bus woman with a built-in frown

why is it that bus people always make for the most interesting people? is there something different about the people who ride the bus? or is it just that riding the bus is the only chance you really get to study people in detail for a prolonged period of time?

either way, i encountered one particularly interesting woman this morning. she was sitting in the back section, in one of the backwards-facing seats, against the window. the first thing that i noticed about her were her pants: they were black spandex that had a strange courderoy-like texture going up and down them, with a few patches of material where the texture ran diagonally instead. her jacket was rather non-descript; big, poofy, green and worn, with a large silver brooch in a flourishing swirl pinned onto her right lapel. she held a yellow gingham scarf in her hands. but what really grabbed me about this woman was her face. she was easily 45 years old, but i suspect, from her collection of tiny creases, that she was somewhat older. her eyes were small and brown, but luminous as marbles, and they peered out from behind two chubby olive cheeks. her mouth was tiny, and puckered expressionlessly, except gravity had settled her jowels into a permanent frown that traced all the way from the corners of her nose to the very bottom of her long face, below even the corners of her mouth.

let us give some attention now to her shoes (i think many of you have heard my ludicrous ideas about true personality being found in the shoes, so you'll understand why i give them such special attention here). having studied her face and the rest of her outfit, i never would have suspected such shoes on this woman (except that, as always, the shoes were the first thing i studied). they were those white chunky sketchers sneakers from circa 1999 - 2000. the kind you saw on all the trendy 12-14 year olds around that time. a surprisingly youthful, no matter how outdated, selection. normally, i would have assumed that she had bought them, without considereing their connotation, probably because they were simply on sale or second-hand and she'd wanted a pair of white sneakers, end of story. but then i noticed this woman's watch - spongebob squarepants - and the ear-bud headphones subtly tucked into her well-creased ears. her head was even bobbing to an energetic beat, and her hair was cut very short, geled, and dyed the same shade of reddish brown that i've just dyed mine (further proving my theory that i now have the official hair color of middle aged french canadian women trying to rekindle the sparks in their lives). these observations gave new meaning to the sneakers - this woman had something totally different going on: she had found a way to contradict the suggestions of her age and built-in frown - no one wearing those shoes with that watch and bobbing her head with such enthusiasm could be all that bad. a whole new respect for this woman burgeoned within me at this realization, even if it was totally unplanned and purely the result of a botched value village trip.

now that you've all seen how superficial i can be, let me just give you one little conclusion that today has brought me to:

bravery is nothing more than a momentary lapse of intelligence - not to say that it isn't completely necessary at times.

rollin' back

i remember, about a year or two ago, reading an article in the new york times style (or maybe it was real estate?) section about a couple who had fashionably remodeled an old church into an edgy, modern, downtown apartment. at the time i simply thought, how cool, how innovative.

but now i think, isn't it strange that religion is now so impractical to our (um, i speak for new york, not jesusland) society that a church is less useful as a sacred place of worship than as a fashionable living space? where once priests muttered prayers at altars, blessed body and blood, now there sits a kitchen sink, perhaps a garbage disposal, grinding up somebody's refuse. where once there hung a cross, i bet they put up one of those flat-screen plasma tv's. and the vestry, i'm sure, makes for quite the spacious shitter.

don't worry, i'm simply noting the irony here folks.

and maybe one day, say a hundred years from now, the most fashionable young couples will be remodeling abandoned super wal-marts. or maybe by then they'll all have been converted into giant blue and yellow cathedrals. that's right, kids, look for the rollbacks.

new hair/old chair

"damn volcanoes - sons of bitches!"

did you ever play "hot lava" when you were a kid? you know - that game where you couldn't touch the floor because it was really a river of molten lava and you frantically had to jump from piece of furniture to piece of furniture, sacrificing the occasional stuffed animal to use as a stepping stone (how sick is that? i'm pretty sure i always chucked them down face first too).

