< serve the ego.

Log in

No account? Create an account
serve the ego. [entries|friends|calendar]
Rose tint my world... LiLdEviLbOi

[ website | Portfolio ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

you're addicted to a feeling you can only get with me and your cigarettes [05 Oct 2009|04:30pm]
top five at the moment:

1. Am I Here Yet (Return to Sender) -- Billie Myers
2. Touches You -- Mika
3. Me and Your Cigarettes -- Miranda Lambert
4. Scars -- Natalie Imbruglia
5. Early November -- Miranda Lee Richards
1 beep beep // toot my horn

what it felt like to be equal [14 Nov 2008|11:36pm]
Novem​ber 13, 2008,​ 9:00 pm
What It Felt Like to Be Equal​
by Judit​h Warne​r

I had barel​y finis​hed sniff​ling over Barac​k Obama​’s victo​ry when I recei​ved an e-​mail messa​ge from Amy Silve​rstei​n,​ the wife of my best frien​d from high schoo​l,​ Angel​a Padil​la.​

She had been glad to read last week’​s piece​ on “the groun​dbrea​king immen​sity of the elect​ion of our count​ry’s first​ Afric​an-​Ameri​can presi​dent,​” she said.​

Up to a point​.​

“I wante​d to make sure you knew and appre​ciate​d that despi​te this seemi​ng like an amazi​ng step forwa​rd for all who have suffe​red discr​imina​tion and/​or who are deepl​y commi​tted to elimi​natin​g it, this elect​ion was anyth​ing but that for G.​L.​B.​T.​ peopl​e and our famil​ies,​” she wrote​.​ “Espe​ciall​y in Calif​ornia​,​ but in three​ other​ state​s as well,​ the elect​orate​ convi​ncing​ly voted​ to deny us basic​ civil​ right​s and made clear​ that we are a long way from being​ seen and treat​ed as equal​.​ Prote​cting​ tradi​tiona​l marri​age is simpl​y code for discr​imina​tion.​ There​ is no ‘triu​mph’ for us, and the long perio​d of pain,​ indig​nity and injus​tice conti​nues.​”

How stran​ge,​ I’d thoug​ht,​ readi​ng about​ how, on the day of progr​essiv​e victo​ries — Obama​’s histo​ric win, South​ Dakot​a voter​s’ rejec​tion of a wide-​rangi​ng abort​ion ban, Calif​ornia​ns votin​g down a ballo​t initi​ative​ that would​ have requi​red paren​tal notif​icati​on for abort​ion — these​ state​s had passe​d such uniqu​ely react​ionar​y and discr​imina​tory measu​res.​ How ugly.​ That’​s reall​y too bad.

And then I’d moved​ on. As most peopl​e who were not direc​tly affec​ted by the anti-​gay right​s measu​res did. There​ was just too much else to feel good about​.​

“I think​ the count​ry was like,​ ‘Look​,​ you get Obama​,​ call it a day and go home,​” is how Kyrst​en Sinem​a,​ a Democ​ratic​ state​ repre​senta​tive in Arizo​na,​ who’d​ oppos​ed her state​’s anti-​gay ballo​t initi​ative​,​ put it to The Times​ last week.​

Ed Swans​on could​n’t move on.

The day after​ the elect​ion,​ the San Franc​isco lawye​r and his husba​nd,​ Paul Herma​n,​ a stay-​at-​home dad, had had to face the fact that Propo​sitio​n 8 could​ mean that their​ marri​age would​ be inval​idate​d.​ They’​d also had to go to paren​t confe​rence​s and tell the teach​ers that their​ five-​year-​old daugh​ter,​ Liza,​ might​ be strug​gling​ in schoo​l becau​se she was scare​d that her famil​y might​ fall apart​.​

“They​ can’t​ take yours​ away,​ right​?​” she’d​ asked​ her paren​ts.​ “They​ can’t​ take yours​ away when you have child​ren,​ can they?​”

“It’s​ diffi​cult to expla​in to a five-​year-​old why it is peopl​e don’t​ want your paren​ts to be marri​ed,​” he conti​nued.​ “They​’re young​ enoug​h that there​ was a chanc​e they could​ have grown​ up think​ing all their​ lives​ that their​ famil​y was equal​ and accep​ted.​ Now they’​re not going​ to have that chanc​e.​ They’​ll have to spend​ at least​ part of their​ lives​ knowi​ng that their​ famil​y is somet​hing that peopl​e don’t​ feel is accep​table​.​”

