Wow Rush.

Wow an actual pearl slipped out of Rush. I suppose it has to happen on occasion though it is very very rare. This pearl was brought to my attention by the Huff post article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/rush-limbaugh-background-checks-media-mental-illness_n_2718908.html
Though his moment of clarity was short and of course he then goes back to his own delusional ranting and proving that he himself would likely under his rules not be allowed to rant on the radio. I went over and read the Obama Puppetmaster piece he was complaining about and yeah it is sadly what seems to pass for journalism lately. 

As I pointed out about the Pope is going to be arrested nonsense, the Newtown conspiracy stuff, and hell even creationism and the tea party. All this comes from either misinformed idiots, often well meaning idiots but idiots none the less, or those with their own political or monetary agenda. The internet has been a wonderful thing, but it does give someone a soap box to stand on. In the past these various subversive influences would go their entire life without either voicing their opinions or finding someone of the same mind on an issue. Now elements that in the past whos brand of stupid or crazy would have remained as such can disseminate these opinions to a wider audience.

The fact is this has caused a good sized portion of the population to stop using the common sense God gave them. They go on about conspiracies and attribute things to people and thngs that for the most part a rational person would go ehhhhh maybe but I doubt it. Americans need to start using common sense again and ditch this fervor to belief whatever asinine thing they are told. As my mother once told me you need to ask yourself why are you being told something. What will they gain by your belief of what they told you. If it is for money or election purposes it is probably an indication you ought to look into it more than accept it at face value. 

I think I will expand on this but it is late and it is time for this little heathen to go to bed. 

ITCCS the fake court and it's run by an alleged Con Artist Kevin Annett

For the last 4-5 days this seems to be the thing flying through cyber space and as much as I would like it to be true it isn't. The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State would be better calling themselves the International tribunal of Crap. From the moment that this came out I have been shocked at how fast it was picked up and spread with no actual bother to check the facts. So let me lay the facts out for those who don't know.

Think the first has to be the legal standing of the "court". The funny thing is when you go to their about page they are very honest about the fact they have no legal standing and state that those they are going after are the Vatican and Crown of England. But the truly worrying part is this:

 "It is understood by our Court that its decisions, based as they are on Natural and Common Law, supersede and invalidate all statutes and statutory laws which conflict with the decisions of the Court, particularly when those statues uphold crimes or their concealment, or the protection of the guilty. Similarly, our Court does not recognize the jurisdiction or authority of any contending legal systems, such as the so-called “Canon Law”, or any form of personal, diplomatic or legal immunity governing any person or institution, including heads of states, churches and corporations." 

So basically they don't have to deal with due process or any other pesky rules that they don't like or would keep them from reaching the decision they have made. and as far as I can tell that decision was made before any proceeding. They even go on to say:

"The final verdicts and findings of the Court and Tribunal will be made public in the form of a final public Report whose decisions will be enforced by the Common law Peace Officers and their agents, if regular peace officers refuse to do so. These decisions can and will include the imprisonment and community sentencing of the guilty, the issuing of commercial Liens and Orders of Expropriation against church, corporate and state institutions and their property and assets, orders of Reparation and Compensation, and the return of all land, property, unpaid taxes, and revenue obtained through forced labor."

So basically they will enforce their decisions since no officer of the law would enforce decisions made by a court that doesn't exist. It is little wonder that they have had no success in any of their actions.

The next bit is the members of the "tribunal" which is only one person a Kevin D. Annett, M.A., M.Div. Now here is where things get weird because you cannot find anything about him that is not something he himself has posted. No news articles or anything after some digging I did come across another blog and this is where the Kevin Annett thing becomes weird. At least according to the blog, named Stop Kevin Annett interestingly enough, Kevin is the world’s biggest Con Artist.  As I read through posts it started becoming evident that his little attempt for attention through the resigning of the Pope is not the first attention grabbing attempt. This post details his involvement with the excavation of "mass graves" in Canada[i]. There are other various posts on the web site and links to other sources. So far it has pretty much told me what I already knew about Kevin and his "court".

The final nail in this coffin has to be the fact that this is not the first time that these grandiose statements have been made. On the 7th of September 2012 the ITCCS made a statement and I have included the relevant bits[ii].

