I digress

By the way, this page would be accessed times if every living person on this planet would just check it out.

But instead, this page has only been accessed times.

Come on in and sign my guestbook.


March 11, 1999

I've had numerous complaints with GTE (September 7, 1998, October 25, 1997, and February 25, 1997), and many more that I haven't put up here. Well, my friend Sam has also had some problems with GTE and has written a pretty cool poem about it.


September 8, 1998

Back on November 4, 1997 I posted an email sent to me by someone who was apparently interested in converting me to Islam. Sean Tai just wrote me today with some comments on this. His comments are as follows: 

I read that thing from that Muslim guy... and I took out my handy
pocket Qur'an, but I couldn't find two of the three "scientific"
passages that he mentioned. The other one was the one about the
mountains stopping the earthquakes, but it wasn't 16:15, it was
16:16...
Very interesting Sean. Thanks.



September 8, 1998

Back in January, I got an email from Nikki Willoughby commenting on my web page. I've now gotten a response to that email: 

here is a response I am giving to a January25,1998 entry by Nikki 
Willoughby. 

Her constructive criticism is very tunnel visioned.  What and why people 
do what they do is quite varied, and especially how they do what they do 
(ie.  express themselves, angsts, etc.)  

Nikki:  why is it that engineering majors always have homepages (again, one
Nikki:  word) and the English majors of the world never do? like, the world
Nikki:  needs more lists and digressions, but fewer poems and powerful 
Nikki:  thoughts?

English majors are more interested in diving into their literature 
creations and powerful thoughts than spend exorbant amounts of time 
learning and understanding the ways to create a homepage.  How many 
English majors do you know that are more interested in programming than 
in extolling on their literature creations?

(yes, creating a homepage is comparable to programming)

Nikki:  my point, if there is one, is that like much of what is considered
Nikki:  contemporary literature, your page lacks purpose. a point. a plot.
Nikki:  interest. i liked what you had, just couldn't figure out the reason.

the purpose and the plot of any homepage is fit as the creator wants it 
to be.  Does it always have to be apparent what it is?  Is not the 
excitement of regarding any creation (be it homepage or literature works 
or art) finding the point in it that the creator wanted to announce to 
the world?  It does not have to be direct, but underneath layers.  

It saddens me to see the decreased amount of curiosity and ingenuity the 
younger generation has today.  

Maybe the reason of what Aaron said was not to have a reason.  Maybe it 
was simply to say something, be it with a purpose or not.  
Perhaps his saying something initiates others to respond and react and 
thus stir them on to do something about what they bewail.

There are so many reasons why a person does what he or she does, why not 
take the time to understand before reacting?  to think before assaulting 
(physically or verbally)?
September 7, 1998

Incompetence. It just pisses me off when people are incompetant. It really bugs me. I had some pictures I wanted to get developed. Some of them are supposed to be panaramic. I take them to get developed, but they develop some of the ones that were supposed to be panaramic in the regular 4 by 6 size, so it kinda looks like watching a movie on a TV screen. I figure it must be my mistake. I figure, no problem, I'll just go back and have them develop them again, but this time panaramic. Meanwhile, I go through the negatives, and notice that they didn't develop some of the pictures. Many of them were taken in very low light, but, even from looking at the negatives, it was very clear to me what the picture was of and I don't know why they didn't develop it. Anyway, so I go to try and get the panaramic pictures redone and also to get the 'dark' pictures developed. I clearly write on the envelope 'panaramic' for the ones I want panaramic. For the others, I don't write panaramic. 2 seperate envelopes. I go back the next day to pick up my pictures. Actually, I didn't get back there till about 3 days later. Well, they only had one envelope of mine. The guy said that the pararamic ones take longer to get done. I was a little disappointed, but not big deal. I'd get them the next day. I get home and open up the envelope and it's the ones that were supposed to be done panaramic, that were the regular 4 by 6 size. Now I was pissed. I mean they have a big box for special instructions and I wrote 'panaramic' there and they did them wrong, for the 2nd time in a row. On top of that, the missing envelope wasn't the panaramic ones, so it wasn't missing because it was taking extra time to do panaramic. I go back to the store. I get my money back and go to another store to get them done panaramic. I'll go pick them up tomorrow and I hope I won't have to continue this story. Why are people so damn incompetant. Why didn't they develop all my pictures the first time? Why can't people just do things right? Simple things.


September 7, 1998

Previously, I've had a couple of previous digressions about GTE (October 25, 1997 and February 25, 1997). Well, it seems that I'm not alone in my dissatisfaction with GTE: (see also March 11, 1999)


May 23, 1998

What's up with businesses extended a pre-Memorial Day sale into June? I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with a business doing this, but it pisses me off if I go somewhere and they say that I can get this great deal if I act before Memorial Day (keep in mind the deal might not be as great as the salesperson is saying, but that's for another digression), and then the next thing I know the sale is extended 2 more weeks. I feel lied to and deceived. They knew they were going to extend the sale. They just want to put pressure on me to buy the product. I wish they wouldn't do that.


May 23, 1998

Quite a while back, I got a comment about my digressions about Lucky supermarkets (August 15, 1997, August 8, 1996, and July 11, 1996) from a guy named David Trapani. Here's what he had to say: 


I came across your page while searching the so-called Lucky Store
"Reward Card"--I normally don't cover the grocery shopping duties at
our house-- Last Saturday, however, my wife took our 3 kids to
(another) kids birthday party--and I got the assignment.  I went to
Lucky.

With my wife's detailed list, I carefully went down the aisles shopping
for the discounts available to us due to membership in the "Reward
Card" program.  After about 45 minutes of this--(whew!!!) I'm at the
check out stand and inform the cashier that I do not have my "Reward
Card" but can give her my address and phone # to verify we are members
to get the applicable discount--

She said  "We don't allow that-you must have your card with you to get
the discount".  I promptly informed her this could not be true since at
Safeway they took my phone # and gave the discount (ok I have been
grocery shopping before)--She said she knows but "CORPORATE" will not
give the discount if you don't have the card with you.  I promised (in
a nice way--it's not her fault) to write a letter to "corporate"--After
all I'm an attorney--I write a lot of letters--

As you can see, I also tend to digress--the point is that there may be
a case here--the law does not allow "unfair business practices"--If
they have some brochure or advertising that promises discounts to
"members" and which (probably) says nothing about the need to actually
have the card on the spot--then Lucky has a problem--moreover--I
suspect I am not the first person to have this happen--If there are a
lot of people--then we are talking about a lot of money--"Reward Card"
members are not getting the discounts they were promised! and if
Safeway allows it, what is Lucky's problem?-anyway probably making a
mountain out of an ant hill--but if you have some way of finding out if
any others have this problem--it might make for an interesting
case--The last thing Lucky needs is 12 angry housewifes (and/or
shopping husbands) on a jury to have a crack at them--


May 5, 1998

Well, it's been a long while since I've put any digressions in here. Well, I figured it was about time to add a digression. I haven't put any new digressions in here because I've decided that it's not worth my time to put every thought I have complaining about something or other into my web page. As is very apparent from this page, I've spent a bit too much time sitting in front of a computer over the last couple years. In any case, I think I can still use this page for the occasional comment or just as an update to my life, like in this digression.

