ayeamspartacus: (Default)
I dreamed Sahona and I were taken by The Doctor (Number 11)  as companions last night, but it wasn't working out so well.

He was infatuated with Sahona, and kept flirting with her, which put us in an awkward situation, since, you know, it's his TARDIS.

It soon became apparent he had only wanted to take her, but the TARDIS insisted he bring me along. In the dream, the TARDIS could manifest a holographic avatar, like in Andromeda, and looked the way she appeared in "The Doctor's Wife" episode.

He kept arguing with the TARDIS about me, and she kept insisting he needed me for some mysterious reason.

Something happened with all of us in the control room, and I finally blew up at The Doctor. He was telling me I was a fat, lazy, semi-evolved primate with the intellectual capacity of a retarded eggplant.

I countered by screaming at him that he was a pasty, passive-aggressive, co-dependent poofter. (Best dream me could come up with under the circumstances. 900-year-old timelords are difficult to insult.)

He said I only wished he was a poofter, because then he wouldn't be fucking my wife.

That pissed Sahona off, either because she was caught, or it wasn't true. She tried to intervene.

The doctor started toward me around the control console, and I got scared, because I knew he's actually very physically dangerous when he chooses to be.

So I started randomly flipping switches and pushing buttons. The four walls of the control room went transparent, and the TARDIS went into a free fall, with a city far below us. Alarms started going off.

The Doctor started screaming at me, asking what I thought I was doing.

I reminded him that I wasn't responsible for my actions, being only semi-evolved, and having the intelligence of a retarded eggplant.

He pulled out his sonic screwdriver, and I opened a panel on the control console and pushed a button. It was some sort of emergency transmat beam, that transported me out of the TARDIS.

The next thing I knew, I was walking around in some alien city that looked like a cross between Coruscant from Star Wars and the Blade Runner sets.

I kept trying to talk to post-apocalyptic-looking mutant people, asking them if they had seen a blue box, or a pasty guy with greasy hair and a bowtie, but no one wanted to talk to me.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Epic love is easy. It's not hard to be noble when the one you love is dying, or trapped outside of space and time, or needs rescuing from a tower somewhere in BFE.

What's hard is day to day. You have to love that person when she's being a bitch, or leaving plates of half-eaten food sitting around in the living room, or farting under the covers. That's where real love gets worn down is the day-to-day grindstone of mundane existence.

The real feat is to keep love alive despite the banality of real life. If you can do that, you are in love.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Let me preach at you with all the zeal of the converted.

At one time, I was against universal healthcare. But research, life experience, and lots of painful, careful thought and soul-searching led me to change my mind. I believe our current healthcare system in the U.S. (or lack thereof in any meaningful sense) is broken beyond repair, and the only solution we actually have available is some form of universal - government-sponsored - healthcare. It's not perfect, but the U.K. and Canadian models certainly seem to work better than ours.

I believe there are two main reasons we have not adopted universal healthcare. One is financial, the other is philosophical. Both stem from the Cold War. These are not the only reasons by any means, but they are the two on my mind tonight. :)

1. Money. Yes, the conservatives are right. A universal healthcare system is outrageously expensive. But I think we should do it because it is the morally correct thing to do, and because ultimately the taxpayers get stuck with worse bills at the end-of-life stage of care under our current model. The solution to our financial problem is priorities.

I believe healthcare should be a priority. Not preparing to fight a world war against the now-defunct Soviet Union. That is exactly what our current military system is designed to do. I am not anti-military in the slightest. But we are spending far too much on "Defense" when there are precious few people we need to defend ourselves against. We will not be engaged in a conventional land war in Europe or Asia within the next 100 years. It is almost impossible. And if we did have to fight any of the half-dozen or so legitimate state enemies we have around the world, we could do so better with a smaller, better-equipped and more mobile force than we currently possess.

Our military spending is essentially designed for a mid-20th Century wartime footing, which is neither practical or sustainable. Yet, half the country shuts down their brains on sheer philosophical principles if you raise the subject of trimming the military budget.

Madness. We can still defend our nation without bankrupting it. If even half of the current military budget were put toward a national health service, we could work wonders.

2. The other reason Americans seem to oppose the idea is the long-dead spectre of Communism. It no longer exists in any real form outside of Cuba, from what I can tell. But the very real evils of Soviet Russia and Maoist China still haunt us so much, that the very idea of "socialized" anything scares the bejesus out of us.

