"Featuring someone called Aghani-Heaney"

"Or two people called Kafir Aghani and Eleanor Heaney."  "Right, that's the one."

I'm fairly a-political, but in saying that I have to add that I'm also staunchly liberal.  (Contradiction!)

Still, I really hate extremes, and that's what I mean by being a-political.  I don't like the Tea Party, I don't understand Occupy Wall Street.  I would like to give the world a hug.

I've gotten in a few arguments discussions about politics with members of the other side.  I tend to be polite and try to find middle ground, hoping that the conversation will end sooner that way.  I don't think that I associate with evil people, so therefore I don't believe that the people I'm arguing discussing politics with who happen to have opposing views are {Satan, Hitler, Osama bin Laden}.  I figure we all want what's good for the country, but we just don't agree on what that is or how to go about achieving it.  Fair enough, right?

However, being "reasonable" usually makes the people I argue discuss with think that I'm not "really" a liberal or that I could be swayed to the dark other side.  They find out that I can't by my responding with this simple fact.  I've made my peace with the extreme liberals who have sit-ins and throw red paint on fur coats.  I will never make my peace with extreme conservatives who bomb abortion clinics.  So, that's a deal breaker there.  Not switching teams.

However, someone appears to have called my bluff!  I don't for the life of me understand this "sit-in" called Occupy Wall Street.  I know one side says they are just lazy people blaming others for their laziness in not having a job or money.  The other side says that they are protesting corporate influence on government.  (My question back to them:  is this really the best idea you had to do that?)

I hate to say it, but I think I don't understand the movement because it's an unorganized mess of people who don't know what they want.  Each side is right about SOME of the participants, but not all.  I can't really get on board with it because of that ambivalence.

But you know what I'm going to say next, right?  I still like 'em a hell of a lot more than the Tea Party.  So, not switching teams.

PS - Weight:  x+16, ridiculous ridiculousness.

Things I Wish Weren't True

Weight: x+17.5 - scale anomaly.  Believe new scale is one of those personal trainers that just yells at you and makes you feel bad about yourself until you work harder or commit suicide.  Plan on beating scale by standing on one foot tomorrow.  That'll teach it!

They really and truly are making a third Bridget Jones movie, complete with Renee, Hugh and (drool) Colin, but they don't have a director and start shooting in January.  That inspires a lot of confidence. 

http://www.deadline.com/2011/10/paul-feig-exits-bridget-jones-3-looking-for-british-director-for-january-start/

Let me list a few reasons that this seems like a bad idea:
1) There's not a third book.  So what is this based on?
2) The second movie....not a classic (unless you count such Razzie winners like The Blue Lagoon and Snakes on a Plane as classics, which is arguably true).
3) As mentioned above, they start shooting in January and don't have a director.  Wowza.
4) Did I mention how bad the second movie was?  Because Bridget lover that I am, I must finally admit it was quite painful.
5) How will Bridget randomly be falling into bed with Daniel Cleaver this time?  Will he rufi her?  Will there be, gasp, some kind of misunderstanding? 

Let me list one reason this seems like a good idea:
1) There will be a scene in which Mark and Daniel fight, right?  We've had an alley, a fountain...what could be next?  Parliament under Big Ben?  The London Eye?  In front of Buckingham Palace?

In summary, I need script approval for this project.