i also had a variation of that game where my bed was a boat in a storm, and stuffed animals were always being whipped into the surging ocean by the hurricane-force winds. it was really quite tragic, and often i even fell into the water and came within inches of my life, but always i somehow managed to pull myself back on the ship, using only one arm, because it was more daunting and heroic a task when the other had suddenly become paralyzed.

damn. those were the days.

have to practice the french somehow

j'espère que vous êtes tous à mêmes de s'avouer que la convenance est le plus grand moteur de vos vies.

pourquoi rêve?
pourquoi pense aux gros idéals?

vivez la vie facile; vivez la vie heureuse.
ou, si vous voulez,
ne la vivez pas.

what the 24 has taught me

having nearly completed my third month of busing to school, i feel that i am now properly qualified to be a proper judge of proper bus etiquette.

"bus etiquette?!" you exclaim, "pishaw! ain't no such thing! spit or be spat upon - that's bus etiquette for you!"

well, you wily fool, that may be the case in the united states, but up in the great white north the canadians have a different way of running things, (beyond such trivial issues as peace-keeping, freedom of speech, the right to healthcare, and the mosaic model of multiculturalism).

so here you have it,
The Canadian Charter of Bus Etiquette:

1. Waiting for the Bus: It is acceptable to wander about the general bus area before the bus is in sight. Once the bus is visible down the street however, it is preferable to neatly queue up, single file along the curb and, at a distance of two blocks, ready your pass for inspection. (Addendum: Rachel points out that if there is ever any confusion as to who is in front of who in line, one must always defer one's spot to the other person. Unless, of course, one is having a bad day, in which case it is acceptable for one to push ahead.)

2. Boarding the Bus: Wait for each and every disembarking passenger to make it safely on the sidewalk before even approaching the first step. If stuck behind a lethargic, androgynous old person, remain calm and patient. Always help the flustered women to lift the baby carriage up onto the steps, no matter how you feel about children, young mothers, and base fecundity (look at it this way, not helping only clogs the bus stairs and further delays your commute). Oh yes, and always be sure to smile politely at the bus driver and give a greeting that corresponds appropriately with the time of day.

3. Choosing a Seat: This is the tricky part. Whenever there is an empty row, that is your best option. When no empty rows are available, ensure that you leave at least one seat of breathing room between you and your neighbour. If you are unable to secure that minimal distance of one seat, sit in a seat that is partially separated from its neighbour by a metal balance bar.

4. If You Must Must Must Sit Thigh to Thigh With Someone: Sit up very straight and adjust your legs so that they fill as narrow a space as possible, even if you have a hopelessly fat ass. Always keep a steady posture, no matter how the bus is jostled: it is most unpleasant when a neighbour sways and slouches up against you as if you were a wall. Never fall asleep and lean your head on your neighbour -this is beyond unpleasant; it's downright distasteful to drool on a stranger's shoulder.

5. Communicating With Other Passengers: Zero communication is preferable, including zero eye contact. If you must study the faces around you, at least have the decency to pretend to be looking out the window at the bum picking through the trash, or the cripples having a smoke in front of the rehabilitation center. If you must communicate to get by, a general "Excusez" is the preferable expression, regardless of the language or age of the person whom you are addressing, (using French, the official language of Quebec, exempts you from the possibility of death by a pissy bus-riding Quebecois Nationalist).

6. Standing on the Bus: If forced to stand on a crowded bus, never, and I mean never, press your two large buttocks against the person behind you, especially if that person is shorter than you and could possibly feel every intricate ripple smushed against her sensitive lower back.

