Author Archives: Danny Quinney

Analyze This!!!!

 Analyze This!!!!

 So I’m at a restaurant recently, minding my own business, when I look over at a young family.  What caught my eye was not the cute little kids (two or three years old), who were adorable, but the iPad that was propped up on the table so the kids could watch Toy Story 3 while they ate.

THE IPAD THAT WAS PROPPED UP

So I tried to put the password into my iPad so I could jot down some thoughts, when I realized I don’t own an iPad.  I was trying to put a password into an “Etch-a-sketch.” I admit I’m not as technically advance as most.  But I do know that kids growing up today have NO CLUE how awesome this time really is.  When I was a kid I felt cool if I had a 72 piece Crayola crayon set, especially if it had one of those cool crayon sharpeners in the back.  Those were really cool.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging those young parents (well, yes I am, just a little.)  I’m just as guilty as anyone of putting my kids in front of the TV.  It is the perfect built-in babysitter. The problem is if you do it all the time, like, oh, I dunno, at a restaurant, your kids will never learn proper “restaurant behavior.”  Can you imagine how frazzled the parents will be if their iPad isn’t charged up, or, heaven forbid, forgotten next time they want to eat out?

Again, I’m not judging.  I get it.  Using an iPad is SOOOOOOOO much easier than parenting.

I just recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal about a group of professors from the University of California, Los Angeles which include anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and archeologists, who want to understand America’s middle class, to understand “what the middle class thought, felt and what they did.”  Their goal is to “publish two books this year on their work, and say they hope the findings may help families become closer and healthier.”

They are using research from ten years ago where 32 Southern California families were recorded at home for one week.

On the surface I don’t have a problem with the research.  A group of academics getting together to analyze isn’t always a bad thing, just ask the team of psychiatrists I have following me around, analyzing, having meetings, discussing me.  I didn’t think they were very professional when they smirked at my Etch-a- sketch. Part of my problem is how the research was done.  First of all they recruited families from ads.  Then they recorded them, for one week.

So?  I hear you say, what is wrong with that?  One of the problems I have with reality TV is that it isn’t really “reality.”  The people you are watching have applied to be there.  They sent in tapes, filled out forms, and when they are being recorded they KNOW the camera is there.  So how “real” is it?  (On a side note, I wish they would make a TV show called “Prancing To Their Cars” because, as silly as it sounds, I’d probably win.)  My second problem is they only recorded them for one week.

Let’s say I’m an anthropologist, or a sociologist.  And let’s say I want to do some research on how monkeys interact with each other.  I set up my camera and hide.  When monkeys see the camera they think “who-who-who-who-HA-HA-HA.”   That’s it.  That’s all the monkey thinks of the camera.  To contrast the monkey, walk into a high school with a camera and watch the kids.  Many will be drawn to it, like a moth to a flame, flexing, and bird flipping and “hi mom-ing.”  The point being everyone in America has a frame of reference for what the camera is, and what it does.  Although the families involved in the study may not have been told what the researchers were researching you KNOW they know they were researching something…you know? (How awesome was that run-on sentence?)  I’m sure they weren’t acting totally normal.

Let me give you a scenario:

A kid comes in crying because he skinned his knee and is bleeding a little bit. My reaction without a camera in the kitchen:

Pfffff….What are you crying about?  Just rub some dirt in it and keep playing.

My reaction with a camera in the Kitchen:

OH NO!!  (knocking everything off the counter to lay the now panicked child on it) Honey call 9-1-1, I’ll make a tourniquet.  Stay with us son.  Whatever you do, don’t go toward the light!!!

Now it could be I have problems.  Believe me – I KNOW I have problems.  I’m not sure what my problems are called.  I just know they are really hard to pronounce.  (On a side note, I’ve decided to upgrade my ADD to ADHD because the picture quality is so much better.)

