Laminated Book of Dreams (a reprint of a finer work)

I needed a backup solution. I had a terabyte hard drive attached to the Mac Mini in the sitting room, but it died rather unexpectedly one day making it a somewhat less attractive backup solution. I gave in and bought a NAS. The Seagate Black Armor 110 NAS actually which I’m really rather enjoying. Their backup software is missing for the Mac, but that’s ok because I have Time Machine. Except that Time Machine is a finicky mistress and doesn’t like some kinds of systems. Particularly, it has issues with NAS not running as AFP. That’s ok, I thought, because there’s a handy “let Time Machine see unsupported drives” command that can be run. It made me happy until I tried it and found that it could not Time Machine up with my NAS. Sadness.

I decided that I would just go the way that I had done before and rsync me up a backup solution. It didn’t take that long to bash (ow, the puns, they burn) out a shell script and have an rsync solution working. Except for another snag. Whatever filesystem the NAS is using is not happy with hard links so my usual rolling backup didn’t want to play. There was a whole lot of failing going on.

I got a bit clever after that and decided that I would write in some more shell scripting to create a disc image (.dmg) as a HFS+J sparse image using hdiutil, attach it, rsync into the disc image and then detach it. No doubt a HFS+J partition would be able to support hard links… Anyway, here’s the script. Comments?

#!/bin/sh

#parameters
useDiskImage=1
diskImageSize=250g
keep=3

source=/Users/simsea
volume=/Volumes/simsea
dest=${volume}/Backups

# check parameters
if [ $keep -lt 3 ]; then
    keep=3
fi

if [ ! -d ${volume} ]; then
    echo Opening volume $volume
    mkdir ${volume}
    mount -t smbfs //simsea@192.168.1.2/simsea ${volume}
fi

if [ ! -d $dest ]; then
    echo Making destination
    mkdir -p $dest
fi

# make a backup disk image
if [ $useDiskImage -eq 1 ]; then
    dest=${dest}/Backup.dmg.sparseimage
    if [ ! -e ${dest} ]; then
	echo Creating disc image $dest
        hdiutil create -size $diskImageSize -type SPARSE -fs HFS+J -volname Backup -autostretch $dest
    fi
    echo Mounting disc image $dest
    hdiutil attach -readwrite $dest
    dest=/Volumes/Backup
fi

echo Deleting ancient backups
num=0
start=`expr $keep - 1`
# delete the oldest backups
while [ -d ${dest}/backup.${num} ]; do
    if [ $num -ge $start ]; then
        echo Deleting ${dest}/backup.${num}
        rm -rf ${dest}/backup.${num}
    fi
    num=`expr $num + 1`
done

for ((i = $start; i > 0; --i)); do
    other=`expr $i - 1`
    echo Moving ${dest}/backup.$other to ${dest}/backup.$i
    mv ${dest}/backup.$other ${dest}/backup.$i
done

echo Performing rsync

# do the rsync thing
rsync -v -a --delete --exclude-from=${HOME}/.backup/exclusions --link-dest=${dest}/backup.1 ${source}/ ${dest}/backup.0

# detach the image if necessary
if [ $useDiskImage -eq 1 ]; then
    echo Detaching mount
    hdiutil detach $dest
fi

I’ve decided that I need to provide a history lesson for some people that keep shooting their mouths off in, what really ought to have been, polite political discourse. Generally speaking, I think that we need to invoke The First Corollary of Godwin’s Law for political discourse, but it’s just getting a bit out of hand.

The history lesson is on the Nazis and Nazism.

Nazism refers to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, known more simply as the Nazi Party. In the expression of its name, the Nazi party was a combination of Nationalist and Socialist ideas. Though the party incorporated ideas from both the left-wing and right-wing, they are considered to be a far-right party as they themselves formed most allegiances with members of the right-wing.

The party was primarily a party for German Nationalism. They believed that the Treaty of Versailles was an act of weakness in the German leadership, the Aryan Germans were superior to all races, the Communists were gaining too much power, and international capitalism was a Jewish controlled movement. They believed that the state should be responsible for Social Welfare and originally had removed the “Socialist” from the title of the part to ease potential members’ worries that they were in any way a Marxist party. In fact, originally the party went through great efforts to assure the middle class that their only socialist ideas were to do with Social Welfare given only to those of the Aryan race. Through their nationalist policies, they called for a unified Germany as a “national community” that was completely “jew-free”.

