Breasts, Emimem, and flip-flopping

Guys like breasts sort of the way a woman likes a man with money. Some women like a guy no matter how boring, humorless, old, or ugly just as long as he has lots of money. Some gals don't care if the guy has any money at all so long as he loves her, makes her laugh, spends enough time with her, and remains emotionally invested with her throughout the length of the relationship.

I have had many years to ponder all the nuances of my personal preference. If I were a woman, I would like a guy that makes just an average amount of money. Enough for us to have a comfortable and unexamained life. One that makes enough money to keep us free from want. A pointy man that is shaped like a martini glass and is braless everywhere he goes. Yup!

I heard the latest Emimem hit today while driving to pick up son number three at work. It's my understanding that in addition to the lyrics, he also does all the music. Either way, the guy has definitely got skills. There is an undeniable musicality and appeal to the song I heard. While, I pity him for the string of failed relationships he has had, what he has to say is genuine and heartfelt.

I watched the video when I got home. Rihanna has an adequate voice and more than adequate, shall I say, other features. I think that that prematurely hard-looking skank Megan Fox was in it too. At least she kept her mouth shut.

Which brings me to flip-flopping. There are certain human values and virtues that need to be adhered to at all times. That is a central tenet of my beliefs as a Taoist Mormom. In matters politic, there are no absolute nor enduring truths. Situations change, sometimes with a large amount of rapidity. During times of war, the largest virtues a leader can have is felxibility and expediency. This naturally means that opinions, beliefs, and the strategies and tactics that spring from them must constantly be reexamined, challenged, and modified as the situation presents.

Stephen Colbert roasted Bush II by saying Bush believes the same thing on Wednesday as he believed on Monday no matter happened on Tuesday. To be like this is foolish. It is also a sure sign of a diminished intelligence as well as a lack of enlightenment.

I read some 'Tea Party' diatribe a few days ago. I would love to rationally discuss and try to understand precisely what their arguments are. My main argument with the 'Tea-Party' has been and remains that what drives most of their members is hatred (or at the very least resentment), and thinly veiled racism. This doesn't mean that they don't have valid arguments. Some are even correct. I have some shared concerns, I just don't hate everyone that isn't white. Of course some of their positions are complete bullshit too.

The one thing they are correct about is the growing federal deficit. Politicians have long blathered on about it. None has done anything about it.......in either party. Of course, Clinton managed to run a surplus but since he was getting blown by Monica he was a bad man. Bush I and II really stuck it to us. Obama was handed a colossal mess that he is still sorting out, but I'm not brimming with optimism about him like I used to.

I will speak plainly and propose some simple remedies. Eventually we must stop spending money we do not have. We can't merely reduce the annual deficit. We don't need more deceptive talk about the size of the deficit vs. the GDP. We simply must stop. Then the second wave must be paying back everything we owe.

Entitlements are the biggest part of the budget and the biggest part of the entitlements is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. The fixes are simple, but horrifyingly painful. If we don't fix the system it will fail. Trust me....that's gonna hurt worse than anything else.

The Social Security contribution ceiling need to cease (which means I will continue taking it up the wazoo throughout the year instead of getting a 7% raise in October). Benefits must be cut and retirement age increased to create of surplus of money coming in over what is being paid out. These number must be reviewed every year to maintain a set percent of money projected to come in over money to be paid out. The exsact numbers will no doubt be horrible to many. They may be tragic to a few. After all, no matter where you draw the line, somebody is always just on the other side.

The tea-partiers, or at least some, say we need to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. I'm willing to entertain it. In fact the entire War on Poverty has been a failure. The War on drugs has been an abysmal failure. We simply cannot afford any of them.

My questions are series of 'now vs. then'.

