If you happen to be driving along the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system this Labor Day weekend, you may notice "Safety Break" signs posted at many of the highway rest areas. When you do, please consider taking a moment to drop in. Not only will you benefit from the chance to stretch your legs and take care of a few other necessities, but you may just get an opportunity to help someone else out in the process.
At many of the Safety Break locations you will find complimentary food and drinks being handed out. These sites are staffed by a variety of charitable and public service oriented organizations. Though the food and beverage offerings are not for sale, donations are gratefully accepted - and necessary to keep these facilities operating.
I'm am personally familiar with the logistics of one of these operations as the parent of a Webelos Scout whose Pack and Troop are manning the north bound I-81 rest area near Inwood, West Virginia. From Noon Friday until 6:00 PM Monday scouts are staffing the tables, handing out hot dogs, chili dogs, and a variety of drinks to road weary travelers. Did I mention they are supervised throughout by a team of dedicated Scout leaders and parents? Perhaps committed is a better word to describe the leaders and parents - or in need of being committed?
This weekend, and any time you are traveling and find one of these Safety Breaks in operation, take advantage. Grab a bite to eat and a bit to drink, and drop a little bit in the donation jar. The food will be every bit as good, and you can be certain your funds will be put to a better use and be far more appreciated than they will be by a King or a Clown.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin
Am I the only one who thinks Sarah Palin looked like a clone of Geena Davis in "Commander in Chief" during her introductory speech today?
American Communist Lackey Union?
I know that's not the officially designated meaning of that acronym, but it would be pretty tough to build a compelling argument that naming them the American Communist Lackey Union is inaccurate.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HRC and WJC
No one who spends more than about three seconds with me when a conversation concerning The Clintons erupts will ever mistake me for a partisan of their particular brand of politics. The social and financial constraints they and their ilk wish to inflict on this nation are irrational at best, and downright dangerous at worst from both a fiscal and national security standpoint.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Perhaps Green Isn't So Bad After All
It's amazing what you can run into wandering around the internet. Take this article found on treehugger.com for example.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
What Am I Missing?
I'm willing to admit that I may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time while still continuing to breathe unassisted. Why is it, then, that I don't understand this whole illegal immigrant thing?
Yesterday, nearly 600 immigrants from eight countries were rounded up at the Howard Industries transformer plant in Laurel, Mississippi, on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.
In many cases, mothers were fitted with monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to care for young children who might otherwise be unattended. Husbands were not so lucky, with some being transferred to a holding facility and others being brought to federal court on criminal charges of allegedly using false Social Security numbers and residency identification. Immigrant parents are afraid to send their kids to school for fear they'll be picked up. One detainee described the horrible experience of co-workers applauding as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents led suspects away.
"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away. It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."
They got handled like they were criminals.
This is the area where I need a little bit of help.
It is conceivable that several of those detained are in this country legally. They will be processed and eventually released. It is unfortunate, but many innocent citizens are arrested every day for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with immigration or ethnicity and later cleared and released.
Of those who are in the U.S. illegally though, why shouldn't they be treated like criminals? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens applaud when those who disdain our laws are arrested and taken away?
Are any of those in this country illegally here because a gun was put to their heads and they were forced to come here? Doubtful.
Is this another example of evil federal officials sending in the ICE storm troopers in an anti-Mexican racist cleansing of the homeland? Again doubtful, otherwise those detainees from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Peru would have been left alone. (Germany? Who let that arrest happen?)
The solution to the problem of government agents carting away illegal immigrants by the busload from factories and plants across the country is not to have the government stop enforcing immigration laws, as some would wish. Much as not exceeding the speed limit will generally protect a driver form receiving a speeding ticket, not entering the country by illegal methods will generally protect an immigrant from being arrested for being here illegally.
Mississippi is to be applauded for following Arizona's lead and making Mississippi an unwelcome place to those in this country illegally. Beginning July 1 of this year, all Mississippi businesses with government contracts are obligated to check the immigration status of all new employees through a Homeland Security system. All other business are required to comply beginning January 1, 2009. An additional provision of the law makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi.
Laws like these are the sort of action necessary to begin taking control of the border security problem. If there are no jobs available to those who "only" violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States, then they won't be nearly as inclined to enter this country in the first place. Cut down the flood of people with legitimate economic interests entering this country illegally rather than through proper channels and the security of this nation will be improved at all ports of entry. Those with nefarious intent will be more readily identified because they won't have as dense a crowd to hide in.
As has been noted previously, illegal immigration is not a “Mexican” problem, nor will it be solved by building a fence on the southern border. That Mexicans make up the majority of those here illegally is only a matter of proximity and economic conditions in that country, not race.
