Heh, I spelled that right on my first try.

 

So, Mindsay, funny seeing you here.

 

2003 was a long time ago and, frankly, I wonder why I did this in the first place. Any of my blogs, for that matter. Melo is the only one I kept up with past 2009. Still, there is still something oddly comforting here. It's far more anonymous for me here than many of my blogs but the community is just enough to make me feel like someone still might read.

 

Oh vanity, how you twist the knife.

 

I'm 24. I still smoke cloves, only now I have to import them. Ferticus died many summers ago. I've been beaten, almost shot and twice heartbroken. Someone I really loved died far too young and I've met and bedded more people than I comfortably care to think about.

 

That makes me think of the one time, when I was learning to drive my older brothers leased convertible. I wrote about it here and someone accused me of lying, pretending to be liberated. He suggested I was the daughter of an overbearing pastor of a father and my cursing and exclamations were stories I heard and told as my own. I was shocked. Still am when I think about it. Never before had I considered my life or mannerisms interesting enough to falsify. Quite the ego boost in retrospect.

 

I miss my old layouts. Who remembers the turtles? I do, oh yes, I do.

It never ceases to amaze me when I read about the Right wingnuts and Tea Party's love for Sarah Palin time and time again, it is really a sorry group of people as far as I am concerned.She is a quiter, she quit her Governer job so that she can be a politcal whore and make lots of money, she is such a joke in my book, and then to read that many wants her to be president , wow ignorance really has gone to seed. She just does not rate any points as far as I am concerned.But then I am just sayin.
blessings.

Mama Grizzy Sarah Palin’s Hunting Fraud Exposed
Posted on September 17, 2010 by Sarah Jones
http://www.politicususa.com/en/palin-hunter-fraud
Sarah Palin hunter false image
This morning, Malia Litman (owner of MaliaLitman’s “A Rebuttal to the Rogue” blog) alerted PoliticusUSA that she had uncovered a rather large lie Sarah Palin has been peddling to the American public. Litman did an exhaustive investigation which revealed that Palin has been fooling the American people about a fundamental aspect of who she is as a person.

For two years now, we’ve been sold the notion of Palin as Mama Grizzly, the great hunter and fisher woman who spends her free time hunting up meat that she then whips up into a delicious moose stew for her huge family, all while traipsing around the country selling “feminism” as something which no longer involves women being equal partners, having their freedoms, or having dominion over their own bodies.

Turns out, this is a lie. Sarah Palin doesn’t hunt, or if she does, she does it illegally.

Here’s the background courtesy of Ms Litman’s blog :

“On Monday, September 13, 2010 Palin was in Kansas City giving another speech. It was the specific comments in that speech that alerted me to the deception that Palin has promoted throughout the last two years. She mentioned that she had “recently gone hunting in Alaska, and still had caribou blood under her fingernails. Furthering the deception, Palin said “We eat, therefore we hunt.” The idea that (Palin) would appear for a speech with her hair and make-up done, with blood under her beautifully manicured nails, was too hard to believe. (Palin) had gone too far! Palin was either lying when she made this comment, or she was announcing from her podium that she had violated Alaska’s hunting laws. A casual observer would assume (Palin) was smart enough to be alert to violation of the Alaska hunting laws after the controversy surrounding Troopergate, and Mike Wooten’s disclosure that he shot a moose out of season. A casual observer would be in error to make that assumption.”

Here is the evidence Ms Litman amassed:

