Hi Solitaryman!! *waves*

I am glad you like my virtual puppy, Juliet.  *grin*

In answer to your question from a couple of posts ago, yes if a client
becomes too demanding or bothersome, or whatever, I can certainly dump
them, should I choose to, and if we aren't at a critical juncture in
litigation.

I've fired a couple of clients already, and I've had one fire me as
well (and I am VERY glad she did, since she was HUGE pain in the ass.)

Today was interesting.  I got to threaten a director of a state
agency for a neighboring state.  It was fun.  Normally the
State is immune from suit (in most instances, unless such immunity has
been waived).  But in this case, I told the state that if they
didn't cooperate that I would file suit and name them as defendants so
I could get to their personnel records.  The director certainly
wasn't happy about that.  And he backed WAY off.  Looks like
my client will be getting everything, or most everything, she's asked
for.

*evil grin*

Why, yes, I DO use my powers only for good, why do you ask?  Oh, and I have a bridge you might be interested in as well....

Bwhahahahahaha

Ohhhh...sorry.  Evil twin Cali was trying to escape her locked chamber there.

Yep, some days I really love what I do.

The art festival this weekend ROCKED too, I must say.  I spent WAY
too much money, but got some really damn cool stuff, and a sunburn too.

Nice nice nice.

Now I must go to the gym.

Whew!

What a week, and it is only Tuesday!  I've been caught up in
answering discovery in one of my lawsuits.  I was babbling about
it a couple of entries back.  I read the Rules of Civil Procedure
(again) and couldn't find anything to help me in avoiding some of the
questions the opposing counsel had asked.  In fact, the Rules say
specifically that you can ask about affirmative defenses, etc,
regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

I kind of find that annoying.  "Why do you feel that Affirmative
Defense No. 1, propounded by the Defendant, does not apply to the
Plaintiff's case?"  Damn,  lazy attorney dude, do your own
damn research!!

However, I did manage to get all of my discovery answers written and
one set of Plaintiff's discovery questions drafted.  So, I feel
pretty damn productive.  One more set of discovery questions, and
I am good to go for awhile. 

It was funny, I was talking to one of my friends and he said that he
normally doesn't actually draft discovery, but instead simply copies
the discovery propounded by the other side and sends that as his
discovery questions.  I am not certain that is an appropriate way
to handle things, but I've heard of other attorneys doing the same
thing.  And in the case I am currently working on, I certainly did
copy some of the other side's questions, but they were ones I would
have used anyway, such as "Identify by name, address and telephone
number any person who has knowledge relating to this case."  (Or
something like that...I don't have the case file in front of me.)

In other news...

I went to the Doctor late last week.  I had to...I am having
"issues" again.  I am certain it is just a defective stress
response, but I found myself getting depressed again over the past
couple of months.  I tried doing those things that my therapist
suggested I do, such as positve self-talk and relaxation exercises, and
they kind of worked, but not enough.

So, lucky me, I am back on the Lexapro.  I am feeling better, a
little bit more able to focus here at the office, and I am sleeping
better. 

The Nurse at the Doctor's office said that it may be that I will need
to periodically get back on an antidepressant depending on the things
that are happening in my life, considering my family history. 

I guess instead of being upset about having to be medicated again, I
should be happy that something as simple as a pill can even out my
terrible mood swings, etc.  I've just struggled so hard not to end
up like my mother, and every time I turn around I find I am more like
her than I want to be.  Not that this is an entirely bad
thing.  My mom is a decent person, for the most part, and I love
her - I just don't want to end up with all of her health problems.

Hubby is out at the house we are considering buying.  He's there
with a home inspector.  The inspector is going to give us a report
on everything that needs to be done so we can get a few bids from
contractors. 

Yep, renovation hell, here we come, assuming the bank will finance the mess for us.  More on this as it develops.

Wow.  This has been a really long day.  I am ready to go home.

I have this one client, she's driving me up a wall.  It is a
bankruptcy (BK) case, and a couple months ago I have her a series of
worksheets to complete so I could gather all of the necessary data to
complete her BK schedules.  She took over a month to complete the
worksheets, and when she finally brought them back to me, she was all
in a panic because certain of her creditors were starting to get nasty.

