May 31, 2004

Coming out of the tunnel

So, anyway, last saturday afternoon I tilled the soil and planted the garden. By the time I'd finished I was sweaty and dehydrated and light-headed. I drank a few glasses of water, ate something and relaxed until Norm came by to pick me up for the Bluefish game.

By the evening -- and especially after dark -- the ballpark was cold and windy with a misty rain - and me with no sweater or jacket. B-r-r-r-r. Norm had ice cream while I sipped coffee and hot chocolate. The Bluefish lost to the Pennsylvania Road Warriors (they don't actually have a ballpark yet and spend the entire season on the road and never actually set foot in Pennsylvania) by one run.

At about midnight I was sitting at my computer and got up (to do something or other) and I noticed that my left arm had fallen asleep. It was pretty numb and I couldn't lift my wrist or control my elbow movements very well. I waited for the pins and needles to set in. They never did.

Uh-oh. What the hell is this?!

By the time I went to bed, at about 2am, there had been no change. Hopefully it would "wake up" while I was asleep and everything would be all right.

Sunday morning comes and there's still no change. I can't tell ya how long it took to get dressed - especially trying to tie my bootlaces.

Here's some of what it was like:
When I held my left arm loosely out in front me, bent at the elbow and palm-side down, I could not lift my wrist. I could curl my fingers in but couldn't make a tight fist.
When I turned my hand over to palm-side up, I could make a tight fist. But, then I tried to extended my fingers to flatten everything into a straight line. As I straightened my fingers my wrist would be drawn up until my straightened hand was at about a 45 degree angle to my forearm. The muscles on the back of hand and forearm were useless.

If I strained the muscles while gardening, then how come I didn't have any pain or discomfort? I was tired and felt drained afterward, but there was no achiness.
Did I have a heart attack? I felt no sensations of anything up 'til the moment I'd noticed that arm was "asleep". I took an aspirin anyway.

Monday morning. No change. Well, there was a very slight change, but nothing really to speak of. I was worried that I couldn't drive -- especially since I don't have power steering.
But I got into the truck turned the steering wheel. For some reason I had no trouble using my left arm to steer; just grasp and hold the wheel, and pushing up and pulling down were a cinch.

However, once I got to work, the more complex movements required for running the press in the way that I'm used to was out of the question. Essentially I was a one-armed pressman for most of last week.

As the days went by my arm came further and further back to life. Now, here I am, nine days later and it's almost normal. I can lift my wrist and control (almost) every little movement, but there's still a residual numbness that throws my hand in unexpected directions now and then.

For the past two weeks I've been experiencing a feeling I haven't felt in a while: hunger. While I used to get by eating one little meal a day ("get by" meaning "waste away"), I've had hunger pains constantly for the past ten days to a week. But, when I tried to eat, I couldn't. I'd get a bites in and it was a struggle. I had no energy or patience to eat, and the hunger pains would continue.

So, I've forced myself back into the habit of eating a few times a day to stave off the starvation and emaciation. Drinking orange juice and ovaltine for vitamins and minerals, eating meat (I made two strip steaks the other night, ate them both and was STILL hungry) and peanuts for protein, but I gotta eat more; I deperately need calories calories and more calories.

I went out to dinner with my family last night and I forced myself to eat a six coarse meal.
Seafood chower, salad, strip steak, two stuffed jumbo shrimp, baked potato, green and yellow mixed squash. Mmmmmm.
(The steak was a bit tough, so I took most it home in a doggie bag.)

As I sat at my computer late last night I actually felt satisfied. I wasn't hungry and I felt like I had some energy again. I felt normal.

Today I had some breakfast (eggs, english muffin, o.j.), went out for a long walk (too cold today to try to ride the bike), had some lunch (the leftover steak and a small frozen pizza), did some laundry...

Maybe the hunger pains et al were the pins and needles and I'm finally waking up.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 04:40 PM | Comments (3)

Memorial Day 2004

Emperor Darth Misha has penned typed an homage to the fallen defenders of freedom and what it means to honor them on this day.
It's beautifully written and gets the message through in a moving way about just what today is all about. (I couldn't help hearing Ronald Reagan's voice in my head as I read it.)

Just a taste:

The soldier does not crave your gratitude, he does not ask for your grief and he does not long for your wails and moans.

He never crawled up on that wall for any of these.

All that he asks in return is your support. All that he hopes for is that you make the best of the gift that he has given you, that you never forget him and the reason that he's there, that someone else will pick up the torch and carry it onwards if he should fall and that you will do all you can to make sure that his sacrifice wasn't in vain.

He hasn't got the time to keep an eye on what goes on inside the castle, he's busy making sure that there is a castle tomorrow as well, and he depends on YOU to make sure that what's in there is worth saving and worth giving your life for.

He does not want you to pull him off the wall, leaving the sacrifices of his brothers in arms worthless. He knows why he's up there, he was the one to volunteer to go after all, and he wants to be able to finish the job he has started. He yearns to live, yet is prepared to die if he has to.

What he needs is for you to let him know that the home fires are still burning, and that we will not falter where he has refused to yield an inch.

That's why it's called the home front.

Okay, that was a course, not just a taste. Misha's got links to few other great Memorial Day posts. Read it all!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 03:43 PM | Comments (0)

May 28, 2004

A response to Elderbear

Susie's looking for fiskings of the pinhead points made in the comments that Susie posted HERE.
Everybody's doin' it so, of course, I wanna get in on the action. I purposely haven't read any of the other fiskings yet.

1. Mr. Bush allowed Iraq to become a distraction from the war on terrorism.

Before we invaded Iraq, it was a stable nation.

If by "stable" you mean "cold, wooden and full of horse shit" then you're talking about John Kerry not Iraq.

Saddam provided a secular government and would not tolerate the Islamic fundamentalism that fuels al Queda—in fact, he brutally suppressed it.

Saddam didn't tolerate any "fundamentalists" at all, such as civil libertarians, or anyone who should even show a hint that they might not vote for Saddam in the next "election" - he brutally suppressed them.
He did however send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists who blew themselves up in order to kill innocent men, women and children in Israel.

He suppressed the warring of one tribe against another in Iraq because it threatened his own chokehold on the people, not because he thought that anti-Israeli/anti-American would-be killers are just too tacky to be tolerated.
For an article on the direct connections between al Qaeda and the Saddam Feyedeen see this WSJ article.

Don't get me wrong, he was an evil SOB, even worse than Dick Cheney!

Well, at least you didn't say "almost as bad as Dick Cheney" like I'm sure you wanted to. mheh.

But Iraq was off-limits for al Queda activities.