Until someone can rationally explain to me why I should believe otherwise, I refuse to feel sorry for families traumatized by the consequences of their own decision to enter this country illegally. “You made your bed, now sleep in it!” comes to mind, and places the burden of guilt for the disruption these families experience squarely where it belongs.
Yesterday, nearly 600 immigrants from eight countries were rounded up at the Howard Industries transformer plant in Laurel, Mississippi, on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.
In many cases, mothers were fitted with monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to care for young children who might otherwise be unattended. Husbands were not so lucky, with some being transferred to a holding facility and others being brought to federal court on criminal charges of allegedly using false Social Security numbers and residency identification. Immigrant parents are afraid to send their kids to school for fear they'll be picked up. One detainee described the horrible experience of co-workers applauding as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents led suspects away.
"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away. It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."
They got handled like they were criminals.
This is the area where I need a little bit of help.
It is conceivable that several of those detained are in this country legally. They will be processed and eventually released. It is unfortunate, but many innocent citizens are arrested every day for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with immigration or ethnicity and later cleared and released.
Of those who are in the U.S. illegally though, why shouldn't they be treated like criminals? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens applaud when those who disdain our laws are arrested and taken away?
Are any of those in this country illegally here because a gun was put to their heads and they were forced to come here? Doubtful.
Is this another example of evil federal officials sending in the ICE storm troopers in an anti-Mexican racist cleansing of the homeland? Again doubtful, otherwise those detainees from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Peru would have been left alone. (Germany? Who let that arrest happen?)
The solution to the problem of government agents carting away illegal immigrants by the busload from factories and plants across the country is not to have the government stop enforcing immigration laws, as some would wish. Much as not exceeding the speed limit will generally protect a driver form receiving a speeding ticket, not entering the country by illegal methods will generally protect an immigrant from being arrested for being here illegally.
Mississippi is to be applauded for following Arizona's lead and making Mississippi an unwelcome place to those in this country illegally. Beginning July 1 of this year, all Mississippi businesses with government contracts are obligated to check the immigration status of all new employees through a Homeland Security system. All other business are required to comply beginning January 1, 2009. An additional provision of the law makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi.
Laws like these are the sort of action necessary to begin taking control of the border security problem. If there are no jobs available to those who "only" violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States, then they won't be nearly as inclined to enter this country in the first place. Cut down the flood of people with legitimate economic interests entering this country illegally rather than through proper channels and the security of this nation will be improved at all ports of entry. Those with nefarious intent will be more readily identified because they won't have as dense a crowd to hide in.
As has been noted previously, illegal immigration is not a “Mexican” problem, nor will it be solved by building a fence on the southern border. That Mexicans make up the majority of those here illegally is only a matter of proximity and economic conditions in that country, not race.
Until someone can rationally explain to me why I should believe otherwise, I refuse to feel sorry for families traumatized by the consequences of their own decision to enter this country illegally. “You made your bed, now sleep in it!” comes to mind, and places the burden of guilt for the disruption these families experience squarely where it belongs.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Jericho Scott - Welcome to the Real World
Jericho Scott is a nine year old boy. He plays baseball, or at least he did until recently. It seems little Jericho throws a 40 mile per hour fastball. That is not typical for those in his peer group. Indeed, many of those who had to face this demon of the diamond were frightened.
Reading the story, it turns out that there were more than a few parents also who felt Jericho was just too good to be facing their little Johnnys and Joanies (it's a mixed gender league). He might strike them out - and that could hurt their feelings. He might strike them - and that would just plain hurt. Not that he ever has hit a batter, but hey, it could happen.
Reading further, it turns out that another team in the league wanted him to join them at the start of the season. That team happens to be the defending league champion. That team also happens to be sponsored by the employer of one of the league administrators. That would also just happen be one of the same league administrators who decided that when Jericho's team was going to let him continue pitching instead of exiling him to second base or the outfield that Jericho's team would simply be disbanded and the players distributed to other teams.
Well, most of the players anyway. Jericho of course isn't all that welcome in these parts any more. The league did offer to refund his $50.00 registration fee, and many have even suggested he should be placed on an older team or in a more competitive league. Because letting a little boy play a child's game with his friends and neighbors for the simple joy of it is ridiculous.
Jericho Scott has been taught at nine years old one of the most fundamental rules of our society: Strive to succeed at all costs, just don't be so good at it that you actually do succeed or your jealous peers will tear you down. The corollary lesson learned is that wild success is okay, so long as you do it on the terms of those in power rather than your own terms. The winners, the leaders, the successful ones are those who say screw it and do what they want and do it well.
Quoting from the article:
Reading the story, it turns out that there were more than a few parents also who felt Jericho was just too good to be facing their little Johnnys and Joanies (it's a mixed gender league). He might strike them out - and that could hurt their feelings. He might strike them - and that would just plain hurt. Not that he ever has hit a batter, but hey, it could happen.