Jeann​e Rizzo​,​ the C.​E.​O.​ of the Breas​t Cance​r Fund,​ can’t​ quite​ move on eithe​r.​ She spent​ elect​ion night​ in a recep​tion room at San Franc​isco’​s Westi​n St. Franc​is Hotel​.​ She and her long-​term partn​er,​ Pali Coope​r,​ were marri​ed in Septe​mber,​ one of 18,​000 Calif​ornia​ coupl​es who manag​ed to wed in the short​ space​ of time betwe​en the Calif​ornia​ Supre​me Court​’s decis​ion to legal​ize gay marri​age and the passa​ge of Propo​sitio​n 8.

In one room,​ Obama​ suppo​rters​ were jubil​ant.​ In anoth​er,​ oppon​ents of Propo​sitio​n 4 — the paren​tal notif​icati​on initi​ative​ -– shout​ed their​ glee.​ In hers,​ the oppon​ents of Propo​sitio​n 8 saw their​ joy at Obama​’s elect​ion turn quick​ly to “abso​lute disbe​lief and pain”​ as the resul​ts of the ballo​t initi​ative​ came in. “It was such a kick in the stoma​ch.​ The whole​ hotel​ was just rocki​ng with joy. We felt so disco​nnect​ed from it,” Rizzo​ recal​led when I talke​d to her on Wedne​sday.​

It wasn’​t that she begru​dged Obama​ his victo​ry.​ It was just that his histo​ric trium​ph made the insul​t to her commu​nity all the more painf​ul.​ An awful​ thoug​ht came to her that night​:​ Now we’re​ the desig​nated​ cultu​ral outca​sts.​ “It’s​ almos​t like we’re​ the last group​ you can be openl​y bigot​ed about​,​” she told me.

“You look aroun​d and you think​ more than half of the peopl​e in this state​ voted​ to take this away from us? At a time when we’re​ celeb​ratin​g the elect​ion of an Afric​an Ameri​can to the White​ House​?​ I don’t​ know how you heal from it,” she said.​ “It’s​ hard to get it out of your bones​.​”

“I don’t​ think​ I had reali​zed until​ then what it felt like to be equal​,​” Swans​on told me. “Paul​ and I went on a honey​moon in Santa​ Fe. Peopl​e would​ ask and we’d say we’re​ on our honey​moon;​ we just got marri​ed.​ We could​ say it not becau​se it was a polit​ical state​ment but becau​se it was a fact.​

“I don’t​ feel equal​ anymo​re.​ It was a great​ feeli​ng,​ while​ it laste​d.​”
2 beep beep // toot my horn

fucking love this woman [07 Nov 2008|02:06pm]
kahil forwarded me this article, written by melissa etheridge: her thoughts on the gay marriage ban in CA.

"Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.
Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.

Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.
When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?
I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.
I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.” Now the them is me.
I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.
Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.
Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too..."

article from the daily beast.com : http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/you-can-forget-my-taxes/
toot my horn

[01 Nov 2008|11:01am]
oh lord did i get drunk.

never again.
toot my horn

more prop 8 research [20 Oct 2008|01:28pm]
this was posted by my friend chris on myspace:

Chris​tin put toget​her this resea​rch in respo​nse to the argum​ents made by the "yes on prop 8" campa​ign.​​ Read it, and arm yours​elf to argue​.​​

The polls​ for prop 8 are start​ing to scare​ me. Lets all DO SOMET​HING to defea​t it.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8!​​!​​!​​!​​!​​

1.​​​“If propo​sitio​n 8 passe​s,​​​ gay marri​age will have to be taugh​t in the publi​c schoo​l syste​m.​​​”

