Friday, October 11, 2002
something to keep you occupied ...

and now, a dirty limerick for you:

there once was a queen of bulgaria
whose bush grew hairier and hairier
when the prince of peru
came up for a screw
he had to hunt for her cunt with a terrier.

and another:

o, pity the duchess of kent
whose cunt was so dreadfully bent
the poor wench doth stammer,
'i need a sledgehammer
to pound a man into my vent.'

and, for extra fun - a contest!
here are the first two lines to a limerick, and whoever can write the most uproarious ending will recieve a little prize in the mail. and no cheating - i looked up the ending on the internet.

there was a young fellow named Cribbs
whose cock was so big, it had ribs ...

post your answers here ... there will be an impartial judging, sometime in the near future.

that is all.

love, krissa .... 4:59 PM ... link!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Thursday, October 10, 2002
and wherefore art thou ________?

yes, folks - mornings are slow here at work. so in a fit of curiosity, i decided to investigate some name meanings, starting with
my own, which is odd, because krissa doesn't usually come up on those searches. nonetheless, it was relatively accurate. the second most accurate name-read was, funnily enough, someone who's almost completely indefinable -marnix. from the studious aloof part to the outdoorsy part .. very eerie. on the other hand, seastreet and
erwin were both pretty off. matthieu, flood, and genevieve were all pretty much on the money. the most shockingly wrong one, though, was beth. they were waayyyy off. and josh, "reserved and forbidding"? These people are crazy.

or, perhaps, i'm the crazy one for spending ten minutes reading these.... yes, i think that's it.

love, krissa .... 6:05 PM ... link!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Wednesday, October 09, 2002
the post-everything generation.

this morning, as with most mornings,
flood woke up my sleepy, dew-coated brain with his erudite and compassionate revelations. he made me think of a few things, ideas that have been tumbling around my mind when i think about myself and my generational peers.

the kennedy assasination, to my generation, is something of a relic. it's significance is dulled, the effect has worn off. we are the generation that was alive when someone took a pot shot at ronald reagan because he was in love with jodie foster. we are the generation that laughs at the pope-mobile. assasination is part of the political territory for us, as flood points out so eloquently. but there's something else about the kennedy assasination that distances us from the generation that sat on their lawns and cried when it happened.

recently, i was at the book depository and the grassy knoll, and the modern memorial that overlooks the fatal ramp where a generation's innocence was destroyed. we didn't go inside the "museum" - i have a good idea what exists there and i was more interested in actually standing on the lawn, understanding what it looked like from there. for, had i been there, i would have been on the lawn. i would have been wearing some crazy dress, probably with a husband and child already, and i would have been imagining how terribly handsome our president was, and envying radiant jackie's pink dress. so we stood at the memorial, and listened to the conspiracy theorist explain in graphic, explicit detail, how exactly kennedy could not possibly have been shot by one man alone, standing on the sixth floor of a building, obstructed by trees.

and as the conversation progressed where the man explained to me and i played devil's advocate for the hell of it, something in our conversation stayed with me. i asked the man, at the end of his detailed tirade, why exactly it was so important to him whether kennedy was shot by one man or a whole plattoon of them. wasn't it still an assasination? wasn't kennedy still dead?

yes, he said, but what that meant - and here he got very angry indeed - that the government not only lied to us, but possibly was involved in it! he went on to point out several things that we all know ... how johnson was thoughtlessly sworn in a matter of hours later, with blood-spackled jackie at his side ... how the witnesses to the events of the shooting (including a female journalist who was in possession oswald's only interview) were systematically eliminated by strange fates ... how oswald had been standing calmly drinking a coke 90 seconds later, in a completely different part of the building, when the feds "arrested" him ...

i heard all this, but the thing that really struck me was this ... this man was angry that the government had lied! this man felt injustice done against him and his peers because he believed his government to have concealed something from him!

and i, a mere twenty two years old, hold faith in no such fallacy. i have no faith that my government isn't lying to me, every day. i am of this generation - the post-kennedy, the post-vietnam, the post-watergate, the post-iran contra, the post-S&L scandal, the post-whitewater, the post-lewinsky generation. that pretty much covers every single president since the camelot days of jfk. we are not innocent. we hold no faith that the government's first aim is to be honest, open and transparent in it's motives. we are under no such delusion that our presidents are honorable men with charming families and good christian hearts. we are almost disappointed when there is no scandal. and when there is one, we do not stand there shocked, mouths agape, tears streaming down our faces. we attack it - hungry hyenas on fresh blood.

kennedy's assassination taught us that even heroes have enemies (if you really think jfk was such a hero). vietnam taught us that you can never win a land war in asia, and that dissent has its place within the walls of national discussion. watergate taught is that dick was, in fact, tricky, and that even the president isn't above dirtying his hands - it taught us the ugly side of political ambition. iran contra taught us that politicians can chide with one hand and bribe with the other. and lewinsky ... well, that merely taught us that clinton's philandering eventually was going to catch up with him, and that ken starr is evil.

our generation has been shocked by nothing until september 11th. and i wonder - what will september 11th, and the fallout thereof, teach our children's generation? what will they say about the crumbling towers, the patriotic hoopla, the fabricated war in iraq? what will they say about john walker lindh? what will they conclude about the motives, the reactions, the ambitions of our government?

most importantly - and i speak from my post-kennedy, post-watergate perspective - what will they know about september 11th that we do not know now? if watergate taught us one thing, it was that nothing can stay a secret for very long. when my grandchildren go to college, their teachers will be my children's generation. and what will those children believe, about the government, about the attacks, about the consequences, of the most terrifying event in my generation - they who did not live through it but see it through history's tricky glasses?

i wonder.

love, krissa .... 5:11 PM ... link!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Site Meter This page is powered by Blogger. Is yours?