Reading further, it turns out that another team in the league wanted him to join them at the start of the season. That team happens to be the defending league champion. That team also happens to be sponsored by the employer of one of the league administrators. That would also just happen be one of the same league administrators who decided that when Jericho's team was going to let him continue pitching instead of exiling him to second base or the outfield that Jericho's team would simply be disbanded and the players distributed to other teams.
Well, most of the players anyway. Jericho of course isn't all that welcome in these parts any more. The league did offer to refund his $50.00 registration fee, and many have even suggested he should be placed on an older team or in a more competitive league. Because letting a little boy play a child's game with his friends and neighbors for the simple joy of it is ridiculous.
Jericho Scott has been taught at nine years old one of the most fundamental rules of our society: Strive to succeed at all costs, just don't be so good at it that you actually do succeed or your jealous peers will tear you down. The corollary lesson learned is that wild success is okay, so long as you do it on the terms of those in power rather than your own terms. The winners, the leaders, the successful ones are those who say screw it and do what they want and do it well.
Quoting from the article:
League officials say Jericho's mother became irate, threatening them and vowing to get the league shut down.
"I have never seen behavior of a parent like the behavior Jericho's mother exhibited Wednesday night," Noble [League attorney Peter Noble] said.
Scott [Nicole Scott, Jericho's mother] denies threatening any one, but said she did call the police.
What planet has Noble been living on that he's never seen a parent get feisty over a group of self-important idiots trying to keep their kid down? I'm disappointed for my kids when they are kept on the bench instead of put into the game, but I accept that some kids are better than other kids at certain things, and that there not only will but in fact should be winners in losers in most facets of life. If others are better and get the bulk of the field time, so be it. However, if one of my children were a stand-out star in their sport and they were being benched in favor of a kid without the capacity to find the ground with their foot I would be inclined to call into question either the mental capacity or the ethical development of the coaching staff and or league officials. Their choice - admitting to either explanation for their incompetence would be acceptable to me.
Jericho Scott - you go ahead and keep doing what you want and doing it well. I guarantee you that fifteen years from now when you win your first Cy Young award that there will be several current officials of the Youth Baseball League of New Haven who will be telling anyone who will listen how they recognized your talent way back in 2008 and pushed you onward and upward to bigger and better things when lesser souls would have tried to hold you back. When that happens, I hope you have the grace and class to smile indulgently and ignore them.
Then you truly will be a winner, and they will be revealed for the petulant children they truly are.
What planet has Noble been living on that he's never seen a parent get feisty over a group of self-important idiots trying to keep their kid down? I'm disappointed for my kids when they are kept on the bench instead of put into the game, but I accept that some kids are better than other kids at certain things, and that there not only will but in fact should be winners in losers in most facets of life. If others are better and get the bulk of the field time, so be it. However, if one of my children were a stand-out star in their sport and they were being benched in favor of a kid without the capacity to find the ground with their foot I would be inclined to call into question either the mental capacity or the ethical development of the coaching staff and or league officials. Their choice - admitting to either explanation for their incompetence would be acceptable to me.
Jericho Scott - you go ahead and keep doing what you want and doing it well. I guarantee you that fifteen years from now when you win your first Cy Young award that there will be several current officials of the Youth Baseball League of New Haven who will be telling anyone who will listen how they recognized your talent way back in 2008 and pushed you onward and upward to bigger and better things when lesser souls would have tried to hold you back. When that happens, I hope you have the grace and class to smile indulgently and ignore them.
Then you truly will be a winner, and they will be revealed for the petulant children they truly are.
Grow Up!
"Seniors see red over 'old people crossing' sign" screams the headline in the World Net Daily article. The picture accompanying the story shows a London traffic sign warning that the area is an "Elderly People" crossing. The sign is a red bordered triangle depicting a stereotypical old couple, shuffling along, hunched over, the old woman hanging on her old man companion, who is only kept from falling over by his cane.
Predictably, senior citizen groups are in an uproar because the sign doesn't accurately portray the fitter, more active population of seniors wandering the streets these days.
No kidding.
The depiction is not flattering, but then it isn't intended to be. Drivers are not being advised to keep an eye out for seventy year old decathletes who make forty-something blog authors seem near death. The sign is intended to advise that this is an area where drivers have a high probability of encountering pedestrians who are likely older and likely to be incapable of clearing the crosswalk in a timely manner. The sign very clearly and succinctly conveys that message in a manner that anyone can comprehend.
As a society, we are becoming conditioned to ferret out any possible offense in every situation. If it isn't immediately apparent on the surface the offensive message will no doubt be discernible if only we dig a little deeper.