So, you are wondering, what's new with me? Well, the biggest news lately is that I'm going to Japan this summer for 2 months! Yeah!! I'm really looking forward to it. It should be a good experience.

Well, I don't know how often I'll be updating this page, but do keep checking it periodically.

January 30, 1998

I got a comment about my digression of November 20, 1997 from Nikki Willoughby. She writes: 

a VERY sound argument. you didn't have to infuse your anti-religious
attitude into the argument, you just turned hers around on her. these
are the kinds of debates i like the best, where you don't really have to
say anything because the other person makes it very easy for you to just
use their own argument against them.


January 30, 1998

Well, I got a comment about my digression of October 14, 1997 from Nikki Willoughby. She writes: 

You did it because she was a girl. Probably not a "hot chick" (we'll get
to that later) but because she was a girl who was friendly to you. Your
superego and id joined forces: the superego wanted to help the
cancer-stricken children, your id wanted to do whatever this girl asked
you to do. Your ego gave her $26. Be glad she wasn't asking you to pose
nude or anything!

It WAS a psychological trick; she was "friendly" and people have a
difficult time saying "No" to their friends. If she was more
professional, you could have said, "No" without fearing that you might
hurt the feelings of your new-found friend. She was a pretty good
salesperson, I'll give her that.

She probably pocketed your money.


January 25, 1998

I think I heard John Elway say something to the effect of, "The fans in Denver really deserve this", regarding the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl. What's he saying, that the fans in Denver deserve that the NFL team from their city win the Super Bowl more than the fans in Indianapolis or Tampa Bay or Seattle or Detroit? Why would that be? Why do the fans deserve anything? The players, maybe, but the fans? What, cuz they shelled out lots of money to watch the games? Fans do that in all cities that have NFL teams.

January 25, 1998

I got a random email about my homepage (one word) a few days ago. It's from someone in South Carolina by the name of Nikki Willoughby. Here is what she had to say: 

ever feel lost in time? cyber-surfing does that to you. well, to me
anyway. i just stumbled onto/fell into/plopped myself down in the middle
of this swank homepage thing you got going here (note that homepage is
one word) and was simultaneously encouraged and disheartened by the
things i found. 

first and foremost, i'm surprised that you read "the bridges of [not
over] madison county" but i'm pretty darn sad that your list of books
read or to read do not include any of the classics: pride and prejudice,
emma, the fountainhead, to kill a mockingbird (my personal favorite) and
stuff like those. hawking is cool, and sagan was ethereal, but austen
and the bronte's are pretty darn good with the word, too, you know?

why is it that engineering majors always have homepages (again, one
word) and the English majors of the world never do? like, the world
needs more lists and digressions, but fewer poems and powerful thoughts?

my point, if there is one, is that like much of what is considered
contemporary literature, your page lacks purpose. a point. a plot.
interest. i liked what you had, just couldn't figure out the reason.

please know that this is nothing other than a glowing compliment,
disguised as  constructive criticism, masquerading as a rambling email
from someone you don't know. this and $0.32 will get you a stamp, but
you don't need stamps since you have email. nice how that works, huh?

may the force be with you.
(see also September 8, 1998)



January 22, 1998

So, the Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski said he wanted to fire his lawyers and defend himself in his trial. His request was denied. HUH?!!? What's up with that. How can one be forced to let someone else defend him. What if you have a lawyer and the lawyer seems to be screwing things up for you? How, under any circumstances, can you not be allowed to fire the lawyer and defend yourself, if you so choose? You are supposed to have a lawyer to help you, but if you don't feel the need for any help, or would rather not get this help, then you should be free to defend yourself. Sometimes I really don't get this legal system.

January 9, 1998

My friend Vickie had some comments about my digression of December 30, 1997. 

Vickie:  i read your digression about attempted murder and dui's etc.; 
Vickie:  and i do think that people who try to kill someone but don't 
Vickie:  succeed should be charged with murder.  i am sure i don't know 
Vickie:  enough about the exact laws; but i think that if a person is 
Vickie:  trying to kill someone but the victim either outsmarts, or is 
Vickie:  strong enough to get away from the killer; or the killer has bad 
Vickie:  aim or something; why should that killer be rewarded with a 
Vickie:  lesser sentence for being weak, stupid or having bad aim?  in  a 
Vickie:  case like this, if the killer had his or her way, he would have 
Vickie:  killed the victim, so he should be charged with murder.
(see also January 7, 1998.)


January 8, 1998

Some guy has a page called Commercials I Hate. Check it out.

January 7, 1998

Greg Hagen had some comments regarding my digression of December 30, 1997. 

Greg:  OK, who cares if it was on christmas day.  people are dying all 
Greg:  the time and it would be tragic no matter when it happened.
to which I reply:

Yup, I agree, good point.

Greg continues: 

Greg:  the law thing:  i have to completely disagree with you here.  
Greg:  i'm no expert in law, but it seems that the laws are somewhat 
Greg:  precise now.  But they're still open to a wide variety of 
Greg:  interpretation; but that's why we have courts.  Sure, driving 
Greg:  through a red light or driving drunk are two clear cut
Greg:  examples supporting your arguement, but just imaging a bunch of 
Greg:  lawyers and DAs saying, "well so and so COULD HAVE happened so 
Greg:  we're suing."  Everyone would be suing everyone else.
Greg:  Plus, this could easiily lend itself to such extreme cases as 
Greg:  event 1 caused event 2 caused event 3 .... and say event 10 is 
Greg:  that someone died.  In this case, the person responsible for 
Greg:  event 1 would be responsible?  That's ridiculous.
to which I reply:

Huh? All I'm saying is that if it's illegal to drive drunk, it's because you might kill someone. Whether you suceed or not is irrevlent. You still broke the law. Why should those lucky enough not to kill someone not be punished just the same? They both took the same action. It was only luck that determines the crime. I mean this guy who ran the red light, he could have easily had good timing and not killed anyone, then he'd be a free man. The newspaper might say he was a hero for driving his wife to the hospital. It's pure luck that is determining his fate with the law. This is wrong. He committed the same crime and should be punished just the same regardless of whether or not he was lucky enough not to kill anyone. I don't know what you're talking about about 1 thing causing another and all that. This isn't about cause and effect. It's simple. You break the law, you get punished, period, regardless of the cause or effect.

