I was actually starting to miss Kris Benson, former pitcher of the New York Mets.

Then I saw this.

This is the end of the innocence.

Lent begins tomorrow with Ash Wednesday. To most Catholics, this tends to mean no meat on Fridays and giving up candy for a few weeks. Why give things up for Lent? Well, there's all sorts of origins on why Catholics fast that might be better described from a source like Wikipedia than from me. As I understand it, as Lent is a time for Penance and anticipation, of preparing one's self for the coming of better days.

I don't mean to get all religious here, but I write this because I'm trying to adopt this period as one to better myself. Better dieting. More active lifestyle. Et cetera.

I guess I'm a big fan of the policy of "today is the first day of the rest of your life." So, I'm adopting that, starting tomorrow. I'm adopting these through Lent:
- no sweets
*I know, didn't I just criticize pledges like this? What does this resolve? It's a symbolic thing. Of things to come.
- one salad as lunch per week
*I hate salad. Hate it. Nothing exciting about it. But I realize (a) I need to eats me greens, and (b) salad's a good way to do that. So here goes nothing.
- no food after dinner
*I had a friend in college who used to do this, rationalizing it that it's really a better way to get sleep. I had great success with sleep when I gave up on soda as a New Year's resolution. That is second only to alcohol in the ability to let me sleep like a baby. This year, I'll try this.
- minimize snacking
*I work 12+ hours per day. I can't make it without keeping the energy up. But there's an orange, and there's a strawberry pop tart.
- blog twice a week
*even if it's one sentence - this blog provides great release. I could use more of that.
- wear pants
*Oh, right.... moving on...

I'm publishing this not to inform you so that you can harass me at every turn. I just feel like I wish to say this out loud. For all to hear. To see what happens.

Wish me luck.

Rimshot, please.

Admittedly, I'm past the whole "Cheney shot someone" business. He stepped up, said "I goofed," I moved on. Indeed, we can criticize him for a lot worse.

Instead, I take to task the late night hosts, those who took some fairly cheap shots (ed. note: apologies - I know it's from Newsmax, but it's the best I could do on short notice) at the incident. If they had half the humor of Lupica this Sunday, maybe I'd make an attempt to watch:

If you live in a world where you can say almost anything about a war and your reasons for starting it, the way Dick Cheney does, why wouldn't you expect people to believe your original version of that accident, that it was more the fault of the guy who got shot than it was the guy doing the shooting?

Why wouldn't you stick to your story that poor old Harry was 30 yards away, when experienced hunters everywhere say he had to be closer?

Now we're even supposed to believe that Cheney - instead of telling the truth right away, the truth being a last resort in his world - waited as long as he did to come forward because of concern for poor old Harry.

What a guy.

The News' Michael Daly is right, if Cheney's this kind of crack shooter, maybe it's lucky he set that world's record for Vietnam deferments.

...

Visited the Capitol Building Friday afternoon in Washington.

Beautiful gallery in there, celebrating the beauty of American birds.

There may have been quail in there, I just didn't spot them.

But if I had, don't worry, I was ready to duck.

So to speak.

Now that's comedy

Tell me something: how much mail can a dead Postman deliver?

I remember when I was in high school and the internet was still very much a novelty. And I also recall those stupid chain e-mails people would send to you regarding anything.

"Send to 10 people or you'll have bad luck."

"Pass this on to everyone you know and you'll have great sex."

"Give this to everyone on your contact list or I'll kill your dog."

And one I recall that always stuck was one where AOL had been plotting to create stamps for online e-mail. It was mail, right? So shouldn't there be stamps?

Plot, meet reality.

In this service, only companies sending mails have to pay for "postage." When paying for it, they will receive "preferential treatment" (aka they won't need to go through your spam blocker). The recipient must agree to receive the message or risk being blocked from the e-mail account. It's believed this should help cut down on spam. (It's worth noting that businesses can still send you "free" e-mail, but those will go through the spam blocker rigamarole.) AOL and Yahoo are signing on to this program. So, you, the consumer, pay nothing. Right?

I say, "TANSTAAFL" - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Businesses will have to pay to send you e-mail? Right, and they'll spare even a fraction of a penny to send it to you out of the goodness of their hearts? Come on now.

Want a tip to cut down on spam instead? Stop giving your e-mail address to porn sites.

I could've been a contender.

I've given shoutouts to my friend's comic strip before (you'll see the link to the Perry Bible Fellowship on the right)...

...but this is hilarious.

Did you know...

...that Alanis Morissette is blond?

There I am, minding my own business, watching a rerun of the Tonight Show where I'm befuddled by her goldilocks.

What the...?

Who is she taking advice from? The PR people for Kelly Clarkson or Lindsay Lohan?

And why the hell am I writing a column more fit for the E! Channel? Perhaps its because I didn't watch the State of the Union (fell asleep) and this is the best I can do for enlightenment?