Posted 11:32 AM by Alfred

The Hoseman makes a triumphant return to bloggerville, nailing all the pertinent info necessary to know on some speech that George Bush apparently made yesterday. Don’t let the fact that I didn’t watch it or know anything about it affect your opinion on my statement. I wish I had some kind of rationale to back up that statement, but, well, logic and reason were never my strong points.

Can I tell you that I’m listening to Neil Diamond without you running away in boredom? Not over neil, but over the fact I’m telling you about it? hope so. Cuz I am and I am. It brings back, yea, verily, harkens, memories of long drives with the parentals and the sisters on the way to faroff destinations like the mountains of Yosemite & Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs and, um, the hardware store. Ah, the hardware store, the bastion of adventure, beats the bank for a kick any day of the week. The grocery store wasn’t so bad cuz you could go read the magazines. But shit, the hardware store only had those bob vila mags about putting together your own backyard doghouse or some shit like that, and even from a young age I knew that joey fixit was not to be my middle name. Hmmm, self fulfilling prophecies R us? Will have to ponder that over rounds of drinks at the blackjack table tomorrow evening, as well as the state of east European politics.

I like music that sounds really meaningful yet you have no idea why. Like it has the Darwinian twist of fate threading through it like a salmon swimming upstream. (ok I made that up.) but c’mon. “you are the sun I am the moon you are the words I am the tune, play me” ok neil, really, is that like about, um, playing scrabble? I won’t even go into the various possible sexual connotations, but somehow it seems so much more. Hmm, you are the sun, ok, so I revolve around you, but, ok, if I’m the moon, then, um, I don’t revolve around you, I revolve around the earth, which revolves around the sun, so um, is it like, you’re playing me by controlling that which I revolve around? I’m confused. Maybe he meant it in a more simple way but was just really deficient in his understanding of basic astronomy. I guess I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but, I mean, I don’t wanna put words in his mouth if he really meant it to mean that he is the thing that revolves around the object that revolves around his lover. But, hmmm, that’s kinda weird, yeah? Was he like a two degrees of separation fetishist?

And don’t even get me started on “forever in blue jeans.”

---