Greg continues: 

Greg:  So basically if this is the case, if i have a gun that's not 
Greg:  loaded and i point it at someone (which i would never personally 
Greg:  do) then i should be charged with murder because, who knows, 
Greg:  someone could have loaded it, and it could have accidentally 
Greg:  fired.  The only discrepency here is that pointing an unloaded 
Greg:  weapon at someone is not in itself illegal.
to which I reply:

Is there a law against this? If there is a law against this then you should be punished the same whether or not someone secretly loaded the gun or not. Think about why we have the law. Why should luck determine how much time you spend in jail. Only your actions should determine this, not their outcome, which is in some sense random.

Then Greg replies: 

Greg:  ok aaron here's why it's ridiculous.
Greg:  Because if i break a stop sign going 5 mph i will 
Greg:  have broken the law and i should get a ticket for 
Greg:  the traffic violation. - NOT for manslaughter
Greg:  though.  even if i hit someone at 5mph, more than 
Greg:  likely they are not going to die so why the hell 
Greg:  should i get a ticket for manslaughter? if i break 
Greg:  the stop at 60 mph then you have more of a chance 
Greg:  of killing someone.
Greg:  where to draw the line?
Greg:  The only place to draw the line is if you kill 
Greg:  someone or not - not if you could have killed 
Greg:  someone or could not have.
to which I reply:

Getting back to drunk driving, I think it's more arbitrary to draw the line at accidently killing someone than just to say that being over a certain BAC is drunk. It's pure luck whether or not you kill someone. The example you give with the stop sign is an interesting one. I guess there are certain laws that my logic should apply to and certain ones that it shouldn't. Clearly, if you attempt to kill someone and fail, it is logical that you be charged with attempted murder. Regardless of whether or not you succeed, the charge should be the same. Attempted murder. There should be no such thing as a murder charge, only attempted murder. It's not your fault that one person dies when you try to kill him but that someone else doesn't. Why should you face a lesser charge because the person you were shooting happened to be wearing a bulletproof vest? It's basically luck. You should be charged with attempted murder, period, the end.

Probably should be the same if you drive with a BAC over some specified limit. There is just no excuse for it. In this society, we are given the message that drunk driving is inexcusible because it could kill you. We are given the impression that the risk is very high. If this is the case, then we ought to take it seriously. Where do we draw the line between DUI and manslaughter? I mean it's luck whether or not some drunk driving the wrong way on a one way street kills someone. He should receive the same punishment whether or not he happens to accidently kill someone.

Now, as for going through a stop sign at 5 mph, this is so much less severe than drunk driving or attempted murder. The risk of death is extremely low.
(see also January 9, 1998.)

January 5, 1998

From the news: 

A plan to name a new high school in Riverside after Martin Luther King
Junior is drawing fire from some parents. A group of white parents say
naming the school after King could give the impression the school is a
predominantly black. They say that could hurt the college chances of
graduates in some states. The school is scheduled to open next year. It 
will be about two-thirds white.
Gee, I guess now we'll have to have Affirmative Action for people who come from schools that might be construed as being predominantly black. Are these parents serious? I think it's possible the media could be exaggerating this story, but assuming they are not... I mean do these parents really think it's going to make some big difference, like these people aren't going to get into college because they go to a school named after a black guy.

January 4, 1998

Happy New Year. Anyone ever look at a newspaper around January 1 or 2 every year. They always have a story about some baby born like 30 seconds after midnight. It happens every year and I don't see why anyone cares, but the newspapers tend to treat it like it's important. I mean of course it's important to the family of the baby being born, but this would be the case no matter when the baby was born. Either way, I don't see how it's newsworthy.

December 30, 1997

I recently read in the newspaper about a rather tragic story. This women went into labor at like 3 am on Xmas day. Her husband decided to drive her to the hospital. Apparently he also decided it would be ok to fly through a bunch of red lights since his wife was giving birth. Oh, and by the way, he was under the influence of alcohol. Well, he got into an accident and some innocent 26 year old died on Xmas morning. What an idiot! I mean maybe this could have happened to anyone. Maybe a lot of people would have done the same thing as this guy. But there is no excuse. I have no sympathy for this guy if he has to go to jail for 10 years and misses seeing his child grow up. He killed someone because he was extremely foolish.

I think one problem is with this society. The laws are not consistent. The reason you aren't allowed to drive drunk or run red lights is because you might accidently kill someone. So, if this society is serious about stopping people from running red lights and driving drunk, then whether or not you succeed in killing someone, if you break these laws, then you should be punished as if someone died from this. If you get caught zooming through a red light or driving under the influence of alcohol, you should be charged with manslaughter because you could have killed someone. If the laws were like this, I think we'd see less drunk driving. I mean there are certain things that there is no excuse for. And you should be punished to the full extent of the law, regardless of whether or not you kill someone. I'll call this preventative punishment.

Same thing with being charged with murder or attempted murder. Just because you didn't succeed in murdering someone does not mean your punishment should be less than if you did. I don't see this logic at all.
(see also January 7, 1998 and January 9, 1998.)

December 15, 1997

Alanis Morissette. I probably spelled her name wrong, but you know who I'm talking about. She has that song called "Ironic". It's mostly about stuff that isn't ironic. I saw the following on the net a long time ago and grabbed it and finally I'm getting around to digressing about it, so I don't feel like searching to web to see where I found it. Anyway, some person said: 

Rain on your wedding day alone is not by any stretch of the 
imagination an example of irony.  Now, if you, in youth, 
decide that love is a painful waste of time and marriage 
even more so, and you say something like this: "Love is a
painful waste of time, I'm never going to find somebody and 
even if I did, it would still suck.  It'll just end up 
raining on my wedding day, so why bother?"  Then if, years 
later, you forget your bitterness and meet someone you want
to have sanctioned bonding with you're so happy, and you 
decide to get married and you're so blissful that even when 
it starts raining during the ceremony you don't care and 
just as you step into the limo you remember, for the first 
time your words of years before, THAT might qualify as ironic.
I agree with this. The only thing ironic about that song is the line that says, "Isn't it ironic? And yeah, I really do think." Cuz if she wrote that song, then she must not have been thinking very hard.

