boredumb laws and borderlines

happy thursday morning, reeds. if you're reading this, that indicates that literacy has paid off, because here comes another installment of tiny damaged notions!

today is FGIO at my job. that's an acronym for formal guest in office. this means that everyone's gotta dress nice and purrrty. here's an example of how i look right now:
only my shirt is blue, my tie is grey, and i have a head. my "thinkin' box" rests gracefully above my neck, and, thanks to my eyes, allows me to wink seductively at all you pretty people. it can do other things too, but that's the one that counts.

onto another topic!

being bored allows us time to gather so much information, don't you think? it's really a learning experience. for instance, i found out this little factiod from the guiness book of world records' website:

The longest pool toy ever measured 1,609.34 m (5,280 ft)
(guiness book of world records, "http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/amazing_feats/big_stuff/longest_pool_toy.aspx")

see? wow. isn't that interesting?

ok, i'll admit it: i've got nothing.

but it's early! and i'm tired. and, um. uhhhhh. ah! here we go:

madonna to the rescue! (as usual) the former material girl,
whose smelly microphone is giving her a reason to cry, told BBC's newsnight program that she may plan on adopting another child in the future.

for those of you who don't keep up on the pointy-bra'd vixen's life, she is currently finalizing plans to adopt a 13-month-old malawian boy named david banda.

speaking about the possibility of adopting another child who can be made awkward when finding a copy of madonna's sex book lying around the house, the former holiday-yearning diva stated:

I wouldn't rule it out. I would like it to not be as complicated in the future, but I would just like to experience David for a while and see how that works out first.
(RTÉ entertainment, "http://www.rte.ie/arts/2006/1102/madonna.html")

for you reeds out there as nerdy as i, you'll find that sentence structure fascinating. here's what i mean: replace the word "David" with "this car."

instead of a complicated adoption, madonna could be talking about problems with a car dealership--expressing that she'd buy another lexus in the future, but if there weren't so much red-tape.

"I would just like to experience David for a while and see how that works out first" doesn't sound like a mother, but rather (aha!) someone talking about a possession.

go ahead, ask a new mother if she would want another child. examine her word choice, and i'm sure you'll find that you can't replace her child's name with "diamond necklace" and have the sentence be semantically true.

"oh, well i just brought this diamond necklace back from the hospital, and diamond necklaces come with so much responsibility, that i think i would have to nurture and care for this one first before i even thought about getting another."

material goil at ha'at.

in other news, most news is either boring or sad. however, here's a little tidbit from dumblaws.com that proves entertaining:

[in new york] A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.
(dumblaws.com, "http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york/")

now, i laughed a bit at that. i couldn't even fathom the possible need to make this into a law. it seemed like if this were really on the books in my home state, new york, then the lawmakers who gave birth to this bizarre rule were just out to make government look all the more ridiculous.

"on sunday, it is a threat against america to have men, women, and children walk around new york with ice cream cones in their pockets! this horrible trend has got to stop!"

but, a part of me didn't believe this was really a law; so, i perused dumblaws.com trying to find its credentials. you know, where it gets its information from. and on the main page, i saw an interesting little article in a section called "think!," whose explanatory paragraph explains that they "don't expect you to agree with everything (or anything) [they] print, but [they] invite you to read, consider, and discuss."

can you find the typo? if not, check the giant bold headline! also check out that block-quote of sorts: "if you really stop and think [what a witty plug!] about it, is female circumcision really all that different from dental braces?"

...

now, i'll admit, i've had dental braces, but i've never had a partial or complete removal of my clitoris, prepuce, or labia--probably because i'm not a woman, nor do i live in a culture that embraces this process.

however, antonio, the papa-thinker behind this well-spelled article, thinks that maybe by having one i've experienced both.

hmmm, dental braces are round or flat metal wires placed against the surfaces of the teeth for straightening irregularly arranged teeth; female circumcision, as i've just stated, is a partial or complete removal of the clitoris, prepuce, or labia of a girl or young woman.

by definition alone, i'm afraid antonio is way off. as off as i was when i suggested that wearing a hat is pretty much the same as getting a vasectomy.

maybe he's referring to the fact that he had no sexual pleasure during the years in which he wore braces; and that's something i happen to know rang true for me.

but pssst, antonio: that's just called being a nerd.

and unlike braces, female circumcision, or "circumcsion" as you so eloquently put it, is a wee-bit more permanent.

well, i'm spent.

that's all for today's post, everyone. all you reeds have a fantastic thursday filled with re-reading this post again and again until midnight!

(that is your plan, right?)