Nope, sorry. (See above linked article.)
Al Qaeda trained at Saalam Pak (sp?), just outside of Baghdad..

Saddam was well contained militarily by UN sanctions and the US enforcement of them. He posed no threat to the region, nor to the US homeland.

This sentence, just as it's written, is pretty much true. But it addresses Saddam's ability to militarily threaten the region. (At least one exception, however, is that he had violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire by having missiles that could reach Israel. I believe the range limit was 90 miles.)
The threat that he posed to the US - and everyone else - was WMD ending up in the hands of al Qaeda.

(Even though it's a digression let me just add: WMD. We know he had them and we know that he didn't provide evidence in December '02 that he'd destroyed them. So either he destroyed them and forgot to jot it down, or they're still there, either in Iraq or elsewhere.)

Now, Iraq is unstable, a “failed nation” at present,

Actually, it wont even be a nation until July 1st.

.. with little control of the populace.

Why does my hair hurt everytime I hear barking moonbat leftists start talking about "control of the populace"?
(That a rhetorical question, btw.)

Terrorism is rampant, aimed at Iraqi collaborators and American occupiers.

Well, I wouldn't call it rampant. The terror attacks are committed overwhelmingly by foreigners, not Iraqis. They attack the coalition forces and the UN as well as civilian marketplaces and Iraqis involved in the Iraqi government that you complain is a failure.

What's rampant in Iraq is the building of the schools, playgrounds, fresh water running in peoples' home for the first time ever, electricity being brought to all the people for the first time ever, and the revitalization of the Iraqi economy.

The US occupation of an arabic nation, an Islamic nation, fuels al Queda's recruiting. Iraq is one big training camp where live fire operations are possible. This is George W. Bush's gift to al Queda.

So... fighting terrorism causes terrorism. This is like the little kid who thinks that if he doesn't do anything about the bully then maybe the bully will decide to leave him alone. The terrorists are there and they want to kill us. 3,000 in one day? That's peanuts compared to what they'd like to do. We gotta get 'em now, bucko, before they start leaving craters where our cities and town used to be.

2. Mr. Bush lied to the American people and the world about the threat posed by Iraq.

Mr. Bush has destroyed most of the good-will that the United States received internationally after 9-11.

Yes, victimhood was good for our foreign relations, wasn't it...
That "good will" evaporated as soon as we went to Afghanistan to get the Taliban who, more than any other government, was responsible for 9-11. This is the lefty mentality of places like Berserkley that blames a schoolyard fight on the kid that threw the second punch; i.e. defended himself. Liberals like people that they can feel sorry for because strength and competition is inherently frightening to them. Victimhood requires sympathy, not respect.

He changed the focus from fighting terrorism (an action with broad international backing) to demonstrating that in US foreign policy, might makes right, a policy that has lost us the sympathy of many foreign nations.

Actually, regarding this whole sympathy/respect issue, right makes might. We are mighty because we're rich; we're rich because we're free; we're free because we refuse to be the victims of a foreign crown or a foreign terrorist.
I pity you for even having the thoughts that led you to write your post. You love that though, don't ya?! I pity you! Yay, you're feeling right at home now, eh?!

3. Mr. Bush has instituted policies that destroy the freedoms of Americans.

While this may make it marginally more difficult for terrorists to operate in the homeland, al Queda can point to impacting the American way of life. They counted coup on us, not just by knocking down some buildings and killing some people (Yes, 9-11 was horrible, but let's put it in perspective: depending on which source you choose, between 1,000 and 4,000 women die each year of domestic violence, itself a form of terrorism that leaves many severely scarred who manage to physically survive it. It scars children, too. Homeland Security? Give me Dennis Kucinich's cabinet level Department of Peace that would address this problem directly), but by changing our way of life.

Taking out that rediculously long parenthetical paragraph, the second sentence is "They counted coup on us, not just by knocking down some buildings and killing some people but by changing our way of life".

I'm no expert on the Patriot Act. In fact, I can remember almost nothing about it. I've heard and read about various aspects of it, but can't recall much. That's probably because none of what I heard/read particularly struck me as dangerous to our liberty.

The one aspect that I do recall is that it allows people to be wiretapped, not just phones. The thing about this is that the FBI still needs probable cause to get a warrant for a tap. If they were just tapping any phones that they suspect a suspect might be using, then there'd definately be a problem. But the Patriot Act only makes it different in that a warrant can be pursued to tap an addition phone being used by the known suspect, rather than having to get additional warrants on the same suspect over and over. Once the suspect is identified, the burden is only to prove to a judge that a certain phone is being used by that suspect. I got no problem with that.

As for that parenthetical paragraph: If between 1,000 and 4,000 women died of domestic violence due to the actions of an organized network of conspiratorial wife-beaters, then we'd be on the case in a hummingbird's heartbeat.
Other than that, I don't understand the purpose of your comparison of domestic violence to al Qaeda terrorism. Are we supposed to ignore them both? Fight them both? Ignore one and fight the other? Let al Qaeda kill 3,000 more people because 1,000 to 4,000 other people were killed by people who are not al Qaeda?

4. Mr. Bush has de-emphasized solving the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire

Stabilizing Israel and Palestine will remove a key recruiting point for al Queda. But, Mr. Bush chose to put less energy into solving this problem, and to focus in causing a problem in Iraq. Good for al Queda, bad for Israelis, bad for Palestinians. Bad for Americans.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy examination of how the indoctrinated hatred of Jews throughout the Middle East fuels all terrorism. I'll just say this:
If Bill Clinton couldn't bring peace to Israel/Palistine then no one could. The problem is not America or Clinton or Bush. The problem is Arafat.
Bush decided that Arafat will not be dealt with, and that, my friend, is the first step toward a lasting peace. The next step is for Israel and the Palistinians to stop killing each other.

5. If elected, Mr. Bush can be counted on to continue a policy of international beligerence, thus strengthening the terrorist call to action.

Mr. Bush has given no indication that he will repudiate Dick Cheney's implementation of the Plan for a New American Century, a plan of military intimidation and dominance. This belligerent behavior will serve only to isolate America and coerce cooperation from fear. But al Queda will not be coerced, it will only grow in the nooks and crannies and dark spaces of the globe. The Bush doctrine of preemption isolates us from our allies and fuels the fires of hatred that power terrorism.

# posted by Elderbear : 11:41

I'm not all that familiar with the Plan for a New American Century but I'm familiar with some of it's authors.