Never mind that most first-world countries have universal healthcare AND high levels of personal and economic freedom. Just ask a Brit or a Canadian, or a Swede if their home countries are oppressive dictatorships. Someone is lying to us about this. I wonder who it might be???

We have to get away from our Cold War paradigm, and join the 21st Century, before the world completely passes us by.

There is nothing silly, or Panglossian about believing a civilized nation should guarantee a minimum standard of living for its citizens, including access to healthcare. That's not only morally right in my opinion, but makes the most "business" sense in the long run. Healthy citizens are productive, patriotic, better-behaved citizens.

Our current political divide makes me sad. I love my country, and I want to see it healed.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
While we were traveling yesterday, Sahona and I had an interesting conversation about standard archetypal myths in most human societies and how they come to exist and evolve over the centuries as societies change and interact with other societies.

Tales grow in the telling, there can be no doubt.

Most myths probably start with a grain of truth. Here is a fictional example of how a myth may evolve, in reverse.

21st Century Sci-Fi Television Series - a war-weary ex-soldier named Karn becomes the leader of a fractious group of humans fighting against an invasion of reptilian aliens who turn out to be the lesser descendants of a race of godlike reptilians who created humanity to someday serve as food and slaves. He is constantly at odds with the group's former leader, a woman named Felicia, who was a high-powered lawyer before the invasion, but hasn't completely adjusted to the new reality.  However, the two of them share a great deal of sexual tension. It turns out the alien invaders have themselves been duped by their ancestors, who have evolved to an even higher state and have mysterious plans involving mixing the alien and human DNA...

Mid-20th Century Pulp Fantasy Novel - The mercenary warrior Karnak must battle an ancient dragon god that has awakened after eons of slumber with plans to enslave all of humanity. He goes forth to battle the dragon, who is the size of a mountain, with his magic sword and armor, given him by his lover, the sorceress Falia.

Late 18th-Century Romantic Epic Poem - The noble and true knight Korannak, bastard son of Charlemagne, must save all of the Holy Roman Empire from the last dragon - a flying, firebreathing monster the size of a castle - which has emerged from a cave deep in a dark forest. A beautiful virgin named Falatorthia who lives all alone in the forest falls in love with the knight, but cannot be with him because she is pledged to another. She tells him how to find the dragon's lair, then commits suicide. Korannak dies bravely, slaying the dragon in single combat with a blessed sword he pulled from the roots of a sacred tree.

Early Iron Age Myth - There once was a mighty king named Korannus, a 10-foot-tall giant, who had slain many warriors in battle, so that he despaired of ever meeting a worthy challenger. He foolishly prayed to the gods that he might face a worthy opponent and prove his mettle for all future generations. The gods sent a dragon, the size of an Assyrian siege tower, to punish the king for his arrogance. The dragon ate the king's wife, Falatha, and children, and many of his household warriors. Korannus then tracked the beast to its lair in the nearby swamp and slew it with many of his men watching, but he died in the process.

Initial Real Incident (Late Stone Age) - A man named Kor leads a small band of refugees fleeing south across a continent, to escape a large and warlike enemy tribe. Tired and sick, the band of people stops to rest and drink water at the edge of a swampy lake. Kor's two-year-old daughter is seized by a giant crocodile, perhaps the last of its species. Kor's wife, Fala, alerts him to the situation and throws him a large nearby branch. Kor, who is a large man for his people (nearly six feet tall!), leaps into the water and attacks the crocodile. He pulls the little girl from its mouth and tosses her to his wife on the shore. The enraged crocodile continues to attack Kor, but he eventually manages to beat it to death. A few days later, Kor dies from his injuries, but his daughter, who recovers from the deep bite wounds in her leg, will always remember her father saving her life that day. She, and the other members of their tribe tell the story many times over the years...
ayeamspartacus: (Default)

America at its best has always been a political, social, and economic balancing act. That's one reason I am proud to call myself a moderate.

As a diverse people, we seek instinctively to avoid the extremes of various political "isms," and the ills they tend to bring upon the world when misguided leaders attempt to apply them untempered to the real world.

