Home
Recent Entries Friends Archive User Info Tags To-Do List
 
 
 
 
 
 
My birthday is in three days. My dad usually takes me out for lunch or dinner on my birthday. Since my birthday is Christmas Eve, most places close at strange times, which complicates things. To complicate things further, my dad is vegetarian, so relatively vege-friendly is important (he'll get over it if he doesn't have a TON of options - but a couple would be good, at least).

Anybody got any really amazing suggestions for me?

I will be 22, so age restrictions are unimportant.

(Cross-posted to [info]atlanta and [info]ljatlanta.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
What's the best place for electronics recycling in DeKalb or Atlanta?
 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Okay, so for Going Rogue (the City of Heroes expansion), when you create a new character, they can either be a Villain, a Hero, or a Praetorian (which means they start on an alternate Earth from the rest of the game world). Praetorians can end up choosing to be a Loyalist to the Praetorian leader (which means they become a villain), or they can be part of the Resistance (which means they become a hero).

Now, various people on the forums have been making image .sig files for Resistance, or Loyalist, but I saw a new one today, and it made me laugh.

 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 18:49 @Alidre: <insert obligatory spindle/dick joke here> #
  • 18:53 @Alidre: For you? First time's free. ;) #
  • 23:29 I'm bored outta my fuckin' skull. My previous plan for this evening hardly seems interesting, now. #
  • 03:20 There's a cheap imitation of Milo Ventimiglia at the counter here at Jerry's. #
Not interested? Then go fuck yourself! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
First off, the movie is utterly spectacular. It's not just the much talked about special effects and completely lifelike CGI and the fancy new 3D, but the story. Go experience the story.

My thoughts with spoilers )
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul Krugman writes a compelling Op-Ed about the Senate; and the breakdown of the United Senate:


Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward. It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.

After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes. But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.

Now consider what lies ahead. We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent. Some conservatives argue that the Senate’s rules didn’t stop former President George W. Bush from getting things done. But this is misleading, on two levels.

First, Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.

More behind cut )
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A technology that is '20 years away' will be 20 years away indefinitely.
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 14:50 At The Trappist in "Old" Oakland. With our French friend. Here for a couple of hours or so. twitpic.com/uewek #

Brought to you by LoudTwitter and my own belief in my own witticism.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anybody seen any jars of (shelled) chestnuts for sale anywhere (especially ITP, also also Decatur area)?

xposted
 
 
 
 
 
 
CELL PHONES CAUSE CANCER! ABLOO-BLOO-BLOO!

Seriously, what the fuck? Is this "make South Carolina look sane" week?
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 10:17 I'm late to the party, but LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is absolutely one of the best films I've seen this year. Heartbreaking, but so well done. #

 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 17:16 And the prekick show is on. New Orleans v. Dallas! #
  • 18:52 I think there's been a flag on every other play this game... #
  • 20:30 Where is the goddamned defense? #
  • 23:13 Still confused as to why people don't wear belts. #
  • 01:26 @ladypembroke: And yet they are. It's intentional. #
  • 01:47 @ladypembroke: nope. beltless. #
  • 07:29 @Alidre: I just sell the stuff, I don't use it. ;) #
  • 07:34 @Alidre: Not off the top of my head. An hour ago, I coulda checked the shelves. As usual, the website knows for sure. #
  • 08:26 Goddamned deja-vu... #
  • 08:26 @sexychicken638 It's all about the now, not the later. #
Not interested? Then go fuck yourself! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evangelicals in North Carolina are pissed because a public official doesn't believe in God.

You see, in NC, to hold any sort of public office... you're required by the state constitution to believe in God. Except, of course, that it violates the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court said so in 1961 when it said a similar law in Maryland was unconstitutional.

But hey... I'm only pointing this out because it's making North Carolina look more backward then South Carolina. Which is quite a feat.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In LaTeX, is there way to define a custom continued fraction formula \mycfrac{an}{bn} with a single continuous zickzack fraction line?

