We're learning Lion Dancing right now.
And when I tell people about it, you'd be surprised how many people confuse it with "Line Dancing." The looks on their faces are really quite classic. It's as if they expect me to suddenly sprout giant shitkickers and a belt buckle the size of a dinner plate.
But I digress.
Actually, all told, I'm quite happy with the way things have gone so far. I'm learning more than I ever thought possible in Kung Fu. I'm becoming a half-decent dancer. Quite impressive, considering that I currently buy my shoes in left pairs.
And, of course, having to stare at a young woman's butt for the duration of the dance is not exactly something that I find problematic.
All in all, I'm quite happy with the way things are turning out.
I'm really wracking my brain to see if I can remember the last time that my life was this good, and to be honest, I can't. Everything seems pretty much perfect for me right now. My career is starting to take off, my life is in some kind of order, I'm happy, I'm healthy...
April and I will be hiking the West Coast trail in August; just after we hit the two-year mark. My dad says that may make or break the relationship. Frankly, I don't think that it's something we really need to worry about. Seven days, 75 km. We've hiked trails that had roughly the same "miles per day" factor, and were much more strenuous. A friend of ours said that "if you can hike Three Isle Lake, then the West Coast Trail should be no problem." Three Isle was the first trail April and I ever hiked.
Suffice it to say that it's going to be something of an adventure; and I, for one, am really looking forward to it.
We're going to do a lot of weekender hikes this coming summer, once all the snow melts and we can get our butts out of town. I want to hit Three Isle again, just so that we can both see how much easier that trail is now than it was for us when we were just starting. I'd also like to hit Turbine Canyon. That's a little more grueling, but I think that we can manage that one pretty easily.
And April's a good hiking partner to have. I tell ya, that girl is tough with a capital "T." With all the things that went wrong on our first jaunt, I was shocked to find out that she wanted to go out and do it again, but go out we did, and we slowly escalated the level of difficulty until we were hiking Yoho at the end of the summer. Next summer's climax, methinks, is going to be the West Coast Trail.
The only problem is: what the hell are we going to do to top that!?
Monday, November 22, 2004
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Rant: What the hell is happening to my country!?
I'm was born straddling the border. My mother is an American, my father is Canadian. That makes me a man with two countries, and I'm proud of both of them.
Or more accurately, I'm proud of what they're supposed to represent. America is a country based on the principle that one's freedoms should extend to the limits of encroaching upon the freedoms of others.
Now we have a president who came into office with the appearance of a (admittedly, bible-thumping) moderate conservative; and in the last year, proposed an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage. Had it passed, it would have been the second amendment to the American Constitution in history designed specifically to limit the freedoms of its citizens (the first one was prohibition, which doesn't exactly set the best precedent). Over the last four years, his politics have shifted so far to the right that the country I love dearly is in serious danger of becoming a theocracy.
And now, he's just won re-election.
Think about that for a second: a man who has done more damage to the United States of America's economy, its international relations, and frankly, the way the country is viewed by the rest of the world, has just been re-elected.
And now, the American public has seen it fit to put him in a position where he can rewrite the bill of rights.
Make no mistake people, the Supreme court was on the ballot in this election. As many as three supreme court justices may step down from their positions in the next four years; in which case it falls to Bush to replace them. That's three justices out of nine; and two of the existing supreme court justices are already deep into the right end of the political spectrum: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and they're not the ones who are expected to die. Bush has stated that these two are his personal favorite justices, and so far the appointments he has made to lower courts support this assertion. To describe them as conservative is severely understating the matter. They have both, on repeated occasions, cast aside the very principles on which this country is supposed to be founded; separation of Church and State, the rights of the individual, constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and personal liberties; to make a ruling in accordance with their own ideals.
If it were up to them, the rights of minorities, homosexuals and the poor will be considerably hindered. They dissented when Texas' Anti-Gay laws were struck down in a case last year and they sided with the Police who had arrested a man for "homosexual activity" in his own home. They argued that a state courthouse was not required to act in accordance with the disabilites act and provide a wheelchair-accessible courtroom. They have argued that the separation of church and state need not apply to the individual states. They argued that the severe beating of a Louisiana inmate did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." They have argued, repeatedly, for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.
And these, ladies and gentlemen, are Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justices.
Now imagine that instead of a mere two supreme court justices with such extreme conservative views (which, while annoying, is not of serious concern as long as we have the other seven balancing them out), we now have five. Enough to tip the majority of the supreme court towards the far right end of the political spectrum. Imagine, for a moment that the extreme views of Thomas and Scalia became the norm; that the ultraconservative views they held became the measure of law in America. Abortion would become illegal overnight. Homosexuals, or for that matter, unmarried heterosexuals could be arrested for having sex in their homes. Separation of Church and State would become a thing of the past. Prison guards could brutalize their inmates.