Anyway, I like her album and all, but I just have to comment on that song. The next generation of Americans will have a new definition of irony. They will think that something ironic is just something that sucks.

December 11, 1997

Ok, I got still more comments about this ongoing on-line discussion about "hot chicks." (see November 18, 1997, December 3, 1997 and December 5, 1997.) My friend Linh had some comments for me. She says: 

I would tend to agree with your view on the subject of 
"going after chicks."  Regardless of the object of pursuit, 
it just sounds so de-humanizing to "go after" him/her.  I
 mean, who in their right mind would appreciated being
"hunted down" by anyone else?  Who would want have another 
person view them as an object?  It's so depressing to think
that people have stopped thinking about one another as
humans but rather as things to be gone after.


December 11, 1997

There is an article in the UC Berkeley student news paper, the Daily Californian, today about the threat of an earthquake. It's well known that there is a major fault going right through the campus, literally. It goes right under the football stadium in fact. It's also well known that many buildings in Berkeley (especially those on campus, but also such buildings as the city hall and probably many apartment complexes that student live in, and movie theators that student go to) are old and not safe for an earthquake. If a large quake strikes that is centered right in Berkeley, it's likely that most campus buildings will be destoryed and there could easily be thousands of deaths. Anyway, so the article states that scientists think that a quake of size 7.0 is even more likely to happen soon than previously thought. It was previously thought that there was a 30 or 50% chance of a 7.0 quake in the next 30 years. Now, they are saying it's even more likely. This should be of the utmost concern. They interviewed some people on campus for the artcle, most of which had intelligent things to say, except for this one guy. He was quoted as saying, "I grew up here, so I think quakes are fun." He just doesn't get it. He's felt quakes that were 50 miles away. He hasn't been in a 7.0 quakes right under his apartment. He doesn't seem to understand the potential for damage. I mean the big quake that his San Francisco in 1989 was centered way south in Santa Cruz in a sparsely populated area. Still, it caused significant damage near Berkeley. If an earthquake of that size hits Berkeley, let's just say that I hope that I'm not there and that none of my friends are cuz it's not going to be fun and it's not going to be a pretty sight.

December 8, 1997

I got a comment about my digression of August 30, 1997 about gas mileage. It's from a guy named Theo Zimmermann. He writes: 

Just came across your digression about the word "mileage".

You are wondering what term is used in metric countries.
Well, in Germany we don't use something like "kilometerage".
We are actually using the reversed key figure, i.e.
liters of fuel spent to drive 100 km. This we call "fuel
consumption".

Adding my own digression here, I always thought that this is
a reflection of different cultures. "Mileage" is associated with
an optimist's view: "How much do I get out of it?". "Fuel consumption"
is the pessimist's view: "How much do I have to spend?".
Being a German who is living here in the USA for several years now,
I do think that Germans are more pessimistic and US Americans are
more optimistic by nature.


December 5, 1997

Life is like a sweatshirt. You get the sweatshirt one day. Maybe as a present. Maybe you buy it for yourself. You don't think much about how long you'll have it. You just assume that it will be yours forever. But then one day, you accidently leave it somewhere and then you no longer have your sweatshirt. Back when you first had it, you never imagined that one day you'd just leave it in some bar and never see it again. Kinda like life. One day, maybe all a sudden, it will be gone. I mean who imagines they will die in a car accident or of a heart attack? No one thinks of this. Yet, it happens to many.

December 5, 1997

Ok, I got more comments about this ongoing on-line discussion about "hot chicks." (see November 18, 1997, December 3, 1997, and December 11, 1997.) My friend Vickie had some comments for me. Her comments have a "Vickie: " before them. The rest of the comments are mine. 

Vickie:  i read your most recent digression on hot chicks where 
Vickie:  your friend alison wrote back to you.  it's kind of funny 
Vickie:  because i assumed everything that you stated in this 
Vickie:  digression after reading the first one.  perhaps i didn't 
Vickie:  misinterpret the first one because it seems very similar 
Vickie:  to the way i think.  i do have one question though; you 
Vickie:  distinguish between girls that are hot and girls that are 
Vickie:  intelligent.  do you think that someone cannot have both 
Vickie:  of those characteristics?  this is actually a general 
Vickie:  phenomenon that i wonder about.  i wonder if girls who are 
Vickie:  attractive are looked at as being, not dumb, but not highly 
Vickie:  intelligent just because they look a certain way.  i mean, 
Vickie:  do they have to prove that they are intelligent because the 
Vickie:  first thing one notices about them is their looks?  i
Vickie:  suspect that this sometimes happens, not with you or 
Vickie:  anything; but just in general. and do unattractive girls 
Vickie:  often give the first impression of being smart? 

I do distinguish between girls that are hot and girls that are intelligent.
With girls who are intelligent, there are more to base "going after" them
on.  Instead of just wanting their body, you want their mind, so to speak.
But still, with regards to "going after" someone, it's still not a good
thing to go after someone, regardless of if it's cuz they are sexy, or
rich, or famous, or smart.  I don't believe it's good to go after someone
that you don't know.  

Of course, someone can have both characteristics.  Sure, someone can be
both smart and good looking.  Of course.

As for good looking girls being thought of as dumb.  I kinda think this is
a sterotype that doesn't hold.  I don't think people actually think someone
is dumb just cuz they are good looking.  If they are good looking and dress
and act a certain way, then people may think they are dumb.  Anyway, I
would think that good looking people would have an easier time proving they
are smart.  Due to their good looks, people may tend to give them the
benefit of the doubt.

Do unattractive girls give the first impression of being smart?  No way.
I've met unattractive girls and they certainly don't give this impression.
If they act smart, then I think they are smart.  If they act dumb, then I
think they are dumb.


December 4, 1997

Every kid is told when they are young, "Look both ways before crossing the street." But most adults don't follow this advice. I'm driving to school today and there is this cross walk. As I am approaching this crosswalk, easily within 50 feet of it, this woman just walks out into the street without even looking to see if I am stopping for her. Of course I saw her and slowed down and let her pass. But what if I didn't notice her, or my foot slipped and hit the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal? What if I was crazy and just wanted to run her over? I mean, of course, it would be my fault and I'd go to jail for many years, but she'd be dead. Why don't pedestrians just look up before they cross the street? Why is this such a hard concept for people?