I am not quite satisfied with this code

\textnormal{\LARGE K}_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\left.a_n\right|}{\left|b_n\right.}

which gives me
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hello Atlantans!

Could anyone recommend his/her internet provider, please?  I am just too tired of the "quality" of AT&T's DSL Extreme.
25 disconnects in less than 24 hours )

The SNR ratio on the modem is perfect and AT&T technician that visited my house said this is definitely an issue outside of my house.

Clear states there are 5 towers in my area and I might give them a trial early next year.

Thanks!

... and Merry Christmas/Happy Kwanzaa/Have a great Winter Solstice/Great Yul/Happy New Year/Happy Diwali/Happy Chinese New Year/Hanukkah's already over/etc etc
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126123257035198659.html

Ben Nelson caves after more compromises on abortion and non-profit exemptions. This means that Democrats have the 60 votes needed to close debate on the reform bill and move to a vote.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 10:03 SNOW DAY! Well, it's a weekend and I don't have a snow shovel, so I may end up stuck at home one way or the other. #
  • 10:06 Great talk last night w/ @esatts & @samuelskt re: our gen's shift from one-note job titles to personal Venn diagrams of self-made purpose. #
  • 10:09 RT @DCist_Updates Potential Metrorail closures later today: bit.ly/8XVFUJ - Even if I can leave the apt, I def. can't ride the train. #
  • 10:26 @WomenWhoTech Out of curiosity, how much does an abortion cost? I could see Nelson/others zeroing out "abortion funding" in the future... #
  • 10:27 @radiomaru Welcome to the South, brother. Try to stay off the roads. #
 
 
 
 
 
 
I've been as upset as most of my other progressive friends about the changes that have been imposed on the health care reform bill in the senate, and over how the most important measures seem to keep getting stripped out in order to please "moderates", insurance & pharmaceutical industry shills, abortion opponents and, of course, Joe "Look-At-Me-I'm-A-Pompous-Little-Man-With-Shit-for-Brains" Lieberman. But, I have to say that once I took a few deep breaths and did some reading, this is actually exactly par for the course when major social legislation is enacted. I find that a historical view is essential to keep things in perspective:

1) The Civil Rights Act of 1957:

- When Lyndon Johnson (as senate majority leader) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he faced all the same shamelessly hypocritical opposition that health care reform faces today, including hysterical claims that civil rights represented a takeover of states rights by the federal government, etc. This was the legislation that Strom "I Love Black Women" Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours straight, setting a record that sill stands. LBJ had to make so many compromises to win the support of southern dixiecrats, including stripping out anti-lynching provisions, that the final bill was almost completely ineffective. In fact, fewer african americans were registered to vote in 1960 than had been registered in 1956. But, the logjam had been broken, and "It did however open the door to later legislation that was effective in securing voting rights as well as ending legal segregation and providing housing rights. In particular, it established both the Commission on Civil Rights and the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Subsequently, on December 9, 1957, the Civil Rights Division was established within the Justice Department by order of Attorney General William P. Rogers, giving the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights a distinct division to command." (wikipedia). By passing an imperfect bill, LBJ established the framework for later improvements and expansions that provided true civil rights.


2) Social Security:

- When Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security, it had to be watered down so severely in order for him to get it passed that at first it didn't even cover african-americans. Republicans screamed that social security was socialism and that it would cause the loss of millions of jobs. In the version that was finally passed, women and minorities were excluded from unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Jobs that employed mostly women and minorities were also excluded, including workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. "Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not [initially] covered by Social Security" (Wikipedia). But, as Paul Krugman wrote in yesterday's New York Times "Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans."