One Week to go Before Direct Actions Commence Against Child-Killing Churches

By Kevin D Annett, ITCCS, Dublin Ireland –

7 September 2012 

An Update and Plan of Action from Kevin D. Annett, ITCCS fieldworker 

Breaking News Item: Vatican officials have one week to respond to ten requirements issued last May by survivors of church terror, or face permanent banishment, occupations and legal summonses. In this event, our Common Law Court will publicly convene in seven countries on September 15, to publicly share and judge extensive evidence of criminal actions by church and state.

The following day, in the midst of Catholic masses around the world, a Public Banishment Order will be issued, binding on every catholic establishment. Church occupations will then follow. The Banishment Order will, in effect, expel the Catholic Church from our communities and declare their churches and other property open to all people for their own use, like the homeless. Church officials will then be illegally trespassing and subject to arrest. This evidence will be simulcast to nearly one hundred citizen jurors in seven countries by the prosecutors of the Court, for the jurors’ deliberation. And a transcript of the evidence and cases will be available online to anyone and the media. 

So in summary here is our Plan of Action: 

1. Saturday, September 15: Public Court Case against the Vatican commences 

2. Sunday, September 16: Banishment Order is read inside and outside Roman Catholic churches in seven countries 

3. Monday, September 17: Permanent Occupation of Catholic churches and institutions commence worldwide 

4. Sunday, September 23: Third and Final Public Exorcism is held aimed at the spirit and power behind the Vatican (to be televised and posted)

Well I have to wonder why none of us heard about this on the 17th of September. It probably has something to do with the fact that it didn't happen. When one searches all you can find are links to articles that trace back to the ITCCS website. So it is a huge circle with no outside backing or references. Though I do find that the end of his statement there was this interesting tidbit about his being able to enter the UK. I have not actually been able to find out who the elders are, but given everything else it is probably just Annett.

I learned today that our ITCCS Council of Elders in Brussels was just informed by trusted sources of theirs in the British civil service and the European Parliament that the Home Office in London has declared me, Kevin Annett, a threat to British national security allegedly for having “caused threats to the peace of mind and security of Her Majesty”. I am therefore to be immediately detained and imprisoned under the Fixated Threat Assessment Protocol (FTAP) the moment I set foot on British soil.

Well here is the thing about FTAP, first it is that it is actually the FTAC, Fixated Threat Assessment Centre[iii]. This is basically the list of people that are stalkers or feel that their grievances or personal position justify breaking the law. This is pretty much what this fellow does. He has created a fake court and gets people to donate to it and then goes around threatening to arrest the Queen of all people. For some odd reason the Brits get a little touchy about that, I can't imagine why *rolls eyes* I don't think he is a danger, except maybe to the people he cons money out of, but I can see why it is better to stick him on a list and leave it at that than to give this fruit cake a platform to speak from.

My hope is that helps clear up the whole Pope leaving office reports. I am not a Catholic, never was one either, but I did attend a Catholic University and have Catholic friends. But that is not why I felt the need to write this. I wrote this because no matter what you believe or don't the truth is important. And if there is to be justice it has to be found through truth, not smear campaigns and fake courts. At the end of the day I do not think that the Catholic Church or the Pope do not deserve to be brought to justice. But I do think it needs to happen in a real court with real evidence and not be used by a man for his own gain.

I am not the only one to question the ITCCS here are a few other pages that have tackled this subject.
 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread926267/pg1
http://www.renegadecatholic.com/blog/2011/06/victims-laughingstocks/

http://stopkevinannett.wordpress.com/

Made a small edit since a link wasn't showing up and fixed the formatting on the ITCCS alert from September so it was easier to read.

---

[i] http://stopkevinannett.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/your-daily-carrot/

[ii] http://itccs.org/2012/09/07/one-week-to-go-before-direct-actions-commence-against-child-killing-churches/

[iii] http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2010/december/2010110003591.pdf

The UN and your guns the ATT

This particular post came from a disagreement with a person in the comment section of one of the many news articles that I stumble across. Mind you never had really looked into it because well I remember a debate on the issue coming up years ago on the UN and forcing us to comply, even at the time I found laughable for several reasons. Namely how they could if we didn't want to what were they going to do come and beat up a country with the second largest standing army? Not to mention if all they did when Iraq and Iran misbehave is introduce sanctions it makes it highly unlikely, even improbable anything would happen. I always am amused at how people can let people spin them a story and they will cling to it even when all the evidence is to the contrary especially if guns are involved. So the troll gave me opportunity to actually look around, and mind you it took some digging because this conspiracy seems to have taken a firm hold and it is so ridiculous few have even bothered to point out how it couldn't happen.