December 3, 1997

My friend Alison has some comments for me about my digression of November 18, 1997. Her comments are those with "Alison:" before them. The rest of the comments are mine: 

Alison:  Aaron, I want to beat you over the head with a stick.

Ouch!

Alison:  Okay, I agree with the fact that sex isn't the most important 
Alison:  thing in the world, but I seriously think you need to re-think 
Alison:  your whole "chicks" philosophy. First of all, let me point out 
Alison:  to you that you are going to be one lonely man if you think it's 
Alison:  cool to alienate people by saying you'd rather read a book than 
Alison:  spend time with a woman. I, personally, find intellectual 
Alison:  conversations with people I know more exciting than books, 
Alison:  because I cherish the element of human contact and interaction 
Alison:  they contain.  This is not to say that I don't like reading -- 
Alison:  in fact, I love it! -- but I would rather spend time with my 
Alison:  boyfriend talking about circuits (or something else 
Alison:  appropriately romantic to two CSE majors... heh heh heh!) than
Alison:  to read the newest Kurt Vonnegut book. (Ack, that almost hurts
Alison:  to say.)

Alison:  Now, you ask what people who think like this feel their purpose 
Alison:  in life is? Mine is to succeed in what I want to do. One of the 
Alison:  things that I want to do is spend my life with a person who I 
Alison:  love, and I don't think that that is a pitiful goal by any means. 
Alison:  If it were my ONLY goal, I would think I needed to branch out a 
Alison:  bit , but I have a well-rounded future planned for myself, one 
Alison:  that includes a husband and family.

Alison:  Anyway, I think I'm offended... do you go after smart chicks? :P

Hey Alison.  I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.  I didn't
say I'd rather read a book than spend time with a woman.  That's not the
case at all.  But I'd rather read a book than go after some chick just cuz
I have some superficial attraction to her.  I like to think that it's best 
not to "go after" chicks.  I think it's best to meet and to know lots of 
people and after a while, you get to know someone really well and things
just happen between 2 people.  I don't like the idea of one person 
"going after" another.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Maybe I'm being 
idealistic, but this is how I think.

Suppose I see some girl and I think she's really hot.  I don't think it's
generally a good thing to just "go after" her.  There is little reason to
believe I have anything in common with her.  The same thing applies if she
seems intelligent, rather than hot.  If I met her, I'd find myself
trying to make things work with her because I already decided I was
interested in her before I even know her.  This kind of a relationship is 
doomed to fail.  Most people seem to have this need to have someone, to have 
a boyfriend or a girlfriend.  I'm happily single.  I don't particularly want 
a serious relationship.  If I fall into one, then great, but I'm just fine 
being single.  Notice, I'm not saying I have something against relationships.  
I just don't prefer to actively search for one.  I don't tend to think that 
this kind of relationship will work. 

Anyway, I agree that intellectual conversations with people I know are more
exciting than reading books.  Depending on my mood, I would usually prefer 
an intellectual conversation.  But going after a hot chick and having an
intellectual conversation with one of my friends are not at all the same 
thing.

Your goal is life is to spend it with the person you love.  That's a great
goal.  But going after some chick is not the same thing as spending time
with someone you love.

You ask if I go after smart chicks?  Well, intelligence is important, but
my point is that it's not good to "go after" chicks.  

Alison:  Okay, thank goodness, I was hoping I was misunderstanding 
Alison:  you. Your friend.... Rick? He sounds like one sex-starved 
Alison:  man. Scary. :)

Alison:  So, on the whole, I totally agree with what you just sent me. 
Alison:  Aww yeah.
(see also December 5, 1997 and December 11, 1997 for further comments on this issue.)



December 3, 1997

I love waking up to the sound of a chainsaw. It's not even 8 am yet. Why the hell does someone need to be using a chainsaw at this hour??!?!!? I'm sure I'm not the only one being awakened by this chain saw, and this isn't the first time. They ought to pass a law against using a chainsaw this early in the morning. What a great way to start the way.

December 2, 1997

Xmas is lame. When people think of Xmas, they think of presents and Santa and football games in Hawaii. It's supposed to be about religion. Same idea with Thanksgiving. People talk more about eating a lot of turkey than about being thankful. It's all pretty dumb and there is was too much commercialization, esp with regards to Xmas.

December 1, 1997

Back on November 21, 1997, I digressed fraternaties calling themselves Greeks. My friend Alex, who is of Greek ancestry had the following comments: 

About your Nov 21 digression, When I first came to Berkeley, I was amazed
that there were ASUC [Associateed Students of the University of California]
candidates who were interested in protecting "Greeks and Greek issues." I 
soon realized that they were talking about Frats and not Greeks from Greece.


December 1, 1997

Back on November 4, 1997, I digressed about this guy who wrote to me trying to convert me to Islam. My friend Alex had some comments for me. They are as follows: 

    I read part of your little aborted exchange with the Muslim. I wonder if
what you are is not an atheist, one who believes that there is no god, but
an agnostic, one who believes that the answer to the question of whether or
not there is a god is unknown and unknowable. While I do know a number of
people who are genuine atheists, there are a lot of people who think they
are atheists, but don't really know the definition of the word, or the
difference between atheism and agnosticism. 

I especially appreciated the paragraph:

        " Heck, I wish there was a god who cares about me.  I wish there was
heaven.  But I also may wish to be rich and famous.  Just cuz I wish it
doesn't make it true.  I simply don't believe in god.  I don't think I can
convince myself otherwise."

This is something that is very important, but which most believers fail to
understand. I find when I tell people this, they perceive it as an opening
for them to try to introduce you to god. Somehow they think that you were
wandering around completely ignorant of religion, thinking, "Wouldn't it be
great if there were some divine being who would take care of me." Then they
think they can step in with their god as the easy answer. It's like the
good witch telling Dorothy that she can go home anytime she wants by
clicking her ruby slippers together, then admonishing her that the ruby
slippers work in mysterious ways and that if she does click them together,
all the evidence she can find will lead to the conclusion that nothing has
happened at all. The thing is that most atheists and agnostics have come to
their beliefs (or lack there of) because they have seen religion, in fact
many religions. They see that all the religions disagree and that none of
them can be proven or disproven. Thus to choose one of them based on the
fact that some guy with a soft voice an a worn bible says it's so is
ridiculous.
November 26, 1997

People go way way too far when it comes to sports. It's the fans I'm talking about. Here are some examples. On November 20, there was a newspaper article published. It's title was "Chelseafuckers" refering to President Clinton's daughter. As we all know, Chelsea is a freshman at Stanford University. This article was published 2 days before the annual football game between the University of California and Stanford University. This opinion piece was a testosterone laced piece of junk. It didn't say anything about going and supporting the team. It mostly had negative things to say about the opposition, Stanford. But in the end, the author of this column got what he deserved.