Grow up. Please. This sign is no more offensive to seniors than are the signs warning that children play in a given area (not all of them will run into the street - should that sign be banned also?), or deaf children are in an area (not all children there are deaf - isn't that offensive to those who are afflicted with an aural detection capacity?), or school children could potentially be crossing ahead (because being on their way to school they are too ignorant to look both ways before crossing?).
Not every person in a given area will fit the characteristics of the class drivers are being alerted to be vigilant for. For those who don't belong to the group in question - great! For those who do, they would probably appreciate not being run down by an impatient or inattentive driver. Those same drivers will no doubt appreciate not doing the running over.
Ultimately, how many of us lead lives so cushy that how Less Than Fully Active and Capable Citizens of Advancing Chronology are depicted on traffic safety signs rises up to the level of serious issues to be tackled?
Predictably, senior citizen groups are in an uproar because the sign doesn't accurately portray the fitter, more active population of seniors wandering the streets these days.
No kidding.
The depiction is not flattering, but then it isn't intended to be. Drivers are not being advised to keep an eye out for seventy year old decathletes who make forty-something blog authors seem near death. The sign is intended to advise that this is an area where drivers have a high probability of encountering pedestrians who are likely older and likely to be incapable of clearing the crosswalk in a timely manner. The sign very clearly and succinctly conveys that message in a manner that anyone can comprehend.
As a society, we are becoming conditioned to ferret out any possible offense in every situation. If it isn't immediately apparent on the surface the offensive message will no doubt be discernible if only we dig a little deeper.
Grow up. Please. This sign is no more offensive to seniors than are the signs warning that children play in a given area (not all of them will run into the street - should that sign be banned also?), or deaf children are in an area (not all children there are deaf - isn't that offensive to those who are afflicted with an aural detection capacity?), or school children could potentially be crossing ahead (because being on their way to school they are too ignorant to look both ways before crossing?).
Not every person in a given area will fit the characteristics of the class drivers are being alerted to be vigilant for. For those who don't belong to the group in question - great! For those who do, they would probably appreciate not being run down by an impatient or inattentive driver. Those same drivers will no doubt appreciate not doing the running over.
Ultimately, how many of us lead lives so cushy that how Less Than Fully Active and Capable Citizens of Advancing Chronology are depicted on traffic safety signs rises up to the level of serious issues to be tackled?
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The First One Hundred Posts
When Go Play in the Street was initially conceived, the title of this post should have been “The First One Hundred Days”. Good intentions are wonderful things; but as anyone knows who has fumbled helplessly for an excuse that doesn’t exist, good intentions simply don’t get the job done. Begun on November 5, 2004, a Friday, daily posts should have set the hundredth free upon the internet somewhere around February 13, 2005. Even being generous and allowing for the odd weekend and holiday, certainly this point should have been reached by March 1 of that year.
Only three years, five months, and a handful of days behind schedule. Not bad for government work. Unfortunately, this isn’t government work. It is, instead, simply a labor of love.
Quite a bit has happened along the way. Yasser Arafat exited the world stage. Ariel Sharon did as well, though he insists on lingering in the wings – not alive but refusing to succumb to death. Saddam Hussein also left this life, though in his case a bit more assistance was provided to him than the others. Who ever expected to see an execution broadcast to the world via cell phone video? Many other leaders have come and gone, both through the political process and a bit more permanently. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
In the first meaningful post to this blog I predicted the popular election of Hamas, and warned against defying the will of the Palestinian people simply because it was not the will of Israel and the United States. Fourteen months later, in January of 2006, Hamas did indeed win control of the Palestinian parliament. As predicted, those who demand free and fair elections (so long as the results are the ones desired) were not happy, declared the elections invalid, unacceptable, and generally a bad thing all around. Funding to the region was cut off and the Palestinians physically isolated from the rest of the world to convince them to see things our way. So much for respecting the will of the people and the integrity of the ballot box.
Would that every prediction could be so accurate. Living the life of a lottery winner would no doubt be a pleasure!
I’ve had the opportunity to travel extensively during this time. Many places didn’t live up to their advance billing. Many others, often places I would have never considered going, were far more interesting than I could have ever imagined and I would gladly go back again.
I have reconnected with old friends and made many new ones during these years. I’ve been given a grandchild, and seen a son head off to Iraq. I was also more privileged than some in that I also was able to see him safely home again. To those who have served and returned home I say thank you and welcome home. To those still over there – all the many “over there” locations we are currently involved in – thanks to you as well, and we’ll be waiting for you. To those who went and couldn’t make it back, thanks to you, and to the families you left behind.
It has been said elsewhere that the last shall be first. If you are encountering this blog for the first time today then this last (or at least most recent) post will indeed be the first you encounter. Please go back and enjoy one perspective on politics, human perversity, and general observation from nearly four years in a life.
Much has changed in those four years, and for good or ill all too much has remained the same.