What you call "belligerence" is actually a pro-active addressing of the root of terrorism: an entire region of the world that is conditioned by it's culture to fuse religion with government and to hate non-muslims, especially Jews.
A democracy in Iraq, the rising democratic youth in Iran, the repudiation of terror in Lybia, and the general moderization of education and government in the muslim world is the answer. This scares a lot of people. "Oh, no! We're gonna upset a lot of racist Islamist sticks in the mud who wont like this at all!"
Yes, it will upset a lot of sociopathic mass murderers. Good. This will make them show their presence by getting involved in networks that we have infiltrated and/or are monitoring.

I am not frightened by a future where we confront both the threat and the root cause of the threat of terrorism. I am frightened by a future where we believe that if we just play as nice as possible, forgive tresspass after tresspass, that the bullies will leave us alone. Seems like peace; the peace we had on September 10th, 2001.
Only we didn't have peace, we only thought we did.

The future you want, Elderbear, is a frightening one indeed. We know it is because we've seen it -- on September 11th, 2001.

Now I'm gonna go read the other fiskings of this post that are up!
Harvey's fisking
Tom's fisking
Stephen's fisking

Posted by Tuning Spork at 10:10 PM | Comments (7)

May 27, 2004

Michael Moore's got something up his ass sleeve

According to THIS ARTICLE Michael Moore has footage from the interview portion of the tape of Nick Berg being beheaded by al Qaeda in Baghdad. What would Michael Moore want with THAT you ask?

The footage, of an interview with Berg, "is approximately 20 minutes long. We are not releasing it to the media," Moore said in a statement. "It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family."

My trick knee tells me that fellow travellers Michael Moore and Michael Berg are powwowing to decide how to use this to slam President Bush since, clearly, Nick Berg died because Bush started a war in Iraq under false pretenses because Saddam wasn't a threat because al Qaeda's not in Iraq.

Which leads to announce a winner in my recent caption contest:
"Help! George W Bush is gonna kill me!!!"

(Okay, I made it up just now. The actual winner is Ted's "What... me worry?" just 'cause I'm a MADmag fan.)

Also, and on a related note, Newsmax has a short article on the connection between al Qaeda and the Saddam Feyedeen.

(They actually cite the Wall Street Journal as the source which is unusual... Newsmax citing a source, that is,,, But they don't link to the article. I looked for it but it's either off the main page, or the info on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection is embedden somewhere in an article that had a different or larger purpose.)

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:31 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2004

View from the stands

Daniel has a photo up of the Atlanta skyline as seen from Fulton County Stadium. Mighty impressive view!

Not to be a show-off, but, the Ballpark at Harbor Yard -- home of the Atlantic League's Bridgeport Bluefish has a mighty impressive view, too. Just over the right field fence and across Bridgeport Harbor is the breathtaking visage of the United Illuminating power plant!


It's real perty at night, too.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 12:59 PM | Comments (6)

May 23, 2004

Pass the Cheese and the ABCs

LeAnn The Cheesemistress of Chaos has made a list of her favorite music performers; one for every letter of the alphabet.
Me likey! Me do same!
(Sometimes I include more than one per letter just because.)

Armatrading, Joan
Beatles / Beach Boys / The Bible (as far as I know The Bible only made one album, but it was awesome)
(there as so many 'B's to choose from! honorable mention to Blondie, the Byrds, the B-52s, Beethoven, Chuck Berry who frickin' invented rock n roll...)

Costello, Elvis / Cohen, Leonard / The Clash
Dylan, Bob
Elliman, Yvonne (okay, I got nothin' for 'E' . I'll give it to Yvonne only because she sang "I Don't Know How To Love Him")
Guthrie, Woody / Guy, Buddy
Holly, Buddy (I re-e-eally like the name 'Buddy'...)
Icicle Works
(wow, this is harder than I thought it'd be...)
Jackson 5 (gotta be true to my first idols!) / Jethro Tull
King Missile / KISS (yeah, I've still got a soft spot for them psycho circus clowns...)
Lennon, John / Lehrer, Tom / Led Zeppelin
Mozart, Wolfgang / Mitchell, Joni / Marillion
Newman, Randy / New York Dolls
Ono, Yoko (yes, really. well, everything up through Season Of Glass. everything after that is - even for me - unlistenable.)
Pink Floyd
Ramones / Rolling Stones
Smith, Patti / Sex Pistols (just for good measure)
Talking Heads / Thunders, Johnny
U2 (yeah, I know, Bono's got a Christ-complex. but I still like alot of their music...)
Velvet Underground
Waters, Roger (except for that "Radio Kaos" krap. Incidentally: I've never considered "The Final Cut" to be a Pink Floyd album, but to be Roger's first solo album)
Young, Neil / Yankovic, Weird Al (Weird Al is a musical. freakin'. genius.)
Zappa, Frank

Speaking of musical geniuses...
As a footnote (even though I listed the Beach Boys) I'd like this name to stand alone: Brian Wilson.
To me Brian Wilson, Paul McCartney and John Lennon are the alpha and omega.
Elvis me this and Springsteen me that... They are the foundation of nearly everything that has come after them in popular music.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:37 PM | Comments (2)

May 22, 2004

Homegrown Goodies

It started out as a warm but overcast day. In fact, I thought it would rain soon.
Great chance to get the garden started!

Of course, as soon as started tilling the soil the sun came out. So I'm shoving the spade into the ground with my foot and the sweat is dripping from my face. Just a tablespoon of Miracle Grow and the garden would've be nicely watered.

I turned about 10 square feet of soil; 6 inches deep. Added some compost and about 30 pounds of bagged potting soil and stirred it up.
The soil that was there looked pretty good to begin with - not too many rocks and plenty of earthworms. Very nice.

The only thing that worries me is how much sun that spot gets. The yard is surrounded by trees, but this is probably the sunniest spot. But it only gets direct sunlight from about 10am to 3 or 4pm. Hopefully it'll be enough.

Tomatoes, peas, cucumbers, acorn squash and zucchini. Yummy!
It was only after I've finished that I realized I'd forgotten about the beet seeds. D'oh! So, I just sprinkled them here and there. Maybe some will germinate.

Now I'll just relax until my friend Norm comes by to pick me up for the Bridgeport Bluefish game.
Ahh, a day of gardening and an evening of baseball. Gotta love it!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 03:06 PM | Comments (1)

May 19, 2004


Rachel has challenged any and all comers to PhotoShop that picture of Michael Moore bathing in his own self-satisfaction at Cannes last weekend.
She has since named lagmonkey as the annointed "winner"! (And it's a good one!)

But I'm gonna take the idea and run it down a different field and ask for a caption for this one:

"They wouldn't kill ME, would they? After all, I hate America even more than THEY do..."

Stick it to Clueless Mike and write your own!!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:46 PM | Comments (4)

May 17, 2004

Horror Is In The Eye Of The Beholder?