7. Disembarking: Hell, you're getting off. Chances are, you'll probably never see any of these people again, so screw 'em. Push, shove, and trample feet; do all you must to get your ass off that tin can of mobile hell.

these sensational bones

last night my dream had all the elements of a 19th century british sensation novel: dark secrets, old buildings, gender-bending characters, woman in distress, and class consciousness. i woke up wondering why secret passageways and social ranks were spinning about in my mind. it wasn't until mid-breakfast with jane and rachel that something clicked and i exclaimed "By gum! It had the plot of a sensation novel!" jane and rachel looked up, partially amazed but mostly confused, cracked a smile, and turned back to their toast while attempting to humour my stumbling explanations.

i also woke up with bones on my mind. stripping something down to the bones. or maybe it was discarding the bones. i don't remember the metaphor but i do remember the concept: paring down each thought, each expression, each action to the core of its motivation, and addressing that in response. too often we get caught up in the frills of ceremony and totally skirt the entire issue at hand.

i'm guilty of doing that about 90% of the time. like, what was the point of this post anyway?

she gave of them willingly

some people think it's strange that i made earrings out of molly's feathers; i do not.



and no, i didn't cruelly hold her down and pluck them, i patiently waited for each one to molt and stored them in a ziplock back in the top drawer of my desk until i had enough for the design.

erica's critique: kim, that's weird. that's just weird. that would be like if my bunny died and i made a lucky key-chain of his foot.

the pants

today i had a genuine case of what rachel likes to call "the cranky pants," or simply "the pants." i don't get them very often, but today i was well justified in my pantage... yesterday being what it was. and today, after running into the language lab 10 minutes late for my french exam, likely failing my french exam, and cursing out the prof in my head for completely ruining my oral composition, i had nothing good left inside of me: i broke down, and attempted to buy a diet coke. i waited online at the snax tabagie a good 2 minutes before i realized that i'm a genius and left my wallet at home. a broken woman, i threw the soda back in the case. i didn't want to be seen by anyone, i didn't want to talk to anyone. there was only one thing to do: sit with rachel in her natural disasters class.

rachel was in her usual spot, the middle of the very back row, and i hopped over and collapsed into the seat next to her. she could see i had the pants and understood; she didn't try to make me talk. the auditorium was dimly lit and the cramped seats were surprisingly soft. i put on my headphones and fell asleep, dreaming of tornados and ice-storms.

*palatal click* x 7

If Molly could speak fluent English, I think I know what she'd tell me.

First, she'd take a few moments to tell me off and curse me for keeping her in that cage and leaving her alone during the day.

Then, she'd divulge to me all the secrets of the universe. I mean, come on, she spends enough time in that cage nibbling on dried fruit, focusing and re-focusing her golden eyes: she must have figured out something by now.

And finally, she'd tell me that, in the future, she'd prefer if I got dressed in the bathroom, as she is incapable of acclimating herself to the tastelessness of human nudity.

My feet are cold, I'm going to put on some socks.

Btw, today someone told me that we learn the rhythms of our language in the womb. Do you believe it?

shrimp-roaches with beady black eyes

all i've wanted to do lately is sleep and sleep and sleep. it may sound boring to you, but that's only because you're an uncreative dreamer. or maybe just because your life is more exciting than mine. who knows.

today i dreamt that the sink was full of dead insects - overflowing with dead insects. they were a pale, milky colour, transparent and rubbery in texture, with black eyes, and shaped like miniature cockroaches. most of them were thin and about an inch long, but a few of them were fat and about four inches long. i was completely disgusted by this sink full of "shrimp-roaches," as i somehow knew them to be called, and the only way i could think to get rid of them was by running the water and rinsing them down the drain. but when i tried doing this the sheer mass of the little things and the occaisional fat shrimp-roach, would clog the drain, the sink would overflow with a watery mess of rubbery insects. i stopped the stream of the faucet and waited for the water to drain, then continued adding a small bit of water at regular intervals to slowly push the mass of insects through. it was a disgusting and tedious process, and i can't think why, but my cruel mind added the unneccesary detail of the soft slurping noise that resulted from such a clogging, unclogging, and re-clogging of the pipes. it was altogether horrible and fascinating. and when i woke up i was all at once relieved and disappointed.

i <3 being an english major.