Let me take some quotes from the article. As if speaking to the football team, he says, "If you can't win, just try to do as much lasting physical damage as possible. I want breaks, people -- not fractures, breaks. I want to be able to see bone from the cheap seats. (...their quarterback has an injured thumb; one of you might want to think about stepping on it.)". He then strongly hints that we should vandalize the Stanford campus. Then comes the worst of it all. He starts talking about the daugher of the president of the United States. "Come, let us...seize...the First Daughter. Violence, hatred, vandalism, even a touch of pestilence?....Any of you wishing to spread some of our rustic working-class charm to Miss Chelsea should remember that she lives in [dorm name left out intentionally] dorm, and the Secret Service guys know that killing a drunk college student would be political suicide for their boss. Show your spirit on Chelsea's bloodied carcass....She embodies the Stanford ethos of establishment worship that must be subverted and destroyed." This is supposed to be about a football game. What's this guy doing getting personal with the first daughter????

Well, he got what he deserved. Hillary Clinton got word of this article and its author had some secret service guys knocking on his door, as can be read in this article.

But this article was only the beginning of the problems. Following the game, there was a bit of a riot. No one was killed, however some people found themselves in the hospital.... all just cuz of a football game. Quoting from some letters to the editor about this riot, "From the Berkeley stands came glass bottles, fist-sized rocks and blocks of wood, all of which were thrown at people. I think that it is very important to point out how disgustingly violent the crowd became at the end of the game. Fruit is one thing, plastic bottles can be understood because they are non-lethal objects which are symbolic and express accurately the feelings of the crowd. Rocks and wood blocks are lethal -- I am shocked that certain UC Berkeley students are so base and animalistic as to try to kill Stanford students, which was undeniably the intent in throwing rocks from more than 50 feet up in the stands....there were serious injuries as a result of the riot....Several Stanford students...received concussions from the throwing of objects such as rocks and wooden blocks. I was hit by a wooden block; I know of one person who received a broken rib from a rock. Thank God no one was hit in the head by a rock -- I think that all students would feel quite poorly if someone's skull had been cracked in two."

From another letter, " I saw a couple of guys in the stands set ablaze a Stanford t-shirt on a stick. When the police came to stop it, they dropped the stick and shirt (complete with flames) down onto the ramp below, which people use to enter the stadium, without looking to see if anyone was down there. I also saw multitudes of seat cushions and heavy, flying water bottles being thrown at the back of people's heads among the Cal crowd. Lastly, an unfortunate woman in her sixties, was heckled almost to tears for accidentally entering the Cal section wearing red. I totally endorse, "take off that red shirt!" but when it almost gives an elderly woman a heart attack, it's time to lay off."

I pretty much agree with these letters. What is what with people. Why do they have to go so far over a football game? I just don't get what, if anything, is going through their minds. And if their excuse is that they have been drinking, well, then they shouldn't be drinking in public.

November 21, 1997

Why do frat boys call themselves Greeks? They are not Greek. Greece is a country and they have nothing to do with it. What about someone who is actaully from Greece? He'll walk around saying he's a Greek and everyone will think he's a frat boy.
(see also December 1, 1997.)

November 20, 1997

Yesterday, septuplets were born in Iowa. 7 babies out of the same mother at the same time. The mother was having problems having kids, like fertility problems. So, she took some fertility drug. Maybe she took too much of it cuz she had septuplets. The doctors recommended that she abort some of them, so the others could survive. History has shown that even when it's only 5 babies, the survival rate is low. But she didn't take the doctors' expert advice. She said that "God would have to decide which of the babies would survive". Instead of ensuring that a few would survive, she would rather let god decide, and probably very few will survive. Her logic is STUPID. Even assuming that god exists, it's still stupid. If she wants to let god decide which ones should survive, then she shouldn't have even taken the fertility drugs in the first place. She should have seen that god didn't want her to have any more kids.

(see also January 30, 1998).


November 18, 1997

Recently, I was emailing with my friend Rich and I thought the conversation was interesting enough to put on my digressions page. He asked me if I was "going after any hot chicks". The lines preceded by "Rich: " are his. The rest of the lines are mine. 


Rich: You're not going after any hot chicks?  That's too bad.  

Why is that too bad?  Why do I want to go after hot chicks?  All the
trouble just for a few good moments of sex?  I mean really, I just 
don't see how it's worth it.  I'd rather go hiking, among other 
activities than "go after hot chicks".  Not to say that one should 
ignore all females, but I don't "go after" them.  It's like this 
society has this idea that the cool thing to do is to go after hot
chicks, or just to go after any chicks.  People should question this 
more and think about what their purpose is?  I mean I dunno about 
anyone else, but I don't think it would do me much good to go after 
hot chicks.  I'd rather spend my time reading a book.  I think a lot 
of people that are "going after hot chicks" are just letting their 
insecurities that they don't have a girlfriend get the best of them.

Rich: I don't know, dude.  A few moments of sex seems much more appealing to me 
Rich: right now than going on a good hike.  Come on, man!  It's sex!  The only 
Rich: reason for our existence is the pursuit of sex!  Making money and having 
Rich: a career - that's all a means towards the end of having lots and lots of sex.

Hmmm....yeah, that is in some sense the reason we exist.  I mean naturally,
we have an instinct to want sex, cuz if we didn't, well then how would we
reproduce?  But now looking at this from the point of view of an
individual, rather than of the purpose of the species, I am not going to
reproduce any time soon, and I'd rather go hiking or read a book or
whatever than give in to my natural urges.  I know better than to think that
going along with my natural urges will do me much good.  Going after some
hot chick, just cuz she is a hot chick isn't likely to get me anywhere I
want, except possibly in the short run.  But looking at the big picture, I
contend that it's better to resist "going after hot chicks".
(see also December 3, 1997 as someone misinterpretted what I said above. Also, see December 5, 1997 and December 11, 1997 for more comments on this.)