3) The Emancipation Proclamation:

- Finally, when Abraham Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation, it was also a very circumscribed piece of legislation that disappointed many abolitionists of the day. Josh Marshall discussed this yesterday in Talking Points Memo (www.tpm.com) and is worth quoting at length:

"Like President Obama, President Lincoln was seen by many of his supporters as something of a disappointment once in office. This was largely due to the number and types of compromises he needed to make, most notably with the institution of slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln came out and said that he was not bound and determined to end slavery, that the President does not in any case have the power to unilaterally change the law of the land, and that his first priority was the preservation of the Union, even if the price of that preservation was to accept the continuation of slavery. During the war, when pressed by a group of ministers about why he had not more forcefully worked to end slavery, he reiterated that his overriding priority was to preserve the Union, and added that there were four slave states which had stayed loyal and which were currently contributing 50,000 soldiers to the war effort; these, he pointed out, were states and soldiers which he could not afford to lose in a dispute over slavery.

"When Lincoln finally issed the Emancipation Proclamation, its scope was remarkably circumscribed: it did not call for the emancipation of slaves in loyal states (for this, Lincoln would need the participation of Congress, and in any event, as described above, he did not seek such an act for fear of worsening the Union's position in the war); it did not call for the emancipation of slaves in those areas under military control by the Union; it limited emancipation to those areas which would be brought under military control subsequent to January 1, 1863, which was about 3 months after the Proclamation itself was issued. As one historian noted, this meant the Proclamation carefully excused all of the slaves which the United States actually had any authority over at the time of issuance! As another historian noted, the Proclamation was in essence the offer of a bribe: any state then in rebellion which would lay down its arms and return to the Union would not be compelled to give up its slaves; any state conquered by force of arms after January 1, 1863 would be so compelled.

"Needless to say, the Proclamation was seen by anti-slavery partisans of the time as wholly unacceptable, a compromise too far, and yet more evidence of the unfitness of their elected standard-bearer in the White House. And yet, as Foote points out, Lincoln is today hailed as the preserver of the Union, which he was, but as The Great Emancipator, which he was not. This is because the Proclamation, while useless in a practical sense at the moment of issuance, was the crucial starting point for the abolition of slavery, a project which was completed just a few years later." (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/pt_appeals_to_history.php#more?ref=fpblg)


Final thoughts:

So - my view, and the view of many people who I respect, is that many, if not all, social insurance programs tend to start out highly compromised, imperfect and incomplete. But, one the precedent has been set, and a framework is in place, then the programs can get better and more comprehensive with subsequent revisions and expansions.
- Obama knows this, he takes a long-term view to these issues, which is why he can maintain such calm and equanimity throughout the process.
- The republicans know this, and they know that social programs tend to be quite popular once they are enacted (you don't see many of the older tea-baggers volunteering to give up medicare, do you?), so they are fighting tooth and nail to deny Obama and the democrats a victory.
- The insurance and pharmaceutical companies know this too - even if there is a short term benefit to them, the longer term trend will be to reduce costs and improve coverage, which will ultimately force change to their industries.

By passing the bill, universal coverage will be established as a goal and the process of cost containment will begin. The internet and 24 hour news coverage allow us unprecedented views of the nitty-gritty of the legislative sausage-making process, and it's ugly up close, but if health reform passes, and I pray with every cell in my resolutely atheist heart that it does, Obama will be on track to be the greatest president since FDR.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 23:42 So, in my boss' infinite wisdom, I did actually get NYE off. C'est awesome. #
  • 23:43 Not as awesome: Have to work the night before and the night after. Weird. #
  • 01:18 holy crap, I am suddenly tired and hungry. :( #
  • 03:20 I'm a little horrified that they're making Hee-Haw jokes on the Marvel Podcast... #
Not interested? Then go fuck yourself! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Where in town can I buy boxes of Godiva chocolate? I'm drawing a blank.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Senator Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, finally signs on to the health care reform measure.

Of course, they basically had to bribe him with tens of millions of federal Medicaid funds for his state, and limit abortion funding in newly created insurance exchanges in order to get his vote. In some ways, he's just as fucking slimy as Lieberman.

But this gives the Democrats 60 votes. (Assuming that Lieberman doesn't cut and run on them. Again.) Cue the wingnuts heads exploding in 5... 4... 3... 2...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Brought to you by LoudTwitter and my own belief in my own witticism.
 