departmental wine and journal release parties in the english lounge = drunk kimmy by 6:00 pm.

she does sing louder than i...

today i stepped out on the front balcony singing a miracle of 86 song loudly to myself, not suspecting that anyone was around to hear me. oh! how wrong i was! no sooner had i finished the line "hiding my face in my hands/ auditioning my escape plan" than one of my "fucking" neighbors popped her head out of her doorway and reached into the box for her mail. i was so startled that i said hello to her in english (usually i bust out the sing-song "salut!" in their honor). apparently she'd been standing there in the doorway for the entirety of my little outburst... i should have charged her for that performance. although, i guess you could say it was kind of a fair trade; i get to hear her performance every night through the ceiling for free. in fact, from this perspective, i still owe her several.

usually when people piss me off i fume about it for a few minutes in my head, bitch about it for a few minutes to a friend, go home, and sleep it off. it's all over by the next day. but, as of late, i've been making an effort to hang onto my anger. why shouldn't i? i'm entitled to be pissed until i'm not. so i will be. otherwise i'm just one of those green bristly doormats that people scrape their scat-covered boots on.

i've also decided to embrace confrontation. i'm totally going to be the bitch in yo grill, mofo!

i guess we'll see how that goes for me.

"i hate ze men and zere lying ways!"

today at the writer's circle meeting we discussed humourous writing. the big words of advice were "just think to yourself, what's the funniest thing that could possible happen next, and write that." ok, sound advice, i'm sure, but what if your sense of humour (being an ex-pat, i feel compelled to spell it the canadian way) is just horrible and fumbling and generally unpopular. i am the master of cracked and unappreciated jokes - no one ever gets my humour! either they take it seriously, in which case i sound like an idiot, or they simply don't think it's very funny, in which case i look like an idiot, sitting there with half of my pathetic, expectant smile hanging out like a fruit of the loom underwear tag.

anyway, since rachel's computer crashed monday night and she spent the wee hours of tuesday morning wrapped in a blanket, collapsed and teary eyed in my doorway, i agreed to record the important bits of her life in my blog for her.

the important bit of rachel's day:

at approximately 10:15 rachel decided to give herself a haircut. she put on a wife-beater, grabbed the scissors, threw her head under the tub faucet, and emerged about 15 minutes later with her new look, entitled "I Hate Ze Men and Zere Lying Ways." then she put on her courtney love slip and proceeded to spin around in front of my mirror for a half hour, repeatedly screaming the name of her new look, and probably deeply perturbing the boys downstairs.

loophole, haha!

so, i'm not allowed to link my roommate and dear friend rachel's blurty, but she never said a damn thing about quoting it!

rachel's post from Nov 1st:
"the things that happened recently in ascending order of interest:

- i cleaned my room

- the person who sat next to me in history smelled like
salami

- there's a boy who looks like a well-dressed TA (front creased pants
and sweater vests) in myth and i'm attracted to his responsible and
clean-cut look

- i saw the worst bumper sticker in the world. it said: "genetically engineered corn is killing monarch butterflies...what's next???"

- we got sex advice from "nickers" (splash 'n boots)

- there was a(n incredibly false) rumor going around (between me and kim) for a while (a day) that someone we know was involved in a menage a trois "

wow, i post too much. damn! i can't get out of this block quote thing!

"it's a naughty business, that."

hot damn, canada is cold. i wore spandex pants under my skirt today... bad idea. well, to some (i am not included in this "some"), spandex is always a bad idea, but today it was even worse.

after class i met rachi and jane at cinema du parc and we caught a 5pm showing of i <3 huckabees, which was wonderful. it was simply hilarious, and surprising: i couldn't believe that a movie had actually met and surpassed my expectations. although, napoleon dynamite definitely did that too... "get off, napoleon! make yourself a dang quesadiLLa!" oh yeah, about i <3 huckabees... did i mention that jude law fakes a terrible american accent?? my god, why would he even attempt to change it, his character could have totally been british without significantly altering the plot of the movie, though i have to admit, listening to jude law slip in and out of his overdone new yorkish did significantly add to my entertainment. but hey, either way, it's jude law. and he's hot. and so is jason schwartzman. so i ain't complainin'.