"We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war." (August 9, 1945) "...and I'd do it again." --Harry Truman
I was going to write a long post tonight about the history of civilian casualties during warfare. But I think I'll just post a quicky...

The targetting of innocent bystanders in a war has, throughout history, been seen as a barbaric practice.
It was a taboo, universally acknowledged as unconscionable, until World War II.

Hitler had bombed Guernica Spain and, suddenly, all bets were off.
The bombing of London by the Nazis and of Tokyo by the US -- and the war-ending bombing of Berlin -- were seen as neccessary to winning the war.
That the killing of civilian men women and children, in the interest of the bigger picture, was a no-no, is both an old and new concept.
But it had conveniently been forgotten during WWII.

There's an excellent overview HERE.

The more I think about this the more I think I'm beginning to understand the Muslim reticence to outwardly condemning Islamist terrorists. Terrorising the population at-large with blitzkrieg was beginning to seem like a useful stategy toward forcing governments to give up the fight for the sake of the innocent.

The presumed humanity of the enemy was a weapon to use against them.

But, we've always been disgusted with the idea of bombing cities - even as we did it. We excused the horror, temporarily, on the grounds that the stakes were just that high. The hugeness of the threat determined how willing we were to accept the death of hundreds of thousands of defenseless men, women and children.

Once precision-guided missles and "smart bombs" became usable the debate began to shift toward "collateral damage" again. By the waning years of the Cold War strategists weren't taliking about cities burning up so much as missile silos burning up. The term "military targets" was coming back into vogue.
(I have no links here; only my own memories of the period.)

We have smart bombs; the enemy, in this current war, has small bombs and stealth. The question for them is not "Is killing innocent civilians wrong?", but; "What the hell ELSE are we gonna do?"
When the stakes are that high: the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians may seem like an acceptable price to pay to preserve your very Way of Life.

The wanton slaughter of a city's population is abhorant to us because we know that we have the ability to defeat an army by more sophisticated means; the PR and philosophical hit, if we targetted civilians, would be too devistating to bear. (We could never show our face on the world stage again.)
But, to "armies" that possess less sophisticated means, the destruction of a city is an excusable horror because the stakes are just that high.

Or, to put it even more pompously: The degree to which the killing of civilians is intollerable
is proportionate to the degree to which their deaths are unprofitable.

Am I wondering if it's hypocritical to defend the bombing of Hiroshima while condemning the beheading of Nick Berg?
But I think I may be finding an answer.

We struggle to decide between which we value more: the win or loss, or how the game is played.
Therein may lay the difference between us and them.

We're brought up and taught that it's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game. Most Middle Easterners (and I have this on good authority -- I'm not speaking out of my ass again) are taught to hate Jews.

Most Muslims only hate Americans when they think about how America supports Israel.

I don't think that it's America that Islamists hate. I don't even think that Islamists give a crap about our decadant culture infesting theirs (maybe they even see us as a guilty pleasure).
I'm thinking, more and more, that Islamists hate America soley because she has delivered a Jewish homeland in the midland of Islam.
(And that the very idea that a "seperation of Church and state" is unimaginable to most Middle Eastern Muslims.)

I remember a report in the fall of 2000; just running up to the election. A conversation going on in a gathering place some city in Jordan I think. Bush or Gore? Whaddaya think?
Even though Bill Clinton was reasonably popular in the region a majority were willing to take a chance on Bush.
George Bush? The son of the man who'd attacked Iraq?!
Yep. Even though they despise "Western Imperialism" they had only one thing foremost on their minds: If Gore was elected then the Vice-President would be a Jew.
This, more than anything, illustrates the root of the problem in the Middle East. It's not about sex and violence; it's about sects and violins. (ouch! sorry!)

It might be ironic that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom and is hated by States that think we're out to destroy their own religious Freedom.
No, wait. Only Alanis Morrisette would call that ironic.

Well, I said I wasn't gonna post a long one and I seem to have blathered on again...
I'll just slink away now and maybe re-read this and fix everything I've f'd up and conclude with something that I've forgotten to say.

UPDATE: Oh yeah! What I'd forgotten to say...:
Terrorists. They target your Mom.
Kill them.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2004

Quiz time again!

I kind of expected to be BJ Honeycutt.

Click here to take the M*A*S*H quiz!

Anybody feeling a need to confess your sins? I'm listening, my child...

Thanks to Annika for the link.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 05:51 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2004

Tell me something I don't know

I'm even more pissed off today then I was yesterday and I've got questions.
I don't know any Muslims well enough to ask them about this whole war on terror thing, so, if there are any Muslims out there who care to educate me about the everyman attitude about it, feel free. In the mean time, here's what I'm thinking today:

I see vicious barbarians murdering innocent men women and children. I see throngs of hateful sociopaths in the streets shouting for jihad against "infidels". I see suicidal "martyrs" destroying themselves just to kill as many strangers as possible and no one amongst you speaking out against it.
This is what I see because that's all you show me.

Where are the voices that want to set me straight? Tell me that Islam is not an evil religion. I really want to believe it. If these terrorists are an aberation then say so.

Where are the good Muslims who want to rescue their beautiful faith from the gangsters that have hijacked it and use it to justify tyranny and mass slaughter? All I've seen are appologists at best, and ranting would-be fellow tyrants at worst.
This is what I see because that's all you show me.

The word islam means "submission." By "Islam" do you mean your submission to Allah, or my submission to you? Is the imposition of your faith on me your mission - even if I choose not to submit? Is my brutal painful death by torture the price I have to pay for not following the same star that you do?

If that's the case then all I can conclude is that the war on terror really is a war on Islam -- just like I've heard it said so many times by so many muslims.
If you want to claim that terrorism and tyranny are not the ways and means of "defending" Islam then please do, because I haven't heard it yet.

A man walked up to Jesus and asked him what he had to do to receive the blessing of God. Jesus told him to give up his riches and follow him. The man was sad because it was too big a sacrifice for his selfish self to make.
What did Jesus do? Did he chop of his head in five easy strokes? Did he call for the mob to stone him? Did he burn him alive and string up his remains on bridge over the Jordan River?
No; Jesus let him go on his way -- hoping that one day he would change his mind. This is the difference between religious freedom and religious tyranny.

Can I walk along the streets of Saudi Arabia with that Verse in my hand? Can a Jew walk down the streets of Syria with an open Talmud in his hands?
Can a Muslim walk down the street of any free society with an open copy of the Q'aran?
Even Israel -- a "Jewish State" with the star of David on it's flag -- is not a theocracy, and all Israelis of any faith are free to express their faith openly.