Percent of people living in poverty?
Percent of people that are addicted to some form of drug ?
The percent of people that are employed?
Crime rates?
Literacy rates?
Savings rate?
Percent of traditional families? (No folks, I don't hate gays. They should be allowed equal protection under the law. Civil unions etc. All the stuff they want they should get. I'd much prefer that a caring, stable gay couple is raising kids than the large pool of seriously dysfunctional heterosexuals. Still the traditional family is the ideal).
Then of course examing the prevalence and influence of societal virtues such as helping your neighbor and gratefully accepting help at times. Or civility? Perhaps I should stop before sounding like a retread of the "Proclamation on the Family"

Some might point to life expectancy now vs. then. I will reject this question because the answer is well known. We are living much longer now than 'back in the day'. It is due to improved sanitation, food safety (of course some 'R's' would have you think this is "governmental meddling"), vaccines (again more nut job soccer mom 'R's' that know more than the f***ing CDC), and better access to basic and preventative health care. Wait a minute! I think my previous sentence might just be the solution. So for all those who are fighting health care reform, and for the promise it holds for abolishing the aforementioned Federal programs.......ahhhh forget it. I'm just going to hold out for a theocracy.

Influential books, Hesse and baby blessings

If you ask people what the most imfluential book they have every read, probably the most common answer will be 'the Bible'. It flows off the tongue like a bird song. When you press these people about when they actually read the Bible most will eventual admit.......they haven't. Personally, I don't consider the Bible, or any other canon scripture, to be a book. It is scripture. Hence, I never anwser 'the Bible'.

Young people often quickly bring up some book that they read in high school lit, or perhaps something from the amphetamine-fueled Ayn Rand collection. I have no single book to be certain, rather a host of books. Interestingly, two of them are by Hermann Hesse. The first is Der Glasperleinspiel, the second is Demian. Yes, yes, I did read Demian for the first time in High School but it was in German so 'that's different'.

Anyway, one of the conversations in Demian revolved around Jesus being crucified and, more specifically, the thieves that hung alongside him. One of the thieves taunts Christ saying to the effect, if you are truly the Son of God then save yourself. The other thief answers, again, to the effect, this man is truly the Son of God.

We have been forever conditioned to somehow lionize the second thief. In Demian the following points were made: Both thieves had the existing pattern of belief (in crime) and were deserving of the fate they had been handed. The first thief was accepting of it. He sought no mercy, nor was he grasping at straws. He was a man of bad character, but at least he had one that was consistent! The second thief was neither a believer, let alone a disciple of Christ. he was just some punk-ass that got what was coming to him and he was grasping at straws. It is all reminiscent of a previous post topic Ronnie Lee Gardner. He was blubbering on about the 'good' he can still do if he was kept alive. The fact is Ronnie Lee Gardner would have licked the Dalai Lama's nut sack if he thought it would save him. The one thing Ronnie Lee could never do? Accept responsibility for his actions and express remorse while looking the family of his victims in the eye. I'll see you in hell Ronnie!

So, how does this rant tie into baby blessings? While it is not a 'saving ordninance' of my faith, blessing of children is an important thing nonetheless. I blessed all of my children that I was able, and it was a spiritually moving event every time. My beef is with fathers of the kids who have another family member do it, because they are not worthy to perform the ordinance themselves.

Why do they have the ordinance done? Is it because, like the theif on the cross, that at the very last minute they "believe" in the correctness of the principle? If there were but a little more time, they would become worthy to do it themselves? Nonesense! They do it because they perceive some type of benefit for themselves if they allow it. These people are worse than those who unequivocally state, "I do not believe in the (insert name) faith, therefore neither I nor my family will be part of these ordinances". At least these people believe in something and are consistent in their beliefs.

This one argument, from Demian, has greatly influenced how I view people's 'worth'. I would much rather discuss faith or other matters religious with a devout Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or even an atheist! These people have a belief. Ye must be either hot or cold, for if ye are but luke-warm,,,,,,,,, Does this ring a bell?

In earlier posts I mentioned the concept of absolute value. Find it and review it if you'd like. The reader's digest version is this. Devout Lutherans, if converted, make better Mormons that jack-Lutherans. Devout atheists, if converted, become devout believers in God. Agnostics? Spittle.