so the AIM-free week thing is going well for me so far. i've had no great temptation to sign on and check away messages or type meaningless banter to anyone. actually, the hardest thing has been controlling my impulse to run to my computer and put up the clever little away messages that pop into my head. but that's what i'm here for, to express all those clever thoughts. though somehow i think they lose a bit of their cleverness in the transition from thought to text. it's a shame, that.

that really isn't a good way to end an entry but lately i've had a hankering to write a sentence of that form.

plagiarists of the world, i spit on your uncreative little minds.

today was one of my best days yet this entire semester. i felt so in control of my life, more than i ever have before; or, at least, i was more aware of it than ever before.

when i got home from school i made a massive pot of winter stew, and i think that it's the best thing i've cooked all year.

right now i'm sipping a glass of cold, tap water, and it's the best water i've tasted in my entire life.

in other news, plagiarism sucks. i recently found out that some of my poetry has been plagiarized (to what extent i don't yet know), and aside from being outraged i am completely astonished. i don't think i've ever written anything "good," and i can't believe that anyone would think to claim it for their own. what an embarassment to the plagiarist; how incapable a writer do you have to be to use my work to make yourself look better. it's totally laughable. and yet, i am outraged. it may be terrible poetry, but it is my terrible poetry, and no one else's. having ugly children does not mean that you will non-chalantly allow a stranger to kidnap and proudly display them as her own; well, not unless you're completely heartless, which i wouldn't put past you.

AIM my ass.

i've decided to give up aim for a week. i'm not signing on until next monday morning. i've decided that i waste entriely too much time checking away messages that i know i don't care about. plus, i'm sick of being always there. so, this week, i am not there. but hey, if you thought to look here for me then don't be shy; go ahead and leave me some love on the tag-board. and if anyone needs to contact me you know my e-mail and/or you know my phone number. but word of advice: choose e-mail over phone; there's nothing i hate more than extended phone conversations.

so anyway, have you ever wondered what makes a good Canadian leader? i know i sure have! well, folks, tonight is our lucky night, because i have stumbled upon the answer:




that, kids, is Pierre Elliot Trudeau, great Canadian uniter and writer of the 1981 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. damn, he was so cool.

crack crack

my oddest habit is most definitely nose cracking. i press down on the outside of one of my nostirls and apply pressure until i hear a little crack. then i take my finger off, and feel the sensation of my nose slowly peeling away from itself. if i inhale at just the right moment i can smell my own nose. i think it's one of my favorites smells in the world. anyway, once it reshapes itself, i repeat the whole buisiness on the outside of the other nostril. or sometimes i just pinch my nose and firmly wiggle it back and forth to get the same effect, only simultaneously on both sides.

Molly

She is, for the moment, absolutely content. Centered on the wooden perch in her boxy cage, she has begun to settle down for the evening. A whim takes her fancy, and, foot over foot, she steps daintily over to her food dish; her gold-rimmed eye does not deviate from her target. Quitely, she picks out a dried carrot with her beak, and, foot over foot, crosses the cage to her water dish. There, she dunks and dunks the carrot until it is amply soft. Foot over foot, she places herself back in the center of the perch, transfers her burden from beak to foot, and naively nibbles the soggy carrot.

in case you hadn't yet made up your mind...

I received the following email from my second cousin this morning. Give it a perusal, he knows what he's talking about. (btw, when i copied and pasted this out of the email window some of the spacings got a big distorted).

"First let me apologize for bombarding you with such a lengthy email.

I think all of you know me and my political views well enough to have nodoubt that I will be voting for John Kerry next week (in fact -- I havealready voted for him, because I am going out of town next week and votedabsentee). I am hoping that most of my friends and relatives will be voting for him as well, but just in case any of you have not yet made up your minds, I am writing to tell you the reasons why I am supporting Kerry.