So, I reviewed her worksheets, completed all the BK paperwork, had her
come back in to my office and review the completed papers, and asked
her NUMEROUS times "are you certain you've listed all creditors here?"

We had the meeting of creditors about 3 weeks ago.

She called me this morning.  "If I don't pay X, can they come after me?" 

Yes, you guessed it.  X is a creditor for her business and for
whom she personally guaranteed the debt.  And no, X was not listed
on her creditor matrix.  Because she didn't bother to tell me about it.

Needless to say, I am quite pissed off about it.  She's been
incredibly annoying up to this point anyway, and now I am going to have
to amend her creditor schedules, etc etc.  Grrrr.  AND, and
and!!!!!  She says she wants me to file a BK for her business as
well now.  Grrrr.

It is true that I essentially don't practice in the bankruptcy arena
any longer, and I certainly won't be taking any more BKs after October
1 (the "reform" law takes effect in mid-October).  And I was
pretty much looking forward to this being my last BK.

Grrrr.

Just Grrrr.

Weird link of the day!

http://goyk.com/video.asp?path=1616

You're welcome!!

There's so much stuff going on here. 

First: Hubby and I have found a
new home.  We currently live in a large subdivision, on a fairly
small lot.  Hubby wants acreage.  He's tired of having all
these people close in around us.  I don't mind it so much
considering I grew up in a condominium.

Anyway, we found a 10 acre parcel, all utilities are in, there is a
house on the property that needs some pretty major renovations, but
(according to Hubby) nothing insurmountable.  The land itself is
gorgeous.  Two mountain ridges that come together to form a
beautiful small valley.  It has 2 streams running through it, and
the last time we were up there (we've visited it 3 times), we saw a
moose.

I am a little nervous about the whole thing.  Living in a
construction zone doesn't really appeal to me.  I am also a little
worried about getting out of the property in the winter, although Hubby
says we will buy a 4 wheel drive vehicle for those rare days when it is
too snowy or icy to get out in our regular cars. 

I guess my big worry is this: My job is pretty damn stressful.  I
like to be able to come home and feel the cares of the day diminish
somewhat (because it would be too much to ask for them to completely
fade away).  Right now, when I drive up to our house and into the
garage, I feel this fairly large sense of relief.  The "ah, I'm
home" feeling.  I am very scared that if the home I have to come
to is under major renovations, that coming home will cause more stress
rather than relieving stress.  And I know that the whole
construction thing is going to be temporary.  Eventually we will
have a beautiful home on a gorgeous plot of land...but the getting
there is going to be painful, I am sure.

We are currently talking to banks and contractors...we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Second: I am involved in a
couple of lawsuits right now.  I am up against another sole
practitioner, and he is driving me up a wall.  Some of his
discovery questions seem a little weird.  I thought discovery was
for uncovering the facts?  He's asking me about the legal
therories that underpin my case.  I need a discovery
handbook.  Any suggestions, Sara or Betty, if you happen to be
reading this?

Third:  I am no longer a
true sole practitioner - I have hired a part-time
secretary/receptioinst.  I am contracting with a local staffing
service right now, which is  a good thing, since I am not so sure
she's going to work out.  Yes, I am a perfectionist, and I am
probably being a little hasty, since she just started last
Wednesday.  I am going to give her another week or two, and see
how that works out.  It certainly is nice not to have to answer
the phone every second, and to have someone here to do my typing.

Fourth:  Why is it that
some clients have so much trouble remembering to pay their bills on
time?  Sheesh.  That makes me crazy.

Fifth: I am doing more and more
real estate law.  Interesting stuff.  I got another case last
week.  This one is probably going to have a suit filed as well,
considering that the seller has refused to take responsibility for the
shoddy work he had done.  This is not an area I had ever expected
to practice in, but I am certainly enjoying it.  I am, however,
VERY happy that my statute books arrived a couple of weeks ago.  I
have some trouble reading documents on a computer screen for extended
periods of time, so now I have my statutes and court rules on
paper.  My eyes thank me.