In the article anthropologist Dr. Elinor Ochs says the American children acted differently than children from other cultures she has studied.  The article says, “Young children were expected to contribute substantially to the community.” It went on to describe “a girl around 5 years of age in Peru’s Amazon region climbing a tall tree to harvest papaya, and helping haul logs thicker than her leg to stoke a fire.”  The article continues, “By contrast, the U.S. videos showed Los Angeles parents focusing more on the children, using simplified talk with them, doing most of the housework and intervening quickly when the kids had trouble completing a task.”  Well isn’t that cute?  I could have told you a kid from Peru’s Amazon region would behave differently from a kid from Southern California without funding.

It is probably true many American kids don’t contribute.  I know my kids would never, “serve food to their elders, waiting patiently in front of them before they eat.”  They have never harvested a papaya tree and they certainly have never hauled logs thicker then their leg.  But they also have other responsibilities the Amazon Peruvians don’t.  The article described “about 75% of the families, the mothers came home first and began to “gyrate” through the house, bouncing between the kids and their homework, groceries, dinner and laundry, according to the group’s analysis published in the Journal of Family Psychology in 2009.” Do the Peruvian kids have homework?

My biggest problem with the research is they are comparing American families to those of Samoa, Peru, and in one case Italy.  Just because they don’t have “Family night” in Italy, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it here.  Personally, I think a big group of American parents aren’t too bright.  I think they make a lot of mistakes, but as a whole we are doing alright.  All-in-all this is just another example of anti-America / American self-loathing that has been permeating throughout the media the past decade or so. That is a topic for another day (note to self.)

Also, if you think about it, ten years was a long time ago.  I just looked and in the last 48 hours I have communicated via text with one of my four kids eight times.  I love parenting by text.  Ten years ago I wouldn’t have.  My friend Dave Young said it best when he said, “So a point could be made that technology is changing our world so rapidly that unless studies on home life and interpersonal relationships don’t take into account the recent influence of social media and personal technology for communication, they will most likely be missing a substantial component that significantly affects our home and community interactions.”

I KNOW…how cool was that?  To tell the truth, I don’t even know what half those words mean.  I’m just thrilled to have a smart friend who thinks enough about me to say to such fancy words.

The more I think about it I don’t see how analyzing ten year old videos, of 32 families, from Southern California is going “help” my family.

Slogans or Taglines?

Slogans or Taglines?

If you read my little bio on the side you know I was given this URL (a fancy way of saying ‘website’) from my younger sister.  I was at her house and she was walking me through how to post things and such, when she came up with my tag line “Life as I know it.”  Brilliant isn’t it?  I love it and shall always keep it.  I shall keep it and it shall always be mine.

But I was thinking the other day (a dangerous pastime – I know), and wondering if I had thought of a tagline or slogan what would it be?  Here is a partial list:

Give a hoot – read Lifezilla.

WOW!!  The Lifezilla side of my head feels all tingly.

Just put a pinch of Lifezilla between your cheek and gum.

Lifezilla: The artist formally known as Prince.

Lifezilla: Taste great, less filling.

Lifezilla: The other white meat.

Lifezilla: It just keeps going and going.

Lifezilla: While others drink from the fountain of knowledge, we gargle.

Lifezilla:  ‘Cause beauty may only be skin deep.  But it is nice to have if you’re poor and stupid.

Lifezilla: Just like heaven.  But without that awkward “dying” part.

Lifezilla: WHEW!!!  All this quality writing is really making me thirsty.

Lifezilla: Would like to take this opportunity to give you a quality written article.  Here, take it.  No seriously, take it.  It’s yours.

Sniiiiiiiiiiiffff – AUGH!!!  Don’t you just love that Lifezilla smell?

Lifezilla: It’s, like, oh-my-gosh, totally un-yucky.

You know what?  I think I just figured out why, at work, I hold the company record for the longest time spent in an entry level position.

A friend of mine emailed this to me…

Racism and the Mormon Church

Racism and the Mormon Church

 Before I launch into this I want to convey that this is a lot harder than I thought it was going to be.  When I first started this site I thought I had a lot to say.  It turns out I don’t.  I thought I would easily crank out an article a day.  It turns out I’m more shallow than I previously supposed.  That’s more depressing than you would think.  Seriously, try diving head first into ankle deep water.