Only three years, five months, and a handful of days behind schedule. Not bad for government work. Unfortunately, this isn’t government work. It is, instead, simply a labor of love.
Quite a bit has happened along the way. Yasser Arafat exited the world stage. Ariel Sharon did as well, though he insists on lingering in the wings – not alive but refusing to succumb to death. Saddam Hussein also left this life, though in his case a bit more assistance was provided to him than the others. Who ever expected to see an execution broadcast to the world via cell phone video? Many other leaders have come and gone, both through the political process and a bit more permanently. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
In the first meaningful post to this blog I predicted the popular election of Hamas, and warned against defying the will of the Palestinian people simply because it was not the will of Israel and the United States. Fourteen months later, in January of 2006, Hamas did indeed win control of the Palestinian parliament. As predicted, those who demand free and fair elections (so long as the results are the ones desired) were not happy, declared the elections invalid, unacceptable, and generally a bad thing all around. Funding to the region was cut off and the Palestinians physically isolated from the rest of the world to convince them to see things our way. So much for respecting the will of the people and the integrity of the ballot box.
Would that every prediction could be so accurate. Living the life of a lottery winner would no doubt be a pleasure!
I’ve had the opportunity to travel extensively during this time. Many places didn’t live up to their advance billing. Many others, often places I would have never considered going, were far more interesting than I could have ever imagined and I would gladly go back again.
I have reconnected with old friends and made many new ones during these years. I’ve been given a grandchild, and seen a son head off to Iraq. I was also more privileged than some in that I also was able to see him safely home again. To those who have served and returned home I say thank you and welcome home. To those still over there – all the many “over there” locations we are currently involved in – thanks to you as well, and we’ll be waiting for you. To those who went and couldn’t make it back, thanks to you, and to the families you left behind.
It has been said elsewhere that the last shall be first. If you are encountering this blog for the first time today then this last (or at least most recent) post will indeed be the first you encounter. Please go back and enjoy one perspective on politics, human perversity, and general observation from nearly four years in a life.
Much has changed in those four years, and for good or ill all too much has remained the same.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
John McCain Asked - I Answered
John McCain (or more likely some generic flunky within the campaign) posted a question today on LinkedIn. Since he was kind enough to ask, I thought it would only be polite to answer.
Question:
What new ideas or technologies should we be investing in today?
Question:
What new ideas or technologies should we be investing in today?
Our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. It is time for solutions.
Please read the speech below, and share your answers with me to this pressing question:
http://www.johnmccain.com/energysecurity/
What new technologies or new ideas should we be investing in today?
My Answer:
John -
Greenhouse gasses may or may not be the issue all the doomsayers insist, but even the most anti-green people out there would have to agree that it can't hurt anything to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
It can't hurt, that is, unless in doing so you bankrupt the world’s consumers, starve them by burning their food for fuel, and regulate viable alternatives out of existence. Let it become economically viable and you will be amazed at how Green big business suddenly and truly becomes. Not “carbon credits” or “cap and trade” but the real, meaningful thing.
Drill. Now. Whether it takes two years or seven or ten or twenty doesn't really matter, we will still need that oil when it hits the market. If all goes well it won't be needed to power transportation, but we will still use computers and plastic bags, still wear clothes and eyeglasses, still drink bottled water and play sports and engage in a whole host of activities that require petroleum. Converting carbon into things instead of burning it for energy will still keep the bulk of it locked up and out of the atmosphere.
Having acknowledged that, get the heck out of the way of the American Capitalist. Don't bribe him; just let him do what he does best. Find newer and better ways to produce energy from wind, water, the sun, geothermal, nuclear and many other means that will be developed over time. It doesn't take tax money being fished out of my pocket to bring about innovation. Only the foolish sort of people who truly believe large corporations actually pay taxes instead of passing those costs along to the consumer will believe that your proposed $5,000 tax credit to the purchaser is anything other than a stage magician’s trick that will raise the sticker price of those new zero-emission cars by exactly $5,000. From your lips to big auto’s hips – and the consumer is supposed to feel good because he’s being “given” something. It takes government removing regulatory roadblocks and disincentives. It takes leadership with the courage to explain to the tree huggers that the barn swallow existed long before barns did, and the same bird would muddle along just fine if all barns were eliminated tomorrow. Some old things give way to new - that is life, and natural, and not always pleasant. Plants and animals managed to become extinct long before humankind showed up to help things along, and would continue to do so even if the mother ship came and collected each of us this afternoon.
What we need to invest in is the free market and ingenuity. Leave the thinkers and tinkerers alone to do their jobs, and they will come up with profitable ways to feed, clothe, shelter, and power this civilization that do not render the planet uninhabitable. When they do so, do not penalize them for success. Winning is a not a crime, it is a virtue. Winning is accomplished by those who are not too lazy to get off their backsides and accomplish something with the life they have been given. The Constitution points out the God given right to the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere are you guaranteed it will be brought to you while chomping Ding Dongs in front of the television set.
