HeiBlog

You ever had puppies? They have those cute little faces and run around all the time. You think they are just full of love and kindness. Well they do have cute faces and love giving and receiving attention, but they also crap and piss everywhere. Then they grow up a little, so you have a full sized dog with the mind of a puppy, aka no self-control. Now take two of them, more ideas and more destructive ability.

I’ve been taking care of a friend’s two 9-month-old Labs for the last few days. Other than being sleep deprived things were going fairly well. Very few messes, no blood, but, then with out thinking I left my wallet and some groceries on the kitchen counter. They woke me up this morning at 5, they needed walking, and all went well. “Fine,” I think, “I can just leave them out and get a few more hours of sleep, they won’t do anything bad.” At 7:30 I exit the bedroom to find the contents of my wallet scattered all over the living room and the wallet itself mangled. In the end I was only missing one credit card and my drives license and one credit card have chew dents in them.

I was pissed at them and they knew it. They just sat in their little corner eyes up with sad faces. Soon they forget though. It’s nobody’s fault really, I should have know better. Started me thinking though if there is any such thing as unconditional love (might write more on that later). I feed and walk the bitches and they look to me for more. Every time I go into the kitchen they are looking for a hand out. They are dependent on me to some extent, but what am I getting form them? Should I expect this? Why do we keep these beasts around? Hell, maybe I’m just a cat person. I need more sleep.

This seems to be all over the net, but I just got an email about it from a friend of mine. The picture shows an American soldure kneeing in front of a burial site of his commrad, being consilde by a young girl. The statue was commissioned as a memorial for the fallen of the 4th Infantry Division of the US Army from a Iraq artest. All this is true, btu not the whole story, it’s the spin that is different and is the perfect exmpale of how you tell the story they way you want it told. Remember that I am a cynic, so I love this shit.

(more…)

Sorry guys, the State of the Union didn’t do it for me. Lots of obvious things were said. I do have some pet peeves though…

“Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.”

Okay, I agree. The government should not dictate moral values, the society does and the government should reflect the society as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the society. That goes back to the Framers. I’m not sure if kids need to come home to the type of faith that I think Mr. Bush is speaking of, but I’ll go with it.

Next paragraph:

“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”

Wait, since when is marriage sanctioned by the government sacred? Perhaps sectors of the society have different opinions of marriage. Last time I checked if a church said that you were married it meant nothing to the government unless you paid the fee and signed the form. If it’s so “sacred” they why is the divorce rate over 50%? And wasn’t it just said that the government should not undermine values? Or did I misunderstand the first point and what was actually meant was that the government should not undermine the values of the majority or at the very least the strong minority that installed the current regime? In this “amendment to protect the institution of marriage” are you going to make divorce illegal or just really hard? It seems to me that there are more problems here than a few homosexuals wanting to be able to do some of the basic things that heterosexual couples can. I still can’t see how this is a threat, the gay guys aren’t trying to bugger you. And when was the last time we had an amendment that limited rights. Personal opinion here, but I think this type of amendment would be the worst thing since prohibition.

“The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else.” Ack!, Cough! Sorry getting over a sinusitis infection.

Well I don’t feel warm of fuzzy and I still think should look for a post-doc in Europe. Yep, we’re going down the shitter, but at least we will feel good about the whole think. Or at least be told that this is the right thing for us.