Here they are --1. John Kerry Will Win the War on Terror
John Kerry has consistently shown throughout his career and this election campaign that he will not waver in his defense of America. He has what ittakes to be Commander-in-Chief. He will command our Armed Forces as they hunt the terrorists down and kill them so they don't ever again threaten our Nation, wherever the terrorists are hiding. The Bush campaign is lying when they accuse Kerry of being inconsistent in his commitment to the defense ofour Nation. President Bush is right that the war on terror is the critical issue forthis election, but he has been wrong about just about everything else in this war. Although Iraq is now the main battleground in the war against the terrorists, that is only true because President Bush decided to make it the main battleground. It was a mistake to make Iraq the focus of this war, because the terrorists who declared war on the United States were not hiding in Iraq. Before President Bush invaded Iraq, Osama Bin-Laden and most of his remaining supporters were hiding out somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today, we are not sure where Bin-Laden is, but apparently he is still somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. One ally of Al Qaeda -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - was hiding out in Iraq before the invasion, and today he is still hiding out somewhere in Iraq. If President Bush invaded Iraq in order to stamp out the terrorists who had attacked our Nation, he has certainly failed.
It is amazing that Bush can accuse Kerry of inconsistency regarding hispositions on Iraq in light of the constantly shifting reasons President Bush has given for invading Iraq. First, it was because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the United States. We have known now for some time that Saddam's WMD's were a figment of the Bush Administration's imagination, and the recent reports that the Administration decided that guarding Iraq's oil facilities was a higher priority than sending in troops to secure 380 tons of high explosives (anyone pound of which is sufficient to bring down a jet airliner), put the lie to any contention that the invasion had anything to do with WMDs. Next,Bush and his people told us that we invaded because Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. Now that it has been proven that those ties were fictional too, the Administration is saying that we invaded in order to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. While the latest rationale offered for the occupation is a laudable goal, President Bush should have leveled with the American people about why he wanted to invade Iraq. Had he done so our Nation could have had an honest debate about whether that goal wasachievable, and most importantly, whether it was worth the cost that had tobe paid by the American people, especially the men and women of our Armed Forces. What has been that cost to date? 1110 Americans killed and more than 8000 maimed or wounded, with no end in sight to those horrific casualties. And the cost to the American taxpayer is now almost $200 billion and mounting.That's right -- after George Bush claimed that John Kerry made up the $200billion figure in the debates, the press is reporting this week that the Administration has been preparing a $70 billion supplemental Defense appropriations bill for the current fiscal year, precisely because the total of $120 billion that has been appropriated so far for Iraq is insufficient.
So the price tag the American taxpayers will have to pay for the Iraqi quagmire is now $190 billion ($120 billion plus $70 billion), which makes John Kerry's $200 billion estimate during the debate look pretty accurate. And that is just the current year. The cost -- in both lives and dollars --will grow in the future before our occupation of Iraq can end.
What have we accomplished in Iraq? In the long run, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will probably benefit the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors. But in the meantime, there are millions of people in Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim world who now view the United States as a heathen occupying force in the heart of their world. Many of those people didn't like America in the first place, but we have now made them allies of our sworn enemies in Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. George Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has done incalculable damageto the war on terror that our Nation has to fight. If you are serious about fighting the war on terror, you won't give George Bush another four years in the White House to continue his mistakes. Instead, you will vote for the candidate who is committed to fighting a war against our real enemies, and who will tell the truth to the American people about how the war is going. That candidate is John Kerry.