“1. On Saturday, Aug. 28th Sarah Palin was with Glenn Beck at the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington D.C.
2. On Saturday, Aug. 28th the Alaska Fish and Game Department announced that it would close the Fortymile caribou herd hunt after a single day. The reason for the decision to close the hunt after one day was that last year in just three days, hunters killed 870 caribou. Given the declining numbers of caribou, the Alaskan Fish and Game Department announced that hunting of caribou would cease at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, Aug. 29th.
3. The distance between Washington D.C. and Anchorage Alaska is 3369 miles. Even a direct flight, with no delays would take 7 hours and 30 minutes. It seems reasonable to presume that Sarah Palin didn’t travel from Washington D.C. on Sunday Aug. 29th for 7 and one-half hours, drive to Wasilla, and then go caribou hunting in what was left of her day on Sunday. If she hunted after that day, it would have been in violation of the prohibitions enacted by the Alaska Fish and Game Department. What we do know is that she gave an interview to Fox “News” the evening of Aug. 31, 2010 wearing a pink suit. There was no indication from that interview that she had been out hunting or that she had encountered any difficulty removing any caribou blood from her hands, face, or body.
4. According to the Alaska Fish and Game Department, as of September 16, 2010 there was no record of a hunting license for Sarah Palin.
5. Upon further inquiry I was advised by the person employed with the Alaska Fish and Game Department that Sarah Palin had not held a license for 2008 or 2009.
6. Because the Alaska Fish and Game Department is committed to protecting animals that might be hunted in the state, the number of hunters allowed to hunt during the designated season (even if it is only one day long) is limited. Because there are often many more hunters than animals, the Fish and Game Department holds a lottery to determine which hunters will be allowed to hunt. This lottery is held in November and December of the year prior to the August season in which the hunters are allowed to hunt. Thus the lottery to determine which hunters would be allowed to hunt in August of 2010 would have been determined by lottery at the end of 2009.
7. In order to be registered for the lottery, a hunter would be required to have a license to hunt in Alaska. Thus, because Sarah Palin did not have a license to hunt in 2009, she could not have participated in the lottery, and thus would not have been allowed to hunt caribou at any time during 2010.
8. In searching the internet for the pictures of Sarah Palin hunting, the only pictures I can find are pictures of Palin with dead animals, but she is not holding a gun or knife and there is no blood on her hands.

Only two possibilities exist. Either Palin lied in Kansas when she said she had been hunting caribou in Alaska and had blood under her fingernails, or Palin hunted in violation of Alaska law, and without a license. In either case, Palin is dishonest.”

This is a quandary we often find ourselves in when reporting on Palin. There are so many little lies which buttress the big lie, that one can be lost. But in the end, the glaring fact of Palin’s perpetual dishonesty is always apparent.

A note should be made that Palin was caught and charged with a felony crime for fishing without a license. Alaska state records show that she was charged in June of 1993, and pled no contest, to the charge which was originally listed as a felony. There is also a second charge of fishing without a license in the court records, but that charge was dismissed.

So it looks like Palin did fish at one time and did it without a license. But there is no evidence that Palin has been hunting for a long while now. Levi Johnston (almost son-in-law and father of daughter Bristol’s baby) revealed that Palin never hunted and in fact, Palin asked him to show her how to operate the gun she kept under her bed. We’ll just skip over the implications of that and the unfortunate history of Levi recanting and then un-recanting said accusations, but one can’t help but notice a similar echo here. Palin is not who she says she is.

Palin grew up hunting at her father’s knee. This seems to be accurate. But many of us grew up doing things we no longer do as adults, as seems to be the case here. This rings as accurate to me as it fits in with the way Palin lies. She takes a bite out of something that had some truth at some point and then spins it to her own advantage, much like the obnoxious drunk party goer who regales a suicidal audience with stories of his highly exaggerated greatness. The kindest thing that can be said about such people is that they are great story tellers. And Palin is indeed a wonderful story teller.

The image of Palin as the frontier pioneering woman from Alaska is a fraud on many levels. This is the latest unveiling of the image, but what should be most disconcerting is the ease with which Palin lies about anything. If it sounds good, if she thinks the voters or book buyers or speech payers will like it, she says it.

While it might seem like a small lie, Palin is selling her personality. She is running a cult of personality, not on an actual governing record or particular belief system. The things she claims to stand for (small government, fiscal conservatism) are not accurate statements about her actual governing policies. Nor do these discrepancies seem to bother her followers, who devour Palin’s narrative like starving children with nary a question as to the source. As Malia notes, Palin devoted an entire page in her hagiography “Going Rogue” to pictures of herself as the great huntress.