""Americans also shouldn’t be quick to believe the UN’s claims that the ATT will not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. A report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” recognizes, on the one hand, that states have a right to “individual or collective self-defense” and that “the ATT does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons.” Yet on the other hand it states that because of the problem of diversion, or the transfer of weapons to the illicit market, “the arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” " http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/11/13/will_the_arms_trade_treaty_suppress_second_amendment_rights
AND:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-in-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/
So, so wrong. You can research it yourself.http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ "

So I went and read the articles and then went to some moderate and liberal websites to help balance out the far right opinions contained in the provided links she gave. So I framed my response based on the info that I was able to locate.

"Okay I read your articles and even read the ATT pages you

provided from the UN. What little common themes that exist in the information does not read all that differently than International Financial Reporting Standards.

Now like the IFRS this treaty will not have any effect within American borders for three very specific reasons.

1. It is dealing with the international trade of guns. So unless you are planning on selling weapons to someone outside of the US it will not effect you. As it stands now each country has it's own rules on who can sell guns what countries guns can be sold to and so on ad nauseum. This would provide an international standard for trade between countries, which is why several countries hate it since they make a great deal selling off old weapons and providing them to everyone and their brother for the right price, even our government on occasion. It has nothing to do with internal standards but international. So unless you are selling weapons on the black market then I think your safe.

2.Now this is the most important part of the whole thing. The president actually is not that powerful despite the Bush era of adding to the presidential powers. All international treaties the U.S. agrees to require the approval of two-thirds of the senators present before the treaties can be ratified. And even then on the unlikely chance it somehow got through that body which I seriously doubt you could but if it did happen it would get struck down by the Supreme Court. Which according to a great article at factcheck.org points out, the supreme court "ruled just four years ago that the District of Columbia’s own ban on handguns violated residents’ Second Amendment rights." You also have a previous ruling on international treaties of Reid v. Covert which held that the US constitution supersedes that of international treaties ratified by the Senate. And even more important is the Medellín v. Texas ruling says that the President can not enforce international treaties unless they comply with the constitution and/or the Senate. So the application domestically would fail since it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

3. And finally it has to approved by all the member states, and since Russia is sticking to it's guns I just don't see it happening. Not to mention it will take forever to get all the countries to all approve of the final draft. If you just read the views of the 46 or so participating states (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FCONF.217%2F2&Lang=E)

they are probably no where near coming up with anything all of them can agree on.

Here is the fact check link and the Supreme court rulings are available on wikipedia. And of course thehttp://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

Apparently this was not enough evidence which given she was a troll that is not something new. So she trots out what I can only assume is her Pièce de résistance that will put me in my place. Shame she chose a very bad one and one I was expecting since it was the same silly one I remember from back in the day. One that I was against back in the day when I still was part of the Republican party so I am familiar with it.

Troll:
Right. "How could the gun-grabbing Obama Regime impose this clearly anti-2nd Amendment, Treaty-mandated arms registration scheme on the American people without the Senate first giving its advice and consent?

“When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.” (1) This is language from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted in 1969, 111 nations
have ratified the Vienna Convention, a treaty which has become known as the “Treaty of Treaties” and is “…widely recognized as the authoritative guide vis-à-vis the formation and effects of treaties.” (2)
Many versed in international law argue that the “object and purpose” language of the Vienna Convention means that “…a nation that has signed a treaty is prohibited either from violating the treaty altogether or from violating the treaty’s core or important provisions.” (1) Although the United Nations have taken great pains to make certain that no specific Treaty language has made its way to the American public, a Spanish representatives made clear his own “object and purpose” when he said the UN “… will be happy to honestly contribute to reduce their number (weapons), [and] to regulate buying and sell of arms…” If this is what the completed Treaty hopes to achieve—and we can bet it will be—Barack Obama will have signed onto the most anti-gun rights document in the nation’s history. (3)" http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/

Here was my response though it is pretty elementary and given the reasons trotted out in defense of Bush's refusal to recognize the ICC you would think she would know why the Vienna Convention can't be used. Heck I even traced it back to the place where she got the idea that the treaty had been ratified and therefore used.

