August 05, 2008
That is all.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
10:40 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
August 03, 2008
This message came tonight via the Facebook Group "Let's Rock The House!":
On Sunday, over thirty Republican Members announced that they would return to the House of Representatives to continue the Guerilla Congress's phantom sessions. Members will continue to discuss the need for an 'all of the above' energy plan with visitors, and keep the pressure on the Democrats to reconvene the House and allow a vote on offshore drilling.You can follow the action via Twitter or on the web here. The revolution may not be televised, but it sure as hell will be Twittered!The session is expected to begin around 10 AM Eastern. The designated Twitter hashtag for who are stepping up to get footage from the event is #rth, and Eyeblast.tv has offered to promote any media uploaded to the website. The Twitter feed #dontgo, accessible at http://dontgo.us, will be used by members and other observers to relay information about the event itself outside the Capitol.
If you plan to report from the event, be sure to stick to #rth and upload to Eyeblast.tv. From there, we will need all of you to alert the media about the Eyeblast content and promote it as much as possible.
Be sure to follow http://dontgo.us and Rock the House for continuing developments tomorrow.
UPDATE: Cotillion Sis Nicki has a pretty good list of Congressional Twitterers posted today. Check it out!
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.
July 30, 2008
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
July 29, 2008
Dogs were completely non-plussed. One was laying in the grass chewing a toy, the other was chilling under the coffee table.
At least now we know what the house does in an earthquake.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:43 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
July 25, 2008
You know those long, rambling conversations you can have with your closest friends? The rules sprung from one of those. WE were just sitting around, BS'ing one day. I don't even know what started it off, but eventually both of us (and Ben. He was there, too) were tossing out rules for what names you can and can't give your kid. Over the years, we've gone back to them, as friends have had and named their own kids, and had a few laughs, I must admit.
So here's a list of our rules:
1. It must be a classic American name, spelled in the most standard way. Our children's heritage is classic EuroMutt with a dash of Native American and heaping helping of Armenian. The best way to describe them will be American. So we think their names should be, too.
2. It can not be one of certain names. I would list them, but I don't want to piss people off. It's just that, with a few exceptions, in our collective experience, everyone we know with these names is some kind of asshole. To the point that it's like "well his name is (one of those), you expect that".
3. It can't be a family name. Too much animosity. If I name my kids after my side of the family you can bet his family would be pissed. And vice versa. There may be some leeway for dead relatives used as middle names, but in general, it would cause more fuss than I'd care to deal with.
4. Probably best listed as a corollary to 3: There will be no juniors. There's enough confusion in the house with 4 different names now (two of which, I might add, belong to DOGS), I don't need to add on the confusion of calling for DH and getting answered by DH, Jr. Plus, we both think our kids should have their own names.
5. They must be full names. Alexander, Elizabeth, Johnathan, Katharine are all acceptable, for example, while Alex, Beth, Jon, and Kathy are not. Give the kid the whole name, and they can choose from a multitude of nicknames for themselves.
6. The Asswipe (that's Os-Wee-Pay) Rule: No easily made fun of names. Hubby's name is very similar to the quirky title character of a popular song during his childhood, and my last name laid me open to years of taunting comparing me to a comic villain. We'd like to spare our kids as much as possible. So under this rule, no Richard (Dick), Peter, Johnson, etc.
7. No rhyming. Dear God no. Thankfully, neither of our last names rhymes with many first names.
8. No multiples. This is mostly an issue for people with first names as last names, and we'd really have to stretch it to get that to work for us, but seriously. You couldn't think of anything more creative than Thomas Thomas (my mother's orthopedic surgeon) or Martin M. Martin (a teacher at our high school)?
9. No objects. Thing names are for animals. "This is our daughter, Ladybug." "This is my cat, Ladybug." "how nice." NOT. There's a reason some names refer to people. Abstracts are ok, however, such as Faith, Joy, Hope, Honor, etc. Although in my experience such names often turn out to be no more than wishful thinking on the part of the parents....
