revised: the lone ranger

after footing sixty dollars for last night's dinner bill, which was a third of it's grand total, i made a resolution to halt unneccesary and frivolous spending. not to elude with conservative fiscality that the wine wasn't divine; that the ravoli and tiramisu was something disparate of exquisite, or that the patio setting as it was, with the evening transforming into night while the jazz drifted in and out of sparatic intervals of conversation, as anything other than memorable material; but that, as mentioned, unneccesarily prodigal spending, i feel, i should refrain from in times of economic uncertainity. of course, such intentions lasted till this morning when restlessness over came me. although, this mornings outing cost two-something, and so, i hardly(or stubbornly) think that tea at starbucks should interfer with said resolution. but as the case is, it is not the point. what is, is that, while at starbucks the cover of the new york times in combination with a libby looking barista trying to flirt with me by complimenting my yellow mary janes, deflated my once desire to remain, in social(be it the blog or in groups of liberal friends)settings, passive about my political stance. it was hours ago that my soft spot for opposite points of view became a hard ugly mole. lately, the issue of politics has snuck it's way into conversation after conversation. me, always dodging to reveal just how republican i am that-anncoutlerismyrolemodel, because at simply admitting that i plan on voting for bush, i'm bombarded with angst and indifference. as if i asked-as if i wasn't trying with all my heart to change the subject. i find no enjoyment in argueing; and that, unfortunately, apart from never accepting personal responsability or refraining from thinking issues through realistically, is what liberals live to do: argue,argue,argue without any actual non-cnn or moveon.org data to back up their claims and defenses.(except becca, she was the only liberal friend i've had that actually engaged in intelligent political conversations in which the intention really was to achieve a better understanding of our different beliefs and points of view). but what is really ailing me is why it is so imperative to so many libshits that i agree with them. i suppose i'm one to talk, as the saying goes, it wasn't so long ago, i too felt a similar unabashed desire to convert what i deamed: the ill informed. though, i don't remember being so rudely fanatical about it all. but maybe i was. one thing for sure:

this is just the beginning.