I was watching an interview the other day, clearly at one of the lineups to a polling station, where they asked a young woman standing in line who she was going to vote for. She said that she was going to vote for Bush. Fine, that's her perogative. Then they asked her why. Her answer, "because I believe that the Lord wants him to be president."
You believe that the Lord wants him to be president? Well, fine, let the Lord vote for him. America is a country founded on the principle that faith and government are separate entities. Religion should have no place in the running of government, and vice versa. America is a lot of things, but the one thing it is not is a theocracy, and even that may well not apply for long.
This may be seen as a somewhat paranoid rambling, but consider this: eleven states voted to ban gay marriage in this election. Eleven states managed to put it on their respective ballots in a country where the measure of law is supposed to be the separation of Church and State. Let's face it; there is no secular reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. If you don't want your church to marry homosexuals, fine, talk to your Church, not the lawmakers, 'cause for America to be America, they shouldn't be listening.
We're now facing an America where the laws will no longer be made by the courts, or the lawmakers. We're facing an America where the laws are being made by the Church; which is exactly what America is not supposed to represent.
Or more accurately, I'm proud of what they're supposed to represent. America is a country based on the principle that one's freedoms should extend to the limits of encroaching upon the freedoms of others.
Now we have a president who came into office with the appearance of a (admittedly, bible-thumping) moderate conservative; and in the last year, proposed an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage. Had it passed, it would have been the second amendment to the American Constitution in history designed specifically to limit the freedoms of its citizens (the first one was prohibition, which doesn't exactly set the best precedent). Over the last four years, his politics have shifted so far to the right that the country I love dearly is in serious danger of becoming a theocracy.
And now, he's just won re-election.
Think about that for a second: a man who has done more damage to the United States of America's economy, its international relations, and frankly, the way the country is viewed by the rest of the world, has just been re-elected.
And now, the American public has seen it fit to put him in a position where he can rewrite the bill of rights.
Make no mistake people, the Supreme court was on the ballot in this election. As many as three supreme court justices may step down from their positions in the next four years; in which case it falls to Bush to replace them. That's three justices out of nine; and two of the existing supreme court justices are already deep into the right end of the political spectrum: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and they're not the ones who are expected to die. Bush has stated that these two are his personal favorite justices, and so far the appointments he has made to lower courts support this assertion. To describe them as conservative is severely understating the matter. They have both, on repeated occasions, cast aside the very principles on which this country is supposed to be founded; separation of Church and State, the rights of the individual, constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and personal liberties; to make a ruling in accordance with their own ideals.
If it were up to them, the rights of minorities, homosexuals and the poor will be considerably hindered. They dissented when Texas' Anti-Gay laws were struck down in a case last year and they sided with the Police who had arrested a man for "homosexual activity" in his own home. They argued that a state courthouse was not required to act in accordance with the disabilites act and provide a wheelchair-accessible courtroom. They have argued that the separation of church and state need not apply to the individual states. They argued that the severe beating of a Louisiana inmate did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." They have argued, repeatedly, for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.
And these, ladies and gentlemen, are Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justices.
Now imagine that instead of a mere two supreme court justices with such extreme conservative views (which, while annoying, is not of serious concern as long as we have the other seven balancing them out), we now have five. Enough to tip the majority of the supreme court towards the far right end of the political spectrum. Imagine, for a moment that the extreme views of Thomas and Scalia became the norm; that the ultraconservative views they held became the measure of law in America. Abortion would become illegal overnight. Homosexuals, or for that matter, unmarried heterosexuals could be arrested for having sex in their homes. Separation of Church and State would become a thing of the past. Prison guards could brutalize their inmates.
I was watching an interview the other day, clearly at one of the lineups to a polling station, where they asked a young woman standing in line who she was going to vote for. She said that she was going to vote for Bush. Fine, that's her perogative. Then they asked her why. Her answer, "because I believe that the Lord wants him to be president."
You believe that the Lord wants him to be president? Well, fine, let the Lord vote for him. America is a country founded on the principle that faith and government are separate entities. Religion should have no place in the running of government, and vice versa. America is a lot of things, but the one thing it is not is a theocracy, and even that may well not apply for long.
This may be seen as a somewhat paranoid rambling, but consider this: eleven states voted to ban gay marriage in this election. Eleven states managed to put it on their respective ballots in a country where the measure of law is supposed to be the separation of Church and State. Let's face it; there is no secular reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. If you don't want your church to marry homosexuals, fine, talk to your Church, not the lawmakers, 'cause for America to be America, they shouldn't be listening.