I feel like we are approaching a critical juncture for our nation. This is not some diatribe in favor of, or against, a particular political party or Presidential candidate. Our national identity is rightly composed of liberals, conservatives, moderates, and those free-thinkers who explore the fringes of what is possible and even desirable in our governance. No, what I mean when I write that we are approaching a critical juncture is that we must think more deeply about our national philosophy. About what it means to be an American, and what we consider to be important. We must contemplate not only our shared values (and there are more of them we hold in common than you might think), but how we should apply them amidst the realities of the 21st Century.

At the heart of our current political schism in the United States is the balance between individualism and the cooperation and interdependence necessary for a First-World Civilization in the modern world.

Conservatives understandably fear a bloated, too-powerful government that takes most of the wealth of its individual citizens. The excesses of the 20th Century clearly teach us how government can become an end to itself, taking too much from the people while accomplishing little to benefit them in return. The corrupt regimes of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are the most egregious examples. But the more benevolent "Nanny States" of the mid-to-late 20th Century European model are also a cautionary tale in how government can stretch too far, attempt to do too much.

However, liberals correctly understand that a government that does nothing is worse than useless. A government should exist to make a peaceful, productive society possible. Despite our folklore, no one in the United States stands alone. Individual citizens do not provide a national defense, a common currency, police, courts, prisons, roads, fire departments and emergency services. Government - supported by taxes in some form - is necessary to provide these things we consider necessities in the modern world.

At one time, in a less interdependent, less technologically advanced world, individual citizens were responsible for providing most of these services for themselves in some form. That is no longer realistically possible in a First World nation. By the same logic, it may or may not be time to consider whether or not an individual citizen is capable of providing him or herself with other services, like health care. It might be that the modern medical world has reached a state of advanced technology, complete with attendant costs, such that we have to dispassionately look at other models to provide health care to our citizens. Single payer systems work reasonably well in some countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and parts of Northern Europe.

We need to ask ourselves if basic health care should be a right in a First World nation, in the same way that reasonably safe streets, public protection from burning buildings, and defense against foreign enemies and terrorists are all concepts we have decided are part of the social contract between government and the people of a nation.

Likewise, what level of education should be guaranteed to a citizen of the United States? All reasonable people understand that it would be a ridiculous notion to not provide for a common education system for all children of our country. To not do so, would be to create a permanent underclass, doomed to to clog the courts and prisons and fill future welfare rolls. It would also cut the throat of American businesses, making them incapable of competing fairly in a global economy that is dependent on knowledge and innovation. But where should government's role in providing education end? And how far should government go in facilitating the higher education of its citizenry? What priority will an aging nation place on education? These are valid questions that will play in important role in our future as a nation.

But if that is the case - and we wish to increase the scope of what government should provide in the United States - then we need to have a calm, intelligent discussion about how to pay for the improvements we desire, so that the services our taxes fund will be the best we can create.

We also must find a way to discuss religion and sexuality like the adults we should be. We must respect the rights of consenting adults to live their lives in whatever manner they choose, as long no actual, legally definable harm is done to others. This does not mean every American has to approve of every other American's choices and beliefs. It does mean we have to reclaim the old-fashioned American value of each of us "minding his own business" and not attempting to force others to conform to our individual world views.

We must not be afraid of rhetoric and old ghosts as we have this debate.

Conservatives should not be quick to label every government service "Socialism," without any intellectual regard for the actual meaning of the term. Especially when many of the very people complaining about other citizens possibly receiving government services are already receiving similar help from public funds, just under different political labels.

At the same time, liberals need to be careful not throw around charges of "Fascism" just as carelessly. Liberals need to stop fearing private industry, which is the engine that drives our nation. Without banks and large corporations (which are made up of individual American citizens, just as government agencies are), there would be no United States - no jobs, no new technology, no improvements in our lives. Nothing. Financial success does not automatically equate to evil.

Most importantly, as a people, Americans need to set aside our rancor for one another. We must stop thinking of our fellow Americans as less intelligent, less patriotic, essentially, LESS HUMAN, than ourselves. We must stop this dangerous slide into factionalism.

We must be one nation - a diverse, quarrelsome nation, we must admit if we are to be honest - but one nation, nonetheless.

If we cannot come together, I fear for the future of my country.

ayeamspartacus: (Default)
An old friend from high school signed me up for a Facebook discussion page on general political topics which he started. He is a far-right conservative, as are nearly all of the other members.

Now, I have no problems with conservatives - or anyone else - as long as they don't check their brains and hearts at the political door.

But this page is a cesspool of ignorance and vileness that stunned even me.