Hitler himself was less interested in the “Socialist” aspect of the party than early members were. He was most interested in the “Nationalist” element. Hitler’s version of the Nazi party drew more membership through his oratory skills and that the party was seen as a backlash against the liberal and socialist policies of the post-WWI German government.

Rampant Nationalism is what history tells of the Nazis, not Socialism. Fascism is a form of extreme Nationalism. Genocide is a result of extreme Nationalism. Xenophobia and racial persecution is a result of extreme Nationalism.

Marx and the socialists opposed Nationalism. Socialism, put simply, simply means to make equal access to resources to all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Marx and the other socialists had some pretty diverse and sometimes strange notions on how that should work.

Social welfare is a small part of Socialism where the state tries to assure that individuals can achieve a minimum level of income, services and other support usually at the expense of the taxpayer. At its roots is the idea that some services are basic needs for people and they should not be denied to people because of a lack of financial compensation.

We already have social welfare. Now we just need to make it work or get rid of it entirely.

Let’s start by putting this in perspective. The U.S. Census Bureau said that 45.7 million of Americans had no health insurance in 2007 (roughly 15.8% of the total population, 18% of the population under the age of 65). Of those uninsured Americans, 8.1 million were children (roughly 10% of the population of children in the U.S.).

Let’s just talk about the children for a moment then. It’s not too long in the news cycle before you hear someone spouting off something along the lines of “Won’t someone think of the children” when championing their cause of the day. I won’t get into those causes quite yet, but let’s take their advice and think of the children.

According to the Population Reference Bureau 2008 report, The United States is 47th on the Infant Mortality Rate list boasting a 6.6 deaths / 1000 live births. This list does not include still birth data. Of the Developed Nations list from the IMF, the U.S. is dead last. I am not joking. The closest in the running is Slovakia at 6.1. Our favourite “Socialist” Healthcare punching bag, Canada, is currently running at 5.4 and the other “Shockingly Socialist” Healthcare, the U.K. is enjoying themselves at 4.9. The U.S. slipped from the 2006 report, ranking 33rd at 6.3. It seems to be that the situation is getting worse in the U.S. and better for everyone else.

The U.S. is very outspoken on each side of the abortion debate. Pro-life (anti-choice) supporters are in favour of, in its strongest form, making all abortions illegal because they believe that the feotus is a human life and must be preserved. The pro-choice (anti-life / pro-abortion) believe that a woman has the right to make her own decisions on her reproductive health and we should make it as safe as possible. (I’m over-simplifying, I know, but bear with). Polling data shows that 43% of the population is pro-life and that most of those who identify as pro-choice wish to find ways of reducing the number of abortions performed.

Let us assume then that most every woman who chooses to carry a pregnancy to term wishes for the baby to be born health and grow up to be President or an Astronaut. I’m thinking that this is pretty true regardless of their ideas on abortion. Ironically, if they were to give birth in another developed nation with “socialised” healthcare and less outspoken criticism of the choice of abortion, their child would have a higher chance of surviving childbirth. I’m thinking that if the 43% of the population indicating “pro-choice” were really very concerned about protecting the lives of potential astronauts, they’d start with the women who wanted to give birth. I would think that their first move would be to improve the healthcare system in the U.S. so that it could take better care of those who wished to give birth. Sadly though, and I couldn’t find statistics to support this hypothesis, I believe that most of the pro-life crowd are also anti-universal-healthcare. Also, I could not find any data on infant mortality against income in the U.S. but it would make sense that lower income would have higher infant mortality as well as non-insured have a higher infant mortality.

I don’t agree with where the current bill has gone and I sincerely hope that it gets washed out so that we can try again and do it right. The U.S. needs real healthcare reform. It does not need bending over to corporate interests as a patch-up measure.

The Bill had two objectives: provide healthcare coverage to those without and to rein in the ever rising costs of medical care. The Senate committee successfully managed to reduce this to making a vague arm-waving attempt at seeming like they are thinking about slowing the inflation of medical costs. Maybe. It would be like going to war with the primary objective of finding the leader and the high-ranking members of a terrorist network and bringing them to justice, and the secondary objective of inflicting peace on Middle East nations only to bail almost entirely and settle for installing U.S.-friendly governments who will help us with future oil interests.

