No posting from cell-phones here, oh-no missy! No siree!! Thank you maam!!! Party was fun. Like hanging out with people. Though, as usual, I hung out most with those I know anyways. Neat rambling bungalow ranch-house-on-a-rooftop thing you got going there Carolyn (maybe (e:Carolyn) soon?). Brought the 40 for effect (think about that 2ways). Still missed the missed-one, felt nostalgic today, strange since it's been but a month. Played the cigarette game with (e:robin) and the master-strategista (aka (e:soyeon)), who kicked my ass (as she did so handily at Chess). The days they are a-rollin'. Rollin' right by my lazyass. I went out last night too, but the hipsters were too cool (who likes to see white people dancing to white people music anyways?). (e:Flacidness) was cool as was cousin Frieda whose birthday we feted. (e:Lilho) cut my hairs. They was longer than a witch's titty. Now I am hot & stylin'. Better watch out lest I steal yo' shoty, ya'll! Update on life. Thanks for caring. Peace out and big ups t'ya'll. Fools.

That last rant down below there is maybe less than precisely precise, I suppose... As usual Paul has to take our little discussion and blow it up until the side I'm on is killing the jews. The point I was trying to make is that the lines that scientists' have drawn around certain things to classify them are arbitrary. When you break it down we are simply using a catalog system to help us better understand the way things work and how they got to be that way, Let's take a library as an example. The books there are currently arranged along the lines of good ole' Dewey's Decimal System. It works just great, but it's not the only way we could classify them, we could stack them all according to color or size, or by authorname.yearpublished.genre.etc. We use Dewey's system because it helps us to find what we're looking for, not because it is inherent in the nature of books to be stacked that way. All science is like that, and the history of science is just chock full of mistakes we've made (or better put, classifications that weren't optimized for maximum usefulness) and later fixed or rearranged.

So is a polyp an animal and not a plant. As the word is currently defined by most scientists (animals generally move, eat, have no cell wall, etc) then perhaps yes. But that's not the point. The point is, as quoted from wikipedia "The actual boundaries between animals and plants are artificial; they are rather due to the ingenious analysis of the systematist than actually resident in objective nature." Couldn't have said it better myself. So now let me get back to killing babies or committing genocide with my atrocious beliefs.

Oh yeah...check out the Yesmen if you want a pretty funny documentary. Bunch of guys play some neat little parnks on the evil of evils, the WTO (with unfortunately and amazingly little surprise or astonishment garnered). 'Sat the market arcade

and WHOA! Arafat is dead and Ashcroft has resigned. The effects of both are still up in the air. Alberto Gonzales may be no soul-singing good-ole-boy patriot like Johnny but he's no angel (remember the wonderful "draft memo on the treatment of prisoners that called some of the Geneva Convention provisions on prisoner treatment 'quaint'"?). And who will/can replace Arafat? More war all around for everybody. Whoopie!

Where does the definition lie? We seek to find union with the real, but forsake reality. What is useful and plentiful we mistake for what is valuable and necessary. Differentiation is a construction. Where the ends meet is god. Where the ends meet are gods. The essential and meaningless. The present and the thought. Some things are real that we don't comprehend. Some things we comprehend are not real. Truth is an illusion, at least the truth that you see. Our vision limits the sky that can be. The sky that disappears under furious moon. Moons of Jupiter conceal surprises. Of war? Craters abound, wondrous scars, treading still water where absence is proud. Scientists know only as much as we tell them. Their goals are apparent; separation is key. But we are all equal or God is above. I don't believe that, and neither does the polyp tree.

both on my screen and outside my window.

I voted along moral lines, guys, I have to admit it. I was a part of the single largest voting bloc whose vote was determined by a single issue. For me it comes down to the kids. Do we want them seeing everybody in this country enjoying the same rights? Of course not, there are bad people (whose lifestyles/actions go against our most core beliefs) and good people. Bad people should not have the same opportunities as good people. Take Sadaam Hussein, did he really deserve to rule and terrorize Iraq? No way! That's why it is up to the good guys to come clean up the mess he made by installing a good leader/government and wiping away the rest of the bad people who don't want freedom. In our own country we have people who are gay. Now I'm not saying it's their fault (though I had a cousin once who got fixed) but do all the normal good people out there have to bow down to their special needs? Do we have to let them tarnish our sacred institutions? Of course not, that's why we get to vote.

Now there was a question about if it's okay to monitor terrorist suspects posed by (e:ajay) , to which (e:foxygirl) stated that "no homeland security = no America" (a statement to which I heartily agree). You see (e:ajay) we don't have to monitor everybody. Good law-abiding citizens can go about their business with no fear of the government, only bad people have to be worried. And if you're a bad person living in this good country, America, all you need to do to get the rights we allow to you is follow our rules and be good. And if you're not, then there's a nice warm spot in hell with your buddy Sadaam and the Al Qaeda bunch waiting for you in Hell.

sidenote: The Swan kicks ass! It is such a good representation of America. It takes people and finally gives them the chance to be on top of the world, what every American wants. The women on the show all have deep problems that they don't have the money to fix, but Fox is giving them this opportunity. Even the losers end up 10x better than they were before. Just imagine if your whole life was suddenly transformed for the better! And they don't stop with the superficial, no, this show digs deep, reshaping the woman beneath as well as the one on the surface. Don't we all need this kind of introspection in these times of decaying morals?

Headline reads:

[size=l]Air pollution is hazardous for your heart![/size]

Like (e:matthew) posted recently, these news flashes, supposed brilliant flashes of insight, are becmoing ridiculous, especially when it comes to health. Basically, everything we already know, or that's just plain common-sense, is being shouted out as if it were a secret of the natural world unraveled for us. Last week it was: Fruits shown to be good for you, before that: Exercize appears to reduce risk of heart attack, or Moving a little helps you not get Alzeihmers. So move a little, eat healthy, don't breathe smoke... where the hell do they get these crazy ideas?