November 13, 1997

My friend Raymond wrote me an email, digressing just like I do. So, I'm putting it up here.

"in the honor of your digression page.. here will be my first digression...

"it's kind of an extension to your digression about late telephone charges.. a couple of weeks ago, I had an overdue book at UCSD.. this book was due on October 10, I think.. and on October 20, I received a notice that I had an overdue book...and if I didn't return or renew it soon, I will be charges a penalty fee.. I searched the overdue notice for a date to when the penalty fee will be charged.. and couldn't find any date.. so, I assumed that the penalty fee will appear magically on some certain date soon...(maybe.. or maybe not).. When I checked another book out, the librarian told me that I had an overdue book.. and I told him to renew it.. and that was that.. so, the book was not truly due on October 10..or even October 20 when I received the overdue book notice.. The late charge is some mysterious date that no one except the computers knows.. A guy in my lab actually got charged for a late fee...but, that book was recalled... which is a whole different realm from just having an overdue book... When I was in grade school, the public libraries nearby my home charged a nickel per day for a late book... An overdue book was true to its form here.. unlike the situation at UCSD...

"well..there goes it... I don't think I made much sense... but hey.. it is a digression..."

November 12, 1997

Tracy Chapman. She's pretty cool. I really like some of her songs, but the lyrics in others are questionable. Take, for example, Behind the Wall. She is singing about how the police usually don't come when some neighbor of hers is beating his wife. One of the lines is, "The police always come late if they come at all". Let's think about this. They always come late. So, like this guy is beating his wife and a neighbor calls the police. At a minimum, it would take the police a couple minutes to arrive. Of course, it's probably in some bad neighborhood like South Central LA with murders happening all the time, and armed robberies, etc. So, unfortunately, it may not be realistic for the police to always come right away. But my problem with this song is with the word, "late". What does she mean by, "they come late". Like she expects them to come "on time"? There is no set time for them to come, except possibly immediately, but then you'd have to expect they would ALWAYS be late, cuz how can they ever be there immediately?

November 11, 1997

I think it's most hard to imagine myself dying. I mean it's hard to imagine my friends dying, but it's really hard to imagine myself dying. I mean the truth is gross. You walk on the beach and see some rotting seal or something. It's eyes are being eaten by maggots and it's going to be just bones left in a month. We, as humans, think we are so above this seal. Well, when we die, we share the same fate. A horrible, but true, thought. You can be the president of the US and have the most honorable funeral and have a billion people remember you and your name will go down in the history books as the greatest person who ever lived. But you're still going to rot away just like that seal on the beach.

November 4, 1997

There is this commerical on the radio for vitamins or something. It says, "They're not important. They are essential". That's like saying, "10 isn't greater than 1, it's greater than 9". If a number is greater than 9, then it must be greater than 1. Similarly, it seems to be that if something is essential, then it must be important. Being greater than 9 implies being greater than 1. I think being essential implies being important.

November 4, 1997

You know what would be cool. If there were a web page I could go to and it would show me my cell phone bill so far for this month. I'd then know if I have any free minutes left this month. That would be really cool. I'd probably pay like 20% extra to be able to have this service.

November 4, 1997

A few weeks ago, I got an unsolicited email from someone who is apparently trying to convert me to Islam. I guess he found a mention of my atheism on my web site. I replied to his email, but it bounced back to me. Apparently the address is invalid. Anyway, here is some of his email and some of my comments that I tried to send to him.

The lines preceded by "> " are his. The rest of the lines are mine. 


> I don't blame you for becoming an atheist, you were probably, if I may
> venture, taught all your life that the Bible is the word of God and
> don't read the Koran. 
> 
> This deleted your options except to become an atheist
> 
> My concern is that all the things that drove you to be atheist in the
> Bible, are also opposed in the Koran, 
> 
> in the Koran, God assures you that Those who tampered with the Bible,
> those who drove you to be atheist are burning in hell.  

The thing is, I don't believe in God.  And even if I assume there is a
god, I don't see any reason to believe that this god would care about us
any more than we can about some random electron in another galaxy.

> God assures you that he saved Jesus from the cross, and Jesus will
> return on Judgment day. 
> 
> There are zero contradictions in the Koran.

That may be true, but there are assumptions, at least one, that there is a
god who cares.  While I will say that this is possible, I see no reason at
all to believe this.  

> God wrote that the Earth is oval(Koran:79:28) over 1,400 years ago which
> was just discovered less than 50 years ago while the majority of
> Christians upto the 1800's believed it was to be flat, and then believed
> to be perfectly round..
> 
> God put water in and on this earth in precise measurement so that you
> can survive." (Koran: 23:18), God raised mountains from the Earth so
> that the earth crust does not quake with you." (Koran:16:15).  All
> phenomenons  and much more  that humans discovered less than a few
> centuries ago while it was written in the Koran over 1,400 years ago.  

I'm a skeptic.  I don't believe in god. I don't think you can convince me
that your one fundamental assumption is true, that god exists.

> There are over 127 references to science in the Koran, all proved true
> by Christians Doctors and Scientist who then converted.
> 
> I will stop here, if you find the money from your sight that you are
> making is not satisfying, and something is missing, try God.

I'm not making any money from my site.  I can't try god. Heck, I wish there
was a god who cares about me.  I wish there was heaven.  But I also may
wish to be rich and famous.  Just cuz I wish it doesn't make it true.  I
simply don't believe in god.  I don't think I can convince myself
otherwise.

> The Koran is a book from God, who else could have removed the curse of
> Babylon by having only the true believers in 1 God (1.5 Billion)speaking
> only 1 language and only 27% of Muslims are Arabs.
> 
> If you ever want to return to God, 

I don't believe in god.  In my mind, I can't return to god any more than I
can return to the Andromeda Galaxy.  Whether I want to return to god has
nothing to do with it. I simple don't believe in god.

> you may attempt to re-enter the
> Church community but you know by now that God must be perfect, forgiving
> and does not prompt people to do bad things. 

God, if he even does exist, probably would not be at all like a human, and
would probably not care about humans at all.  Why should he?  Don't tell me
that the Koran says so.  How do I know that god wrote it?  It's circular
logic.

> You must have tried to give Church a second chance only to find your
> self an atheist once again, well, the next time you feel the need to
> return to God, go to a Mosque, take a Koran translation and read it.
> 
> You will discover why missionaries, bishops and preachers are
> converting
> 
> Your brother in Islam: Mohamed.