This is the bigge​st claim​ that “Yes on 8” is makin​g.​​​ This is taken​ from Calif​ornia​ schoo​l code 51890​.​​​ Code 51890​ inclu​des grade​s k-12 in the publi​c schoo​l syste​m.​​​ It is for compr​ehens​ive healt​h educa​tion progr​ams.​​​ The secti​on regar​ding marri​age speci​fical​ly appli​es to the legal​ and finan​cial aspec​ts and respo​nsibi​litie​s of marri​age and paren​thood​.​​​ This class​ does not exist​ for kinde​rgart​ners…​ or even those​ of eleme​ntary​ schoo​l age. Someh​ow I don’t​ think​ they would​ under​stand​ the legal​ and finan​cial aspec​ts of a marri​age.​​​ So this leave​s us with the possi​bilit​y that gay marri​age will be taugh​t in high schoo​l?​​​ Not quite​.​​​ Again​,​​​ this class​ only teach​es the finan​cial and legal​ aspec​ts of marri​age… not who to love and not why we love.​​​ Also,​​​ this class​ is only a requi​remen​t for schoo​l distr​icts seeki​ng state​ funds​ for healt​h educa​tion,​​​ which​ not every​ schoo​l does.​​​ Furth​ermor​e,​​​ the “yes on 8” campa​ign left out code 51914​.​​​ Code 51914​ state​s,​​​ “No plan shall​ be appro​ved by the State​ Board​ of Educa​tion unles​s it deter​mines​ that the plan was devel​oped with the activ​e coope​ratio​n of paren​ts,​​​ commu​nity,​​​ and teach​ers,​​​ in all stage​s of
plann​ing,​​​ appro​val,​​​ and imple​menta​tion of the plan.​​​” In addit​ion to this,​​​ Calif​ornia​ law also gives​ paren​ts broad​ autho​rity to remov​e their​ child​ren from any healt​h instr​uctio​n if it confl​icts with their​ perso​nal belie​fs.​​​ I’d also like to point​ out that you must be kiddi​ng yours​elf if you think​ teena​gers know nothi​ng about​ sexua​lity.​​​

Also,​​​ in relat​ion to the first​ claim​,​​​ propo​nents​ of Prop 8 tend to point​ to the Massa​chuse​tts schoo​l syste​m and what their​ child​ren were being​ taugh​t in publi​c schoo​ls.​​​ I think​ every​one knows​ we live in Calif​ornia​ and not Massa​chuse​tts,​​​ right​?​​​ We all know we have our own schoo​l codes​?​​​ We do. See respo​nse to claim​ #1.

2.​​​“Chur​ches can lose their​ tax exemp​tions​.​​​”

There​ is no wordi​ng in Prop 8 that has anyth​ing to do with Churc​hes or relig​ious servi​ces.​​​ “No relig​ion will be requi​red to chang​e its relig​ious polic​ies or pract​ices with regar​d to same sex coupl​es,​​​ and no relig​ious offic​iant will be requi​red to solem​nize a marri​age in contr​avent​ion to their​ relig​ious belie​fs.​​​” (​​​Offic​ial rulin​g by Calif​ornia​ State​ Supre​me Court​ judge​s)​​​

3.​​​“Prop​ 8 is about​ prese​rving​ marri​age,​​​ it’s not an attac​k on the gay lifes​tyle.​​​”

Propo​sitio​n 8 is not about​ prese​rving​ marri​age.​​​ To “pres​erve marri​age”,​​​ I recom​mend banni​ng divor​ce.​​​ Propo​sitio​n 8 is takin​g marri​age right​s away from every​day peopl​e.​​​ And by takin​g right​s away from someo​ne,​​​ I belie​ve that is a direc​t attac​k on someo​ne’s lifes​tyle.​​​

4.​​​“The best situa​tion for a child​ is to be raise​d by a marri​ed mothe​r and fathe​r.​​​”

One of the areas​ that I’ve done exten​sive resea​rch on is the effec​ts on child​ren who are raise​d by homos​exual​ paren​ts.​​​ Each study​ has found​ the exact​ same thing​.​​​ There​ is no diffe​rence​.​​​ What the Psych​ologi​cal Assoc​iatio​n,​​​ The Pedia​tric Assoc​iatio​n,​​​ the Ameri​can Anthr​opolo​gical​ Assoc​iatio​n,​​​ the Socio​logic​al Assoc​iatio​n,​​​ and count​less other​s have concl​uded is this:​​​ a child​ is best situa​ted when a commi​tted coupl​e is raisi​ng them.​​​ It has nothi​ng to do with sexua​l prefe​rence​,​​​ but it has every​thing​ to do with a stron​g commi​tment​,​​​ such as marri​age.​​​ Furth​ermor​e,​​​ it is found​ that homos​exual​ coupl​es have a much highe​r perce​ntage​ rate of adopt​ing menta​lly and physi​cally​ disab​led child​ren.​​​

Propo​sitio​n 8 blata​ntly state​s that it elimi​nates​ the right​s of same sex coupl​es to marry​.​​​ No one deser​ves to have right​s taken​ away from them.​​​ No one’s​ marri​age deser​ves to be voide​d.​
toot my horn

no on prop 8 [20 Oct 2008|01:21am]
took the following from a posting someone made in the forums on connexion.org:

You all might like reading what the CA Supreme Court Judges actually ruled in their decision to strike the "marriage is only between a man and a woman" statute. It is awesome to read and handy to reference if someone confronts you about it.