10. Fictional Characters are sometimes ok, under these conditions: the character must have a real name (Luke is acceptable, Han is not), and the character's reputation won't come back to bite the kid in the ass (again, Luke is acceptable, Homer is not). Naming your kid after a villain is usually a bad idea, as well. Especially if it's a villain in a kid's movie....
11. There should be a reason you're willing to share. Someday your kid will ask you "mom, dad, why did you call me Paris Nooner Lastname" and you have to be willing to explain your quick trip back to the hotel that ended up being more than a bag drop-off....
12. Gender appropriate names are a must. Gender neutral names are ok, but for GAWDS SAKE, don't give a girl a boy's name or vice versa. Even if it is acceptable as a name for the opposite gender. Leslie is a girl's name. As is Stacy. Cameron is a boy's name (see Ferris Bueller). So is Kendall. Trust me, it's hard enough to pronounce the names people give their kids. Don't make me look a fool by calling a "he" a "she" in class.
I'm sure some of our rules go against what you like or even some of your names, but this is what we want for our kids. Because life is hard enough without being known as Chlamydia Vagina.
More on the worst baby names ever compiled here.
So what do you think? What are your rules? Which of these do you agree with? Disagree with? That's what the comments are for, hint, hint.
UPDATE: Check out this poor girl's name. I would like to beat her parents. (h/t Richard Cocking)
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:45 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 5 kb.
My great uncle's name was Leslie, so that probably reinforces it. July 15, 2008
Act I is available today, Act II will be released on July 17 and Act III on July 19.
But hurry, it all goes away on July 20!
Click over, turn up the speakers and enjoy!
Update: Also, now you can find a super cool Dr. Horrible button in the left sidebar below my Yahoo! Avatar! There are lots of different sized buttons and other widgets on the Dr. Horrible site, just scroll down and click the "get some resources" button. And be sure to read the EVIL Master Plan as well!
My brief review: It's Flash Gordon meets Little Shop of Horrors with Firefly sensibility. Perfect combo.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
04:12 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
July 07, 2008
" The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."OFCS*. Are you KIDDING ME??? A three year old says "yuk" to spicy food and automatically they're considered little KKK-wannabes?? Some of those words, sure, those are clearly racist, but even then it goes a bit too far to suggest that a TODDLER has malice in their heart for a specific group of people.It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".
The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".
Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."
If a three year old hears a group of people called "apples" or "chairs" they'll use that word just the same as if it was (as mentioned above) "blackies" or "pakis". All they understand is the LABEL, if that. They are incapable of attaching racist meaning to it at that age because they are incapable of understanding (in an adult sense) what race is.
Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that a toddler can associate foods with races. Oh, I don't like curry because THEY eat it, where they is some other group.
As for the other labels mentioned in the article "those people" is a way that small children break down the world. These people vs those people, us vs them. It's an easy way for their young brain to learn to classify people and things, to sort out their environment and make sense of everything around them. It's not evil. It's not denigrating, it's just a baby brain learning to work.
I think my favorite of the report's objections, and the one that best demonstrates nanny-ism run amok, though, is "they smell."
Let's face it, small children are absurdly honest and have no politeness filter. they say what's on their mind. Including that some people smell funny to them. It's clear that different cultures come from homes that smell differently. Some burn incense or use flavorful, aromatic spices in daily cooking. To a toddler unused to those smells, someone who comes from that environment WOULD smell funny. Again, not racist, just honest.
The bottom line here is that kids are kids. They are simple, funny, honest, and open. Because they haven't learned how to be polite or appropriate yet. They don't understand that what they say can hurt. And frankly, if a toddler wants to insult you, they're more likely to say "poopyhead" than "blackie" or "paki". A kid who is rude or insulting should be dealt with, but not as an incipient racist. They should be disciplined accordingly, and taught that ALL rudeness and insult is unacceptable, including racism. We should explain why it's not nice to say that another child smells funny without pointing fingers and shouting accusations.
This report, in sum, says a WHOLE LOT MORE to me about the agenda of the authors than the intent of the toddlers.
This whole debate about racism and children is funny to me. Children today are so unaware of racism. They get their ideas about it from what WE (the ADULTS) project on to them. Kids are blissfully unaware of race problems until we tell them that they should be experiencing them.