Hmmm...I guess that's about it.  Now, back to work!

I am a member of the American Bar
Association.  One of the benefits of membership is the receipt
each week of the ABA eReport.  It has entertaining columns and
interesting articles.  This week, of course, the lead article was
about the new Supreme Court nominee.  Here, for your reading
pleasure, is the text of the article, which I found to be interesting.

JUDGING ROBERTS
High Court Nominee’s Rep Ranges from ‘Lawyer’s Lawyer’ to ‘Superhottie’

BY MOLLY McDONOUGH

Divisive. Arch conservative. Well-liked. Rock star.

These are all descriptions that could be used to characterize John
Glover Roberts Jr., who on July 19 was nominated to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

So far, reactions to the nomination have been anywhere from laudatory
to skeptical. Most consider his credentials impeccable. But his
ideological meter will be hard to read because he hasn’t left much of a
paper trail.

Since Roberts has been on the bench for only 20 months, examining his jurisprudence may not be illuminating.

Yet the ABA and plenty of interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and Lambda Legal, will give it their best shot.

Even before President George W. Bush made his announcement Tuesday
night, the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary was
prepared for the nomination.

Chair Thomas Z. Hayward Jr. of Chicago busied himself organizing the
committees that will conduct a nationwide peer review. Investigators
will scour each judicial circuit, conducting confidential interviews
about the judge’s integrity, professional competence and judicial
temperament. Teams of law school professors have been assigned to
examine Roberts’ written work, and a team of Supreme Court
practitioners will do the same.

This was done on a smaller scale when Roberts was nominated to the
appellate court and ultimately rated "well-qualified" by the ABA. Each
member of the standing committee will once again be asked to rate the
nominee as either "well-qualified," "qualified" or "not qualified."

Roberts has his special-interest detractors, but to many he is known as
a "lawyer’s lawyer" who built a reputation as a top-tier appellate
advocate before taking a seat on the federal appellate court in
Washington, D.C.

He’s a darling of the judiciary, court watchers and judicial
fanatics—even earning the distinction on the popular blog Underneath
Their Robes as one of the top five "male superhotties of the federal
judiciary."

"If the [Supreme Court] judges got to vote for John, it would be
unanimous because they all think the world of him," says Richard
Garnett, who clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1996.

Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, too, only 15 years earlier. (If
Rehnquist remains on the court, it would be the first time a justice
and his protégé sat together on the high court.) Garnett says Roberts
set a standard that other clerks were expected to emulate.

That may explain part of why he is well-liked at the court. But most of
the admiration comes from his appellate advocacy. Roberts has argued
nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court.

"When I was clerking, Roberts was one of the real marquee guys,"
Garnett says. "All the clerks would sort of drop what they were doing
to go watch him argue."

Garnett says there hasn’t been a justice with such a strong appellate
advocacy record since Thurgood Marshall, who spent three decades
perfecting his appellate advocacy arguing primarily civil rights cases.

"It was kind of like he was a rock star," Garnett says of Roberts,
while acknowledging he may be biased because he’s "a Supreme Court law
geek." Garnett adds that Roberts "was famous for his preparations. He
was never lawyering on the fly."

But Garnett is hardly Roberts’ only fan. When he was nominated to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a letter
bearing 156 signatures from lawyers in the D.C. bar was sent to the
Senate Judiciary Committee on his behalf. Signatories comprised a broad
bipartisan group, including C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel to
President George H.W. Bush; the late Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel
to presidents Carter and Clinton; and Seth Waxman, Clinton’s solicitor
general.

Roberts was born Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y. He moved to Northwest
Indiana when he was in second grade after his father took a management
job at Bethlehem Steel.

No one seems prouder about Roberts’ nomination than La Lumiere School,
the Catholic boarding school near LaPorte, Ind., where Roberts prepared
for his distinguished Ivy League track record. The school’s Web site
prominently features his photograph and biographical information about
his academic, leadership and athletic distinctions. By the time he
graduated at the top of his 25-member class in 1973, Roberts was
co-captain of the football team, co-editor of the school paper and
active in wrestling, drama and student council.