The arguments come out almost as they always have. This bill is a job-killer, will hurt small businesses, will allow the government to decide to kill you, will kick small puppies in darkened alleys.

In the current system, Healthcare coverage is run by corporations, not doctors, not puppies with lab coats, not magic faeries or good-natured wealthy benefactors who would rather enjoy watching you grow up through the years, encouraging you through trials and tribulations, and celebrating your victories. A corporation has a legal obligation to do the thing that maximises the profits of the stock-holders. If you, as a prospective patient, would potentially cost the corporation millions in profits, you would be denied coverage. It is a simple equation. Not mean-spirited, not evil, not personal. Simple. Corporations are amoral. Trying to get them to act moral under their own devices is an impossible contradiction to their legal obligation to make more money. That’s where regulation came in. The idea was to try and give the implicitly amoral corporations a moral arm, the Jiminy Cricket of the corporate world.

In the current system, it is an amoral entity driven by profits that decides if your treatment for an illness will be covered. Think what you will of the government, but at the very least they are, as we are keenly aware, not driven by profit.

I recommend reading the short list of Healthcare facts on the non-partisan NCHC page. For example, the rate of employer-based covered dropped from 70% to 62% in ten years. Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health coverage in one year (2006 -2007). Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more. Put simply, that means that the middle-class is losing their health insurance faster than anyone else. Businesses are more hurt by employees who are ill or have worries about ill family than a universal healthcare system, i’ll wager.

I have a Volkswagen. Technically, I have two Volkswagens. A 2007 GTI of which I am very fond and a 1978 Beetle convertible. There’s a long history with the ‘78 and despite our differences from time to time, it’s a relationship I find near impossible to sever. My parents have been very kind in minding it when I’ve been living in the UK and now that I’m living in CA, we all thought it was time I came and fetched it. I looked online and called a bunch of people to see about having it transported out here. Estimates were in the $1,000+ range for having someone put it on a lorry and bring it out. Estimates were also very expensive for getting a car trailer and towing it myself. So, I made the decision to drive it all the way out to CA from MA. I know it was a bit of a gutsy move driving a potentially unreliable 30 year old car 3,000 miles in a short period of time, but I’m only young once and I have (near) absolute faith in the bug. Between ms. mosephine and I, we managed to figure out a way to time the trip in such a way to visit with a bunch of people and also spend Easter with my family (I think my mum liked that a lot). This plan, sadly, involved ms. mosephine and I to walk different paths and only briefly intersecting at Easter. She would not be accompanying me on the trip out to CA.

I started out on the Monday afternoon and went from Boston to Western MA where I met up with a longtime friend of mine who I consider a brother. I absolutely had to meet his new baby and spend some time catching up. I’m going to throw in a gratuitous pitch here, and, in case you’re curious, I have no shame in doing so. His band, The Aeon Saga, are doing well and really starting to make a name for themselves. If you’re a fan of metal, you should check them out. Speaking of metal bands you might like, also check out my cousin’s band, Desiccation. They’ve won some high school battle of the bands thing with a Boston radio station and are getting some good press. Right, shout outs are now down, the story may continue.

Got on the road properly after a nice breakfast and a good chat. I do realise that Boston to Northampton, MA does not a long trip make, but I really wanted to test the waters with the bug before I committed to a long haul across the US. There were other rules. No massive burns on speed. Yes, the car can cruise well at 70-75, but it’s more likely that something will go wrong so I was doing my best to keep it sub 70. Anyway, it didn’t take me long to get to New York.

New York was a pretty drive and one thing of particular note that I saw was the 4-truck orgy driving along at great speed.

I though about stopping at Niagara Falls when I passed through Buffalo, but ms. mosephine has not seen them as well, so I wanted to go with her as well. I know it’s a bit soppy, but there are just some things better done with company. Shortly after passing up that opportunity, Pennsylvania was welcoming me. This may sound insulting to those of you fond of Northern PA, but I didn’t really see anything terribly fascinating traveling through, so we move swiftly forward to Ohio, which, apparently, has so much to discover.