I have been kicking this around for the last few weeks.  What really got me thinking about it is the Travon Martin case that is being tried in the media. I’m not a lawyer and, as you know, not the brightest knife in the drawer (whaaaaa?) so I’m not going to throw all my “two cents” in about this situation.  But I did want to comment on the racial aspect of it.  What really got me is when Reuters, which is, apparently, a news organization, called George Zimmerman (the man who shot Travon Martin) a “white Hispanic.”   You read correctly, a “white Hispanic.”  Now, being as how I’m not a racist, it wouldn’t bother me if he was white, or Hispanic, but when they combined them both to make political hay, it kind of bothers me. Using their logic Reuters should call our President a “white black man.”

But none of this is the point of today’s article.

With the Republican convention getting closer, and with it looking like Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee, I thought I would be ahead of the curve and write about what I KNOW is going to rear its ugly head:  Racism and the Mormon church.  Well, dear reader, in what seems to be the theme of my life, I’m so far BEHIND I think I’m ahead. A two second Google search revealed it has already happened.  Soooo….in what may be considered a case book example of what happens when you let stupid people play with computers, I’m going to plow forward.  After all, I have been kicking it around for a few weeks.  I don’t want to waste all my research (and by ‘research’ I mean taking long showers thinking about it).

Apparently on Monday, March 12, 2012, “Black Clergy And Other Concerned Christians Ask Governor Mitt Romney To Renounce His Racist Religion” (eye roll).  Seriously, after all my research I don’t even know where to start.  I could go through and pick this article apart line by line.  And I’m half tempted too.  It is so full of mis-quotes and conjectures.  Sincerely, I feel like I could have eaten a box of “Alpha-bits” and crapped out a better article.  But I’ll just hit the highlights.

First of all, this article cites Brigham Young several times.  Brigham Young, who lived in the 1800’s, was quoted this year, 2012, as the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I’m not a mathematician, but I can do some math in my head and he has been dead for, well, a really long time.  In another two second Google search I found the Church’s official statement on racism.  Among other things it states, “The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.” Is it just me, or would that include Brigham Young?  I think it would.

Now, going off on a little tangent here, anyone who knows anything about the church, any church, knows the leaders are flawed.  Even prophets from Adam on down have done questionable things (and by “questionable” I mean “ohmigosh-are-you-kidding-me?”) David, who was knee deep in women, couldn’t resist temptation.  Lot (who was the only man righteous enough to escape Sodom and Gomorrah) gets drunk and has sex with his daughters.  Jacob tricked his dad into giving him the birthright blessing, and now stands at the head of Israel.  The list goes on and on.  So the fact Brigham Young had some opinions that were WAAAAY off base, doesn’t surprise or bother me.  We, who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught to not blindly follow our leaders.  We are encouraged to question, and then ask God in prayer.  We are promised that if we ask with real intent, having faith in Christ, we will receive an answer to our prayers (Moroni 10:4-3).

Speaking of the “Book of Mormon” lets go back to the article.

They claim 2 Nephi 5:21-23 as “cursing African people and causing them to have black skin in order for them not to be attractive to white people.”  Well, that’s not true.  There aren’t any Africans at all in the “Book of Mormon.”  2 Nephi 5 describes two groups of Israelites who recently landed in the Americas, a dark skinned group who are known as “Lamanites” and a light skinned group known as “Nephites.”

Several times in the Book of Mormon the Lamanites are the more righteous people.  Before the birth of Christ the prophet Samuel risked his life standing upon a wall of a city calling the unrighteous Nephites to repentance.

PLUS, if you are going to cite 2 Nephi 5 (which, taken out of context, sounds bad) you really should include Jacob 3:9 which states, “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Hmmmm….They failed to mention that one (it’s about 30 pages away from 2 Nephi chapter 5).

To add to the racial mix in The Book of Mormon, for 200 (plus) years after the coming of Christ there “were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (Book of Mormon, 4 Nephi 1:17) So marriage between the two groups was surely to happen.

At the end of the Book of Mormon a group of people break away and call themselves Lamanites, but that was not a racial division, it was cultural.  We are never told the color of their skin.

