My suspicion of the alleged terrorist plot gains a little more credence. Even conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan doubts the veracity of official government stories. He had this to say on his blog today:"So far, no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up several airplanes across the Atlantic. No evidence has been produced supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent. Forgive me if my skepticism just ratcheted up a little notch. Under a law that the Tories helped weaken, the suspects can be held without charges for up to 28 days. Those days are ticking by. Remember: the British authorities had all these people under surveillance; they did not want to act last week; there was no imminent threat of anything but a possible "dummy-run," whatever deranged guest-bloggers at Malkin say. (Correction, please.) Bush and Blair discussed whether to throw Britain's airports into chaos over the weekend before the crackdown occurred."That word, 'imminent' is important, I think. It was thrown about on news reports for days after the plot was revealed and I haven't heard anything about anyone retracting it. We know now that we were never in danger of being blown out of the sky that day, so not imminent. And now the British ambassador to Uzbekistan says that some of these supposed plane-bombers didn't even have passports. How close, exactly, can a terrorist be to getting on a transatlantic flight in order to bomb it that terrorist doesn't even have their passport yet? I'm looking forward to hearing all of the details about this alleged plot in the next few weeks, because right now this thing stinks.
Anyway, enough about our untrustworthy government. On to my life.
Here's a question I'll pose through a lengthy set-up: I was out getting the mail today (which, along with my trip to the garbage was my only excursion outside of the apartment today), and just as I emerge out of the shadow of my building, I see a sad-eyed beagle puppy crawling on its belly through the grass towards me. At first, I was going to let the dog be and go on my way, but the dog got closer, nearly to my shoe, so I had to stop, hunker down and say hello to it. It was on a leash and I looked up to see a man, a few years younger than myself, holding the other end. While I petted the dog's little beagle skull I asked, "What's its name?" "Peanut," he said. "Hello, Peanut," I said in a gruff but cheery baby-talk voice. When I was finished patting the dog, I looked up, gave the guy a quick nod as if to say, "Your animal meets with my approval," and I went on my way to the mailboxes. Now. The question. Was that weird of me? To say more to the guy's dog than to the person himself? Was the friendly nod sufficient? What's proper pet admiration etiquette? Do I have to make small talk or else ignore the animal completely? Or have I just become an apartment-dwelling recluse who doesn't know how to interact with other humans anymore?
Anyway. Wednesday's just a couple short hours from the recordbooks, so now: readin' and sleepin'. More blog tomorrow.
5 comments:
No, it's not weird. You don't want to pet the owner, silly, so why talk to him? If it was a hot female owner and you wanted to heavily pet her, then talk is in order! But, only long enough to get her into the sack, then no more words. Don't mess this up for the rest of us, Crane. No talking beyond the bed. And not too much before that either! Seriously! Your confidence is key at this point. The more you talk, the more you look nervous, and that spells low confidence. Be brief and bright, and... wait...
you're married.
Way to ruin it for the rest of us, dude. Jesus. We almost had it. Oh well, dogs are cute.
I say snubbing the owner of any conversation is awesome.
To say to a person I'd rather talk to your dog than you means you're better than them.
Ward.
Thanks for letting me cut your hair.
Shannon
Yes, as a dog owner and dog walker, I'd actually prefer it if you just talk to the dogs and then let us go on about our business when on a walk. Chances are, I might have a bag of poop in my hand while you're trying to strike up a friendly conversation. Another possibility is that one of the dogs might poop while you're trying to talk to me. Either way, there's going to be poop invovled and if it has to be mine instead of the dogs, then so be it.
So, really, keep the conversations to a minimum. We'd prefer it if you focus on the dogs and briefly at that.
Finally!!!
I'm out of the proverbial doghouse.
Weekly I was lectured by Brian for saying "Hi, Klute!" to our neighbor's dog in Burbank, and ignoring them.
From these posts, it's obvious, they deserved it! (or secretly wanted to be ignored because of their own issues)
As for the plane-bombing plot -- I think its safe to say as of TODAY - we no longer need to worry about bombs, we need to worry about SNAKES!!! :)
I have no idea why I'm excited about SNAKES ON A PLANE, except for the fact that people who watch movies theoretically had significant impact on changes to this film. If more movies would have responded to what viewers want to see or hear in a film, I wouldn't have to cry everytime someone mentions BEWITCHED. That could have been good - jackholes.
-Peggy
You have nothing to worry about talking to a dog more than it's owner. I do it all the time. In fact other people have done it to me when I walk my dog and I don't care so it's not a big deal.
In regard to the bomber plot in England, I definitely smell the Bush administration on this one. It is an election year after all. Since 9/11 every summer before an election I notice we are at an orange alert or there is a possibility that a bomb may go off somewhere, of course usually, thankfully nothing happens, but I notice too that no one is usally convicted either. I'm hoping that the American people won't buy it this time but I'm not so sure.
Post a Comment