchy now must go into something else. Until the collective need for powerful parent gets made conscious, which then frees that energy, it just moves unconsciously from one symbol to another.
:-) ) - it's the fact that the population unconsciously needs to believe in it that literally commands it into existence.
:-) )
:-) - look pretty much like old mom and dad.
It's the fact that the monarchy isn't as powerful that requires some other symbol to be created. So kind of like squishing a water balloon (hey, let's play collective unconscious whac-a-mole!
There's the same need in any society, as we both have said, but in the American case the level at which it becomes directly assigned to the government requires a greater external motivating energy before it happens. A difference of scale factor. And in America the idea of indomitable monarchy had been transferred onto the capitalist myth, the story of the indomitable economy driven by the rugged individualism of the business leaders (the new knights of the realm, now dressed in suits and riding on Learjets). Whether the all-present, all-powerful parent of business cares for the population any more than the all-present, all-powerful monarchy is irrelevant (clearly
Thus the historic call, "Fiat sux!" (Hey, there's a small opportunity for collective unconscious/auto buff/bad pun humor - I gotta take it where I can get it.
The re-emergence of leaders as the descendents of a small set of elite, monied familes that you rightly note here in the US is at the collective level exactly the same as the way a person in midlife begins to resemble their parents. While the US thought it was rebelling from monarchy (like any teenager rebels against their parents), one can't rebel against one's genetics, and by the time mid-life rolls around we - shockingly!
(It's also important to distinguish the public face of leadership, Bush, Blair, and the rest, with the real forces of government, which are far more entangled on both sides of the pond than the public gets to know.)
Gotta go now...there are black SUV's parked in my driveway and someone's knocking on my door.
This is one of the ripples forward through time of the affinity for monarchy, I think. While most European governments in present day have leaders that are elected, there are still the remnants of monarchy, which are held on to quite firmly and even fondly. This unconscious collective desire for protection by a good and powerful parent has to manifest itself in other ways now, one of which is wide-scale state surveillance. In an era where "God Save The Queen" doesn't in and of itself mean much when the Queen's just a nice old lady on telly, there needs to be some other symbol for the collective unconscious to latch onto.
Of course, that doesn't mean the parent is in fact either good or powerful, just that the desire for it on the part of the population has them see it that way.
In America a similar thing seems to be true (because the culture descended from European culture), but the anti-monarchy element that lead to the Revolution means that it seems to require a larger perceived threat before people are willing to accept it. Hence the need for 9/11 and the saturation advertising for the war on terra.
The failure of HTH clearly shows the lack of high school students we face in this country. There simply aren't enough American teenagers available! If HTH had been able to recruit teenagers from India, they'd be thriving. But no, anti-free-market immigration laws have put the school out of business.
Would *you* ever want to be described as a "committee politician"?
Government generally works for the benefit of the governed in the same way Frank Perdue works for the benefit of the chickens. This has been true since the days of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
And I've been involved for a very long time, though of course that's independent of the truth of my assertion.
In the future, some kind of factual rebuttal to the statements might work better than simple emotional projection, assuming your intent is to further the discussion rather than just make unconscious statements about yourself in the form of personal slurs.
All of these suggestions, well intentioned as they are, are the political equivalent of Dilbert making suggestions to his PHB.
Government, like its successor corporate management, does not operate for the benefit of the governed. That much should be obvious just from the name.
And we long ago shifted from being a start-up country focused on customer satisfaction and innovation to an entrenched monopoly focused on management bonuses and defense of market share.
"How many Senators does it take to screw up a law bill?" "100." "100?!!" "Yeah, it's in the Constitution."
A few thousands, or even tens of thousands, of motivated criminals (outside of the ones who "own" the country, of course) are of no real threat to the established order - they will almost always prey on the populace.
A few million, or tens of millions, of motivated citizens are absolutely a threat to rule by the few - which is why anything that allows the populace to realize their predicament and then organize to change it must absolutely be stopped.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are free in the latter sense.
I guess that's the logical equivalent of those big, flashing "SELF-DESTRUCT" buttons evil villains always seem to have in their command centers.
As far as the constant response of "move along, nothing to see here" (in this case quite literally!), a metaphor from Ted Geisel describes it best:
"And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day."
I hope that this link between the aesthetic properties (if not far more) appreciated in the 15th century, and (possibly) greater insight as described by Penrose in the 20th will lead to the consideration that these two aren't endpoints, but merely the first two points in a sequence of understanding.
