Three Things Today:
1) Interesting article about those who move back to the city after they tried to live to the ‘burbs but it just didn’t work out. VFLOAB is a city boy, so we can identify.
2) Wonderful and short interview with Noam Chomsky (who was given a shout out in Girlmore Girls on Tuesday when Paris had a poster of him in her room) that’s in Newsweek. Chomsky gives a clear and pretty obvious view point on Iraq, where it’s headed, and our handling of the situation. He puts it pretty clear right here:
The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example.
It's pretty clear to us here at VFLOAB, just from the election results that the neo-cons forgot that if the Iraqis could vote that they'd vote for Iran Vol. II over the GOP (or any secular party for that matter). It's amazing, but apparently, we got rid of Saddam to install a government that would love to ally itself with Iran and thus become unfriendly with us. And it cost thousand of American lives, let alone the number of Iraqi lives which is probably closer to hundred of thousand than a few thousand. Is this result better because they were able to vote and elect a government via a democracy (even though of course it was forced democracy which isn’t democracy or democratic in any way shape or form)? Hell, Iran has the most free elections in the MidEast (rather did) and we didn't like the results as it was. So what were they really expecting?
I don't know. It seems painfully obvious in my eyes on why we invaded Iraq - Oil and for the Bush administration to cover their asses for not catching bin Laden (yeah, remember him?).
So basically what we and many others have been saying since 2002.
3) And after finding (okay being sent) a fun little link, VFLOAB encourages everyone to check this out. It's called MyHeritage and it basically compares your face to those of other celebrities and gives you the people you supposedly look most alike. Using a photo of the self that you can see in the profile, these were our results:
Leonardo DiCaprio (56%)
Kirsten Dunst (55%)
Jack Nicholson (45%)
Young Michael Jackson (With J5) (42%)
Drew Barrymore (39%)
Rita Hayworth (38%)
I wish I was making this up.
2 comments:
Bobby, I went to CUA too.. Stalked your blog and read it... now, can we just talk about how awesome that celebrity site is..
My friend discovered it a month ago and we spent a whole day on it.. It said I looked like Alfred Hitchcock.. ?
Although you do look like a kirsten dunst.. I feel that it might be a little off.. Considering we used the infamous Hare and Spears photo and it did not say.. that she looked like Britney.
Yeah, this sight might be the second greatest internet invention after facebook... at least that's what I'm thinking. Every single picture I now take of myself and others will get scaned and viewed... this could very easily be a life changing website (like facebook).
I did Jon Voight and it came up as Jon Voight so at that point I had to declare the site as officaly aokay. It be legit.
Anyway, I kept doing it with other pictures and I kept getting Rita Hayworth, Kirsten Dunst, and a few other women everytime (Leo came up one more time and David Beckham once too, good times!). So apperently I'm a woman and what that makes women attacted to me I don't know. So I've got that going for me and I have a career as Dunst's evil twin brother in "Spiderman VII".
Post a Comment