Chicago plaintiffs lawyer Mark E. McNabola was a few years behind Roberts but remembers his reputation well.

"When I got there, there was one name I heard over and over again about
the person you should try to emulate. That was John Roberts," McNabola
says.

After excelling in prep school, Roberts went on to Harvard College
where he took only three years to earn a degree in history. He stayed
in Cambridge for law school, serving as managing editor of Harvard Law
Review and graduating magna cum laude in 1979.

He landed a clerkship with 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
Henry Friendly then went on to clerk for then-associate Justice William
H. Rehnquist in the 1980-1981 term. Roberts stayed in Washington,
working first as a special assistant attorney general at the Justice
Department, then as an associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982
to 1986 before entering private practice. He returned to government
work as a deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.

An early nomination by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stalled in committee then
died during the Clinton years. In the meantime, Roberts married fellow
Washington, D.C., lawyer Jane Sullivan, also 50, and a partner at
Pillsbury Winthrop. The couple has since adopted two children, Jack, 4,
and Josie, 5.

Roberts was back in private practice when President George W. Bush
revived his nomination to the D.C. Circuit two years ago. This time,
his nomination sailed through the committee by a 16-3 vote, and on May
8, 2003, he was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous vote.

During his government service and while at his firm, Hogan &
Hartson, Roberts built a reputation as a zealous advocate for his
clients. Some of that advocacy is already haunting him. Critics point
to the fact that Roberts signed onto an amicus brief in a 1991 Supreme
Court abortion funding case, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173. Roberts
will undoubtedly be questioned again about this statement in the brief:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be
overruled."

But Craig Bradley, another Rehnquist clerk alumnus who got to know
Roberts during law clerk reunions, says the fact that the brief states
the Justice Department’s position at the time doesn’t say much about
what Roberts thinks personally on the issue. "He was working in the
Justice Department, and that was the Justice Department’s position,"
Bradley says. "You either write the brief or quit."

"He really doesn’t come across as an ideologue," adds Bradley, who
teaches constitutional law at Indiana University School of
Law-Bloomington.

Bradley also points out that just because Roberts is a former Rehnquist
clerk doesn’t mean he’s an ideological clone of Rehnquist.

"It’s more likely than not that he’s pretty conservative," Bradley
says. "But there’s conservative and there’s conservative. My hope will
be that he will be in the mold of [Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor and
conservatives who have concern for precedent. There’s no sign that he’s
a right-wing firebrand."

Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec says Roberts is "a
welcoming personality" who ought to weather the confirmation process
well.

"It’s not going to be a Bork hearing, not a battle royale," Kmiec says.
"I think John will be forthright where the office permits him to answer
questions."

©2005 ABA Journal

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"

Overall, I felt it was very well done, and am of course, already
awaiting the next one.  I wonder how long we will have to wait?

Yes, I finished it in a day.  Here's how the weekend went: 
Friday night we stopped off at Hastings, having sort of forgotten that
it was Harry Potter release party night.  We were looking for a
good map of the local county.  We got our map, enjoyed the kids
and adults all dressed up, got me a new stuffed animal.(Babo by http://www.uglydolls.com/)  Yes, I am a sucker for smooshy stuffed animals.  Besides, I had reserved my copy at Borders.

I thought about staying up until midnight to go get my copy, but I had
to be at the gym at 9:30 on Saturday, and I knew I woudln't be staying
up at midnight to read the book.  So I went on Saturday morning
before my Pilates class to go over to Borders.  I checked in and
they gave me a magic ticket for my book.  They had boxes of books
right behind the registers and no line on Saturday.  Got the book,
but then had to go to the gym (and you cannot read and do Pilates at
the same time). 

After the gym, hubby asked if I wanted to go look at some property out
in Rathdrum (we'd been trying to find this property since the day
before, but when we drove up in to the mountains on friday, we did not
have the address, hence the need for the map.)  Of course, none of
the houses up in the mountains there have addresses anyway, so it
didn't matter that I had looked up the property via the local property
records.  We still couldn't find it.  And then we had to go
home and shower because we had a 2:00 appointment to go look at a house
in another part of the county. 

