I am the plenipotentiary* of my life
I have control over it.
Why then does it feel like I don't at times? Like other people are making decisions for me? Like I am relegated to a certain path not because I choose it but rather because someone has put up barriers to keep me there.
Well I tell you I am done with that. Give me a sledge hammer.
This work thing is lasting only a year more. Thats it, I wontbe able to take it any longer than that. Why even that long, well I am going to go to grad school. I am going to take steps to do what I really want. And that wont be until next fall. So that means work will last another year and then I am so out of the chairborn rangers (or desk jockey for those who have no military influences) and I am going to do it. Nothing to say I cant go back to a desk job if the need arises, but fuck the desk, I want to create.
I have been mulling the idea over and doing some research the past few days, and anything that has this much thought given to it must be the right path to take. So thats it. Decision made.
Now I just have to hope that I get accepted somewhere....
*plenipotentiary: invested with full power.
noun:
1. A person invested with full power to transact any business; especially, an ambassador or diplomatic agent with full power to negotiate a treaty or to transact other business.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
From the White House News Summary:
In 13-Year-Old Interview, Cheney Says Iraq Invasion Would Be “Quagmire.” CNN’s Situation Room (8/13, King) reported, “In a 13-year-old interview now surfacing on YouTube,” Vice President Cheney “said that invading Iraq war would lead to a quagmire. The video now has almost a quarter-million views.” CNN (Tatton) added, “This is Dick Cheney in 1994 on the risks involved in going into Baghdad. Watch the clip now in the context of 2007 and you will see why it's one of the hottest videos on YouTube.” Asked if US or UN forces should have moved in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, Cheney responded, “No,” noting that “once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? … It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.”
Ain't that a kick in the head!
Not that Cheney ever answers for any of his words or actions, but I wonder what he would say if he had the inclination to respond.
On another note, however, that was 13 years ago. The world has changed, and we cannot expect people to act in the way we would have expected them to act 13 years ago. Just because the situation turned out to be exactly what Cheney said it would 13 years ago, does not mean that we should have expected. it.
Just saying that's all.
In 13-Year-Old Interview, Cheney Says Iraq Invasion Would Be “Quagmire.” CNN’s Situation Room (8/13, King) reported, “In a 13-year-old interview now surfacing on YouTube,” Vice President Cheney “said that invading Iraq war would lead to a quagmire. The video now has almost a quarter-million views.” CNN (Tatton) added, “This is Dick Cheney in 1994 on the risks involved in going into Baghdad. Watch the clip now in the context of 2007 and you will see why it's one of the hottest videos on YouTube.” Asked if US or UN forces should have moved in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, Cheney responded, “No,” noting that “once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? … It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.”
Ain't that a kick in the head!
Not that Cheney ever answers for any of his words or actions, but I wonder what he would say if he had the inclination to respond.
On another note, however, that was 13 years ago. The world has changed, and we cannot expect people to act in the way we would have expected them to act 13 years ago. Just because the situation turned out to be exactly what Cheney said it would 13 years ago, does not mean that we should have expected. it.
Just saying that's all.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Annoyance
Why is it that the one decade I am looking to research is the one decade missing from Wikipedia's Fashion History pages. Sure the 30s have a section in "Fashion History" but it seems as if every other decade has its own "19__s in fashion" pages except the one I need.
To put some perspective and reason behind this post, I am costuming "Then There Were None", and Agatha Christie murder mystery at Laurel Mill Playhouse, a local community theatre that I play with.
I am in need of a costume history book. A really good one. Not just for this show, but just in general. I feel that it is a must have for any aspiring costume designer. Historical accuracy is very important. Well at least in my opinion.
Any one know of any really thorough, in depth costume history books?
To put some perspective and reason behind this post, I am costuming "Then There Were None", and Agatha Christie murder mystery at Laurel Mill Playhouse, a local community theatre that I play with.
I am in need of a costume history book. A really good one. Not just for this show, but just in general. I feel that it is a must have for any aspiring costume designer. Historical accuracy is very important. Well at least in my opinion.
Any one know of any really thorough, in depth costume history books?
What about the middle of the road?
I just read this article in the Washington Post Online
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201929.html
It is a book review of "Girls Gone Mild" by Wendy Shalit, who also wrote "A Return to Modesty"
'an invitation to indulge in what she called the "lost virtue." Conservatives hailed it as a much-needed antidote to the poisonous legacy of the sexual revolution. Liberals, not as kind, wrote it off as a neo-Victorian call for a return to the bad old days when ladies were supposed to behave themselves.'
Shalit also hosts a web site called "Modesty Zone"
In "Girls", Shalit 'believes that too many girls and women have been denied a happy ending because, post-sexual revolution, we now believe it's good to be bad. "The plain fact," she writes, "is that girls today have to be 'bad' to fit in, just as the baby boomers needed to be good. And we are finding that this new script may be more oppressive than the old one ever was." You can't meet Mr. Right when you're busy shagging a series of Mr. Wrongs.'