Why does this guy think he can convert me by sending me an email? If I don't believe in god, how does he think he can convince me by telling me that there are no contradictions in the Koran? Like, I'm gonna run to the library and look in the Koran and come to some realization that Islam is right and every other religion is wrong. All just from one email from some guy I don't know and who didn't even leave a functioning return address.
(see also December 1, 1997 and September 8, 1998.)

October 31, 1997

It's the media again. There is an article about Halloween in Isla Vista. For those who don't know, there have been problems in Isla Vista on Halloweens past. Anyway, the Santa Barbara News Press says, "At the height of the revelry, 40,000 people traveled to Isla Vista, many coming from other colleges, communities and even other countries. The town's Halloween reputation even drew the attention of Playboy magazine in the 1980s." Both sentences are absolutely correct. However, there is an implication of cause and affect. The sentences imply that 40,000 people came to Isla Vista and then Playboy magazine took notice. From what I heard, it was the other way around. It was Playboy magazine that said that Isla Vista is a great place to go on Halloween, and this led to the 40,000 people coming. Maybe I'm misinformed, but I'm pretty certain that the SB News Press is wrong. Why oh why can't the media ever seem to ge tthings right?

October 29, 1997

Yesterday, I was walking through campus and I walked by this table and they were trying to give away phone cards. I stopped and asked about it and the guy said that the the Sprint calling card is free and it's 10 cents a minute for each call and there is no per call fee. So, I was like, hey that's good. Right now I use an AT&T calling card and they charge me like 65 cents per call, and then like 10 cents a minute or whatever for each minute after that. So, I signed up for this card and everything seemed fine. I even got a free T-shirt for it. The guy gave me this little leaflet thing and I stuck it in my pocket and went on my way, happy to have a new T-shirt, even if the T-shirt is just a big advertisement for Sprint, and happy to finally have a calling card without a charge per call. Then, I got home and looked more closely at this leaflet. It said, "A per-call connection fee applies to all FONCARD calls." It couldn't be more clear. So, I went back to this table the next day and talked to this guy and asked him about this. He didn't seem to know about it. Apparently he hadn't read about it. Anyway, basically, it seems that either the employee at this table was lying through his teeth and really knew about this fine print and wasn't telling people, or, just as likely, no one told him about it. Whoever's fault it was, basically, they were telling people they were getting to make phone calls for 10 cents a minute, and were being told that there was no 90 cent connection fee. This kinda thing really pissed me off.

October 29, 1997

Why the hell can't the media get things right? Why is it so hard? It's real simple. Don't print the story unless you know it's a fact. Yesterday, local Congressman Walter Capps has died. I've read news stories about this from the Daily Nexus, the Santa Barbara News Press, AP, Reuters, and more. And I've read that he is both a native of Santa Barbara and of Nebraska. I don't think you can be a native of 2 places. Only one. I also read that he collapsed from a heart attack on the airplane and that paramedics were waiting when the plane landed. But another source said that he collapsed while waiting for a taxi at the airport. They cannot both be right. If he collapsed on the plane, then I don't think it's likely he'd be waiting around for a taxi. Why can't the press get things right? Can it be that hard??

October 25, 1997

I now have a web cam. Check it out.

October 25, 1997

I get my GTE phone bill every month. For example I just got a bill in the mail yesterday. It says "Due date: November 6, 1997". It also says "A 1.50% Late Payment Charge applies (November 13, 1997). So basically, it's due on the 6th, but if they get it before the 13th, then they won't charge me a late charge. So, it's really due on the 13th, or the 12th, I guess. Why do they have to make this so complicated. They should just pick a day for it to be due and then fine the hell out of you if you don't pay by that date. I mean when I first noticed this, I was all confused and called GTE. I wanted to know when the bill was really due. This same type of thing often applies to Rent. It will be due on the first, but then they really don't care if you give it to them on the 3rd or the 5th. So then it's really not due on the 1st, is it? I bet the reason GTE does this is they have so many people who send their bill in at the last second and it's a day or 2 late and they complain about it when they get fined, and GTE didn't want to deal with this. That's the only semi-logical reason I can see them doing this for.
(see February 25, 1997, September 7, 1998, and March 11, 1999 for more about GTE)
(see also November 13, 1997.)

October 24, 1997

I have another follower. :) First, it was Greg doing a digression page. Now, you all must check out P's Digressions.

October 14, 1997

A weird thing just happened. I went to this local mall to go and buy a new pair of shoes. As I entered, this girl was sitting on a bench smoking a cigarette. She was about my age. She said, Hey dude...... Anyway, let me get to the point. She wanted me to subscribe to a magazine, so she could get points towards earning college tuition so she could go to vet school or something. I wasn't really interested in subscribing to a magazine. But she was very persuasive. Like she wasn't forcing me to do it, but she somehow she just assumed that I would and kept talking to me. I told her that I really wasn't interested in subscribing to any of the magazines she offered. She suggested I could subscribe to some kids magazine and have it sent to some charity like the American Cancer Society. Normally, I would have been like, no, not interested, but she was being so friendly. Most sales people would be more professional and so it would be easier to say no, but she was just more friendly, so it somehow made it harder to walk away and say no. The whole time, I'm thinking, how do I know she isn't conning me into giving her $$ that she's going to keep for herself. Besides, even if she is for real, why do I care if she gets $$ for college any more than anyone else. And why do I want to provide magazines to children with cancer? Of course, it's a nice thing to do, but I'm not Mother Therersa. Anyway, I ended up giving her $26, and wishing I hadn't. I would usually think people foolish for giving $$ to someone they just met who makes this kinda claim. But now I fell for it. What was I thinking? Why didn't I just say, nope, sorry, you're not getting my money. I should have done that. But this girl knew just what to say, like a psychological trick, to get me to give her $$. As I walked away after giving her $$, I was thinking, hey, maybe I was on Candid Camera and she would run up behind me and say, "you're on candid camera", but this was not to be. It now occurs to me, that since this magazine is supposedly going to charity, I would not know the difference if it actually went there or not. It seems to me that she could easily just pocket the money. I actually think she was being honest, but I really have no way of knowing. Oh well. Hopefully some kids dying of cancer will be happy from reading about Jack and Jill. But somehow I don't think that this $26 will really make a difference.

(see also Janaury 30, 1998 for more comments on this incident.)


Past Digressions

[Return to the Story of Aaron Brown's Life]
[Return to Aaron Brown's Web Page]