So we went home and showered and then left again.  And the book
still sat unopened on my side table.  After looking at the very
nice, large, lakeview, more than we can afford house, we got better
directions to the mountain property.  And we were off again, back
up into the mountains.  We finally got home at about 6:30 on
Saturday.  By that time I was so tired from driving around and
also had a headache,  that I was able to read for less than an
hour. 

I finally got to relax with my book on Sunday morning.  In fact, I
was so excited to read it that I woke up at 6:00am on Sunday. 
That NEVER happens.  I hate to wake up early on the
weekends.  And then as I was sneaking out of bed, thinking I could
go upstairs and have some breakfast and some uninterrupted reading
time, hubby woke up and had a powerful craving for an omelette. 
And we were out of eggs.  So we went to a local breakfast
place.  Finally returned home at 7:30, and installed myself on the
couch with a big glass of water and THE book.  I finished it on
Sunday afternoon about 2:00.

WARNING: HARRY POTTER SPOILERS AHEAD!!

Oh no.  I cried.  I know, I know.  It is just a
book.  And a kids' book at that.  But, really, it is much
much more than its critics believe.  And this one - so sad. 
Dumbledore dead, and at the hands of Snape.  While Harry stood,
immobilized under his invisibility cloak.

Is Snape really a traitor?  It certainly looks that way. 

And Dumbledore is really dead.  I knew it when his portrait appeared on the wall in the headmaster's office. 

And I cried.  I believe Dumbledore was my favorite character. 

Now Harry has to face Voldemort without any adults to run
interference.  He's got his friends to help, and I understand the
Spiderman-esque reason that Harry broke up with Ginny...but damn.

Draco's an idiot.  But what else is new.  And at least he isn't a complete monster like his parents.

And Snape is the Half-Blood Prince.  Some of those spells he came
up with were interesting, but I am confused - why is it that Harry can
simply recite an incantation and it works, without him knowing what the
spell does?  I mean, it seems from all the other HP books that you
have to know what the result of the spell is so you can put your mind
to achieving it before it will work.  Hmmm...

I did really enjoy how much more mature Harry seemed to be in this book as compared to the last one.

I am so freakin' busy.  Really.  I can hardly keep up.  And I keep realizing that once I finish this thing, then I have that thing and that other thing still to do.

I was feeling pretty good about my day, all productive and stuff, and
then I lifted up a case file to put it away and found two other case
files that need my attention.

I am working this weekend, I guess.  *sigh*  Oh well.  I
really do need to hire somebody.  At least to answer the phone and
type stuff.  I had to type discovery responses in a lawsuit last
week, and it took me three hours.  THREE freakin'
hours!!!!!!  Do you realize how much other stuff I could have been
doing if I hadn't had to type those damn things?  Sheesh.

And then I am in here working today, and a local attorney that I've
never met shows up with a letter for me regarding a lease that is
between his clients and mine.  So that is ANOTHER thing I have to
take care of.  Ugh.  And his clients suck.  I mean
REALLY SUCK.  They are complete ass cookies.

Sure, sure - busy is good - it means I am working hard and making
money.  I KNOW that.  But when you are so busy you feel like
you are drowning in a sea of paper?  I think that's just a little
TOO busy, you know what I mean?

I am sure it will all look better on Monday.  At least I hope it
will.  Or else, it will look worse and I will finally break down
and hire someone.  I think I might call the local temp
service.  Good way to test out the candidates before hiring them,
and they handle all the HR and payroll crap for me.

Arrrggghhh.  Does this mean I am finally becoming a grown-up,
for-real, business owner?  Ahhhh man, what did I sign on
for???????  Can't I just run away now?  *stamping feet* 
I don't wanna be a grown up!

All about meme!!

(Shamelessly snagged from Tej!)

Copy this list into your own blog - bold the things that are true about you, and add one more true thing to the end.