In the article Rev. O’Neal Dozier states, “The Book of Mormon degrade the Lamanites, which are the Native American Indians in the same way they do black African people.”  Well, that’s not true either.  It is true the Church has always considered Lamanites to be the ancestors of Native Americans, and as such they are members of the House of Israel.  The Church has never excluded them.

The article then goes into a tangent about Baptism for Dead (which… is…racist…how?) Citing someone who is “a former Mormon,” again, there is a stellar reference.  As far as I know, baptism for the dead is unique to the LDS faith, but it does have biblical references, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1 Corinthians 15:29

None of that matters to the article at hand.

The article concludes with, “Romney’s nomination would cause the erroneous view that has long existed in the minds of black people, that the Republican Party is prejudice to become a reality. Also, if Romney gets the nomination, President Obama’s super pacs will educate the American people about his racist religion and he will probably lose to Obama.”

This is crap.

I HATE IT when anyone takes it upon themselves to speak for a group, “erroneous view that has long existed in the minds of black people, that the Republican Party is prejudice.”  I’m not speaking for them, but I’m preeeeeeeety sure: the former head of the Republican Party Michael Steele; Supreme Court Judge Clearance Thomas; Congressman Allen West; and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would all disagree.

Which is worse, being bigoted against someone because of the color of their skin, or their beliefs?  Isn’t bigotry ugly in any form?  In my humble opinion, distorting the facts about someone’s faith, or beliefs to cause a division is ugly and at best intellectually dishonest.

Just a thought

HEY!!!!  Help spread the word about lifezilla.net , unless you think that word is “incompetent.” Then I would appreciate it if  you just kept your mouth shut.

Hook, Line, and Sinker

Hook, Line, and Sinker

 I have to tell you.  The wife and I were talking the other night (the TV was apparently not working), and we were discussing how long we have been married.  To hear her say it, it was how looooooooooooooooooooong we have been married.  Now you have to remember, I have no formal training with counseling, psychology, sociology, weight lifting, hamburgeralogy (the making of hamburgers) or. . . well. . . anything.  I actually feel pretty lucky just to have a job.  Sincerely, if I had two brains would be twice as stupid.  But despite the lack-o-knowledge-slash-training in ANY field, I do consider myself an expert in marriage, only because we have been married for so long.  I always admire the foresight and wisdom people demonstrate when they come to me for marital advice.  I’m really looking forward to it actually happening.

There is something I have been thinking about lately that youngin’s just starting out don’t consider.  When you’re dating it’s a game to you.  You think you have this hot little momma on the line, but the truth of the matter is she has YOU on the line.  There is something you’re not considering.  I’m going to refer to it as the “hook, line, and sinker.”  Now anyone who has ever been fishing, or is an avid watcher of “Sponge Bob Square Pants” knows that “hook, line, and sinker” is a fishing reference.  But in this case it has nothing to do with ripping an unsuspecting fish from the water and having it flop around on the deck of a boat.  Oh no.  In this case it is referring to what your spouse has attached to her (or him, as the case may be).  Oh, yes.  I’m referring to “The in-laws.”

For YEARS I believed that the only difference between “In-laws” and “Out-laws” is people actually look for and “want” out-laws.  I mean there are wanted posters in Post Offices for hell’s sake.  You just don’t see posters for In-laws.

Now before you get all “oooohhhhhh Danny’s gonna be in trouble” I want to tell you that I both love and appreciate my in-laws.  They have quirks.  I mean WOW do they have quirks.  For years I thought they had all the cans in the six pack, they were just missing the little plastic thingy that holds them all together.  But now I have accepted their shenanigans.

A few weeks ago the wife and I were invited over to my in-laws house for a dinner/game night.  We played a game called “Things”.  OHMIGOSH!!! It was so fun. And soooooo funny.  I HIGHLY recommend purchasing it (we did.) The gist of the game (the word “gist” is a fancy way of saying “the point”) is you are asked a questions, you secretly write down your answer and then everyone tries to guess who wrote what.