 
 
 
 
 


White House Will Try to Pull Health Care Bill Closer to House's Version

Huffington Post, 12-18-09 10:41 AM

The White House will play an active role in moving health care legislation closer to the House's version once a bill passes the Senate and goes to conference committee between the two chambers, administration officials said on Thursday. But while much of the progressive community is hoping for a renewed push to expand the government's role in providing insurance, the president will likely focus on other priorities.

White House health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle told a conference call of progressive bloggers that there "are some things I'd like to improve" in the Senate's health care bill once legislators merge it with the House's legislation. The primary objective for the administration is to adopt the House's language on making insurance more affordable (which is more generous than the Senate's), she explained.

"I'd like to make some more changes there and move a little bit more towards the House bill," DeParle said. "So we'll see, I don't know what we'll be able to do there. But I know we talk daily to our friends and colleagues in the House who are just as anxious to get this done."

The White House also has its eyes on legislative language in the Senate bill that -- in the near term -- limits the amount of money private insurance companies can pay on medical coverage annually.

"Where we are right now is, we are still working with CBO to see if we can do something before the [state health care] exchanges starts," DeParle said. "But if not, it is going to be just no annual limits after the exchange starts which is where the House is."

The specificity of DeParle's remarks suggests that the administration will indeed amplify the role it's playing in the health care debate as lawmakers enter the final stage for revisions. After the Senate passes health care legislation, the two congressional chambers will send negotiators to a conference committee, where their respective bills will be fused together and sent back for a vote.

Read more )


SOURCE

via [info]phoenixdown
 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 15:14 I have no idea why I stayed up so late. Clearly I've gone mad... #
  • 04:38 Just sold batteries to Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. #
  • 05:21 Very pleased about the new Around Comics book club selection. ;) #
  • 07:57 I think the number of people I'm following and the number of people I follow has now equalized. #
  • 07:58 Funny how that happens once you stop blocking those random spam jagoffs. :) #
  • 07:58 (Random Spam Jagoffs are playing The Whiskey tonight, btw.) #
  • 08:11 You know, I've never actually watched "Say Anything." Ever. #
  • 08:13 @madmarvelgirl Bring the DVD by sometime and I'll make popcorn. ;) #
  • 08:14 (Note to everyone else: That's funny 'cause she's on the other side of the country!) #
  • 08:19 jegh joq Hegh! #klingon (translate: bit.ly/5OQVHe) #
Not interested? Then go fuck yourself! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 



This is exactly what I would have wanted to say about Lady Gaga if anyone ever asked, only put a lot better than I ever could. It's also catchy and just fun to listen to. Beyond just being a response to Lady Gaga, it's also a really great comment on pop music and art in general. Very awesome stuff.


And just because all I ever post lately is youtube videos, here's a brief comment on my actual life.

OH GOD FINALS ARE KILLING ME.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Shortly thereafter, at a nearby bakery] ::CRASH:: ::RUMBLE:: ::VRRRRRR:: '... I don't know, officer.  It just scooped up an entire rack of scones and drove away!'
 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Where are there any good neighborhood light displays this year? Driving around listening to holiday music and looking at lights is a yearly tradition, but I haven't seen anything good this year so far. In fact, I haven't seen but a house here and there with lights up, it's bringing me down man :(
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The current status of the health care reform bill, the one without a public option but still containing a draconian mandate clause, is exactly what the Obama administration wanted all along. At least that's what Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and several liberal bloggers are suggesting. Glenn makes an interesting case for this theory. From the article:
...substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.
He goes on to show the various behaviors over the last several months that back up this claim, as well as a choice quote from Senator Feingold:
"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold.
I've been convinced that this was the case for awhile now, and articles like this only help solidify my conclusion.