2. John Kerry Believes That Tax Cuts Should Go to Those Who Need Them the Most
John Kerry has stated emphatically that he will not raise taxes on American families with incomes of $200,000 or less and that he will keep all of the tax cuts passed by the Administration for people with incomes below that threshold. Those few of us who have been blessed with careers (or inheritances) that allow us greater incomes can afford to pay a greater share of the taxes that are necessary for our Government to operate. Our wealth is not independent of government spending and none of us are truly "self-made" men or women. We all receive a myriad of benefits from the Government -- among other things, Armed Forces and police to protect our property as well as our lives, courts that enforce our property rights (not to mention providing a forum for the lucrative practice of law for some of us), highways that transport our commerce around this country, and social programs to ameliorate the lot in life of others so they will accept the rights of the people who own the property. Government spending creates the very stability that enables many of us to lead comfortable lives and that allows a few in our society to become fabulously wealthy. The wealthy can afford to pay the most taxes because they benefit the most from our system of Government.George Bush either doesn't understand this or more likely, he just doesn't care. Oh, of course he cut everybody's taxes, but his tax cuts provided paltry sums for the many and overwhelmingly benefited the richest. Bush lied to the American people during the debates about who received most of his taxcuts --Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his taxcuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans." That's just not true.In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated <http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?DocID=619&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=81> that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went tothe highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families. Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- thebottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts asclaimed by Bush.That's not my assessment -- it came from http://www.factcheck.org/ -- the website cited by Vice President Cheney duringthe debates. Over the next four years, the wealthiest 1 percent ofAmericans will receive, on average, a total of $96,634 in tax cuts, while the bottom 60% of Americans get back $350. Just like his reasons for thewar in Iraq, the reasons that Bush gives for his tax cuts, keep changing.
Initially, he promised the tax cuts because he said the Nation could affordto rebate to the taxpayers some of the surplus that had built up underPresident Clinton. Then when the economy crashed, and Bush turned Clinton's surplus into record-high deficits, Bush insisted that tax cuts were neededas a stimulus to get us out of recession. The only constants are that George Bush insisted that the tax cuts go to the wealthiest and that thecuts needed to be made permanent.At the same time that George Bush is cutting federal tax on the rich, his Administration is pursuing an aggressive program to shift responsibility for health care, education and other social programs currently operated by thefederal government to the States. Almost invariably, the States have taxbases, such as sales taxes, that are more regressive than the progressiveincome taxes levied by the federal government. The implications of Bush'spolicies are stark -- the American middle class and poor are going to haveto pay more in taxes -- or they will have to accept cuts in programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats are right -- George Bush isgoing to make the rest of America pay so he can provide tax cuts to thewealthy.

3. John Kerry Will Restore Fiscal Sanity So Your Children and GrandchildrenDon't Have to Pay Off George Bush's Debts
George Bush's deficits are apparently intended to prevent any futurepresident from expanding federal social programs without raising taxes. If elected John Kerry may not be able to accomplish all of the programs that he wants to implement, because he recognizes that the expanding federal deficitis a limitation on those programs. Kerry will cut the deficit to make roomto expand the programs that so many Americans need. Unlike George Bush,John Kerry does not want America's children and grandchildren don't have topay for the benefits we enjoy today.

4. John Kerry Wants to Expand Health Care Coverage for the American People
The differences between the candidates on health care are also stark. John Kerry has proposed a plan to expand health insurance coverage to more Americans. Although the Bush Administration's deficits may preclude Kerry from implementing his program fully, Kerry's plan is clearly intended toaddress the growing problem of Americans who lack health insurance, withoutimposing a government-run health plan as repeatedly and falsely asserted by Bush and his cohorts. Bush's plan, however, is clearly just another exampleof Bush's ideological commitment to cutting taxes, rather than reducing theranks of the uninsured. Bush's proposals would have only a marginal, if any impact, on the number of people who are presently without insurance.