I had not been to Ohio before so I quickly discovered that it was raining in Ohio. I managed to get to just South of Cleveland before I called it quits for the night. “South?” you might ask, “but aren’t you going West?” Yes, that’s right, I am going West, but there was a small detour (adding 200 miles to my 3000 mile trek, but never-ye-mind). This diversion brought me to Kentucky

“Kentucky? What’s worth the diversion to Kentucky” I hear your elitist fake-America latte-drinking socialist bourgeois filth utter. Oh ho ho. What indeed…

I really felt like I absolutely must stop and see this and a pitiful extra 200 miles was not a deterrent. I figured at the very least, it would be a fun little excursion. Sadly, because I had to absolutely be sure to leave some disaster time in the remainder of my travels, I couldn’t devote too much to time this sojourn in KY.

And now for a section I like to call:

The Creation Museum (or, a lesson in self-restraint)

I would like to make this really very clear from the start. I did not go there to make fun of the people there or belittle their beliefs. I did anticipate the likely prospect of getting thrown out, but I wasn’t going to go out of my way. Taking that picture had already caused a small exchange of bad looks. Someone in a rather large pickup was coming out of the gate just after I had finished taking the picture and was crossing the road back. He’d got out into the road and then spotted me and backed up again just to glare at me for a while before driving off again. I think it was only when he’d worked out that I was intending on going in that he’d let me off the hook. So I drove in and parked up. The car already got some funny looks and when I emerged, I certainly had the worried looks from good little Christian children and their parents alike. The Hell-bringer has cometh.

So, I arrived and I would like to say that the people staffing the place were really friendly and very few of them even seemed to bat an eyelash at me. It’s always comforting to see people at places more likely to breed the exclusion-type behaviour being really rather friendly and accepting of others differing walks of life. Some of the other patrons were a little less so, but that’s their business.

After I had sorted out my ticket and what my plan was for seeing the exhibits, I really had to use the loo. I mention this only because I think I had inadvertently managed to terrify a boy with my looking exactly like (what later I would see as an exhibit) was the “ideal” of the pits of society. There was definitely some interchange with his mother about me complete with pointing and the likes. He honestly looked terrified. Moving on.

Their opening exhibit was one of an paleontological dig.

The chap on the the left sporting the orange and rather fetching white beard was apparently a Creationist Paleontologist… his counterpart, a Carbon-Dating Conspiratorialist. The exhibit was a slow introduction to the various straw-men and conflated arguments that would become more extraordinary as one progressed through the museum. Like any good argument, the first step is to convince people that you are being reasonable. It’s much easier to accept things far from reach if one can be convinced to accept the steps along the way. The argument is this: The difference between these two professional gentlemen is their starting points. The guy on the right started from the viewpoint that millions of years ago, there were dinosaurs and then some event or series of events lead to their extinction and were are left with fossil records that were created in such a manner. The Creationist comes from the starting point that the dinosaurs co-existed with man before the Great Flood and that event cause their extinction and buried their bodies under as the waters receded, protecting them against scavengers and so on while their flesh decomposed, leaving us with decent fossils. Their argument sets up the rest of the museum because you are presented with this argument in such a way that it is possible to see this and say, “that’s entirely reasonable… they are just looking at the same record and developing differing thoughts based on perspective. The creationist perspective is equal to the evolutionary perspective in terms of scientific credibility.”

Throughout the next section, there were a lot of “Human Reason vs. God’s Word” illustrations. The whole idea is really to set up the seeds of acceptance that the Creationist perspective is a valid scientific theory because from a certain perspective there is a logical series of events that is not impossible. Around the corner, they really kicked off the Christian proselytising with life-sized likenesses of religious figures.

This section mostly dealt with the history of society coming to question the word of God and also a criticism of various religious sects on appeasing the philosophical questionings of the word of God. This acceptance of the societal questioning of the Christian way is obviously the reason that society is now filled with, apparently, people like me and worse!