One of the questions we were asked was something like, “Inappropriate titles for children’s books.”  Because I have OCD I haven’t been able to turn off my brain and I’ve been kicking this around for the past few weeks.  Here is a partial list of what I’ve came up with (these are the cleaner ones):

“Bi-curious George”

“The Little Engine who couldn’t because he is a worthless bum like your father”

“Duck Duck gets goosed”

“Everyone dies”

“How to cope with being kidnapped –er-surprise adopted”

“Horton Hires a Ho”

“Do you want fries with that?: Not everyone gets to be an astronaut”

“Daddy drinks because you cry”

“One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, DEAD FISH”

“Shhhhhh monsters eat crying children”

and finally…

“Harry Potter is taught to protect his wand from Hogswarts, when entering her Chamber of Secrets”

You know what?  After reading over this list, I think I understand why my wife’s parents were apprehensive about me.  I might be the one who is missing the little plastic thingy.  I never looked at it that way.  But ya know, that’s what you get when you swallow something “hook, line and sinker.”

 

Let’s Make Like a Baby and Head Out

Let’s Make Like a Baby and Head Out

 OHMIGOSH.  I have funniest story.  Seriously, you are going to die laughing.  So picture this, my best friend and I are driving, and he said something that, I thought, was a little rude.  We often tease each other, but this was over the line.  I sat and stewed about it for a minute and then I decided to take action, so I took out my gun and shot him in the face.  HAHAHAHAHA!!!!  You should have seen how surprised he looked just before I pulled the trigger!!!  It was hilarious.  I was all…what?  You don’t think it was funny I shot my friend in my car?  Okay, picture this.  Same scenario, we are driving, he says something, I stew, as I’m dropping him off I decide to take action and I run over him with my car. HAHAHAHAHA!!!  You should have seen his face just as I slam into him.  It was so…what?!?!  You’re not happy with that story either?  In the first story I killed him in my car, in the second I killed in outside the car.  There is a HUGE difference here.  Oh, oh, wait?  It’s not where I killed him that bothers you, it’s that I killed him.  OHHHH…well, you are going to hate the rest of this article.

Before I launch into this, I know this isn’t my most “timely” article.  I try to do things a little more current.  I have just been super busy the last few weeks (actually I have being “normal” busy, I’ve just been wearing a cape.)  A few weeks ago (February 23, 2012) the Journal of Medical Ethics released an article entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” (Ironically the 23rd is my birthday).  Apparently the two authors Alberto Giubilini, and Francesca Minerva are a little shocked over the negativity they have experienced, because of their paper.

This is the abstract of their paper (the word “abstract” is a fancy way of saying “the point”):

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

OHHHH YEAH!!!  What could possibly go wrong with this line of thinking?  I read every word of the paper, and let me tell you, there is not enough hand sanitizer in the world to “de-ibby jibbies” me. I really want to invent and patent “brain bleach” for this type of article.

They conclude their paper with: “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”

My question is where will it lead?  What about the elderly?  “Grandpa, you don’t want to be a burden on society do you?”  What about the mentally retarded, or borderline retarded?  They don’t really contribute that much to society, do they? What about the fat and lazy? What if we could make it so that everyone who isn’t blond haired and blue eye just went away?  Oh wait, all my kids have brown eyes…well…as long as it fits the “criteria… (social, psychological, economic)”, and is better for society.  Sorry kids.

What’s their problem with adoption?  Well, it is better to perform an “after-birth abortion” (apparently the word “murder” was already taken) because, “Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief,” where as, “those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss.”  Well, isn’t that cute?

In an article I read on the subject a Professor Savulescu, from the University of Oxford responded with, ”What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited … Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.”

Ohhhh, oh, I see, “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.” Now it could be these “ethicists” have evolved WAAAAY further then me, it could be I’m a little “Forrest Gumpy” because (imagine this in a Forrest Gump voice,) “I’m notta smort man, Jen-knee”, but in my humble opinion, I would say that statement proves you can be educated beyond your intelligence.  You know what, yeah, they have probably evolved further (Oh no, should I be worried about being a candidate for a future “death panel”?).