Okay, so most people are content to go about their daily routine without ever speaking out against the twisted amoral choas that they see on the nightly news. No matter our religion, our time is more consumed by work and play than with activism.

But, if there's a silent majority of peace-loving, religious freedom-loving, live and let live Muslims out there, now's the time to show your presence. I want to see you -- just to know that you're there and that Islam really is a religion of peace and mercy and not a religion of anger, repression and treachery 'cause I ain't seen that yet 'cause all I can see is only what you show me.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 12:56 PM | Comments (13)

May 11, 2004

Crap Crap and more crap

It just occured to me that today (or, yesterday, most likely by now) is the 11th.


Let's wake up and stay awake, shall we?!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 10:27 PM | Comments (1)


Al Qaeida responds to the insulting humiliation of terrorists with barbaric murder of innocent Americans. Who'd o' thunk it...

My condolences to Nick Berg's family and friends.

Nick was a 26 yr old business owner -- in Philidelphia -- who was contracted to Iraq to help rebuild the country's communications infrastructure.
For more on Nick Berg this article, by Sandy Bauers, appeared in the Philidelphia Inquirer on Saturday.

The last time Nick Berg called home, he was OK.
He had been released from the prison where he had been held for 13 days by Iraqi police for reasons he said he did not know.

He had made his way from Mosul to his Baghdad hotel.
He was finished with being an independent civilian contractor and was coming home to West Chester.

That was April 9.

And then nothing.

Now, a month later, Berg's parents, Michael and Suzanne, have gone from concerned to frantic.
And they hope that someone, somewhere, can give them the news they desperately want to hear: that Nick Berg is alive, that it is simply taking him a long time to make his way home.

"Our hopes are that he's still in hiding or en route and traveling in a very slow manner," Michael Berg said yesterday.

A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who tracks the number of civilians missing in that country was unavailable for comment yesterday.
But in mid-April, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said during a news briefing in Baghdad that about 40 people from 12 countries were missing and presumed hostages, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Nick Berg, 26, owns a business called Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc. He climbs communications towers to inspect the antennas, the electrical connections and the structure.

He first went to Iraq on Dec. 21. "It was more of an exploratory mission," Michael Berg said. He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later.

His parents had not wanted him to go. But they say they think he was lured partly by a sense of adventure, partly because he is a "staunch supporter of the government position in Iraq and he wanted to go over there and help."

But when he returned to Iraq on March 14, the company had no work, so Berg began traveling and networking and found some.

He usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.
They spoke on March 24, and Nick Berg told his parents he was coming home on March 30. He was to be in a friend's wedding that weekend.

Then silence.

Michael Berg went to John F. Kennedy International Airport on March 30 anyway, hoping against hope. His son never got off the plane, and an employee of Royal Jordanian airlines later told him Nick Berg was a no-show.

When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive - although in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.

Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.
The next day, April 6, Nick Berg was released.

He told his parents he had been riding in a taxi on March 24 when he was arrested by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.

The Bergs heard from their son on April 6, 7, 8 and 9. He said he would come home through Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait, whatever looked safest and most feasible.

But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated, and Michael Berg said they have not heard from their son since.The Bergs have hounded the State Department, the FBI and the International Committee of the Red Cross, seeking any shred of information.
Michael Berg said the State Department sent an official to Nick Berg's hotel, where an employee told the official they had not heard of him.

The Bergs hired a private investigator, who talked to an American hotel guest who said he remembered Nick Berg, his father said.

So now, they are waiting. Sometimes, they tell themselves their son "is a resourceful fellow who can take care of himself," Michael Berg said. Nick's friends call and say the same thing.

"Other times we think perhaps he was dead on April 10," Michael Berg said.

"My worst fear is that I'll never hear anything."

Posted by Tuning Spork at 06:52 PM | Comments (2)

May 10, 2004

CD is brilliant, BTW!!! Has anyone else noticed?! :D

Between shirking homework and chasing co-eds (we hope!) one of our favorite college boys, CD, has reinvented the MADLIBS game to address certain *cough*Nigerian*cough* spam emails as SPAMLIBS. This is fun!
Just make a list of words that fit the categories of words in the list below and then read the email with your list nice n' handy!

10. NOUN
12. NOUN
18. VERB
21. VERB
22. VERB
23. NOUN
25. NOUN
26. NOUN

Dear (title),


May I respectfully (verb) your kind attention to the above subject matter and to state that based on (noun) gathered from the relevant Federal Ministry of Trade, Commerce and (plural noun), we, intend to solicit your assistance in the execution of a business transaction. It is our sincere (emotion) that you will handle this (noun) with absolute confidentiality, maturity and utmost sense
of purpose.

I wish to further (verb) you that we have twenty Million (plural noun) which accrued overtime from (adverb) inflated contract awarded in my Ministry (Federal Ministry of (noun) Resources) and executed by a consortium of (plural noun) in the (noun) Industry. The projects executed include the following:

1. The expansion of pipeline network within (country) for Crude Oil and (adjective) products distribution and subsequent evacuation.

2. Contract for the Turn Around Maintenance (TAM) of the three (plural noun) In the country.

3. The construction of (plural noun) for Petroleum Products (Depots).

Consequently, we humbly request your (adjective) assistance and permission towards the remittance of the above stated amount into a personal/company/offshore account nominated by you. We (verb) (adverb) that you will receive 30% of the total sum, and the remaining 70% is for my (plural noun) and me.

However, this is negotiable in the event of your willingness to (verb).

Could you please notify me of your acceptance to (verb) this (noun) urgently by email email addresses: (e-mail address) only, on the receipt of this message. I shall in turn inform you of the modalities for a formal application to secure the
necessary approvals for the release of this (noun) into your (noun).

This transaction from the day of commencement will not take more than ten(10) working (plural noun).

Thanks for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely

(title) (first and last name)


Mine came out like this:

Dear JAWS,


May I respectfully spank your kind attention to the above subject matter and to state that based on salt gathered from the relevant Federal Ministry of Trade, Commerce and Barley, we, intend to solicit your assistance in the execution of a business transaction. It is our sincere reticence that you will handle this tape recorder with absolute confidentiality, maturity and utmost sense
of purpose.

I wish to further eat you that we have twenty Million scizzors which accrued overtime from unknowingly inflated contract awarded in my Ministry (Federal Ministry of Question Resources) and executed by a consortium of Matchbox cars in the Slinky Industry. The projects executed include the following:

1. The expansion of pipeline network within Ireland for Crude Oil and fashionably late products distribution and subsequent evacuation.