Somehow, we’ve grown into a society that can accept that only 1 in 4 (i believe that was the number they pulled out) of teens that attended church continue to do so after they leave home. It is also why in England 0.5% of the population will be continuing to attend church in only a few years’ time. As we all know, church-going is the only possible indication that people are going to be good people. What does this all have to do with Creationism? Well, by an ever-growing culture of question Christianity, we no longer can accept that Christianity may have the answers to tough biological, geological and chemical questions.

After that came a room filled with video displays

Each of the displays showed some biological event and was explaining how the inability of science to fully explain and recreate some detail of this biological wonder was proof of the existence and power of the Almighty. One really stuck out to me, so I shall use it as example of what really summed this whole affair up to me. The eye. So miraculous is the eye that the finest of cameras cannot replicate its elegance and function. Self-cleaning. Self-lubricating. Converts light to electrical impulses that our magnificent and wondrous grey-matter process the images. And, can be constructed in the womb… Therefore, the only possible creator of this most magnificent object is the Lord Almighty. Each eye is lovingly hand-crafted by the Lord and can be yours from this very special TV offer for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling. This, like the other propositions in this room is filled with minor distortions of reality and then using the distortion as proof of, as they see it, the only logical other conclusion. The eye itself: It is not self-cleaning nor self-lubricating. That is the job of the tear ducts. Without them, a separate system with a clear function, the eye would be neither clean nor lubricated. Also, converting light to electronic impulses is exactly what the CCD in the digital camera with which I was taking all these pictures does. I admit, however, that I’m pretty certain that Canon does not make use of wombs in making their cameras, so they got me on that one, but I’m not really sure I’d by a “womb-spawned” digital camera. Eyes are formed during gestation because of genetic material indicating that’s how a cell should behave. Another panel tries to demonstrate that DNA is impossible to have been created by any other means than an Intelligent Designer by using conflated analogies to the development of language. (Everyone spoke the same language until God punished them for the Tower thing when he “confused” their language so no one working on it could communicate with each other). So, even if DNA was the instruction for the behaviour of the cell, God wrote the DNA.

…and Adam and Eve co-existed with the dinosaurs.

Then we had the room of horrors.

They also made a big deal of the Great Flood as the massive global event that could explain things that science apparently can only explain by a massive global event. Like a flood. Now, my thing on this is pretty simple. Science may only be able to explain certain occurrences by a massive global event, but that does not equate to the existence of a God or Gods because it lends credibility to a section of a book. Way back in the day, humans created mythologies to explain the unexplainable. I remember as a child… “Why does it rain” “God is sad and he is crying. When he is happy, the sun will shine.” That is how mythology is created. Because science turns around and says “ah yes, the plants need rain and sun to grow strong” doesn’t mean that suddenly the mythology is correct. Making the case that way is called a straw man…

Anyway, there was a whole lot more that they conflated and distorted. It was not all like that though. One panel stuck out in particular:

“We’re All One Blood”

I think that’s a pretty good message. Onwards.

Mostly, there was little of outstanding interest along the way through Indiana and Illinois. I did go through Champaign, Il, hometown to a good friend and I was kind of curious about where he came from. Curious indeed. Driving across Nebraska was terrible. It was very windy and because it was a hideous cross-wind, I couldn’t even use the lorries as cover very well. Getting to Wyoming was a god-send… but… wait

oh… and then

A blizzard. Great. I got to Laramie, WY and they’d already closed the Eastbound road. My windscreen wipers had disintegrated so I had to find a place to get some more. Apparently, the local newspaper guy had seen it sitting their collecting snow and thought it was a great picture. So, I think my car will be in the Laramie Boomerang. Enjoy guys, enjoy. I made it out before they could close the roads on me and got to Rawlins, WY where the weather was better. I passed an upturned lorry the next day

The rest of Wyoming was beautiful and uneventful. And Utah was pretty good too. Driving out of Salt Lake City was interesting for about the first 10 minutes. Then it was just hellish. but it ended… eventually.

By the time I got to Reno, NV, I was so desperate to get home that I decided I would just push through the mountains and do the 4 hours or so that I had to go. The road down to Sacramento from the peak Sierra Nevada pass is super fun. In the dark. Yeah. Also, the bug hit a momentous occasion on the travels:

Apart from someone nearly running into the back of me in Vallejo, the trip was fine. A little spot of engine trouble from Sacramento, but I’m ok with that. I think it’s minor troubles with this crappy distributor I put in last spring and I shall be swapping it out soon. That is all.