Anyone who lies this easily and about things so easily proven false and not even particularly relevant other than in propping up a false image is not someone who can be trusted at the helm of any office.

When Sarah Palin speaks, when she says the sky is blue, you should always double check. Rarely will it be true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713213050.htm

Lie Detection: You Can't Hide Your Lyin' Eyes

ScienceDaily (July 14, 2010) — Shifty eyes long have been thought to signify a person's problem telling the truth. Now a group of University of Utah researchers are taking that old adage to a new level.

Educational psychologists John Kircher, Doug Hacker, Anne Cook, Dan Woltz and David Raskin are using eye-tracking technology to pioneer a promising alternative to the polygraph for lie detection. The researchers' efforts to commercialize their new technology reached a milestone recently when the University of Utah licensed the technology to Credibility Assessment Technologies (CAT).

CAT is based in Park City, Utah, and managed by venture capitalists Donald Sanborn and Gerald Sanders, who are the president and chairman, respectively.

"The eye-tracking method for detecting lies has great potential," Sanders says. "It's a matter of national security that our government agencies have the best and most advanced methods for detecting truth from fiction, and we believe we are addressing that need by licensing the extraordinary research done at the University of Utah."

Tracking eye movement to detect lies became possible in recent years because of substantial improvements in technology. The Utah researchers say they are the first to develop and assess the software and methods for applying these tests effectively.

Using eye movement to detect lies contrasts with polygraph testing. Instead of measuring a person's emotional reaction to lying, eye-tracking technology measures the person's cognitive reaction. To do so, the researchers record a number of measurements while a subject is answering a series of true-and-false questions on a computer. The measurements include pupil dilation, response time, reading and rereading time, and errors.

The researchers determined that lying requires more work than telling the truth, so they look for indications that the subject is working hard. For example, a person who is being dishonest may have dilated pupils and take longer to read and answer the questions. These reactions are often minute and require sophisticated measurement and statistical modeling to determine their significance.

"We have gotten great results from our experiments," says Kircher. "They are as good as or better than the polygraph, and we are still in the early stages of this innovative new method to determine if someone is trying to deceive you."

Besides measuring a different type of response, eye-tracking methods for detecting lies has several other benefits over the polygraph. Eye tracking promises to cost substantially less, require one-fifth of the time currently needed for examinations, require no attachment to the subject being tested, be available in any language and be administered by technicians rather than qualified polygraph examiners.

Research into this method began five years ago, when faculty members started discussing the concept casually. They secured seed funding and the university's Department of Educational Psychology hired new faculty with relevant skills. Each member of the research team fills an important function, but few ever dreamed they would be working on lie-detection technology.

The researchers still have more development work to do, but they hope the recent licensing will help them attract the additional funding necessary and interest from potential customers. Numerous government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Department of Energy use polygraphs regularly to screen employees and applicants for sensitive positions, and these agencies always are looking for more effective ways to detect lies.

"It's exciting," Cook says, "that our testing method is going to be taken from a basic research program to commercial use."

Still no word from him.

Another guy likes me/wants to fuck me.

S'all the same anyways.

My "good" friend lied to me. He keeps saying he'll do things and then goes back on it.

I said I was going to Tim Hortons. Then he said "well if you're gonna go anyway, I'll go, get a hot chocolate" and then I was like, "alright I'll go put my laundry in the dryer and go". Then he said he'd see me later. And I asked him if he was going, and he said he was just gonna read his book. Like WTF.

And then on my way out, I saw him in a friend's room playing guitar.

He's such a bad liar.

Fuck him. Fuck people.

He could have just said he didnt wanna go, and wanted to hang with his friends. But no.

So I went alone.

It just hurts a lot, because everyone has a group of friends and what do I have?

I don't have anyone. I have an ex boyfriend who's "thinking", a "best" friend who's lying to me, online ghosts and that's about it.

I hate people. I have for a long time, but every now and then I get hope, that maybe they're not all like that.

That maybe I can make a friend and keep it. That it's possible for one not to be a fuckin' liar. To actually care about me.

Obviously not.