In other words, a contemplation of the question "Well, they saw the aesthetic properties in the Middle Ages, and they more formally described the mathematical properties in the 1970's. Naturally, after this connection was made, it took only a few years before people recognized the truly world-changing extension to ???."
What might be the "???" ?
I'd probably get a nymphomaniac Alessandra Ambrosio clone and a pony
Whoa, kinky. Apparently Bill's now into more than just *marketplace* Dominance.
Though I guess I should have known from Vista's heavy emphasis on DRM. ("Digital restrictions" is just polite language for "data bondage." Only thing missing from the whole scene is the leather mask, really.)
I wonder what kind of "dirty tricks" Alessandra's clone performs? For that matter...how about the pony?
Wilbur? Wilbur?
Oy! I could just plotz.
...to accurately model most American thought processes.
Gotta go - American Idol's back on.
Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it...
A violent over-reaction to things that are outside their knowledge or belief has been a hallmark of Boston for 300+ years. Were the unfortunate women burned because some people thought they were dangerous witches actually dangerous? Of course not. Exact same behavior here, just substitute "terrorist" for "witch."
"But if they were witches, you'd damn sure be thankful we burned them!"
In a sad way, the Northern witch-burnings were just the white equivalent to Southern lynchings. So much the North and South had in common! Think how history might have been different, if only they'd been able to find this common ground.
It's also sad how it's economically easier for Time Warner to kill the head of Cartoon Network than address the issue, which was the paranoid and incompetent response of the Boston authorities (in which they were much like the elephant blaming the mouse for being so scary).
Of course, most authorities don't become authorities because they're comfortable with anyone actually seeing their paranoia and incompetence, and so TW gets the "Boston Legal" plea bargain of either pretending they were wrong or paying a lot of money. TW, as one would deduce from watching CNN, is in business to make money and not defend principles, and so the outcome here is the one we might despise but should expect.
It is encouraging that so many people are able to see the incompetent paranoia in Boston's initial response, and the craven cowardice in Time Warner's. (In this respect the two parties are just caught in the same split in our national character the Republicans and Democrats act out for us at the national scale.) That people can see these two halves and recognize that neither one is right is (ahem) a good sign.
(The best response to this whole thing would have been for the Boston authorities to admit "wow, we overreacted. But it's because we were really scared by you." And then CN could have meaningfully responded "wow, we're really sorry we did something that had that effect. Is there something we can do to help you feel better?" And then some real connection and understanding and growth could have occurred on both sides. We didn't get that outcome this time. But since we can at least talk about that as a possibility, we're getting closer to the moment when it will be the outcome some next time.)
Yeah, but I'll bet his attempts at writing an autobiography will be a miserable failure.
"My Pet Congress - a children's story by George W. Bush"
The original title should be parsed "Working with Apple," not "working with an Apple." As in a working, business partnership.
:-)
I was trying to explain in everyday, personal terms what it's like to do corporate-level business with Apple. (I have.) I thought it might make it easier for people to understand why Verizon (as IBM before them) might want to pass on such a flashy, high-profile deal.
The analogy between Apple and supermodels collectively, and Steve and Naomi personally, in particular since the tantrum that lead to her conviction was throwing a cellphone at a hireling that wasn't being subservient enough after displeasing her...well, that was just too beautiful a model of the reality of it not to share.
Glamorous, yeah, and it looks really impressive at PR time. But when the cameras are off and you're just hanging around the apartment trying to have a relationship, you spend a whole lotta time ducking the cellphones being thrown at your head.
IBM decided Apple wasn't worth the pain. Looks like Verizon's making that same call, too.
"Steve Jobs makes Simon Cowell look positively sycophantic."
The Bush Administration says it can now represent the whole thing with a single "NOT" gate.
but I'm still waiting for the article to load.
"Oh my, I'm sure that people thousands of years from now will want to know all about me, too."
Maybe somebody should just get over themselves already.
For as long as man has been man the problem of how to bequeath one's experience of life to those who follow has brought us to the contemplation of the true meaning of life. Only now would someone be so self-obsessed that they would want to claim the problem and its solution as their own.
At least the patent doesn't try to claim as one of the implementations "tears in rain."
Live fully in the moment, and eternity will take care of itself.
What do you say about all your liberal high school English reading lists now?
You know, the Bush family is from Connecticut...and Clemens started out as a reporter.
Row over angry, penis-removing doctor
Though he might have been listening to Bryan Adams' "Cuts Like A Knife," I don't really know.
*sounds of head banging against inside of MRI machine*
"Do you want some help?"
Though, come to think of it, this does explain why the Zune turned out the way it did.
The problem is that no one ever thinks their actions are the evil ones.