Me:

Well that would work if the Vienna Convention had it been ratified by the Senate. Unfortunately it hasn't so it can not be used to force the issue.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm

Or scroll down on the UN page and it shows that it was signed on April 25, 1970 but has not been ratified we are one of 15 countries that have yet to ratify it.

http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=UNTSONLINE&mtdsg_no=XXIII%7E1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en

To give you a recent example of another Treaty that was signed but not ratified would be the Rome Convention. If you will recall it caused a bit of a dust up during the Bush Jr. Presidency.

"Although the U.S. originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on December 31, 2000, and signed the treaty but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification. On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration announced that it was nullifying the U.S. signature of the treaty. The main objections to the ICC offered by the Bush administration were interference with national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions. President Barack Obama has taken no action to change the U.S. position on the ICC he inherited from G.W. Bush."

http://docbonn.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/why-doesnt-the-u-s-recognize-international-law-ask-doc-bonn/

Now given the way you are interpreting the Vienna Convention in theory if it had been ratified then the International community could have made a serious issue of President Clinton having signed the Rome Convention. However since it had not been ratified it could not be used to force the issue and trust me there are alot of countries that would like to try several members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. But with the nullification of the signature it is a moot issue.

So to sum up for your scenario to occur we either have to get the Senate to ratify the Vienna Convention. Which given it's ramifications for Americas sovereignty not to mention all the members of the Bush Jr Administration who would then be subject to the ICC I doubt that it will be ratified.

Or the other route we have to get two thirds of the Senate to agree to the treaty, when I doubt you could get half of them to agree on what color the sky is on any given day. Even further they would have to ratify a treaty that I would say well over 50% of American citizens would have issues with, and given politicians like to be re-elected makes it even harder to get them to go along with anything that would be less than popular. But we will play the billion to one odds that he could somehow force it through the Senate. We once again have the Supreme Court hurdle and you can bet it would run through the courts like wild fire and the Supreme Court would do it's job and rule it unconstitutional and that would be that.

The response back was not very nice and I will not repeat because it was all libelous theories on my parent’s marital status when I was born and as well my mother's profession. Of course she is entitled to her opinion I suppose. I just don't get how when confronted with facts some people cannot deal with them without resorting to name calling. Even better at least make an attempt to give some sort of actual proof. My guess is she is a birther as well. I just don't get how anyone could live with that much fear in their life without getting an ulcer. But like all irrational arguments it seems too often they forget if they really wanted to do these things why go about it in such a roundabout way.

First of many on personal liberties. Gun Control

The more I read on the subject of personal privacy and governmental intrusions makes me wonder where the line has to be drawn. Living in the UK the most notable example would have to be the Super injunctions. These super injunctions basically boil down to what the media can and can't report of peoples individual lives. Mind you this is something most of the rest of us will never have to worry about since well doubt any scandalous behaviour on my part would sell more than a couple news papers. But the fight has begun over what is private and what is public. How much of ones life should be opened to the public at large?

Then we can move on to the other various issues that come out of this namely internet restrictions, gun control, marriage, birth control, and a myriad of things that we often think is only our business. So what rule should be applied? The simple answer would be when it violates our inalienable rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But how do we separate these out and say when these various issues come under the purview of legislation. I think one of the main factors is when your individual actions will violate someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Though I feel a caveat is necessary and that is directly effects you not effects you because you are a nosey neighbor or can't mind your own business. I think I shall deal with each issue individually. So first up would be Gun Control.

I have spent a long time thinking on these issues especially since I grew up in the great gun toting state of Texas, and in a very rural area so I have always been around guns. Both my mother and brother are NRA members and I was and still am an excellent marksman. And maybe I have an odd perspective since I am now residing in the UK where they have many gun restrictions. This is contrary to what most Americans may think, it does not mean that people in the UK do not own firearms. Handguns are pretty much non existent but many people hunt and have rifles and shotguns. The main difference is that to own a gun one must pass several tests and prove that well they are of sound mind and can hit the broadside of a barn. Yes it is limiting and you can't just go down to the gun store and purchase a firearm, but it seems at least to me that they have found a decent balance between personal liberties and the needs of society. i.e. not being a danger to other citizens.