2. Contract for the Turn Around Maintenance (TAM) of the three pork rinds in the country.

3. The construction of guitars for Petroleum Products (Depots).

Consequently, we humbly request your cracklin' assistance and permission towards the remittance of the above stated amount into a personal/company/offshore account nominated by you. We lose life's lottery implausibly that you will receive 30% of the total sum, and the remaining 70% is for my family jewels and me.

However, this is negotiable in the event of your willingness to gasp.

Could you please notify me of your acceptance to pulverize this Farmer's Almanac urgently by email email addresses: only, on the receipt of this message. I shall in turn inform you of the modalities for a formal application to secure the
necessary approvals for the release of this sculpture into your one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.

This transaction from the day of commencement will not take more than ten(10) working Beatles' songs.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely

American Idol Osama Moore


Okay, some of it worked and some of it didn't. Try it out and, if it's worth yer while, post it!

Or just keep it to yerself. We'll understand...

Posted by Tuning Spork at 11:02 PM | Comments (4)

The Good Friday Massacre

Well, that's what I've been calling it. Financially, I had a really really bad month of April. Why? Because I've become a doddering, forgetful schmuck.

I got paid on Good Friday and went to the bank to deposit my paycheck. But, duh, the bank was closed.
Okay, no biggie. I'll just deposit it on Monday. No prob!

So, Monday comes along. Then Tuesday. Then Wednesday.
I went through the drive-up window at the bank to deposit a Gemm check (from my on-line record sales semi-biz) and, lo and behold, my receipt shows a negative balance. Huh?

I went inside and asked for a printout of my account for the past week or so. Four checks posted on Tuesday evening -- including my rent check.
Since my bank is evil and posts all new checks in descending order of magnitude, my rent check posted first; sending me into the red. The three remaining checks followed suit, all of which automatically deducted a $28 overdraft fee. Four of 'em. $112. Gone.

Whenever all of the checks are posted on a given evening, and the account is in the red, the Evil Banking Computer of Doom begins to reject the debits in the same order that they were posted.
So, my rent check was sent on it's merry way back to my landlady's bank. The remaining balance (even though missing $112 of MY MONEY was plenty enough to cover the remaining three checks.

So, even though they were honored, I was still out the overdraft charges. Why? Because my bank is evil and posts checks in descending order and then not reverse the charge when the check is honored just to screw me out of my money!!!
But, that's not all, of course. My landlady is going to be assessed, by her bank, a $30 return check fee. Guess who pays for it!
Yep, $142. Me be pissed.

So, wait a minute! Didn't I get paid of Friday? Didn't I deposit my check at lunchtime like I always do?
Oh, yeah! It was Good Friday! That means I deposited it on Monday, right? Right?! But it doesn't show on the printout of my account. Where the hell is my paycheck?

Right where I left it on Friday night: on my dresser. D'OH!!!!!!!!!

I never used to forget things. Ever!

So, I went back to the bank on Thurday to cash my paycheck. "Cash" because I wanted to give my landlady the rent in cash (plus $30 for the return check fee) because her mortgage was due in the next day or so.

After cashing the check I went to banklady Myrna's office to plead idiocy and see about maybe reversing the overdraft fees. I was there on Friday! The holiday screwed me up! I never deposit paychecks on Mondays! C'mon, have mercy on a doddering forgetful schmuck!
She agreed to meet me halfway and reverse two of the four overdraft fees. Yay, Myrna!!!
So, I was still out $86. That'll teach me... er... something. I think. I forget.

The Good Friday Massacre is only ONE of my financial setbacks in April. The second happened on the 23rd. I'll leave details of that one for another day as it's yet unresolved. But, rest assured, I've got the Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut on the case. mheh.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2004

Bring Out Yer Draftees!

When I first heard Charlie Rengel (D-NY) yammer on about reinstituting the draft because, he argues, the burden isn't shared equally among the rich and poor (or whites and non-whites), I just wanted to pull my hair out!
(Okay, I could use a trim about now but going for the "clear look" might frighten the cats.)
(Senator Ernest Hollings also pushes to bring back the draft, but I've never heard his talk about it so I'll just stick to Rengel.)

Let's assume that Rengel's argument is valid; that young men and women volunteering to serve in the armed forces is due -- not to a desire to serve their country and/or out of a feeling of responsibility to defend all that is good and fair and free in this old world -- but to merely escape the economic dead-end that is their situation at home.
Having served -- and remembering those that I served with -- I don't buy it. But let's just assume, for now, that Charlie is 100% right.

What is his solution then (as if this was a problem that required a solution)? To deny the opportunity to these "dead-enders" that Service will provide. Funding for college, VA medical benefits, the training and discipline that would help anyone unfortunate enough to be in an economic and, possibly, emotional desert.

Meanwhile it would also swipe aside the higher educational or career plans of those who choose not to enter the military simply because they want to contribute something else altogether to their community.

Congressman Rengel's desire to bring back the draft would only replace willing volunteers with unwilling conscripts. And, as with any plan that is anti-choice, it would leave no one satisfied.
The willing volunteer would be denied his opportunity to escape the dead end. The unwilling conscript would be denied his chosen path, as well.
The military would be denied it's willing volunteer and be saddled with an unwilling conscript. No one would be happy with this arrangement.
No - bah - dy!!! (<--Warner Wolf reference)

But, (oh yeah! I've got a link!) Walter Williams has another take on a reinstitution the draft. He's an economics professor and his column is, of course, focused on the economic aspect of the argument.
Here's a taste:

Rest assured that if the military offered a compensation package of, say, $50,000 to $100,000 a year, it could get all the soldiers it wanted. Thus, lesson No. 1 is that whenever there's a draft, you know that the wage is too low to get a sufficient number of people to voluntarily supply their labor services.

And another:
Being employed producing the hardware for the defense of our country need not be voluntary. The government could send us draft notices ordering us to report for work at General Dynamics' Texas track-vehicle facility at $400 a month. If the government did this, would you call it a draft or slave labor? Not to worry, the Defense Department offers attractive contracts to firms like McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, and they in turn offer attractive wages to employees, and thus, volunteerism gets the right number of workers to make the right number of jets and tanks.

Charlie Rengel's argument is economically-based and Walter Williams demonstrates beautifully that an economist know more about the economy than a mere US congressmen does.
(I could say that Rengel's argument is race-based, but I don't wanna go there. I actually like Charlie. He may wear his ass as a hat, but that's no crime...)

So, if the freedom of choice argument isn't good enough for ya, take a gander at Walter's economic argument against the draft. It's well worth it (if yer into this sort of thing)!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:46 PM | Comments (0)

May 07, 2004

All I did was tell it like it is...!!!