You want a new idea to invest in, John? Invest in respect - respect for oneself, respect for one's family, respect for one's community, and respect for the idea that no one should ever be allowed to do for you that which you are more than capable of doing yourself.
Nail that, and the rest would wind up taking care of itself.
Where Are the PC Police?
From The Salt Lake Tribune, online, August 6, 2008
Kresta Spencer and Carrie Taylor hosted a "celebration of their love", and wanted to share their joy with the readers of the Logan, Utah, The Herald-Journal. So, they took out an ad on the Wedding Announcements page - since the paper apparently lacks a Celebration of Love announcements page. And as a lesbian couple, they can't exactly get married in Utah.
And that is where the fun begins. While there were communications expressing support for the couple, a strongly worded letter to the editor denouncing the inclusion of the ad in The Herald-Journal led to well over 200 comments online as well as at least two other published, directly related, letters to the editor and their associated comments. The battle lines are predictably drawn between "You're all going to burn in Hell" and "We have rights as human beings too - leave them alone!". There is also a predictably large contingent of "Swiss" out there advocating rational thought, calm dialogue, and "gee, gosh, can't we all just find some way to get along."
In addition to the two additional letters to the editor mentioned above ("fairly" balanced with one pro and one con on the subject), the article also reports numerous telephone call, emails, and at least four subscription cancellations over the newspaper daring to print such an immoral ad.
Which leads to the question - Where are the PC police?
Clearly, Logan, Utah, and the areas exposed to the article and its derivatives are a hotbed of anti-homosexual hate mongering. Many of the online posters probably could be tracked down if absolutely necessary, but four subscribers to the paper have conveniently self-identified and need to be immediately arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under hate crimes laws. Four examples to hold up before the populace should be enough to make the rabble-rousers cower suitably in their dank little bolt-holes.
How dare they inflict financial harm upon the paper because of their bigoted views? What country do they think they live in that they can cancel subscriptions with impunity just because they don't wish to be subjected to a bunch of faggot-pandering promoters of sin? Do they really believe they can force their narrow minded and self-righteous morality on others who are more enlightened?
Look, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business and for the most part I'm going to leave you alone over it. I also would never think of inflicting the view of me in a Speedo on innocent beach goers - though recognize there are men even older and more overweight than myself who lack my insight and compassion for others. I simply do my best not to direct my gaze at the spectacle.
There is probably much that you do that annoys me, revolts me, and yes even disturbs me deeply on a completely visceral level. I fully expect that upon close interaction and examination you would be able to say the same about me.
Those differences are good, and healthy, and to be encouraged.
I fully embrace your freedom of expression, even as I expect you to embrace mine. Not just even but especially if you disagree with it. As soon as I can deny you the right to your expression, someone else has the right to deny me. I fear that far more that I fear you quoting Gloria Steinem or Snoop Dog at me.
It is through disagreement and dialogue that we grow, as individuals and as a people. Argument - in the civilized sense of the word, rather than the playground interpretation most people embrace - and moral suasion are the way to determine over much time what we collectively as a society feel is right. Come to my church, hear about the world of my God as interpreted by my clergy, and walk away with what you will. Or take away nothing - your choice, and perhaps your loss. In exchange, when you approach me on the street and tell me why your path is so much better than mine I promise I will listen and consider your words. I won't guarantee to agree with you, but I also won't beat you up, burn your home, or demand you be persecuted for a hate crime just because you don't share my world view and had the temerity to try and broaden my horizons with the arguments of your sincerely held perspective. (And no, that is not a typographical error. Hate crimes laws are institutionalized persecution, wrapped up in a shiny, acceptable, prosecution bow.)
Conversation. Dialogue. Mutual understanding. The end results are far more enduring than simply bludgeoning one message or another out of existence. Because the message, the viewpoint, the lifestyle that is "eliminated" in fact isn't. At best it is driven underground, where it festers, and grows, becomes wiser and stronger and bides its time for an appropriate opportunity to make a bid for daylight. And that chance will come. Look at all the Christians who suddenly came scrambling out of the woodwork after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or those who still exist in China.
This is not the "Swiss" solution, which figures as long as no one is actually shooting and everyone is being left alone then everything must be alright. This is a much tougher solution, because it seeks to bring all parties to a broader understanding that everyone can live with. Balkanization of humanity is not, in the long run, productive for anyone.
Morality can never be successfully legislated. It can only be arrived at through a long and sometimes tortuous process of soul searching and debate. Understanding will always triumph over imposition, no matter how long it takes.