Now, I sincerely believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.  And it bothers me people have issued death threats.  I don’t understand the mentality of bombing anything to make a political point. That line of thinking is stupid, but on a purely “proper academic discussion and freedom” way of thinking, it is ironic that they are upset people are threatening them when they are discussing killing others.  Just saying.  All I know is, I want to be there when karma comes back to punch them in the face… Just in case she needs help.

Read more:

Original paper

First Article

Second Article

Here Kitty-kitty-kitty

I wrote this article for UFI back in December…..

Here Kitty-kitty-kitty

There are two things I have learned in my adulthood contrary to the brainwashing my mother inflicted on me.  The first is I am not a little teapot.  The second, I no longer consider myself as “special;” as a mature adult I prefer term “limited edition.”

My paradigm has always been a little different than most people.  (The word “paradigm” is a really fancy way of saying, “the way I see things is often a little askew,” which is a fancy way of saying “off.”)   Two examples: I hear some people when talking about marriage, say “she wears the pants in the family” or “he wears the pants in the family;” I wonder why they are wearing pants at all.  Or, people will say “the glass is half full” or “the glass is half empty;” I wonder why the glass is so big.  See what I mean?  It’s a tad off.  I try to keep an open mind.

True story

My older sister used to be a beautician.  One day, while in my early twenties, I was in her studio and she asked me how I was going to conquer the world.  I have no idea what inspired me to say it, but without batting an eye, and with a completely straight face, I told her I was thinking about opening up a Petting Zoo.  I quickly described the layout, and then I said, “Of course I would also have a Heavy Petting Zoo, for people who really like animals.”

She came UNGLUED.  She was so mad at me.  You would think I told her I was harboring Nazis or something.  I was just trying to be witty.  I learned there was a line with her.  And it wasn’t a fuzzy gray one.

Apparently the Obama administration has no line.

On December 5, 2011 during a White House press conference the press secretary Jay Carney (click here for the official White House transcript) was asked by World Net Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving the following:

KINSOLVING: The Family Research Council and CNS News both reported a 93-to-7 U.S. Senate vote to approve a defense authorization bill that, quote, “includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals, or “beastiality.” Does the commander-in-chief approve or disapprove of  beastiality in our armed forces?

CARNEY: I don’t have any comment on–I don’t have any comment on that. Let me go to another question.

KINSOLVING: Does the President believe this will be approved by all animal support groups, such as–

CARNEY: Let’s get to something more serious.

(On a side note, the Wihte Huose trnasrcipt mis-speeled the word beastiality.  I qouted dircetly from thier webiste.)

Mr. Carney called on another reporter who didn’t let him off the hook.  He offered to yield his question back to Mr. Kinsolving.

Mr. Carney could have easily done several things.  He could have just answered the question with “No, the President does not approve,” he could have elaborated on how disappointed the President was the repeal was included in the bill in the first place, or he could have joked about what is going on at the Senate.  Saying nothing, on a political no-brainer like this, says something.

My initial reaction when reading about this was to smirk at the obvious hypocrisy of the left.  “Meat is murder!!! Unless, of course you want to have sex with the animal, then it’s okay to explore your feelings.”

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is upset that Carney made light of the abuse of animals.  They wrote two letters, one to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, urging him to add a new section to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibiting cruelty to animals; the other to Mr. Carney encouraging him to be more sensitive to issues of animal abuse.

Of course this in no way excuses the 93 Senators that voted for the bill.  Seriously, who wrote a bill that included a repeal like that?  Senators, READ THE BILL!!!!

There are two things I learned from this story. First, the moral of the Obama story: next time you want something transformative and uplifting, buy a WonderBra.  The second, be open minded.  Just don’t be so open minded your brains fall out.

HOORAY FOR BOOBIES!!!

 *DING DING DING* …Two Boobs, No Waiting!!

I rarely exercise.  And by “rarely” I mean NEVER.

My wife on the other hand works out several times a week.  She is quite the little hard body.  And you know what they say, “a hard woman is good to find” (wicked grin).  The bummer part about having a workout queen for a wife is that she wants me to work out too.  Yuck.  She wakes up at the crack of dawn and bounces, or yoga’s around our room, I’ll lay there pretending to sleep RIDDLED with guilt.  She then talks about how great she feels after a good sweat.  Good sweat?  I don’t know how you can feel good after sweating.  I sweat all the time.  I’m sweating right now and I’m just sitting here.  All sweating makes me feel is sticky.  I try to convince her that I AM in shape, “Honey,” I tell her, “potato could be a shape.”