What do you think? Is the Obama administration really working to shape this bill into the steamimg pile of crap it's becoming to appease Big Insurance and Big Pharma so the campaign donations will keep flowing? Has this fiasco changed your opinion of Obama? It certainly has changed mine.

x-posted to [info]liberal and [info]talk_politics
 
 
 
 
 
 


Illusions and Bitterness


Paul Krugman, The New York Times
December 16, 2009, 5:42 pm


There’s enormous disappointment among progressives about the emerging health care bill — and rightly so. That said, even as it stands it would take a big step toward greater security for Americans and greater social justice; it would also save many lives over the decade ahead. That’s why progressive health policy wonks — the people who have campaigned for health reform for years — are almost all in favor of voting for the thing.

The argument about the evil of the individual mandate is, as Jon Cohn says, all wrong. It was wrong during the primaries, when Obama unfortunately used it to demagogue his rivals — helping set the stage for problems now. And it’s still wrong.

And the truth is that health care reform was probably doomed to be deeply imperfect. As Ezra Klein pointed out a few weeks ago, we’re basically in a hostage situation: progressives really, really want to cover the uninsured, while centrists whose votes are needed can take it or leave it. So the centrists have a lot of power — which in the case of Joe Lieberman means the power to double-cross and indulge his pettiness.

Now, in a hostage situation there are times when you have to just say no — when giving in, by encouraging future hostage-takers, would be worse than letting the hostages perish. So the question has to be, is this one of those times? I don’t think so, given the history: as Kevin Drum points out, health reform has come back weaker after each defeat. I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

But what’s happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we’re seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he’s not the transformative figure of their imaginations. Can I say I told you so? If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning — and I’m talking about 2007 — that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped. And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he’d be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

So there’s a lot of bitterness out there. But please, keep your priorities straight.

By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.


So here's the lineup:

On one side we have Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, and Kevin Drum. These four men emphasize gradual progress and want very much for the proposed Senate HCR bill to pass while we have the momentum, adding that improvements can be made following the bill's passage.

On the other side, we have Dr. Howard Dean, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, and Senator Bernie Sanders. These four men are pushing for reconciliation, which would require only 51 votes and allow 10 more years for the Senate to work out the kinks in the current HCR proposal before a bill can become a law.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Who's crazier: Palinites or Scientologists?
 
 
 
 
 
 
A friend will be in town for a couple of days around the new year. She's never been here before, and her one free day for us to hang out is January 1st. Is anything "touristy" around town open that day, or should I just drive us around and point at stuff? She's interested in the historical stuff, but she's up for anything.

Thanks, guys. :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • 15:47 Got my comics. Now...Mongolian BBQ... *cue music* #
  • 22:28 Ok, you people that are re-sending your tweets 2, 3, 4 times need to stop. I'm just sayin'. #
Not interested? Then go fuck yourself! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
OH!!!!!!!

so, for those of you that haven't heard yet and that have not had to deal with my goofy-ness:

About a week and a half ago I auditioned for the Rome Little Theatre production of My Fair Lady. Let me just start this story by saying, that was an interesting eperiance. I was very happy to be back in a theatre auditioning. that was a lot of fun but the audition itself was nerve wracking. I had forgotten about it and was only reminded about it a couple of hours before while I was at work. not having a car, I didn't have time to go home and change or shave and I really didn't have anything prepare. I didn't look bad, I just could have looked better and its not like I don't have a large enough rep that I can't just pull something out of my ass to sing but still, not how I like to go into an audition. waiting for the cast list to come out was aweful too.

so, long story long, I got cast as Henry Higgins!!!!!!

Henry Mother-fuckin' Higgins!!!!!! (yes, it would seem the Samuel L. Jackson played that role at some point too ;) )

I don't know if you all really understand what this means to me. this is one of my favorite roles in one of my favorit shows of all times. I mean, since I was a little kid. I know all the songs, I know most of the dialog but still, I am freaking out. but in a good way. Its probably the largest role I have even gotten.

honestly, I'm still really in shock over the whole thing. its the part I auditioned for but I never really thought I'd get it.

anyway, thats the big news for me. show opens end of March. every one should come see it!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sometimes the music says it all
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


If there are any problems with the comic or website, or if you have any questions, comments, or complaints you would like to address directly to Randy, please email him at choochoobear@gmail.com.

Advertisement