5. John Kerry Will Protect Our Environment
I have been disappointed that the Kerry campaign has done little to pointout the tremendous damage that the current President is doing to our environment. John Kerry has shown an outstanding commitment to environmental issues in his years of service in the Senate, but his advisors have apparently decided that he won't pick up many votes by comparing his environmental record to George Bush's. That's too bad, because George Bush has given voters who care about environmental issues example after example of his complete disregard for the damage his policies do to our natural environment.
One of George Bush's first actions upon taking office was to break his campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. (a promise that Bush either cynically or stupidly made in order to prove that he was more pro-environment than Al Gore). When his newly-appointed EPA Administrator committed to the press that Bush intended to fulfill his promise, Bush publicly repudiated her statements and said he had changed his mind (I guess that campaign promise was one "mistake" that George Bush could have admitted in the debates). Apparently the EPA Administrator was not allowed in the closed-door meetings that Vice President Cheney had with the energy industry where they convinced him that George Bush had to change his mind about whether carbon dioxide emissions were bad for the environment.
This President backed out of the Global Warming Treaty so that the United States now stands nearly alone in refusing to recognize that the world must begin to act now to reduce emissions that are contributing to global warming. The Orwellian nature of the names that Bush gives to disguise the impact of his policies is stunning. Rules that relax the restrictions that are placed on coal plants are called the "Clear Skies" policy. Building more roads and increasing logging in the National Forests is the "Healthy Forests Initiative." He claimed in the debates that he has a plan" to increase wetlands by 3 million" acres, although his Administration in fact changed the regulations to allow destruction of 20 million acres of wetlands. Just today the Washington Post reported that the Administration has proposed new rules that allow dam owners to appeal to a political appointee in theInterior Department when they are dissatisfied with rulings regarding licenses for dams on American rivers, but the proposed rules deny the same appeal rights to state governments, environmental groups and ordinary citizens. These rules will go into effect shortly following the election.
Most insidiously, the Administration has systematically cut back on enforcement of the environmental laws and regulations that are still on the books. Morale among the career lawyers in EPA's enforcement offices is ator near an all time low because they are not permitted to do their jobs.Industry is aware that they can violate environmental laws with near impunity, because this Administration is refusing to enforce the laws. If you care about the environment, you should vote for John Kerry.

That's just five topics and I could easily write on 25 more, but I want toget this email out before Election Day. In case you want to read some additional reasons to vote George Bush out of office, I have provided some links below.
http://www.factcheck.org/ <http://www.factcheck.org/> provides an objectiveand unbiased assessments of the lies and misrepresentations made by both sides in this campaign.

I don't agree with Bush on much of anything but he was correct yesterday when he said -- "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=all&position=> ", New York Times Magazine explains how, on a wide range of issues, the facts are completely irrelevant to the decisions made by Bush and the people who surround him.
This last message and link is something I received shortly after the second debate from a savvy local Democratic leader with much experience and who isnot prone to hyperbole. The same point has been gnawing at me -- we cannot trust George Bush and the people who surround him because they simply do not tell the truth. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004897.php#more Friends: Please link to the above site. It quantifies something that has gnawed at me throughout this presidential campaign: this president is willing to twist the truth to the degree that no other incumbent has been willing to go.We're dealing with something that goes beyond the puffery that is the stock-in-trade of political debate -- it is an active effort to lie.
Please take care and don't forget to vote! (even if you think I am full of hot air).

Kevin
p.s., Suffice it to say that this email reflects only my opinion and is not the opinion of the law firm with which I am employed. "

liar! liar! that's more like it.

sascha's a big fat liar and rachel's horrible at interpreting over-the-phone sarcasm!
i don't want my blog to be composed of untruths, so i thought i'd just set the record straight: that date with the noah lad never happened. i know, the shocks of disillusionment have temporarily paralyzed you. i felt the very same way when i first learned i'd been lied to, but only for a moment. after that i realized that if sascha had been telling the truth it would have been more of an earth-shattering event: guys just don't do that. no one calls when they say they will and no one goes that out of their way to get a number. so, the way i look at it, learning of sascha's lie has restored my lack of faith in the world; i don't yet have to get off my ass and re-conceive a more optimistic view humanity, and especially not of men.