(Comments in italics)

·  I miss somebody right now.

·  I don’t
watch much TV these days.

·  I love olives.

·  I own
lots of books. (Way too many to count)

·  I wear glasses or contact lenses.

·  I love to play video games.

·  I’ve
tried marijuana.  

·  I’ve
watched porn movies.

·  I have been in a threesome.

·  I have been the psycho-ex in a past relationship.

·  I believe
honesty is usually the best policy.

·  I curse
sometimes.

·  I have changed a lot mentally over the last year.

·  I carry my knife/razor everywhere with me.

·  I’m
TOTALLY smart.  (And
conceited too, I guess)

·  I’ve never
broken someone’s bones.

·  I have a
secret that I am ashamed to reveal.  (Nope, not telling)

·  I hate the
rain.

·  I’m
paranoid at times.

·  I would get plastic surgery if it were 100% safe, free of cost, and
scar-free. 

·  I need
money right now. (Um,
always?)

·  I love sushi.

·  I talk
really, really fast. (Sometimes.)

·  I have
fresh breath in the morning. 

·  I have
long hair.

·  I have
lost money in Las
Vegas.

·  I have
at least one brother and/or one sister. (Just one sister)

·  I was born in a country outside of the U.S. 

·  I have worn fake hair/fingernails/eyelashes in the
past. (And I do miss my acrylic nails sometimes)

·  I
couldn’t survive without Caller I.D. (How else could I avoid my Mother in Law’s
calls?) 

·  I like the
way that I look.

·  I have lied to a good friend in the last 6 months.

·  I know how
to cornrow.

·  I am usually pessimistic.

·  I have a
lot of mood swings.

·  I think
prostitution should be legalized.

·  I think
Britney Spears is pretty. 

·  Slept with
a Suitemate.

·  I have a
hidden talent. 

·   I’m
always hyper no matter how much sugar I have.

·  I have a lot of friends.

·  I am
currently single.

·  I have
pecked someone of the same sex.

·  I enjoy talking on the phone.

·  I
practically live in sweatpants or PJ pants.

·  I love to shop. 

·  I would rather shop than eat.

·  I would
classify myself as ghetto.

·  I’m bourgie
and have worn a sweater tied around my shoulders.

·  I’m
obsessed with my Xanga or Livejournal. (Maybe we need a 12-step program?)

·  I don’t
hate anyone. I dislike them. 

·  I’m a
pretty good dancer.

·  I don’t
think Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.

·  I’m
completely embarrassed to be seen with my mother. 

·  I have a
cell phone.  

·  I believe in God.

·  I watch MTV
on a daily basis. 

·  I have
passed out drunk in the past 6 months.

·  I’ve
rejected someone before.

·  I
currently like someone. 

·  I have no idea what I want to do for the rest of my life. 

·  I want to have children in the future. 

·  I have
changed a diaper before.  (But
I didn’t enjoy it)

·  I’ve called the cops on a friend before.  (Long
story - happened during law school.)

·  I am a
member of the Tom Green fan club.

·  I’m not allergic to anything.

·  I have a
lot to learn.

·  I have
been with someone at least 10 years older or younger. 

·  I plan on
seeing Ice Cube’s newest “Friday” movie.

·  I am shy
around the opposite sex. 

·  I’m online 24/7, even as an away message.

·  I have at
least 5 away messages saved.

·  I have
tried alcohol or drugs before.  

·  I have
made a move on a friend’s significant other or crush in the past.

·  I own the “South
Park”
movie. 

·  I have
avoided assignments at work/school to be on Xanga or Livejournal. (Doing
that right now)

·  When I
was a kid I played “the birds and the bees” with a neighbor or chum

·  I enjoy some country music.

·  I would
die for my best friends. 

·  I think that Pizza Hut has the best pizza. 

·  I watch
soap operas whenever I can.

·  I’m obsessive, and often a perfectionist.

·  I have used
my sexuality to advance my career.

·  I love
Michael Jackson, scandals and all.

·  I know all
the words to Slick Rick’s “Children’s Story”.