We're now facing an America where the laws will no longer be made by the courts, or the lawmakers. We're facing an America where the laws are being made by the Church; which is exactly what America is not supposed to represent.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
What may trounce Bush this election.
My father brought up a point that I han't really considered until last night.
The polls, which show the two candidates in a dead heat at the moment, may not only be slightly incorrect, they may be downright wrong.
There are a few major factors that nobody seems to have considered: 1) polls are notorious for ignoring people aged 18-30. 2) Record numbers of 18-20-year olds are registering to vote in this election. 3) If Bush gets elected, we're going to face the very real possibility of having a draft by the time the year's out. 4) All men between the ages of 18-30 are those who face the possibility of being drafted. 5) Very few men between the ages of 18-30 want to get drafted.
In short, for the first time ever, the youth of America may have a decisive voice in this election.
Of course, you gotta feel sorry for Kerry. Even if he gets elected (which is seeming more and more plausible by the minute), his entire first term is going to be spent un-screwing up the country.
Another factor: a sizeable portion of the young population of the US watches John Stewart.
And they vote.
The polls, which show the two candidates in a dead heat at the moment, may not only be slightly incorrect, they may be downright wrong.
There are a few major factors that nobody seems to have considered: 1) polls are notorious for ignoring people aged 18-30. 2) Record numbers of 18-20-year olds are registering to vote in this election. 3) If Bush gets elected, we're going to face the very real possibility of having a draft by the time the year's out. 4) All men between the ages of 18-30 are those who face the possibility of being drafted. 5) Very few men between the ages of 18-30 want to get drafted.
In short, for the first time ever, the youth of America may have a decisive voice in this election.
Of course, you gotta feel sorry for Kerry. Even if he gets elected (which is seeming more and more plausible by the minute), his entire first term is going to be spent un-screwing up the country.
Another factor: a sizeable portion of the young population of the US watches John Stewart.
And they vote.
Monday, October 04, 2004
One hurdle down
I've survived the written. I turned it in this morning, for better or worse. So that's done. Now, I'm going to take 48 hours to recover from the written, then start hittin' the books for the oral.
Ten more days...... ten more days......
Whoever came up with the idea of a candidacy exam deserves to be thrown into the street and shot. I mean, I understand why they do it, but God, it's a pain in the ass.
All this so that I can get a few new letters after my name.
The things we do for academia.....
Ten more days...... ten more days......
Whoever came up with the idea of a candidacy exam deserves to be thrown into the street and shot. I mean, I understand why they do it, but God, it's a pain in the ass.
All this so that I can get a few new letters after my name.
The things we do for academia.....
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Neat stuff.
The universe has just become something of an interesting place over the last few days.
I'm now completing my candidacy exam; the written part anyway. I'm really, really, really looking forward to having that done; in part because I've seen practically nothing of April for the last month. I've seen more of my profs than I have of her. Doesn't that suck? At any rate, this'll all be over soon. I hope. I really, just want this to end right now. I want it over with, I want to have this chapter behind me, so I can progress straight to PhD.
Bak Fu Pai is going really well. Amazingly well, actually. My SiFu has arranged for his best and brightest (and me) to train with a grandmaster who lives here in Calgary. It means we need to start learning a whole new style of Kung Fu, but quite apart from the fact that it's similar to the style we're learning now, just training with this man is quite an honour. Suffice it to say, when my SiFu speaks of someone with tha t level of reverence in his voice, it's time to stand up and take notice.
Anyhow, must get back to the salt mines. See y'all later.
I'm now completing my candidacy exam; the written part anyway. I'm really, really, really looking forward to having that done; in part because I've seen practically nothing of April for the last month. I've seen more of my profs than I have of her. Doesn't that suck? At any rate, this'll all be over soon. I hope. I really, just want this to end right now. I want it over with, I want to have this chapter behind me, so I can progress straight to PhD.
Bak Fu Pai is going really well. Amazingly well, actually. My SiFu has arranged for his best and brightest (and me) to train with a grandmaster who lives here in Calgary. It means we need to start learning a whole new style of Kung Fu, but quite apart from the fact that it's similar to the style we're learning now, just training with this man is quite an honour. Suffice it to say, when my SiFu speaks of someone with tha t level of reverence in his voice, it's time to stand up and take notice.
Anyhow, must get back to the salt mines. See y'all later.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Back, and still breathing
So, April and I hiked our way out of the back country on Monday night, none the worse for wear. We were a little wetter, a little stronger, and a lot closer. I guess that's what happens when you go hiking/camping with someone. You either wind up hating each other, or getting closer.
Actually, it was sorta sad, 'cause April and I both realized that this is likely to be one of our last jaunts out into the middle of nowhere for some time. I'm gonna miss these trips. However, next summer, we have a number of trips planned; culminating in a hike along the West Coast trail. That'll be really amazing. 75 km along the Island. I'm getting super-keen on this one.