Firstly I'd like to point out that they are by no means, "Mr. Wrong"s, they are called "Mr. Right-Now"s.
All kidding aside, From the review it sounds as if Shalit tries to scare parents of young girls into believing that their daughters are destined for one of two paths in life. That of the modest, virginal "good" girl, or that of the promiscuous hussy. Apparently the proof is given by citing Bratz dolls, Pop Tarts, and the sex-crazed world we live in. It sounds as if she has little faith in parents and their ability to protect their children from those sorts of influences (granted, it is indeed a dubious argument to say that all parents do a good job at protecting their children from the "world of sex"). I recall reading at some point, that the influences of the world just don't add up to parental influences. As in a child can be exposed to the real world and remain relatively free of the "bad" as long as their parents set a good example and teach them to be "good" people. (Sure there are rotten eggs even amongst the greatest of parents, but as a rule....)
It scares me that someone would believe there to be only two ends in sight for girls (and then try and convince others of the veracity of such a belief). What happened to those who ride down the middle? Or just left of middle? Almost far right, but not quite there because she had sex with her fiance before they were married? There all types. Its not all or nothing.
I am not sure exactly where I am going with this discussion, more that I found it interesting (and frightening) that someone would write a book from the perspective. I don't have any problem with the opinion that virtue is something that needs to be brought back, or that Women should not spend their lives pining over Men, sleeping with whomever comes along. I can agree, but to present it as if there are only two choices is what scares me some.
Of course the understanding that there are only two choices is based on a reviewers take of the book. Perhaps if I am at the library any time soon, I will pick it up and at least read some of it. Of course, I don't go to the library that often. Perhaps I should.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201929.html
It is a book review of "Girls Gone Mild" by Wendy Shalit, who also wrote "A Return to Modesty"
'an invitation to indulge in what she called the "lost virtue." Conservatives hailed it as a much-needed antidote to the poisonous legacy of the sexual revolution. Liberals, not as kind, wrote it off as a neo-Victorian call for a return to the bad old days when ladies were supposed to behave themselves.'
Shalit also hosts a web site called "Modesty Zone"
In "Girls", Shalit 'believes that too many girls and women have been denied a happy ending because, post-sexual revolution, we now believe it's good to be bad. "The plain fact," she writes, "is that girls today have to be 'bad' to fit in, just as the baby boomers needed to be good. And we are finding that this new script may be more oppressive than the old one ever was." You can't meet Mr. Right when you're busy shagging a series of Mr. Wrongs.'
Firstly I'd like to point out that they are by no means, "Mr. Wrong"s, they are called "Mr. Right-Now"s.
All kidding aside, From the review it sounds as if Shalit tries to scare parents of young girls into believing that their daughters are destined for one of two paths in life. That of the modest, virginal "good" girl, or that of the promiscuous hussy. Apparently the proof is given by citing Bratz dolls, Pop Tarts, and the sex-crazed world we live in. It sounds as if she has little faith in parents and their ability to protect their children from those sorts of influences (granted, it is indeed a dubious argument to say that all parents do a good job at protecting their children from the "world of sex"). I recall reading at some point, that the influences of the world just don't add up to parental influences. As in a child can be exposed to the real world and remain relatively free of the "bad" as long as their parents set a good example and teach them to be "good" people. (Sure there are rotten eggs even amongst the greatest of parents, but as a rule....)
It scares me that someone would believe there to be only two ends in sight for girls (and then try and convince others of the veracity of such a belief). What happened to those who ride down the middle? Or just left of middle? Almost far right, but not quite there because she had sex with her fiance before they were married? There all types. Its not all or nothing.
I am not sure exactly where I am going with this discussion, more that I found it interesting (and frightening) that someone would write a book from the perspective. I don't have any problem with the opinion that virtue is something that needs to be brought back, or that Women should not spend their lives pining over Men, sleeping with whomever comes along. I can agree, but to present it as if there are only two choices is what scares me some.
Of course the understanding that there are only two choices is based on a reviewers take of the book. Perhaps if I am at the library any time soon, I will pick it up and at least read some of it. Of course, I don't go to the library that often. Perhaps I should.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
New
So I says to myself, "Self. What do you need yet another blog for?" And I reply, "Why not?"
So here it is, another blog to add to the Live Journal that I am bad at posting on, and a blog that exists somewhere in cyber space on my old webpage that I havent updated in about a gazillion years. I believe it was the annoying casino spam comments that would occur that made me stop using that particular blog.
So I guess my aim is to use this blog as my public forum, for thoughts, observations, shameless bragging (should the situation warrant), ranting, etc.
So welcome to my new spot on the web and I hope you return again.
So here it is, another blog to add to the Live Journal that I am bad at posting on, and a blog that exists somewhere in cyber space on my old webpage that I havent updated in about a gazillion years. I believe it was the annoying casino spam comments that would occur that made me stop using that particular blog.
So I guess my aim is to use this blog as my public forum, for thoughts, observations, shameless bragging (should the situation warrant), ranting, etc.
So welcome to my new spot on the web and I hope you return again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