So I resolved to get in shape by THINKING about joining a gym.

I took one of those tours where one of the muscle bound employees’ shows you how all the different machines work.  I was on one of their torture machines that you put weights down on one end and pull down with your arms.  So there I am, arms out stretched, which, you can imagine, caused my shirt to untuck, revealing my rippling, cascading “flab-alanche.”  The guy who was showing me the torture machine looked at, and nodded toward my stomach said, “Cool tattoo.”  TATTOO?!?!?! I thought to myself…tattoo…what is this irritably fit guy talking about? I don’t have any tattoos.  I looked down and saw he was referring to the stretch marks etching across my protruding belly.  As quickly as I could I told him, “Oh yeah, yeah, I just got that done.  That’s the Chinese symbol for NEGLECT.”

I read a couple of articles this week which essentially (and literally) asked, “Is cosmetic surgery “ethically corrupt”?” The first article also posed a broader question, “Is aesthetic cosmetic surgery medicine or just exploitation?

When I first read it I thought, “What a stupid question.”  What if your child was born with a cleft palate?  Is it ethical to have it fixed?

If not, what about braces?  I could have saved thousands of dollars not getting my kids teeth fixed.

The fact of the matter is people have been altering their appearance for centuries.  In Thailand they wear brass rings around their necks to stretch themselves out.  Is that cultural, or morally wrong?

The second article I read was about breast implants (had I known that I would have read it first) it states, “Cosmetic surgery is nothing more than an industrial-scale scientific experiment.” It then went on to explain about a study published in the journal Psychological Medicine.  I read this article several times.  And…well…I think it’s flawed, flawed, flawed.  Here are a couple of examples of the dumbery:

Example # 1

“Next month, for example, the journal Psychological Medicine will publish a study of almost 1,600 Norwegian adolescent girls who were monitored over a 13-year period.”  So first the study is of ADOLESCENT girls monitored over 13 years?  That math is ALL messed up.  Let’s say they  mis-wrote that and the study is of adult women who, while adolescents, had cosmetic surgery. Even then, the study is skewed.  Where are the parents?  What father is going to say to his thirteen year old girl, “Honey, your mother and I have decided to get your some boobs for your next birthday.”  You get a young teenager, who doesn’t have the maturity, or developed moral compass a gift like that and it will be *DING DING DING*…Two Boobs, No Waiting!! Yeah, her life may be messed up.

Duh!!  Show me a study of 35 year olds followed over thirteen years and take it more seriously.

Example # 2

“The finding is that women who use cosmetic surgery do not (I added the italics)  have lower opinions of their general attractiveness than women who do not opt for surgery. However, they display more symptoms of depression and anxiety, use more illicit drugs and have stronger histories of self-harm and suicide attempts. And the surgery is likely to make things worse… As the researchers conclude: “A series of mental health symptoms predict cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery does not in turn seem to alleviate such mental health problems.”.”  WHAAA?!?!  So the conclusion is COSMETIC surgery will NOT alleviate mental health problems?  Good work, Sherlock.  What was your first clue?  Seriously, who funded this research?

The article concludes with this, “Cosmetic breast implantation is a flawed and ethically corrupt psychological experiment, carried out for commercial profit on vulnerable women. And it should now be halted.”

Vulnerable women?  Are there black vans driving around abducting unsuspecting women and forcing breast implants on them?  I would imagine most women who choose to have the surgery save up their pennies to have it done.

Now, there is still a debate on rather or not there are health issues if silicone breast implants rupture (I can see there would be) but the piece failed to mention saline implants.  If those rupture they would pose no threat to the health of a woman (other then the actual surgery).

For me, the bottom line is this: we have dominion over our own bodies.  If it makes me, or anyone, happy to let myself go, start working out, or have surgery to improve myself, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else the government, and everyone else,  should butt out.