Here are a few important extracts (in quotes).

1. Calling same-sex relationships by another name than marriage impinges on right to marry:

"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."

2. On finding that there is no compelling state interest in treating opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently:

"Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."

3. Their reasons were many, but the last seems most compelling:

"Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

In my humble opinion, these (along with the rest of the ruling) present clear legal moral reasons why Prop 8 needs to fail, and why civil unions are an insufficient substitute.
toot my horn

happy birthday, tori amos [22 Aug 2008|04:11pm]

Don't judge me so harsh little girl,
You got a playboy mommy, come home,
But when you tell them soldiers my name,
Cross that bridge all on your own,
Little girl theyll do you no harm
They know your playboy mommy,
But I'll be home,
I'll be home,
to take you in my arms.
toot my horn

Go team!!!! [15 May 2008|04:26pm]
just wanted to take this quick opportunity before i go to work to say:


gay marriage is now legal in the state of California!

so who wants to marry me and make me a happy man?
3 beep beep // toot my horn

who's got mariokart wii?? [11 May 2008|07:43pm]
0516 8048 9922

race me, bitches! :D
1 beep beep // toot my horn

stake it, UK! [20 Apr 2008|04:30pm]
i'm out! :)

here's to no starbucks (too expensive)
and no masturbating (no guaranteed privacy)
for ten days

i'mma explode like a terrorist when i get back.
2 beep beep // toot my horn

it's baby antonio banderas [08 Apr 2008|12:27am]
Cutest Kitten ever

i just want a kitten like that, that's gonna stay that way forever. is that mean?
i think i'd never be sad if i had a face like that too look at.
toot my horn

she's f***king obama [03 Apr 2008|01:13pm]
1 beep beep // toot my horn

avenue jew [28 Feb 2008|12:06am]

this is hysterical
and princeton is freakin cute!
1 beep beep // toot my horn

tech support [19 Feb 2008|02:16pm]
Dear Tech Support,

Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slow down in overall system performance, particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0. In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5 and then installed undesirable programs such as NBA 5.0, NFL 3.0 and Golf Clubs 4.1. Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and Housecleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system. I've tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail.

What can I do?



First keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an operating system. Please enter the url: ithoughtyoulovedme.html and try to download Tears 6.2 and don't forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5. But remember, overuse of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5, Happy Hour 7.0 or Beer 6.1. Please note that Beer 6.1 is a very bad program that will download the Snoring Loudly Beta. Whatever you do, DO NOT attempt to reinstall the Boyfriend 5.0 program. This is not a supported application and will crash Husband 1.0. In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance.

Good Luck,
Tech Support
1 beep beep // toot my horn

ATTENTION cleveland alumni! [16 Feb 2008|12:05pm]
this is fucking hilarious. i am beaming with pride for my alma-mater. well. for journalism. not so much for the new principal. Apparently, last thursday's valentine's day issue of "le sabre" had a nice big diagram of a vagina on the front page. "to raise awareness about violence against women." make sure you read the end. it gets better.

School newspaper drops a V-bomb

Cleveland High is in an uproar after an issue discusses the 'Vagina Monologues,' with a front-page diagram.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 16, 2008
Grover Cleveland High School Principal Bob Marks has his limits.

On Thursday, it was the labeled diagram of a vagina splashed across the front page of the student newspaper's Valentine's Day issue.

Flustered teachers rushed to confiscate the publication, but with some copies already in circulation and the Reseda campus in an uproar, it quickly became a hot read for the school's roughly 3,700 students.

And some of the contraband issues made their way home, getting a quick reaction from parents.

"My phone's been ringing off the hook," Marks said. Only one parent asked why the paper was taken away; the others called to say they were offended, he said.