Ok. I think I’m going to have to get my rant on.

The thing I got on my mind came about because of an article that was posted about 5 Gitmo detainees admitting to planning the whole September 11th 2001 affair. The poster suggested that this was the nail in the coffin to The Truthers’ arguments that there’s something suspicious about the WTC building collapses (Just to be clear: I’m not a big conspiracy guy, but I do think that there’s something not quite right there). I laughed at the posting because I thought it was ridiculous. The very notion that people likely tortured beyond their sanity could be believed in whatever they said is laughable. The Washington Post did a reasonable 5 things piece on the Myths of Torture. The ideas that torture works or that people will say anything under torture are mentioned as myths with cursory information (more can be found by googling the sources and studies). The article actually makes a good point (said in a weird way, I think) that the “problem of torture” comes from the prisoners that do not have information. “The torture of the informed may generate no more lies than normal interrogation, but the torture of the ignorant and innocent overwhelms investigators with misleading information.”

Now that I’ve got that point made… Someone commented back along the lines of “If that’s what it takes to get the truth… I’d say it was worth it to torture them.” Aghast, I replied back that if they were American, I would find it hard to believe that they were, in fact, American at all. The Founding Fathers of that once great nation had little love for the idea of torture and less for anyone who would actually perpetrate such a villainous act. I found this chap to be particularly succinct.

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country. - George Washington

I think this makes a rather compelling case for investigation and prosecution of the Bush Administration and any and all soldiers responsible for carrying out those orders. I am also rather fond of this.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. - Thomas Jefferson

Fools *and* hypocrites. I think maybe we should try to be a little less of both. It was these people’s ideals on which America was founded and it is in these people’s names that these disgraces were performed? Or are we doing this in Jesus’s name or some other notion. I’m pretty sure that Jesus of all people would be so hot to trot on the old torture affair. I will leave this topic with one more.

Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. - John Quincy Adams

“Real plumbers are named Mario”

What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On. Here.

This article came to my attention only moments ago and I am literally feeling queasy. I also was surprised to find out about this lovely gem.

A quick little round up then…

A terror attack perpetrated, not by foreign agents of death and doom, but by white American conservatives on American soil… against worshipers in their place of worship… including children. Children! You Fucking Pricks! And a fear and hate mongering film to make sure that you can go to sleep with a clear conscience after spending your days gassing Mosques.

Yes, America has free speech and, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing that says that one isn’t entitled to say pretty much whatever they want, but I think there’s some limitations when it insights violence or riots. But the most important part of all of this is that this past Friday, 300 people including Children were directly persecuted for their religious beliefs on American soil.

The America of old said “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” The new America says “Fuck you.”

Watch this documentary on the state of the election process. Maybe even give them money.

8:00 : I am rudely awakened by the instructions to school children being presented over a loudspeaker by the world’s most chipper woman. Thoughts of maiming and dismemberment enter my otherwise idyllic dream.

8:01 : Dream turns towards the darkness complete. Iron maidens are employed to deal with the clearly heretical youths. Discipline is assured.

8:10 : Strangely the voice over the loudspeaker seems to be making this stuff up without a script. Starts to “hum” and “ha” over what to say next. Wreaks terribly of someone who has 35 minutes of allotted loudspeaker time for which they only had 10 minutes of material.

8:15 : There are now instructions on what is permissible on the school grounds. It occurs to me that rules set only by a non-comprehensive list of “thou shall not”s is a bit of a weak thing. Surely, it’s a short list to say what is permissible on school grounds.

It is only permissible to be a good student and stay out of trouble.

As it stands, one might be able to say, “well, I know you said that there were no knives permitted on school grounds, but this is a scimitar… it’s not a knife at all.” Bloody semantics will get them every time.

8:20 : I’ve started to think that maybe I’m in the crowd of children be fore-disciplined for any potential future wrong-doings. I remember why I hated grade school.

8:21 : I decide that my dreams are perturbed irreparably and I shall go find some solace on the intertubes.

8:30 : I make it to the intertubes to find that no one else has had to suffer with this today. This wonderful beautiful place in which we now live had to have a down side. I think I found it.