Kresta Spencer and Carrie Taylor hosted a "celebration of their love", and wanted to share their joy with the readers of the Logan, Utah, The Herald-Journal. So, they took out an ad on the Wedding Announcements page - since the paper apparently lacks a Celebration of Love announcements page. And as a lesbian couple, they can't exactly get married in Utah.
And that is where the fun begins. While there were communications expressing support for the couple, a strongly worded letter to the editor denouncing the inclusion of the ad in The Herald-Journal led to well over 200 comments online as well as at least two other published, directly related, letters to the editor and their associated comments. The battle lines are predictably drawn between "You're all going to burn in Hell" and "We have rights as human beings too - leave them alone!". There is also a predictably large contingent of "Swiss" out there advocating rational thought, calm dialogue, and "gee, gosh, can't we all just find some way to get along."
In addition to the two additional letters to the editor mentioned above ("fairly" balanced with one pro and one con on the subject), the article also reports numerous telephone call, emails, and at least four subscription cancellations over the newspaper daring to print such an immoral ad.
Which leads to the question - Where are the PC police?
Clearly, Logan, Utah, and the areas exposed to the article and its derivatives are a hotbed of anti-homosexual hate mongering. Many of the online posters probably could be tracked down if absolutely necessary, but four subscribers to the paper have conveniently self-identified and need to be immediately arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under hate crimes laws. Four examples to hold up before the populace should be enough to make the rabble-rousers cower suitably in their dank little bolt-holes.
How dare they inflict financial harm upon the paper because of their bigoted views? What country do they think they live in that they can cancel subscriptions with impunity just because they don't wish to be subjected to a bunch of faggot-pandering promoters of sin? Do they really believe they can force their narrow minded and self-righteous morality on others who are more enlightened?
Look, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business and for the most part I'm going to leave you alone over it. I also would never think of inflicting the view of me in a Speedo on innocent beach goers - though recognize there are men even older and more overweight than myself who lack my insight and compassion for others. I simply do my best not to direct my gaze at the spectacle.
There is probably much that you do that annoys me, revolts me, and yes even disturbs me deeply on a completely visceral level. I fully expect that upon close interaction and examination you would be able to say the same about me.
Those differences are good, and healthy, and to be encouraged.
I fully embrace your freedom of expression, even as I expect you to embrace mine. Not just even but especially if you disagree with it. As soon as I can deny you the right to your expression, someone else has the right to deny me. I fear that far more that I fear you quoting Gloria Steinem or Snoop Dog at me.
It is through disagreement and dialogue that we grow, as individuals and as a people. Argument - in the civilized sense of the word, rather than the playground interpretation most people embrace - and moral suasion are the way to determine over much time what we collectively as a society feel is right. Come to my church, hear about the world of my God as interpreted by my clergy, and walk away with what you will. Or take away nothing - your choice, and perhaps your loss. In exchange, when you approach me on the street and tell me why your path is so much better than mine I promise I will listen and consider your words. I won't guarantee to agree with you, but I also won't beat you up, burn your home, or demand you be persecuted for a hate crime just because you don't share my world view and had the temerity to try and broaden my horizons with the arguments of your sincerely held perspective. (And no, that is not a typographical error. Hate crimes laws are institutionalized persecution, wrapped up in a shiny, acceptable, prosecution bow.)
Conversation. Dialogue. Mutual understanding. The end results are far more enduring than simply bludgeoning one message or another out of existence. Because the message, the viewpoint, the lifestyle that is "eliminated" in fact isn't. At best it is driven underground, where it festers, and grows, becomes wiser and stronger and bides its time for an appropriate opportunity to make a bid for daylight. And that chance will come. Look at all the Christians who suddenly came scrambling out of the woodwork after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or those who still exist in China.
This is not the "Swiss" solution, which figures as long as no one is actually shooting and everyone is being left alone then everything must be alright. This is a much tougher solution, because it seeks to bring all parties to a broader understanding that everyone can live with. Balkanization of humanity is not, in the long run, productive for anyone.
Morality can never be successfully legislated. It can only be arrived at through a long and sometimes tortuous process of soul searching and debate. Understanding will always triumph over imposition, no matter how long it takes.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Thank God I'm a Guy
The reports have been around for several years now, slowly growing over time. It seems that the problem is no longer confined to Americans afflicted with far more money than common sense. It is apparently no longer enough to buy a girl a diamond, drape her in the finest fashions, buy her a little puppy whose hair can be dyed to coordinate with its owner and give her a sleek new car to tote all the above around town in.
The latest must have is a Designer Vagina.
You can get your "vaginal rejuvenation" if things just aren't quite the way they used to be. For the girl who has everything (or who's had everyone?) how about a "revirgination"? And who can possibly resist "designer vaginoplasty" or the holy grail of vaginal plastic surgery, "G-spot amplification"?
Much more than sound or even sensible medical practice, what this sounds like is the redirection of fees that more productively should be spent in the psychological arm of the medical profession to the plastic surgeons of the world.