Of course, I'll need to actually buy a backpack first. I've been using my big brother's, and I think he's starting to get annoyed with it, so I'm gonna use some of the money I put aside to buy one. Mountain Equipment CO-OP, here I come...
Actually, it was sorta sad, 'cause April and I both realized that this is likely to be one of our last jaunts out into the middle of nowhere for some time. I'm gonna miss these trips. However, next summer, we have a number of trips planned; culminating in a hike along the West Coast trail. That'll be really amazing. 75 km along the Island. I'm getting super-keen on this one.
Of course, I'll need to actually buy a backpack first. I've been using my big brother's, and I think he's starting to get annoyed with it, so I'm gonna use some of the money I put aside to buy one. Mountain Equipment CO-OP, here I come...
Friday, August 20, 2004
Back unto the wilderness.
So, April and I are again heading into the wild of beyond. We're going out to Yoho national park for a few days of hiking. That'll be much fun. We're going to hike past two rather spectacular waterfalls, not to mention a major glacier. We also may have substantial swim time; as Emerald lake is only a short jaunt from our campsite on the last day.
At any rate, I'm predicting that this will be much, much fun. April's looking forward to it, too.
I'm going steadily through my little checklist as I'm packing.
Map: check
tent: check
food: check
stove: check
cookware: check
clothes: check
GPS tracker: check
camera: check
First aid supplies: check
Bug spray: check
bowl to eat out of: check
cutlery: check
Hiking boots: check
swim trunks: check
Water bottle: check
Water filter: check
Sodium hypochlorite solution (yeah, I know, I'm getting a little paranoid about keeping the water I drink safe): check
spare batteries for GPS tracker: check
Fun stuff.
At any rate, I'm predicting that this will be much, much fun. April's looking forward to it, too.
I'm going steadily through my little checklist as I'm packing.
Map: check
tent: check
food: check
stove: check
cookware: check
clothes: check
GPS tracker: check
camera: check
First aid supplies: check
Bug spray: check
bowl to eat out of: check
cutlery: check
Hiking boots: check
swim trunks: check
Water bottle: check
Water filter: check
Sodium hypochlorite solution (yeah, I know, I'm getting a little paranoid about keeping the water I drink safe): check
spare batteries for GPS tracker: check
Fun stuff.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Entering the digital age
So I finally bit the bullet and bought myself a digital camera.
I've been resisting the switch to digital for as long as I felt I could. There's just something about dropping the paper into the solutions and watching an image magically float up from nothing. You lose that with digital.
But, sadly, I fear the days of polycarbonate film and enlargers are nearing an end, and are being replaced with high-resolution CCDs and high-quality printers. I guess that this is what they call "progress."
Sigh.
At the end of the day, it was my mom, who has been resisting the change to digital even longer than I have, who convinced me that I would be stupid not to go digital. It's simpler, its cheaper, you can get high-quality prints with far less effort than with old-fashioned film. A lot less painting with light, and a lot more fiddling with pixels.
And if this whole PhD. thing doesn't pan out, my little bother says I'm all ready to start a career in amateur porn.
I've been resisting the switch to digital for as long as I felt I could. There's just something about dropping the paper into the solutions and watching an image magically float up from nothing. You lose that with digital.
But, sadly, I fear the days of polycarbonate film and enlargers are nearing an end, and are being replaced with high-resolution CCDs and high-quality printers. I guess that this is what they call "progress."
Sigh.
At the end of the day, it was my mom, who has been resisting the change to digital even longer than I have, who convinced me that I would be stupid not to go digital. It's simpler, its cheaper, you can get high-quality prints with far less effort than with old-fashioned film. A lot less painting with light, and a lot more fiddling with pixels.
And if this whole PhD. thing doesn't pan out, my little bother says I'm all ready to start a career in amateur porn.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Boiling a frog
We've all heard the metaphor of the boiled frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it jumps right out, but if you put a frog into cool water, then slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there until it boils to death.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Friday, July 16, 2004
My own Private Hell.
Paul Martin
Circle I Limbo
Creationists, PETA Members
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind
Whoever invented the term "Hanging Chad"
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow
Physicists
Circle IV Rolling Weights
George Bush
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled
River Styx
The Executive Producers of "The Swan", Religious Fundamentalists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity
River Phlegyas
Militant Vegans
Circle VII Burning Sands
People who talk during movies, People who interrupt me when I'm talking during movies
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement
Nazis, The Executive Producers of "Temptation Island"
Circle IX Frozen in Ice
What can I say, I couldn't resist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
