twasbrillig

As days go by I have trouble deciding whether or not I feel like I'm working towards having a "normal" life. Some days I feel like this abyss I've created for myself is endless. Some days I think I'm actually making progress and becoming a fully realized adult may happen sooner than I think. I think I need to make a to-do list to organize my ideas of what it will take to pull me out of this cest pool I call my life.

First, things I have accomplished:
1. Driving lessons w/ road test appointment made.
2. Eating healthier.
3. Opened savings and checking account.
4. Career goal. (somewhat accomplished...I've decided on a major I'm happy with at least)
5. Taking meds for thyroid.

I know it doesn't seem like much to the average person. But for me, these are some nice size strides.

Things I need to accomplish:
1. Drivers liscense
2. Exercise regimin
3. Sleep "normal" hours
4. Get a "real" job
5. Quit smoking
6. Get a car
7. Get my own place to live
8. Possible therapy

I also need to redecorate my room, but that's not really something that belongs on the list. Anyways, next week #1 on my "need to accomplish" list will hopefully be on my "accomplished" list and it will probably help me out with a few other things on the list. I hope it will anyways. Ok, Simpsons Treehouse of Horror is starting.

Update:
I just wanted to pose a question, but didn't want to get rid of my to-do list.

Question: I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher and Noam Chomsky was on talking about his problems with the Bush administration. Writer/Blogger Andrew Sullivan was on the panel and said he's tired of liberals saying America is evil or just as evil as the Saddam regime and Chomsky is just like Michael Moore with his "leftist propaganda" and blah blah blah. Mind you, Chomsky never said anything of the sort straight out, nor did Michael Moore, but my question is, is it really that looney for someone to think that there isn't much difference between gasing your own people on your own soil and sending your own people to another country to die and give no real reason for it? I understand that Andrew Sullivan wouldn't understand the comparison because he is a republican (though, voted for Kerry). But I would like input from someone that may know more than myself about the issue to tell me the difference. Is it the number? Have more people died at the hands of Saddam than the hands of Bush? Oh, while you're tallying the death toll, lets not forget the people that were put to death in texas under Bush. Even so, the number isn't really that important, is it? And if numbers aren't important, is it because Saddam ws a dictator and wasn't elected by his people like George Bush? But wait, George Bush wasn't really elected by his people either. Is it because he went under the guise of legitimate war? I think any person at this point could tell you there is no legitimate war, so what else is there? And if there is nothing else, why are liberals so GOD DAMN afraid to say so??? They allude to it, but never say it. If someone confronts them with the statement "I'm tired of people like you who make the president out to be evil", they back off. This is the problem with the liberals and the problem with the democratic party. Stop being so fucking complaisant!