Saturday, March 21, 2009

Fake Breasts

Ladies I love you, but why do you feel compelled to get breast implants. I am an avid reader (yes, READER of the articles) of Playboy Magazine and it seems every issue has some pretty young girl with larger than normal fake breasts. I am not upset by breast lifts because I understand that there are many circumstances under which weight can fluctuate and there is a natural propensity for breast to start sagging when you get older; besides that's what God/Allah/[insert favorite diety]/genetics gave you with a mild amount of augmentation. It is at least still all you.

What upsets me is when you ladies size them up beyond your natural size. I know there is tremendous societal pressure to look a certain way. Furthermore, I would never admit turning away from an amazingly perfect looking set of breasts. But that's just it, they are perfect-looking, but they are essentially a lie. And worse still, a lie for which you (or some boyfriend/husband/parent) paid. I know that us guys are not always as deep as you want us to be and frequently we can be downright shallow, but there's nothing more sexy than a girl who is comfortable with herself. Granted, we all have our preferences, but I can tell you that most good guys will never turn down a beautiful, funny, intelligent and confident girl just because she has small breasts.

Personally, I think fake breasts are kind of tacky. I mostly associate them with porn stars, strippers, actresses, and models. And for the record, I understand that women in those professions also may very well be very intelligent, successful women. What I am getting at however is that they are not the first I think of when I want to take a girl home to meet the family or who is properly going to help raise a family. Perhaps it's maturity getting the best of me.

I think fake breasts are a representation of a larger problem at hand. We glorify vapid women in the limelight who all too frequently are just messed up in the head (Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, etc; the list could go on). This is fed down through at a very young age to impressionable girls who are taught what "beautiful" should look like. It's a very morally slippery marketing strategy to push clothes, cosmetic products, or a variety of other female-targeted merchandise. This often leads to a lack of self-confidence or low self-esteem. The quick fix appears to be to do something about one's breasts, but does that really heal things underneath? After the breasts, can you honestly tell me that you are satisfied with EVERYTHING else?

The point of the matter is that I think you ladies are selling yourselves short. Yes, men are attracted to the physical, but while lust-at-first-sight may reel us in, something more substantive is necessary to keep us around.

I might get some heat from other guys here, but I just am not a fan of fake tits.

Anyways, there's a more prevalent problem than small breasts, a disease called "Noassatall"... you ladies should look into some ass-implants... just playing.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Rabbis Also Call for Holy War

This article confirms for me why I have trouble blindly supporting Israel. And yet again, why I have serious trouble with religion. The Christians, Jews and Muslims all think they are correct and those blinded by their faith cannot see any differently. Kooks.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

A Newfound Respect for Bush

A small news article I found today gave me a newfound respect for former President Bush. While he did not speak glowingly about Obama and did throw in a comment of "if I agree with him," he gets respect for not joining in the rank-and-file Limbaugh-style bashing of Obama.

In the past, I have not had kind words for or about President Bush, but the fact that he chose to decline comment shows a sense of collective patriotism that I did not expect out of him. Add to that, he has insisted that he will commit to some initiatives he started in office such as combating AIDS and malaria in Africa. Regardless of whether or not this is missionary work, it has to be applauded.

So, bravo Mr. ex-President, you have earned an ounce of respect from me.

Disclaimer: I am well aware that I would not have wanted to be in his position when he was forced to make some tough decisions. I just wish we had contemplated and debated more rather than trusting "gut-wisdom." He made some noble attempts and some serious blunders and perhaps the blame should lie on the Republican Party just as much if not more than on him. For better or worse, he was more of a puppet in my opinion than a leader.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Obama is a Socialist(?)

All I ever hear from the Conservatives/Republicans anymore is "blah blah blah, Socialist, blah blah blah." Let us make something perfectly clear, Obama is hardly a socialist. He obviously believes in free-market principles but believes a mixed economy is key. This is not a push towards Lenin/Marxist-type principles. It is acknowledging that when the economy is left completely unchecked, it implodes/explodes beyond sustainable levels. While in my heart, I would love to see some of these banks and auto manufacturers fail, in my mind I know that something as catostrophic as that is not in the best interest of ANY American. If you believe Obama is a socialist, you have NOT read The Audacity of Hope, or heard him speak for that matter. By his own words, he values hard work and rewarding those who do work. Last I checked welfare is hardly a livable paycheck. Besides, if wanting higher wages for workers so they can maintain a comfortable lifestyle is socialist, then color me socialist. Please, turn Rush off, use your brains, and think about what is best for EVERYONE and not just yourself.

A CNN commentary article recently called out Republicans on their "small government" rhetoric versus their record.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Just Say No!

Update: Thanks to Tanner Cooley (on The Official Blog of Chris Cooley) on finding the article(s) that state the Redskins have expressed no interest in T.O.