Ladies - he isn't going to stick around just because you hang a pair of basketballs from your chest. Nor will he refuse to look at you if you're only blessed with softballs. Do you really think Pamela Anderson had any trouble getting a date? Then why the augmentation surgery (followed later by the "return to normal" surgery)?
I would love to find one woman on the planet who can honestly say she has suffered rejection do to a lack of correction available through the list of vagino-surgeries above. Is there anyone out there who was headed to the altar and at the last minute had him sit her down for "the talk"? "Sorry, Hon, but I'm afraid it just isn't going to work out between us. You're the sweetest, most wonderful human being I've ever met. Your multi-billion dollar inheritance can keep us going in the lean times until my eco-friendly hemp guitar string company finally takes off. We're more compatible in the sack than anyone I've ever been with - and trust me, darling, that is a LONG list! But, well, your labia minora are just a little too ragged and uneven for me to spend the rest of forever with."
For that matter, I'd settle for one woman who can honestly say she was just about to get lucky when the scoundrel called it off. "Whoa, baby. You've got me all worked up and darn near ready to explode, but it ain't about to happen with THAT thing."
The truth is, ladies, you really don't need any of that stuff to make you desirable. Next time you're in the locker room at the gym during shower time take a look around. There will be far more bellies and sags and stretch marks and imperfections walking around than Playboy centerfolds. Yet for all that, I imagine you'll find a very high percentage of those damaged packages sporting gold on the third finger of their left hands. It is you he wants, and once he wants you, there is no greater imaginable specimen of goddeshood than you. Sure, physical attributes may help spark an initial connection but that begins losing its importance about two minutes after you open your mouth. Unless the only thing he's interested in is a business transaction it doesn't matter how well sculpted or gargantuan your personal equipment is.
Of course there is a vitally necessary and appropriate place for plastic surgery. Reconstruction following accident, illness, and other surgeries are all appropriate and beneficial uses of the surgeon's art. But thinking that changing the package you came wrapped in from the factory is going to make you a better and more sought after person is nothing but the sheerest nonsense, and those who cater to the desires of these disturbed women are no better than the snake oil salesmen of yore.
The latest must have is a Designer Vagina.
You can get your "vaginal rejuvenation" if things just aren't quite the way they used to be. For the girl who has everything (or who's had everyone?) how about a "revirgination"? And who can possibly resist "designer vaginoplasty" or the holy grail of vaginal plastic surgery, "G-spot amplification"?
Much more than sound or even sensible medical practice, what this sounds like is the redirection of fees that more productively should be spent in the psychological arm of the medical profession to the plastic surgeons of the world.
Ladies - he isn't going to stick around just because you hang a pair of basketballs from your chest. Nor will he refuse to look at you if you're only blessed with softballs. Do you really think Pamela Anderson had any trouble getting a date? Then why the augmentation surgery (followed later by the "return to normal" surgery)?
I would love to find one woman on the planet who can honestly say she has suffered rejection do to a lack of correction available through the list of vagino-surgeries above. Is there anyone out there who was headed to the altar and at the last minute had him sit her down for "the talk"? "Sorry, Hon, but I'm afraid it just isn't going to work out between us. You're the sweetest, most wonderful human being I've ever met. Your multi-billion dollar inheritance can keep us going in the lean times until my eco-friendly hemp guitar string company finally takes off. We're more compatible in the sack than anyone I've ever been with - and trust me, darling, that is a LONG list! But, well, your labia minora are just a little too ragged and uneven for me to spend the rest of forever with."
For that matter, I'd settle for one woman who can honestly say she was just about to get lucky when the scoundrel called it off. "Whoa, baby. You've got me all worked up and darn near ready to explode, but it ain't about to happen with THAT thing."
The truth is, ladies, you really don't need any of that stuff to make you desirable. Next time you're in the locker room at the gym during shower time take a look around. There will be far more bellies and sags and stretch marks and imperfections walking around than Playboy centerfolds. Yet for all that, I imagine you'll find a very high percentage of those damaged packages sporting gold on the third finger of their left hands. It is you he wants, and once he wants you, there is no greater imaginable specimen of goddeshood than you. Sure, physical attributes may help spark an initial connection but that begins losing its importance about two minutes after you open your mouth. Unless the only thing he's interested in is a business transaction it doesn't matter how well sculpted or gargantuan your personal equipment is.
Of course there is a vitally necessary and appropriate place for plastic surgery. Reconstruction following accident, illness, and other surgeries are all appropriate and beneficial uses of the surgeon's art. But thinking that changing the package you came wrapped in from the factory is going to make you a better and more sought after person is nothing but the sheerest nonsense, and those who cater to the desires of these disturbed women are no better than the snake oil salesmen of yore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)