I have yet to comment on anything, and really only see it when an entry pops up on my Wall Feed. But what I've seen disgusts me.

Currently, these fine minds are debating what should be done about Obama, since it has been "proven" he is not a legitimate U.S. citizen. Oh, and a Muslim, which apparently they think is or should be illegal.

I am floored that people would choose to believe either "accusation," despite all of the investigation and resulting evidence to the contrary. Because that is exactly what they are doing: choosing to believe something contrary to established, demonstrable facts.

I also observed a number of racist and strongly xenophobic statements on this page. And I don't mean the mealy-mouthed stuff a bleeding-heart liberal would consider offensive, but the real dope: N-word and worse, calls for violence, etc...

It makes me sad, and I cannot bring myself to engage people so unwilling to think, especially on their own turf, and at the expense of casual friendships based mainly on childhood memories.

I am torn between removing myself from this page, and staying, so I can observe these people at their worst and know what to expect from them.

I sound like a broken record, but I am disturbed by the growing divide in our country, which seeks to force  people to choose a side - even when neither side is offering real solutions to our very real problems, and one of those sides is increasingly being hijacked by extremists.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Well, as of this morning, I weigh 216 pounds. That's down from a starting point of 244 in early October 2011.

My immediate goal is to get below 200. After that, I'm not sure. Probably 180, or 170. I haven't been lower than 175 as an adult, and that wasn't overweight for me. But I may have redistributed, etc... I'll have to see what my health and fitness levels are like after I get below 200.

My current regimen is to go to the YMCA three to four nights a week. I jog (combination of fast walking and flat-out running) three miles on the treadmill, with an emphasis on getting faster. My goal is to eventually run the whole three miles. Then I will worry about going farther.

I also do some basic weightlifting. Eventually, I will add more exercises.

Jan. 27, 2012
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Here's how I think it should read:

I pledge allegiance
To the common good of the people of the United States of America
And to the Republic, which exists to serve them
I affirm our status as one nation, under the solemn witness of all humanity
With respect for the religious beliefs of all while bowing to no creed
Seeking to create a world where all people enjoy liberty, justice, and a reasonable degree of safety from violence, poverty, and disease.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)

Now that we've finally ended formal discrimination against gays in the U.S. military, an Oklahoma state lawmaker is proposing a bill that will ban gays from serving in the Oklahoma National Guard.

Not only is this ridiculous and legally questionable, but it once again misses the point. Does anyone really care about a soldier's sexual orientation? All soldiers are expected to behave by a standard code of conduct that regulates some sexual activities - including improper fraternization, adultery, sexual harassment/assault, etc...

The genders of people involved are irrelevant to that code.

Now, as for the citizens who pay for the National Guard, I don't think we care.

Personally, when I'm sitting on the roof of my house, with the floodwaters rising around me, and soldiers in a Zodiac pull up to rescue me, the FIRST thing I'm going to do is ask them what sort of people they are sexually attracted to. And if those soldiers are even the slightest bit fruity, I'm waitin' for the STRAIGHT soldiers to come and save me from imminent death! Just as God intended.

Not. The silliness of worrying about a non-issue like a soldier's orientation is something that belongs in the past. And given the reaction from the public so far, that's true even in Oklahoma.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
It galls me that the Republicans, who have insisted on making so-called "family values" a campaign issue for the last 20 years, are lining up to support a man who has cheated on at least two wives and left them when they were ill, while blasting President Obama as being anti-faith and anti-family.

Last time I checked, Obama has been married to the same woman for many years, in what appears to be a happy marriage. There has never been a serious hint of scandal, and they have two wonderful, reasonably well-adjusted daughters who love them.

Who is the "family values" candidate here?

I'm also annoyed that Gingrich attacked "the media" for being sleazy because he has been questioned about his ex-wife's interview.

Just a damn minute. Now, I personally have nothing against people who choose an open marriage. But if you repeatedly present yourself as a social conservative, "family values" guy, and actively take part in the culture war, then your past extra-marital affairs and accusations from your ex that you asked for an open marriage become legitimate targets. It goes to consistency and whether or not you are a hypocrite.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Last night I dreamed I was at a cocktail part at SMU in Dallas, cracking juvenile puns about Balzac in a futile attempt to impress some visiting professor from Yale. Surely I'm not that trashy, and would only do such a silly, blatantly pretentious thing in social self-defense.