While you can never completely remove the possibility of gun crime the question is how do you lessen the effects? To see the difference in how the gun laws can make a difference I thought it was best to look at murder rates as a whole. Especially since the most recent figure I could find for murders with firearms was 2002, there were 14 murders with a firearms in the UK and 9,369 in the US. In 2009 there were 15,241 murders in the United States and in 2009 the UK had only 724. Since there is a bit of a difference in populations between America and the UK it can be broken down into the rate based on 100,000 per population. For the US it was 5, so 5 murders for every 100,000 people, and the UK it was 1.2. To me these numbers are not absolute but it does raise the question what are they doing differently here? If we just take the 2002 figures it seems to suggest that because of the more restrictions and the harder it is to purchase and own a firearm that there are less murders. Now the problem is how do we address the very real concept of the right to bear arms which is important enough to have been made into the second Amendment of our constitution and protecting the citizens of the US.

I do not think any purpose is served by removing guns and that for some portions of the population who live in fear of their elected government to attempt to do so would be pointless. However I do think there is a compromise that could benefit both sides. I think we should treat guns like cars and increase licensing and testing to own and use the fire arm. This would mean showing you know how to properly handle the firearm and know how to safely use it. It is no different than the conceal to carry requirements in the state of Texas. It can easily be subsumed into the hunting licenses and would only be limited by your ability, not because of someone else or the government. Though I do think there should be certain firearms that for the very sake of the type of firearm they are should be limited if not allowed. These I would say are military firearms. I have a firm belief that the right to bear arms is an important and integral part of being an American I just have yet to hear one reasonable argument as to why anyone needs an uzi, ak-47, or god forbid a bazooka. I think the important part of the right to bear arms is to be able to hunt and defend your property. But there is a point of over kill and I think the desire to own firearms of this type has more to do with having watched one too many Rambo movies than a real need. Maybe someone can give me an example of when one of these types of guns was integral for hunting or home defence in the last 50 years on American soil and I might change my mind. But until then I see no reasonable excuse to have them.

I think the important part of the gun control argument has gotten drowned out by the screaming of both sides which is responsibility. By owning a firearm you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to not kill them without good or justifiable cause. Because you don't like the way they look, their politics, or their lifestyle is not a good or justifiable cause. I think that for most normal Americans the big issue is the one of responsibility and that has to be, and needs to be, addressed by those of us who own and use firearms. The main dictate of common sense is just because you can doesn't mean you should. I think at this point that those of us who are leery of gun controls make the first step to hopefully compromise on the situation. That would be pushing for classes before the purchase of a particular fire arm, or even during the waiting period that already exists. Maybe a  requirement to take classes on the use and care of the firearm and maybe marksmanship classes, this goes back to my feeling you should be able to hit the board side of a barn. That maybe the various members of the household come and learn as well. I have always thought gun safety comes from education and familiarity with the firearm. I would think these types of requirements would go a long way to helping curb the deaths caused by guns in the US.

I also think it would make those who are wanting to, "take our guns away" realise that we are not oblivious to the issues and are willing to take steps to help deal with their concerns. I am not saying give in but that maybe it would help prove that we do understand some of their concerns and aren't willing to give in, but that maybe we can find a middle ground. Though suppose that is unacceptable these days since understanding and compromise are dirty words lately. I would love to hear arguments for and against since it is only through discussion we learn. I don't expect tot change anyone's opinion, but maybe get them to think about an issue from another perspective. 

Sources for murder figures:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc?fb=native

Long days

Well the days are lengthening so you can tell spring is coming. Though the sun is setting around 5:30 now and it is still cold outside I have hopes that soon the weather will warm. Though suspect we shall see snow in February more the normal time for snow anyway. Though I am hoping it does not Snow but my flatmate is desperate for it to snow. Gods to be young again and think that snow and cold weather are wonderful. Now it only means that my joints ache and don't want to walk the dog. Even poor Puck is hesitant to go outside, especially as I make her wear a coat otherwise she is shivering so bad after 5 min outside she can't do her business. Oh well have several nice coats for her. Though it looks like rain today and that always is not fun for walking in. Though I will say the rain in England is so different from the rain in Texas. It feels different, sounds different, and tastes different.

