the debate: part iii

Ethan: i haven't read your response yet, but i will soon. just wanted to drop a note and say that the news was just saying that newt gingridge (sp.) is now saying we need to pull most of the troops out of iraq now and just leave a smaller force. what does that tell you?

Ethan: also, bush said that he hopes the iranian people can find a way to overthrow their government. why didn't he say the same thing about the iraqis then? you don't see us using force against iran, and they are on their way to actually making nukes. what made iraq so different then than iran today?

Ethan: i didn't mean to minimize the efforts and impact the u.s. had in winning wwii. i only meant to point to the fact that the author was minimizing the efforts and impact that other nations had on the outcome. your #2 was a pretty good counterpoint, although i am being lazy and not going back to review what i had originally wrote. so why, out of all the dictators in the world, did we choose saddam to take over? the terrorist on every one's mind at the time we started to really pick a fight with saddam, was osama. why didn't we increase efforts in that battle instead? Does it sound like a serious threat to you that i can think of half a dozen other dictators or leaders in the world that "would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the u.s."? when do we begin the attack on them? and let's just say that maybe the end will in fact outweigh the means and reasons for going in the first place. i still believe bush made a mistake, and letting him off without as least censure? think about that. you totally screw up, but hey, we forgive you because everything's great now. i'm not sure why you said that about afghanistan because i never implied that they were still doing bad today did i? as far as weapons go, you talk about how important the reason is for an america-hating dictator having a ton of weapons. but i've never seen any evidence that saddam, his crony's, or the common citizens of iraq was stockpiling weapons for an attack on the u.s. in any way. your final argument is a pretty obvious statement. i think everyone can agree that terrorism and a middle-east run by terrorists are a bad thing. so have you seriously decided on a name for the baby yet? or have you at least decided on the baby's middle letter?


remember those saturday morning cartoon commercial things that would say, "after these messages, we'll be right back"? i think they had a lot that were clay-mation or whatever. i'm sure they still have some today but they are probably jap anime. on kevin's blog he had some nifty survey-type thing. follow along.

go to your music player of choice and put it on shuffle.

say the following questions aloud, and press play.

use the song title as the answer to the question.

NO CHEATING.

1. How does the world see me?
close to me – the cure

2. Will I have a happy life?
king nothing – metallica

3. What do my friends really think of me?
random - 311

4. Do people secretly lust after me?
still waiting – sum 41

5. How can I make myself happy?
closedown – the cure

6. What should I do with my life?
just about done – blink 182

7. Will I ever have children?
toast and bananas – blink 182

8. What is some good advice for me?
japanese interview with rivers cuomo

9. How will I be remembered?
ironside – quincy jones

10. What is my signature dancing song?
frayed ends - midtown

11. What do I think my current theme song is?
strange attraction – the cure

12. What does everyone else think my current theme song is?
downtrodden song – dennis leary

13. What song will play at my funeral?
never say goodbye – the impossibles

14. What type of men/women do you like?
now the world - afi

15. What is my day going to be like?
new joint - =w=eezer

wow. yeah that's funny. and i didn't cheat either. gracias kevin.

Friends With Money (2006): the acting was pretty well done and believable. and i can believe that jennifer aniston's character would sort of date scott caan's character who treats her terribly. and i can also believe that her character could end up with this other guy at the end whose closest comparison that i can think of is hurley from lost. but what i can't believe is that she could not find a guy to settle down with until her mid-thirties. it's freaking jennifer aniston. and the character she plays isn't a bad person. she smokes a little weed and is kind of poor. none of that is too bad. and other than that she is the same jennifer aniston character seen in every other movie of her's. it is part of the backbone of the movie that she has gone all these years and is a single old poor girl, but i just kept thinking that there's no way she'd be single today. other than that it was a good movie. there are lots of different couple relationships going on, which are all very interesting. it's a grown-up movie for sure. it was also a sundance film, which makes it cool of course. it's rated r but right after leaving the movie i couldn't think of a reason it should have been except maybe for 'adult situations.' also jen tokes up a bit. so don't shy away just because of the r rating. it's cute and worth seeing.