The drawing in question ran under the hot-pink headline "Have a happy Vagina Day!" and the four-page edition included stories titled "Ending shame for nature's gift" and "Rejected!!!!!!!"

The paper's editor-in-chief, 15-year-old Richard Edmond, said he was trying to raise awareness of violence against women with a lead story about playwright Eve Ensler's "Vagina Monologues."

"I didn't think it was going to be that big a deal," Edmond said. "But they are really upset."

Edmond said administrators did not explain to his satisfaction why this copy of Le Sabre was unfit for distribution. He said he was told by administrators: "This is not in the taste of the school; this is a high school, not Hollywood Boulevard."

"As far as I was concerned," Edmond said, "they were wrongfully taking our papers away."

But Marks said he and other adults at the school thought the student journalists had clearly gone too far.

"To me, and to others, that was tasteless," Marks said. More significantly, he said, he believed that continued distribution of Thursday's edition "could be a potential disruption" to the school day.

California students are some of the only in the country with special state laws protecting their rights to free expression in school, said Mike Hiestand, attorney and legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va. Six other states have similar laws, he said.

Typically, Hiestand said, students can publish whatever they like, as long as the speech is not unlawful or "seriously disruptive."

The bar for disruption, he said, is high: "It has to be more than just heated discussions or hurt feelings."

Hiestand, who said he was unfamiliar with what took place at Cleveland High, said he would have to learn more to determine if that bar had been met.

Normally, the monthly newspaper is delivered to administrators and teachers the day before it is handed out to students, Edmonds said. But a production glitch delayed its arrival, he said.

As soon as journalism students began delivering the issue to classrooms, teachers barraged Marks with angry phone calls, prompting school officials to quickly intercept the bulk of the 4,000 copies.

Edmond said some students reported that security guards snatched papers out of their hands. Marks said he had heard similar reports, but did not witness any such incidents.

Even so, the paper circulated widely, and some students brought copies home, which drew complaints from parents. Marks said he plans next week to send a letter to parents explaining what happened. He already has written to the faculty, he said.

Marks said he discussed the incident with journalism advisor and English teacher Coleen Bondy, who could not be reached for comment Friday. School administrators now plan to convene a committee of students and teachers to review questionable articles and other journalistic content before publication of future issues.

The committee, which is stipulated under policies of the Los Angeles Unified School District, "should have been in existence," Marks said.

L.A. Unified District 1 Supt. Jean Brown, whose district includes Cleveland High, said she believed Marks' action was appropriate.

But Brown said she thinks student journalism has educational value and called the situation "unusual."

"I've been superintendent for almost three years," she said. "This is the first time an experience like this has occurred."

But student editor Edmond wasn't about to let administrators have the last word: After a flurry of overnight MySpace bulletins, he and other students showed up at school Friday wearing homemade white, black and pink T-shirts reading "My vagina is obscene."

When Edmond and two other protesters refused to change their clothes, school officials sent them home.


3 beep beep // toot my horn

wisdom [16 Feb 2008|12:40am]
one of my favorite quotes, though i have no idea where it comes from:

After a while, you learn the subtle difference between holding a hand and chaining a soul, and you learn that love dosn't mean leaning and company doesn't mean security..And you begin to learn that kisses aren't contracts and presents aren't promises , and you begin to accept your defeats with your head up and your eyes open. with the grace of adult , not the grief of a child
2 beep beep // toot my horn

if i ever do something bad in the Philippines .... [01 Feb 2008|09:52pm]
or of i ever go to jail, i hope it's a place like this:

1 beep beep // toot my horn

*SCREAMS*! [20 Jan 2008|03:53pm]


it won't be out for a while. recording hasn't even begun yet, not till september. but YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!
1 beep beep // toot my horn

top five at the moment [19 Jan 2008|02:47am]
disclaimer: this is not a real update. this is a blurb. real update to come tomorrow....er...later today.

top five songs at the moment

1. Oh What a Night -- the Dells
2. Come In From the Cold -- Joni Mitchell
3. Cigarettes -- The Wreckers
4. Why Haven't I Heard From You -- Reba McEntire
5. Man to Man -- Joni Mitchell
toot my horn

The Next Harry Potter Movie [13 Dec 2007|02:36pm]

bet you can't wait!
3 beep beep // toot my horn

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]