It was a bittersweet moment today, as a Washington Redskins fan, to see that Terrell Owens had been let go from the Dallas Cowboys - for those who do not know, we Redskins fans absolutely hate the Cowboys. In one vein, he caused so much controversy and confusion in the team on and off the field that I think he helped stand in the way of the Cowboys playing to their full potential; clearly the front office took notice. In the other vein, the spare moments of glory he did have were pretty outstanding, though few and far between, and helped elevate the Cowboys in a few games. Perhaps everyone will get off of the Cowboys' saddle without T.O. to garner the limelight. Or maybe this is the speedbump that they needed to be removed that will allow the Cowboys to at least do well in the playoffs, if not make it to the championships or God forbid, the Super Bowl. You know that Jason Witten is going to be getting some good looks out there from Tony Romo, all with the added bonus of Romo not having to hear about it from T.O. after the game all the time.

My emotions hardened however after I read that there is speculation that the Redskins might pick up T.O. This is on the heals of the Redskins picking up the most expensive DT in NFL history for a 7-year contract. Any consideration of T.O. is like doubling down on a 13 at the high-rollers blackjack table; it just does not make sense when you have got that much to lose. Added to that is the fact that T.O. is like a cancer. His ego infects the team and throws its normal functioning out of wack. At least a year of chemo will be needed afterwards. In all sincerity, I hope that the Redskins front office CED's (Chief Executive Dumbasses), Daniel Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, just let this stay a passing fancy. It is like having a chance to have sex with a ridiculously hot girl who you know has the HIV and being told you cannot wear a rubber; it's just stupid! In the immortal words of the D.A.R.E. program, "Just say NO!" Dan Snyder.

When are Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder ever going to learn that you cannot just buy a winning team?! My only hope is that Dan Snyder wises up while Jones continues to throw his money around at cancerous players like T.O.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

On Jonathan Krohn and CPAC

On Jonathan Krohn: You can make a parrot repeat what you want it to say and it will come across charming. I sincerely doubt this kid has a single independent thought; he's likely been brought up in a very conservative home, watching Fox News and hearing his dad and possibly his mom go on about how great it is to have money and be a Republican. He's likely not dealt with many of the social woes that society has to offer because he's been underexposed.

Honestly, I do not really understand the message the Republicans are trying to send here. I can think of two. Either one, they are trying to say that even a thirteen year old realizes that conservatism trumps liberalism, thereby saying that all the liberals are dumber than a thirteen year old. Or two, and this is likely NOT what they are attempting, that their principles are so SIMPLE that even a thirteen year old can grasp them. I have often thought that the problem with the present day Republicans is that they resort to one-liners ("Drill Here, Drill Now") and knee jerk reactions ("If we let gays marry, who's to stop someone from marrying a goat?"), effectively oversimplifying often complex problems/issues.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. Getting back to Jonathan Krohn's underexposure, maybe it is an issue that some of these people do not know any better. For instance, maybe they have only ever seen downtown Baltimore on the news or as they race through the "bad parts" of the city to get from the Inner Harbor back to Owings Mills, Towson, or White Marsh. They live in their bubble and expect that everyone else can easily do what they have done and live the way they live and it's just that simple. Like Kriss over at the Insanity Report suggests in a related article on CPAC, it's possible to be a socially liberal, fiscal conservative; that's what the GOP USED to be before the Reagan Revolution. When they talked about smaller government, they meant they were not going to use the government to invade your private life and tell you how to live. If the current lot of Republicans are the defenders of the Constitution they say they are, they would uphold the aspect of "Freedom of Religion" in the First Amendment that clearly implies you are free to practice whatever religion you want, even if that means no religion at all. Thomas Jefferson wrote an additional commentary (in a letter I believe) that discussed the "separation of church and state," that I believe provides justification that "Freedom of Religion" can also mean "Freedom from Religion."

The current Republicans call for theocratic rule out of one side of their mouth while advocating for smaller and smaller government. Well, if the Republicans can successfully negotiate the criminalization of abortion, how do they intend to enforce it? If they successfully make gay marriage illegal, are they going to stick to their States' Rights guns when "liberal" states allow them through referendum or legislative votes? Quite a bit of money is already poured into federal oversight of States' Rights they disagree with; the DEA comes in and punishes people for smoking marijuana when the State of California says it's OK. So, it is a message of smaller government only when it agrees with their world-view, otherwise we can build up huge budgets to other government institutions that enforce the rules they want to see enforced. Just as long as they are not helping poor people or taxing the wealthy at reasonable rates. Deficit spending is deficit spending anyway you look at it, regardless of whether the money is going to beef up the DHS or going towards more "welfare" programs.

Luckily, not all Republicans are THAT wacky. While I may not agree with him ALL of the time, I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul in sticking to his old school GOP, pseudo-libertarian ways. He generally appeals more realistically to common-sense rather than touchy-feely emotions surrounding the issues related to morality. I could agree with him a lot more if I did not think that people in the position to have a lot of money and power will not try to keep that money and power at all costs. For better or worse, the drivers of a capitilistic economy are greed and envy - "keeping up with the Joneses". I also believe that from the bottom to the top, it is a natural instinct for people to get the most they can doing the least amount of work necessary, so I find it hard to believe all of the folks at "the top" who claim to have worked "so hard" for what they have. Not to belittle the efforts of those who have truly worked hard, but "working hard" is a matter of perspective, and I have often found that there is a wide variety of views on "hard work" in the eye of the beholder. Think about it next time when you hear a co-worker or friend complain about what they have to do.