I think the dream came from interviewing Robin Wright, the world-renowned war correspondent and expert on the Middle East and Central Asia during a press conference at Cameron University yesterday. It was an intimidating interview, to put it mildly. She's a giant in print journalism, and her reputation is well-deserved. When you interview someone like that, you feel like you're being graded.

At least I didn't get schooled by her. A certain television reporter ignorantly referred to Afghanistan as being in the Middle East during her first question, and Ms. Wright took her to the woodshed. We were all a little wary after that.

Her presentation last night was insightful and interesting, BTW. Especially her thoughts on Pakistan and its fears concerning Afghanistan's possible claims on Pashtun border regions.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Gee! Color me shocked. I mean, since I am a journalist.

ENFP - "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama. 8.1% of total population.
Take Free Jung Personality Test
Personality Test by SimilarMinds.com
ayeamspartacus: (Default)

The Miss America Pageant, which was held last night, always sparks a great deal of conversation about whether or not the event and title are relevant to modern American culture. While I disagree with those who find the pageant offensive - primarily because the contestants are consenting adults who have chosen to take part - I agree the pageant is out of touch.

To me, the very essence of the Miss America Pageant is intended to be about excellence. The Greek word "Arete" conveys this concept perfectly. But, the modern pageant system is still modeled on virtues that no longer fit our actual culture. So, I propose the following changes to the Miss America Pageant, so that it seeks young women who embody the concept of Ideal American Womanhood. A similar competition should also be designed for young men. Other than these changes, I would leave the pageant the way it is. The evening wear, interview, and talent portions of the competiton would be unchanged.

However, I would add the following:

1. Every contestant would take a timed standardized test - possibly the ACT or SAT - that covers the battery of knowledge Americans are supposed to learn in high school. The test would include an essay portion, just like the current ACT/SAT. Every student's score would be factored into the overall competition score.

2. Accomplishments Section. Every contestant would submit a list of accomplishments outside of the pageant circuit, which an independent firm would verify, and the judges would assign point values to be figured into the overall score. Accomplishments could be things like routinely working with charities, holding a part-time job for more than a year, winning non-pageant competitions and awards, etc...

3. The biggest change I would make is to replace the swimsuit competition with an athletics competition. Every contestant would compete in a triathlon (remember, we are looking for the ideal of American Womanhood). This would add a whole new level to the pageant competition, and limit the field to those who are not only beautiful, but in excellent physical condition. The results of the triathlon would be figured into the overall score.


ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Sometimes, context and subtext are everything.

It's hard to argue logically against some things that seem perfectly sound on the surface, but have nasty political underpinnings. For example, Oklahoma now has a law requiring election workers to be certain every voter shows a "valid ID" in order to vote.

On the face of it, who can argue with that? After all, we have to show ID to do many far less important things than participate in our government. Only citizens who do not have felony convictions are allowed to vote, so why not require voters to prove who they are before we let them do one of the most important duties anyone can have in our nation? It will help prevent voter fraud, right?

All of those questions raise valid points.

But. And it's a big "but."

Voter ID legislation was brought into law on a wave of anti-illegal immigrant feelings. The unsaid sentiment being not that illegal immigrants are not legally allowed to vote, which would have been a valid argument, but that a fictional surge of illegal votes helped elect Barack Obama president. After all, the illegals always vote for the Democrats and their "bread and circuses." And a non-white, "Muslim" "communist" would attract illegals to the Democrat cause like watermelon attracts... well, never mind.

So you see my problem. I have no real, logical objection to voter ID laws. They make perfect sense. But I can't stand the stink of racism and elitism that accompanies the new law.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)


This poor kid, to be saddled with an ignorant, frightened, troglodyte of a father. At least he has a decent older brother.

Yet another adult male who has completely failed to grasp what Manhood is about.

A "real man," behaves honorably (which includes doing whatever he needs to do to fulfill his obligations), treats others with respect and is not afraid to be his true self, no matter what others might think of it.

It's not about false machismo, or liking one form of entertainment over another. All our children - sons and daughters - deserve the right to live their lives without being afraid of being judged over whether or not they fit some silly, backwards stereotype or another.

This "girly" little boy is already more of a man than his father.

ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Last night I had the most interesting dream. Basically, I was an actor in a reboot of the 1980s television series, "The Dukes of Hazzard." Hear me out, this is actually kind of cool.