This brought to mind a more local story. Charter Oak High School in Covina recently discovered that parodic African-American sounding names ("Tay Tay Shaniqua," "Crisphy Nanos" and "Laquan White") were printed in the yearbook under a picture of the Black Student Union, apparently as a racist joke.
I can't help but wonder if the motivation was really racist in nature or just bad taste, and a joke gone sadly awry. Do teenagers really harbor the kind of overt racist feelings implied by these actions? Was it entirely about race? Or were they just making fun of some kids they didn't like, by badly ripping off certain black comedians?
The community is up in arms and the parents are demanding action, but I have to wonder if we're missing something. Are our kids racist? Did WE make them that way? If not, why do they do and say racist things? Is it because they are SO OVER racism, that it CAN be a joke for them. Wouldn't that be considered a good thing?
It's like that classic South Park Question: How long does it have to be with us before AIDS is funny? When can we laugh? Can we EVER laugh about racism? And if we do, who gets to laugh? The opressed? The reformed opressor? The subsequent, non-racist generations? When does it get to be OK? For whom?
*Oh For Christ's Sake!
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:39 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.
June 09, 2008
These signs are highly amusing to me. Along with their partners "Impeach!" Impeach who? Yo Momma? Seriously. Finish your thought, ADHD child. Of course, some of the signs DO say Impeach Bush, but I have to ask, why? I mean, the man has about 6 months left in his term. How much of that time is actually useful political time? ZERO. And how long would it take to go through an impeachment process? Probably more time than he has left as President. Get off it.
But the "lie" meme perseverates. And congress commissioned a study of the available intelligence to determine whether the President actually lied. Senator John D Rockefeller led the Select Committee on Intelligence in this investigation. In a statement Thursday, the senator announced, "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent[.]"
But is that really what the report says? Not really. Clearly the information at hand was overinterpreted, aka SPUN, into the message that the Bush administration wanted to present. Probably in an effort to convince the American people to get behind the push to war in Iraq.
However, the report finds that in many circumstances, and on a variety of subjects, the President's (and other administration officials') statements on the war "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." These subjects include Iraq's nuclear weapons program, biological and chemical weapons capability, overall WMD capability, and support for AQ terrorists.
Which to me, raises a very important question, namely, How did our intelligence get so far off base? Did our operatives buy into the lies that scientists and supervisors were passing on to the regime? Or did the CIA et al. deliberately mislead both the Clinton and Bush administrations? Where is the actual failure, then? If the President is essentially parroting what the intelligence community tells them is fact?
So then what can we do with this knowledge, that our intelligence is, at best, flawed? How do we use it to plan and implement strategies for dealing with our enemies and their plots to thwart us? Knowing that such critical intelligence may be wrong makes it extremely difficult to build support for military endeavors, regardless of the import to national security.
Which brings me back to lying. Which is the lie then, Sen. Rockefeller's statement that the report finds that "Bush Lied", or the actual text of the report which shows that the intelligence community "lied" and Bush and Co. believed them?
h/t Babalu
Posted by: caltechgirl at
10:53 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.
June 02, 2008
You see, having a two-tier system wouldn't do. Linda couldn't use NHS services and ALSO pay for a drug that others couldn't afford. How much did she really want to live? Enough to burden her husband with a mountain of debt for all her care for just a few months more?Mrs O'Boyle was operated on in January last year for colon cancer and the doctors found it had spread to her stomach lining.
The former NHS assistant occupational therapist, who has three sons, twins
Gerald and Anthony, 37, and Mark, 33, as well as grandchildren Luke,
four, Finn, three, Jemima, two and Darcey, two, then had six weeks of
chemotherapy.She continued with this until September last year when she and her husband were told the devastating news there was little more doctors could do.
However, her consultant recommended Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.
It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.
Mrs. O'Boyle's decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend £11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital HS Foundation Trust.
Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.
'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'
He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort.
'We were lucky we had the money, it's the people who have no recourse to it that struggle. It is wrong that they are denied the chance.'
Mr. O'Boyle, who said he was convinced the drug had extended his wife's life by three months, added: 'If these guidelines were changed it would be a wonderful legacy for my wife.'
Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.
Cake Eater Kathy lays it all out.
My friends, this is what Universal healthcare means. Like anything else, when you cater to the lowest common denominator, the quality decreases. That's what the "lowest" part means.Nice, huh? A lifetime of taxes to pay for a health care system that actually employed this woman and her husband, only to be betrayed in the end because she was willing to pay out of pocket for a few more months on this Earth. She wasn't looking for a cure. She knew that was beyond her. She was simply looking for a palliative treatment which could extend her life a bit. Just a bit.
She was asked, "How badly do you want to live?" And she replied that she wanted just a few more months with her family. She paid the price for a drug that wasn't available under universal healthcare, and she did it gladly, only to be smacked with a frozen mackerel in the end. Her actions would create a "two tier" health care system, and that, apparently, cannot be allowed, because that would mean she wasn't receiving lowest common denominator health care, like everyone else does with the NHS, and the NHS cannot stand that. She thought she had the right to choose what her healthcare was worth to her, and that she wasn't going to be penalized for her decision. One would suspect, with universal healthcare, that that would be a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
And yet this atrocious system is what some people would have us install here in the US. This is what some people want because their health insurance premiums are too high, and they would prefer not to have to pay them, but would rather let the government run things. It's tidier in theory, but absolutely disgusting in practice.
Again, how badly do you want to live?
Governments with nationalized healthcare systems don't want to give their citizens a choice. Patients are blackmailed, ultimately, into going with the lowest common denominator treatment if the the choice is between that or nothing at all because they don't have spare millions on hand to pay for private care.
But Kathy says it better than I ever could. She has lived it. Go read about what Universal healthcare means for Ovarian cancer patients in Europe compared to the treatment she recieved here in the US. It's shocking and frightening. Definitely something to consider as we go to the polls.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:58 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.
May 24, 2008
Of course, they took advantage of that, and the fact that it was memorial day weekend to to have the power and water shut off on us, pettily hoping that that they could screw us over and force us to be uncomfortable until the next Tuesday.
Happily, however, Pasadena Water and Power are AWESOME and everything was back on by Noon, Friday.
It's been a crazy year. Somehow we've managed to rip out two wall heaters, install a ceiling fan, a chandelier, change two more light fixtures, fix another ceiling fan, install a brand new bathroom sink, run a water line to the refrigerator, cap off a number of useless pipes, completely replace the plumbing for the shower and the kitchen sink, and install a dishwasher. Oh, and hang lights on the pergola, rip out three trees, hack away a number of bushes, and plant two rose bushes, azaleas, calla lilies, carnations, lilacs, hydrangea, and two summers' worth of garden.
Not to mention replacing a broken window and installing an alarm system. And bringing home a new puppy.
Wow. That's a hell of a lot more than I realized.
This weekend's project? Why plastering the holes from the plumbing job and repainting the bathroom, of course. And hanging our Anniversary present to ourselves:
More pictures on Flickr as soon as I have a moment to download from the camera, probably late tomorrow!
Posted by: caltechgirl at
05:38 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
April 04, 2008
If I see this so-called "pregnant man" again, I think I am going to puke.
Gender politics aside, this is NOT a man. Legally, sure. I can agree with that. Phenotypically, even. I can agree he's a man.
But don't fucking go around trumpeting that you're a MAN and you're pregnant. That's not the case, except perhaps on paper. And it's no fucking miracle. You stopped taking your testosterone and the female hormones made by your INTACT OVARIES AND UTERUS THAT YOU WERE BORN WITH started working again. There's no miracle there. That's how your body is supposed to work.
Then you inserted sperm, and voila! The process worked the way it was designed to. Funny that. You got pregnant the same way that every other person born with a uterus tries to. In fact, from what I understand, you had an easier time than a lot of us uterus-bearers, whatever gender our driver's license says we are.
You're not a pregnant man. You are a pregnant ex-female who chose to remain reproductively intact despite partial gender reassignment surgery. Let's be clear on the terminology.
A pregnant man WOULD be worth shouting about, and it would be a miracle. Seeing as how MEN are born without the means of conceiving and carrying a baby INSIDE their body. A pregnant MAN worth studying would be someone who is able to carry a fetus on the inside, and is born with sex chromosomes that say "XY" instead of "XX", and who are born with testes, and vas deferens and a prostate and a penis . Not a "man" born with a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and a vagina.
That's no reason to get on Oprah and every other fucking show on TV, ok?
And before you fucking go off on me about being insensitive to transgender people, please understand that I could care less which set of chromosomes you were born with, and whether they match what you show on the outside. Just keep your crotch out of my face. When you go around showing pictures of your beard and man's chest and pregnant stomach, that's tantamount to waving your nuts in my face, which I don't appreciate. And don't go around acting like you got pregnant from sperm inserted up your fake dick, whether you have one or not, when you got pregnant the same way everyone else does. That's nothing to write home about.
All that being said, I wish you and your wife a lifetime of happiness and the blessings of a healthy child, as every family deserves happiness and health. Just not in my face. If nothing else, out of respect for your child's well-being.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.
April 03, 2008
h/t the slightly more costly VW
Posted by: caltechgirl at
03:15 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
March 14, 2008
Posted by: caltechgirl at
08:31 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
March 05, 2008
Squircow
Profile:
You live in the prairies of Botswana, and your diet consists mostly of rocks, wolves and lattés.
Characteristics
(Combat and Non-combat)
You can walk on air. You can breathe Dr. Pepper. You can spit rocks. You can shoot hot death.
You can shoot wind. You can spit acid. You have a fear of tahini.
Natural Enemies:
Your natural enemy is Humtwo.
h/t Eebra
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
February 27, 2008
And then Jimmy Kimmel and Ben Affleck.....
But now, everyone who didn't get to be in the video feels bad....
"From the minute Sarah's video with Matt played, revenge has been percolating in Jimmy's mind," says Jill Leiderman, the show's executive producer. "The Friday morning after it aired, Jimmy came in and said 'I need Ben Affleck."'Affleck's consent lead to Harrison Ford's involvement -- he was a fan of Silverman and Damon's video, apparently -- which then lead to Brad Pitt's cameo as the delivery guy who presents Affleck and Kimmel with a cake celebrating their love.
Head music booker Scott Igoe said that once Pitt was on board, he reached out to the musicians who had appeared previously on the show and had proven themselves to be good sports. Within 24 hours, he had the Maddens, Gray and Wentz on board -- and had really ticked off Ashlee Simpson, who wanted to participate but was unable to because she was on tour, he says.
"Basically, we devised the list: 'Who has been on the show in the past that we really like?"' Igoe says.
The music for the song was written by Kimmel's bandleader Cleto Escobedo, with the lyrics devised by Kimmel, Kimmel's brother, John, and the show's writing staff. The video was filmed in two days at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, and at nearby Henson Studios, site of the "We Are the World" session.
"Half the e-mails I've gotten the day after have been from publicists so disappointed that their clients weren't in it," Igoe says, mentioning Faith Hill, Tim McGraw and Paul McCartney.
Whether the song will be released as an official download is up to ABC, Leiderman says, but she promises they'll make the appropriate inquiries to see if they can get a single put out.
Igoe, meanwhile, has his sight set on a bling-ier outcome. "Hey, if 'D--k in a Box' can win an Emmy, why can't we?" he asks.
And of course, all this was just an excuse to post this:
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:50 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.
Turns out they were just too foul-mouthed and combative......
Check out Southwest's video response:
Here's what else Southwest had to say (from the "About this Video" tab):
Southwest Airlines would like to set the record straight regarding a situation involving two female Customers, Ms. Sarah Williams and Ms. Nisreen Swedberg, on Flight #3600 from Tampa Bay to Los Angeles on February 14, 2008. During this flight, the Flight Crew and several witnesses confirm that Ms. Williams and Ms. Swedberg's unruly behavior was touched off by an occupied lavatory. After banging on the door, Ms. Williams and Ms. Swedberg became verbally abusive and threatening toward the Customer who had been using the lavatory.Right on!
When Our Flight Crew addressed the situation with Ms. Williams and Ms. Swedberg, the two Customers continued their threatening behavior and abusive language. At this time, the Flight Crew requested that local police meet the flight upon its arrival in Los Angeles. The police questioned several witnesses, as well as Ms. Williams and Ms. Swedberg, who were later released. Contrary to reports, we did not ban these Customers from flying Southwest Airlines.
Our Employees must maintain a Safe and comfortable environment onboard the aircraft at all times. According to some news reports, this story has nothing to do with Ms. Swedberg and Ms. Williams' appearance, but rather their use of what other Passengers tell us was profanity and threatening behavior onboard one of our flights. Finally, we would have gone out of business a long time ago if we discriminated against beautiful women -- or anyone else for that matter. We carry almost 100 million Customers a year, and they are all beautiful in our eyes.
For members of the media who would like an interview or more information, please contact Southwest Airlines Public Relations at: 214-792-4847.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:32 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 3 kb.
February 25, 2008
h/t VW Bug
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:38 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
February 19, 2008
1. If I was a Kellogg's corn flake I'd be floating in my bowl doing what exactly? And to whom would I be talking?
taking movies.. Relaxing a while, livin' in style. Talking to a raisin who occasionally plays LA, casually glancing at his toupee..... (Punky's Dilemma, 1968, Bookends)
2. Someone told me it's all happening where?
At the zoo (At the Zoo, 1968, Bookends)
3. Can you imagine us years from today, sharing a park bench quietly? How Terribly strange to be (how old???)...
Seventy (Old Friends, 1968, Bookends)
4.People say she's crazy, why?
She's got Diamonds on the soles of her shoes (Diamonds On the Soles of Her Shoes, 1986, Graceland)
5.If you take two bodies and you twirl them into one, what won't come undone?
Their Hearts and their Bones. (Hearts and Bones, 1983, Hearts and Bones)
6.How far away is the Mother and Child reunion?
Only a moment away. (Or a motion, depending on the verse) (Mother and Child Reunion, 1972, Paul Simon)
7. The sign said the words of the prophets are written where?
On the subway walls, and tenement halls (Sounds of Silence, 1964, Wednesday Morning 3 A.M.)
8.Where are you going with Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme?
Scarborough Fair (Scarborough Fair and Canticle, Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme, 1966)
9. What do Rene and Georgette Magritte have hidden away in the cabinet cold of their hearts?
The Penguins, the Moonglows, the Orioles, and the Five Satins (Rene and Georgette Magritte with their Dog After the War, 1983, Hearts and Bones)
10. The Mississippi Delta shines like what on the way to Graceland?
A National Guitar (Graceland, 1986, Graceland)
BONUS:
My father was a fisherman, my mama was a fisherman's friend. What's my name?
Lincoln Duncan (Duncan, 1972, Paul Simon)
How many ways are there to leave your lover? (Just ask Jack, Stan, Roy, Gus, Lee.....)
Fifty (Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover, 1975, Still Crazy After All These Years)
The fog's rolling in off the East River Bank. It covers which street?
Bleecker Street (Bleecker Street, 1964, Wednesday Morning 3 A.M.)
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.
Your time of day has a split personality -- sometimes it's sweat-streaked and loud, and you're on the dance floor, getting your third wind, and shouting lyrics like you'll never run out of energy. You are the time of night that carves itself into your memory forever, because you'll never forget how much you love these people and this moment and this song. It's not always about unforgettable parties, though. Sometimes your late night (errÂ… early morning) burst of energy happens when you're home alone. Those are the times when you say, "I flat out refuse to go to sleep until I finish reading this book, or typing this page, or reorganizing my entire closet." In either case, you are the time of night when it feels sort of forbidden to be awake, but you love accomplishing something special long after everyone else went to bed. And hey -- you can always catch up on sleep tomorrow, right?
Heh. Yep.
h/t Breakfasty Jen
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:47 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.
February 13, 2008
here.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
10:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
87 queries taking 0.1965 seconds, 319 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