Welly welly, what have we here?! A blue ribbon! Blogosphere Hero?!!!
I wont ask how it got onto my sidebar. But, thank you to whomever is responsible!

I'm in awe that this has happened so fast! One moment I'm asked about who Rachel Lucas is -- the next she's ba-a-a-a-ck! What the huh...?! How did it happen?!

I was at work on Tuesday trying to run my printing press and listen to Lawruh tell me her man problems simultaneously. I said very little as she was arguing with herself quite capably.
I thought of the old show Inside Herman's Head and how I felt like I was watching a rerun of it.
(Why didn't it survive? It was a great premise and had Yeardly Smith (Lisa Simpson) as a cast member to boot!)

Anyhoo, I decided that I didn't want to air Lawruh's dilemma 'cause it's still developing (though very very interesting), but, I loved the idea of a Herman's Head type debate.
So, what could I debate myself about? All of the possibilities I'd thought up at first were so lamo.
But, then, hmmm, what about something blog related? Coding? Writing style? Content discrimination?
Blogrolls? A HA!!!!!
When to add a blog to yer blogroll!! No wait! Even better: When to de-link a blog! That's the ticket!

Immediately I thought of Rachel Lucas. Love her though we do, she hadn't blogged in six months and why -- when we're knee-deep in the templates -- do we refrain from taking the plunge and backspacing her URL out of the blogroll. It would be so easy... yet: we have not found the portal to the cruel marrow that would allow us to do it.
No doubt about it, mon; I was gonna write a Herman's Head styled debate about de-blogrolling Rachel Lucas! And so I did.

Then Stephen asked a question.

For some reason I'd just assumed that everyone knew and loved Rachel ... that was why the post would work! But, I was about to find out that, like so many recently welcomed bloggers, StMack did not.
"Who the hell is Rachel Lucas?"?!! "And what is it about her that has [you] debating her continued existence on your blogroll?"?!!!

I was about to type a brief response into the Comments. But the more I thought about what to say the more I knew that I was about to ramble on. I'd better make a post of it!

Then the wheels started to turn. I was about to write an homage to and I immediately knew that there were hundreds and hundreds of others who want to do the same thing; they just haven't had a reason yet.... they hadn't been asked to.
So, even before I typed the first letter of the first word of the post I knew that I'd want to invite others to join in and give their tribute just as eagerly as I wanted to give mine. This had t'be good!

The thing practically wrote itself.. but I knowingly and deliberately searched for phrases like "baby head banner", "asshat" and "Imagine No Liberals coffee mug" because I sensed that these words could make the Rachel Experience an immediate memory rather than a foggy one. I tried to describe her sidebar photo as vividly as I could. I wanted to stir, in other bloggers, the same sense of presence that I was experiencing. Why why why?

In the nooks and crannies of my toasted mind I had only one goal while writing the post: coax Rachel back to the blogoshere by telling her what she means to us. Granted; it wasn't likely to happen, of course, but sometimes y'gotta dare yerself to dream...

But this wouldn't do it. My daily hit stats are anemic; my readership consists of loyal friends and fellow Munuvians. If Rachel is to understand how much she's missed then a proper tribute needs a larger audience.

I wrote my tribute and posted it. Not expecting any great horde of bloggers to drop by just because I posted something cool, but wanting this to echo further, I decided to send an email.

I addressed it to: Emperor Misha, FrankJ, Don Watkins, Bill Whittle and Mrs DuToit merely asking for additional testimonials as to Rachel's glory. If I could only get one Trackback out of this then the plan -- that I hesitently dared to admit to myself -- might actually work!

Misha, Jim and Bill Whittle responded immediately!
But when I saw that the Emperor had not only sent a Trackback, but had posted a tribute of his own, well!!! This just may be so like my dreams it's scary!
Misha gets more hits before lunchtime then I'd get in a month of lazy Sundays.
We were about to witness an homagefest of the bestest and funnest kind!! Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-ES-S-S-S-S!!!

If Rachel still bothered to check out a blog or two then she would surely stroll through the Empire.
The comments kept pouring in. So many memories and so little Rachel.

I got home yesterday at about 6:30pm and settled down to write an UPDATE to the post (trackbacking Misha's post, yakkin' about how the link to a Rachel archive that CD provided didn't include the comments threads that showed us - even more than her posts proper - that she was our friend just as much as we were hers)...

I logged on and found 15 messages were waiting for me. WOW!!

I dragged the mouse as to expose a few emails and noticed that I'd gathered quite a few Trackbacks. Hmmm.
But then I saw it. Near the top and suddenly glowing like a tomacco field: "New Comment to....BLATHER REVIEW...blahbidy blah.... "

This is not happening. I had hoped for this...yep, dreamed that this might be the result of our love letters. I'd planned to be ready for it and yet I wasn't at all.
Then I read her comment and ran over to Holy poop on a pike! She not only got the mainpage and archives back up but she posted! WOO HOO!!!!!!

Thank you thank you thank you!! But all I did was realize that we wanted Rachel back and that there're plenty of bloggers who were just itching and ready to say so.

But we gotta thank Misha for the huge role that he played as well. Without his Trackback my post wouldn't have gotten such notice, and without his readership we wouldn't have gotten all those comments. And it was HIS post that Rachel came across first. (In fact, to my knowledge she hasn't visited Blather Review since it was still on Blogspot.)
The Emperor taking the torch and running with it was key to getting back up within 48 hrs of StMack asking about her!

Everything clicked!
Gawd, I love this crap!!!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 11:39 AM | Comments (4)

May 04, 2004

Who Is Rachel Lucas?

In a response to my previous post Stephen Macklin of Hold The Mayo has a couple of questions:

Having only been blogging for about 7 months I have to ask - who the hell is Rachel Lucas? And what about her is so important that the characters of Star Trek would decimate the fabric of space and time to debate her continued existence on your blogroll?

My brief answer is this:

Rachel Lucas was (will yet be?) a blogger from the summer of '02 through the summer/fall of '03.
(Actually, her bloggery hit the skids at some point in the spring of '03 due to schoolwork, mainly...)

But, for a brief shining moment in blog history (blisstory?) we had a daily read of sass, impudence and ordnance of the bestest kind!

Her blog is blank now -- which I hate because even her archives are now inaccessable.
Her mainpage photo showed a 29/30-yr-old Texas gal with a bright smile and a sunny optomistic gleam in the eye. Her head tilted just so to let you know that she was as playful as she was ornery.
Her posts could attract Comments (when they were openned) on the scale of the Emporer.