I was 16-year-old Luke Duke, of Oxnard, California. I was always in trouble, and there was this girl I was getting too close to, so my single mom shipped me off to rural Hazzard County, Wyoming to live with my Uncle Jessie and two cousins - siblings Beaux and Daisy, half-African American teenagers from his other sister's marriage who came to live with him after she died.

Uncle Jessie was a clean-shaven Ernest Borgnine with a ponytail. I soon learned life on his farm was a lot of hard work, but also offered a lot of freedom. Jessie's main source of income was as an illicit marijuana farmer, so we cousins were always getting high!

We cousins had a car - a souped up Lincoln Continental with a black and white paint job we just called "The Lincoln," or "The Prez."

Soon, we were involved in all sorts of silly hijinks at the local high school, and involving a corrupt Hazzard County commissioner named John Boar, who was a fat man who rode a very expensive Harley Davidson motorcycle, so everyone nicknamed him "Boss Hawg."

The shaven-headed local sheriff - a white supremacist survivalist played for laughs - was his crony.

It was weird, because sometimes I was the actor playing the part in a show, other times, I was Luke, sometimes I was me. The setting was beautiful. The farm overlooked a rocky canyon with a clear, rushing river at the bottom. At one point, I told Uncle Jessie I wished this wasn't a TV show, so I could go explore the river.

The only plot point I remember was Uncle Jessie was hosting a wedding on the farm. Our high school football coach was marrying his boyfriend, and we were expecting Boss Hawg and the sheriff to try and disrupt things, even though it wasn't a legal wedding in Wyoming.

Thing is, way to go, subconscious! I could see this as a Showtime or HBO series.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
I hate these sorts of situations. I just received a hysterical call from a woman I interviewed a few weeks ago for a story about a local call center closing down right before Christmas.

She was laid off, and now she is facing eviction. She has no local support network, and her unemployment benefits and other forms of aid are being held up by red tape.

I pitched it as a story about the plight of the unemployed to my editors. I'm waiting to hear whether or not they want to wade into this mess.

I want to help her if we can, but damn, we can't write a feature story about every unemployed person in Lawton.

We'll see.

This makes me grateful for my fairly stable life.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
We had our annual viewing of "It's a Wonderful Life" last night. Sentimental, with some cringe-worthy moments, but we love it anyway for the overall message and a generally sound story.

I saw that movie for the first time at a point in time when I felt like a real failure. It made me think and improved my spirits. That was enough to endear the classic to my heart forever.

I identify with George Bailey. Oh, I haven't been a supporting player in the fabric of the universe as I know it to the extent that he was, but I was a lot like him.

I also was a reasonably bright, Beta kid with a wild imagination and lots of ambition. I was going to travel the world, have all sorts of adventures, earn multiple advanced degrees, do IMPORTANT THINGS (TM), and be a bestselling commercial novelist to boot.

I certainly didn't plan on getting married, buying a house, or any of the rest of that middle class All-American stuff I crapped all over as a teenager and a very young man. I once infamously joked in a class that I planned to live on a houseboat with a pair of bikini-clad foreign women (ethnicity unimportant) who knew only two words of English: "Yes, Daddy."

Somehow, I missed out on all of my immature, silly plans, and got a much better life I really don't deserve to be living.

Here I am, living in a small city in my home state, married to a wonderful woman I love very much, working as a reporter at a mid-sized newspaper where I will never have a chance in hell of winning a Pulitzer or even making enough money to be considered middle income on my own, and hoping desperately to adopt a child soon, since we can't have one biologically.

And, I'm happy. I doubt I've had nearly the impact of the fictional George Bailey, but I'm glad to be a part of the real world and not living the empty juvenile fantasies I used to imagine for my future.
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Hmm. Haven't done one of these in a while. If you feel like it, visit my Johari Window and pick some words to describe me, so I can compare it to my self-image.


10 Sparts

Dec. 15th, 2011 01:16 pm
ayeamspartacus: (Default)
Ten lives I could live:

1. Victorian Era newspaper reporter.

2. 18th Century naval officer.

3. Medieval herald of arms.

4. Canon lawyer for the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

5. Minor classical period Greek philosopher.

6. Imperial slave serving as a scribe in 2nd Century Rome.

7. 1920's bootlegger.

8. Mid-rank court official in Imperial China.

9. Bronze Age priest for a European culture.

10. Manager and emcee of a traveling vaudeville troupe.
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 05:00 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios