wanna go HOME now...

  Buy Me Candy

13 January 1999

5:54 PM: I was brushing my teeth this morning, thinking about this ISO 9000 / Baldridge Award committee I was on back in my last real job. I sure had a lot to say, for a young punk from Tech Support. I suppose I might have been right sometimes - all of that seems like such nonsense now. I was thinking about all of this because I was comparing it to the attitude I have towards work today. I can't imagine caring that much about how things get done here.

And it struck me, all of a sudden, how much everything I do anymore is done looking backwards. Constant awareness of all these past events, comparisons and regrets and envy and rue. Is this common? How truly tedious.

I suppose the past expands to fill a vacuum in the present, though. Time to go do something incredibly stupid.

7:25: This Is No Accident Dept.:

Clinton To Extend Police Subsidies
WASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton planned to propose a five-year, $6 billion anti-crime package Thursday that would up the ante on his nearly fulfilled pledge to put 100,000 new cops on the beat nationwide. 13 Jan 1999 21:01 EST

Justice Dept. OKs Cheap Casket Plan
WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department approved a plan Wednesday by family-owned funeral homes to cooperate in obtaining cheaper caskets by joining together to buy them at bulk discounts. 13 Jan 1999 18:09 EST

9:05: Hunh. Well, although I can't find documentation, I'm certain that the song over the credits in Hurlyburly was done by Sheryl Crow. I've never really heard her before, but I just assumed she was some kind of folky singer/songwriter thing. Which wasn't what this song sounded like at all, surprised me.

I found one of her CDs here at work and though, "Oh good, now I can hear what the rest of her stuff sounds like." Umm. Well! It's certainly very, uh.... musical! Yes, yes, lots of notes and sounds and singing. Oh well. Maybe this it's just that this is an old CD and she's since gone all radical. Or, not.

Speaking of, like, radical and shit, I was reading a story in The New York Times yesterday - the Science section, no less - and saw this sentence: "These estimates, based on variations in DNA, are better than guesses but fall way short of hard fact." Um, 'way short'? Is this a real usage? I thought it was an invented Dudeism. This is a time when that OED subscription would come in handy, wouldn't it?

Willfully blind self-indulgent nebbish or amusingly quirky old coot? And how bout that local sports team? Discuss among yourselves.

 yestoday   today   tomorrowday 
  archive   semi-bio  
 listen!   random   privit 

All names are fake, most places are real, the author is definitely unreliable but it's all in good fun. Yep.
© 1998-1999 Lighthouse for the Deaf. All rights reserved and stuff.

The motto at the top of the page is a graffito I saw on Brunswick Street in Melbourne.