Bill Whittle got his start on! Bill's first "essay" was an editting job by Rachel of his Comments made in a certain thread to one of her posts! She not only encouraged him to start a blog his own, but offered all of the guidence to get it up and running!
For that alone she deserves to be remembered in HUSHED TONES!!!!! s-sh-h-h-h.......

I was introduced to her blog by my friend "Freedom's Slave" (who comments here every now and then). Slave would email me her latest post every so often.
After enough emails already consistently linking Rachel I checked out her blog
and soon I was hooked just like hundreds and hundreds of others before me.

At some point in the early part of '03 she turned off her Comments after some particularly cruel trolls had infested them. Then her post-grad work got intense. She started blogging less and less. She'd announce hiatus after hiatus.
Her work nowadays is so computer-intensive that she can't seperate computer work from computer play and, about six months ago, called it quits fer good on the blogosphere.

She wrote about everything under the sun; from buying her new house (with John) to the 2nd amendment and the Holocaust. Michael Moore and assorted asshats (a word she coined) were among her favorite targets.
But, she wasn't just interesting and bright - nosiree; she was so much FUN to read! (Imagine the sunny and playful voice and vernacular of Susie coming out of the mouth of, oh, say... Michelle Malkin. That was Rachel Lucas!

That Rachel has left the blogosphere to pursue her course has left us emptier... yet we're still grateful for the memories.
We who were fortunate enough to have had the Rachel Experience as it happened will always cherish the memory of her blog (be it for merely the baby-head banner and/or the Imagine No Liberals coffee mug), and always hope for the best for her and John as they forge their way through their... er... way!

But, to Rachel: fercrissakes! Bring back the main page! AT LEAST LET US BASK IN YOUR ARCHIVES WHEN WE NEED A FIX... !

Posted by Tuning Spork at 11:17 PM | Comments (31)

Inside Tuning Spork's Head

Well, after months and months of angst I've decided to face the BIG QUESTION that's been on my mind.
Yep, I'm thinking of finally de-blogrolling Rachel Lucas.

Remember that show Inside Herman's Head? I've decided to think out loud as I mull over the pros and cons of de-linking Rachel.
And, I've just decided to use Star Trek characters to voice my inner conflict. (So, it's sort of a cross between Herman's Head and the Projection Therapy that Riker dreamed undergoing in the ST:TNG episode Frame of Mind.)

He-e-e-e-e-re we go-o-o-o-o-o...!:

SPOCK: The question at hand is whether or not to de-blogroll Rachel Lucas?


COUNCELLOR TROI: I'm sensing a great trepidation.

LT. WARF: Now is not the time for "soul searching". We must confront the matter head on!

SPOCK: Shall we examine the pros and cons of de-blogrolling Rachel? That would appear to be a logical approach.

QUARK: Yes. Which would be more profitable; keeping the link, or removing it?

WARF: (fidgitting) We are wasting time, we must act now! She has not posted in months and her main page is blank. De-link her!

TROI: I'm sensing anger.

SPOCK: It does seem that Ms Lucas has given every indication that she will blog no more.

PIKE: beep

SPOCK: It appears that we are leaning toward de-blogging her.

TROI: I'm frightened...

QUARK: Aah, but as the 122nd Rule of Aquisition states: "The emptiest purse can hold the largest brick of latinum."

TROI: I'm confused...

WARF: Grow a spine, Mrs. Riker-r-r-r...!

SPOCK: Quark, you were saying...

QUARK: may be empty now; but if she ever decides to blog again, and we have de-linked her, then we would be tragically on the outside looking in! What profit can there be in abandoning a potential goldmine of sass and impudence?

WARF: Hmmm. We would be dishonoring ourselves horribly... FOR SEVEN GENERATIONS!!! We must fight to keep her blogrolled.

QUARK: I mean, does her link take up that much space?

PIKE: beep beep

SPOCK: And a difference that makes no difference IS no difference.
So, we have decided that the logical course of action is, then, inaction?

TROI: Joy... *sniff* I'm sensing great joy. *sob*

(Warf turns away from Troi in disgust; Quark grins and rubs his hands together in anticipation of the payoff;
Spock just shrugs, raises an eyebrow and sighs as he wheels Captain Pike back to the transporter room...)

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:01 PM | Comments (6)

May 02, 2004

ME ( pt 1)

So, I waa sitting there:
12 years old and sitting in my mother's chair and worried about stuff.

Well, I had no reason to worry. I hadn't lied to my mother in a while.
I sat there trying to relax myself and convince myself that I had nothing to worry about. A whole evening free from stress! What a gift for myself!!

Why? Because the future builds only on the present and the past. And the present and past -- when I was 12 -- weren't lookin' like much to build on at the time.

I was lost in a world of bullies and brains and jocks and geeks and me. To suggest that I was merely "disinterested" might even be flattering. But, alas, I was merely disconnected.

I was never a part of any "crowd". I was always me.. alone.

I joined the Cub Scouts when I was 8 and in 3rd grade. I liked the uniform. Did I join because my mom thought it was a good idea? Nope. It was my idea.
Then I wanted to play in the Little League. My mom asked me "How are you gonna do that?"
"I don't know," I said
:"Well,, neither do I" she commanded.
I never played Little League.

If there's one thing my mother understands it's cold-hearted abandonment. And apples don't fall far from the tree...

About ten years ago my elder sister, J, asked our father why, exactly, our parents had seperated so early on in their marriage. He told some lame-o story about how our mom got herself pregnant by some phantom friend of theirs.
But since I have a half-brother who's only 3 years younger than I -- and, as best I can reconstruct -- he left us when I was about 2: methinks that dear ol' dad has not only left his first family for a second, but that he's unfairly tried to shift the blame to someone else (namely: Mom).

Don't to my sister, Daddi-0.

My grandmother (my mother's mother) used to say (when we were kids): "Don't hate your father...!"

As a kid I never knew why she kept saying that. As a sorry excuse for a man I know: She wanted us to believe that parents are to be cherished at least as much as Life itself... and/or - take yer pick - children......

- - - - - -

I've earned almost nothing that I have. The computer I post this on was a gift from a friend. The TV that's playing in the background was the gift of a friend. The bed that I sleep on is made up of cushions from a sofa that was given to me by a friend's father.

That I have survived this long in this old world amazes me.

If I ever do destroy myself, it's only because I was never anyone that mattered in the first place.

Gawd, I hate when when I think like this... ;)

UPDATE Yikes! I re-read this and it sounds like a frickin' suicide note! IT'S NOT!!!
I just wish I had some kinda realistic goal in life is all.!! Is that so wro-o-o-o-ng...?"

Posted by Tuning Spork at 12:33 AM | Comments (7)
Site Meter