I am used to the raw power of rain and in London it is more soothing even to go so far as you not even hearing it on your window pane. Not sure which I like better the soothing drizzle or the wild tempest. I think they both are nice in the right amount. One of those things that is strange but oddly enough I have little urge to return home because I miss the tempest. As I get older I enjoy the quiet, security, and freedom that the UK provides. Plus the very ground pulses with history and shades of times past. It draws me the way a good book does. To explore every building and space in the UK and then work my way through Europe. To eventually stand in Athens where Socrates and Plato shared their philosophies first. Then on to Rome the once powerful bastion that after Alexander controlled the known world for over a millenia and beyond. To stand where Victoria Franco first wrote and brought a female voice to Medieval/Renaissance women characters and who like Sappho would make it possible for women to step out of the confining roles that men would place us. To wonder at the pyramids and walk along the paths that my ancestors walked. To speak to the Gods and Goddesses in their old homes and temples. To remember my trip through the Mediterranean when I was 16 and the world was a wonderous place before I became cynical.

It is amazing how time can colour or look at the world and see the unvarnished truth. Why I wish more Americans traveled and with an open mind. The comment from a gentleman that Germany and the UK had a lower standard of living is proof that there are some screwed up people in the States. As my last year abroad starts to draw to a close I begin to wonder if I want to return to a country filled with such hate and ignorance.

Lazy Sunday

Well today has been a lazy day. Not thinking about my course and doing my best to avoid the news since even here in the UK there is talk of the American Republican Primary and well it is embarrassing. So spent the morning lazing about and started with a long list of Bogart movies. First it was of course the Maltese Falcon. Great film and probably the movie that made me first fall for him. Sam Spade has always been a favorite then on to All Through the Night. Then it was a debate but had to watch the African Queen, great paring of Bogie and Katherine Hepburn. Of course the sweet Sabrina with Audrey and now on to High Sierra a great film. Then a break for Sherlock since I am quite addicted to it and well have a bit of a crush on Sherlock. Probably should have spent the day watching the Basil Rathbone movies since the new Sherlock will be on in a few, but was in more of a Bogart mood. So after Sherlock will watch the iconic Casablanca and remember the times grandmother and I would talk about the movie. The most memorable line had to be "If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?" It was released after Pearl Harbor but was filmed before it. Maybe that is what prompted a Bogart movie day. Miss grandmother more and more and I suppose it won't get better anytime soon.

Well have class tomorrow and then think tomorrow evening that it will be Errol Flynn. Then can work around into Sherlock with Basil Rathbone. Watch him as a villan then move on to him as the hero :) of course. Feel a Shakespeare weekend this weekend is coming. Have a good collection of King Lear with Lawrence Olivier, Richard III with Ian McKellen, The Merchant of Venice with Pacino as Shylock, Henry V with Kenneth Branagh always great with Derek Jackoby as the Chorus, Othello, Midsummer Nights dream, Much Ado about nothing a personal favorite, and Hamlet with David Tennant. There are a few others but think I can have a very busy weekend and indulge my Shakespeare fetish and best I do it on my own where I can avoid annoying others. Oh well. Still wishing I had seen Kevin Spacey as Richard III oh well. Oh Sherlock is about to start I am off to watch and get some sleep.

Taxation

Well made it through the Taxation exam. One down next is the CIFA, current issues in Financial Accounting, test tomorrow then Thursday the Finance exam. At least the Taxation one was multiple choice, though I am not sure if that is better than essay based. At least with an essay you can make it sound like you know what your talking about even if you are a little bit unsure. Though multiple choice does offer a 1-4 chance of guessing the correct answer. Oh well going over EPS and Diluted EPS right now and praying that I have cash flow statements down. I will be so happy to finish in July then there is that job at the Olympics. Just have to make it through this then off to my dream job of working for the IRS or if I am really lucky a few more years in the UK working for HMRC.

I know tax should not get my motor running, but it is interesting. The twists and turn possible shelters and ways of treating income. Maybe we all are a little devious and that is why we decide to be accountants, but it fascinates me. To find the loop holes the small areas of wiggle room, heck even looking at investments that will be losses as a gain based on the amount of tax relief they give. I know I am a sad sad sad human, but always preferred to have my nose in a book. Besides suspect I can make a decent salary with accounting unlike History or English, with a concentration in Renaissance and Medieval studies :p Not too many openings for that degree unless I teach and well kids are cute, but well hate administrators and parents the two most likely things to cause students to leave school with no education.