·  Halloween
is awesome because you get free candy. (Actually Halloween is awesome because of the
costumes, but whatever) 

·  I watch
Spongebob Squarepants and I like it. 

·   I have dated a close friend’s ex.

·  I like
surveys/memes.  

·  I am happy at this moment.

·  I’m obsessed with guys.

·  I am bisexual.

·  Democrat. 
 

·  Conservative
Republican.  

·  I am punk
rockish. 

·  I am
preppy.  

·  I go for older guys/girls, not younger.

·  I study
for tests most of the time.

·  I tie my
shoelaces differently from anyone I’ve ever met.

·  I can
work on a car.

·  I love my job. 

·  I am comfortable with who I am right now. 

·  I have more than just my ears pierced.

·  I walk
barefoot wherever I can.

·  I have jumped off a bridge.

·  I love sea turtles. 

·  I spend
ridiculous amounts of money on makeup. 

·  I believe in prophetic dreams.

·  I plan
on achieving a major goal/dream. (Doesn’t everyone at least PLAN
to achieve?)

·  I am
proficient on a musical instrument.  

·  I worked at
McDonald’s restaurant.

·  I hate
office jobs. 

·  I love
sci-fi movies.

·  I think water rules. 

·  I am going
to college out of state.

·  I am
adopted. 

·  I like sausage.

·  I am a
pyro.   

·  I love the
Red Sox.

·  I have thrown up from crying too much.

·  I have
been intentionally hurt by people that I loved.

·  I love
kisses.

·  I fall for
the worst people and have been hurt every time.  

·  I adore
bright colors. 

·  I love Dear
Abby.

·  I can’t
live without black eyeliner.

·  I think
school is awesome.  

·  I think pigtails serve a purpose.

·  I don’t know why the hell I just did this stupid
thing.

·  I usually
like covers better than originals.

·  I don’t
like multi-textured ice cream. 

·  I think John Cusack is adorable.

·  I f**king hate chain theme restaurants like Applebees and TGIFridays.

·  I watch Food Network way too much. 

·  I love
coaching youth sports.

·  I can
pick up things with my toes. 

·  I can’t
whistle. 

·  I can move my tongue in waves, much like a snake's slither.

·  I have
ridden/owned a horse.

·  I still have every journal I’ve ever written in.

·  I can’t
stick to a diet. 

·  I talk in my sleep. 

·  I’ve
often thought that I was born in the wrong century.

·  I try to
forget things by drowning them out with loads of distractions.

·  Climbing trees is a brilliant pastime.

·  I have jazz in my blood.

·  I would
not be friends if they weren’t family.

·  I wear a
toe ring.

Personal responsibility.  Is this just an abstract concept to
those in power today?  I don't understand it.  I was raised
to take responsibility for my actions - I make a mistake, I own up to
it, say I am sorry and try to make it right.

But typical of the right-wingers currently in office, Shrub and his
lackeys appear to be avoiding personal responsibility.  Sure, when
the name of the person who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press
was just an anonymous press leak, the Bush White House took the hard
line.

"The White
House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they
would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If
these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our
national security."

...

The
disclosure also left in doubt whether Bush would carry out his promise
to fire anyone found to have leaked the CIA operative's identity. Rove
is one of the president's closest confidants - the man Bush has
described as the architect of his re-election, and currently deputy
White House chief of staff.



(From Excite News)

Today, it came to light that Karl Rove, one of those closest to Shrub,
is one of the people responsible for leaking the operative's
name.  Has the White House done anything about this?  Have
they fired him?  Have they pulled his security clearances? 
No, nothing doing.  The hard line rhetoric has proven to be just a
line of crap fed to us by a whole bunch of suit-wearing weasels. 

Same thing with Rush Limbaugh.  "Yes, all drug users and dealers
should be locked up and the key thrown away!"  Six months
later..."Well, I didn't mean ME of course - I am sick, I have an
illness!!  You can't have my medical records!  Wah fuckin'
wah!!"

Damned hypocrites.  Not that liberals are less hypocritical, I guess.  They are just less bold about it.