Plans

A while back Brian was waxing philosophical about some things that he's heard people say over time and it's gotten me thinking on it for a while now.
He was talking about how people use some variation of the phrase "it was Heavenly Father's plan" or talk about how we don't understand the plan of our Father in Heaven when something terrible happens.
Brian mentioned that there are times when the phrase is big-time misapplied, and I think he's right. I think when tragic things happen--especially when someone else has done something terrible to us--it's not cool to comfort people by using the phrase, "It's all part of Heavenly Father's plan." Someone doing something bad to you is not part of Heavenly Father's plan.
I've noticed that the sentence is used when we're at a loss for words or when we're uncomfortable with the other person being sad.

When something sucky happens we should feel sad and we should let other people feel sad. Telling people that "it's all part of Heavenly Father's plan" can be like telling people that they're wrong for feeling sad. "Just be happy!" as a friend once told me. Or "fake it until you make it!" was another gem. Yeah, no.


It's easier to feel sad and deal with the problem. I think that's why we're told to mourn with those that mourn. It just works better.

Oh, dear me

It's the first day of class, so posting twice on my blog seems like a good use of my time.
I was skimming thru Tumblr and saw this post, which is blah blah blah election year blah blah blah.
But the BEST part, and the only part we should all care about, is that the guy who's gonna run as a democrat in the race created a website to challenge Ryan's proposed gutting of medicare called:

HandsOffMyGrandma.com


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!


Seriously, it sounds so scandalous and just a bit pornograph-icky. 
Time to troll out the nun picture again.

Frivolous Protection

This really might seem like a frivolous post, but it nonetheless laced with truth. Each Mormon man that is endowed, and thus has to follow certain clothing guidelines is one more protection against the too-short boy short problem of exposed man thigh.

Weirdest thing I've done at a motel is...

OK, maybe the title of this post sends the reader off on the wrong trail. I'm a very boring person, so the end of the sentence is ...build bookends.
Yep, Tuesday afternoon I grabbed my tools, bought paint, sandpaper, wood glue and got some lumber cut then headed to a motel in Manchester, TN to get to work:

 The sanded them over a bag to catch the dust, then organized pieces of wood.
 TV: Sportscenter & BBC News

Then I got to painting them bright colors, again on more plastic bags. I love painting things. I only splattered paint once and it was on the black mini-fridge. Luckily it wiped clean. Phew.
TV: Chopped

Drying for a few hours.
No TV: Sleep

The next morning I woke up early on my own, two hours before my alarm because building bookends is fun. I glued the tower parts to each other after touching up the paint a bit. I also fixed a hole I had accidentally made in one of the blocks, because I'm just that coordinated.
TV: Mike & Mike in the Morning (ESPN)

Finally I attached the towers to the green slab backing.
TV: Little League World Series!


Then I packed each end into a black bag for safe keeping and drove to Nashville to watch Anna-Lisa knock the dissertating socks off of her committee.

Facepalm

That absolute facepalm of a moment when you post this about the de facto WASP hegemony (whose sovereign is HRH Dollar) to facebook:

People who complain about how extending rights to others means that you're somehow taking away their rights are pretty dumb. It's not that your freedom is taken away, it's that the privileged pedestal you've been coasting on is now being fairly populated by others and you've simply gotta work for things instead of being spoon fed your "successes."

and a Ron Paul supporter--a woman!--clicks "like."




just smh, S.M.H.

WIMotW: Edict #4

First, my last blog post was #600. Huh.

Number 601 stems from a convo that Anna-Lisa and I had tonight.

Smoking is selfish. Unless you smoke in complete isolation and take sonic showers to remove all of the chemicals from around you, it is simply selfish. The idea that it's your right to spread toxic chemicals that cause cancer, etc. diseases, into the air that other people breathe is nuts. Oh, and selfish.

So When I'm Master of the World, my 4th Edict will be this:

• Outlaw cigarette and chew ads completely, 100%. No more ads in magazines, newspapers, billboards or at/on stores.
• Make it illegal to sell any clothing, etc. item, that has the company logo on it, except maybe the packs themselves. 
• Make the tax on a pack/carton of cigarettes or chew 99%. Half of the tax money will go to cancer research. Thirty percent will go to programs that help people quit smoking.
• Any store that sells cigarettes or chew to under-21s is immediately fine $10,000 and their license for selling cigarettes and chew gets revoked for at least a year. 
• If a cigarette company switches production from tobacco, plows under the tobacco crop and plants vegetables or fruits or the like, they'll get a nice tax deduction for at least six years.

I think this is a good plan. They're not completely outlawed, you can still buy them and stuff, but we'll get rid of the coolness level and will make them prohibitively expensive while creating funds for important health needs.

2nd art. of faith vs.(?) chastity talks

There's this thing that's been sitting in my mind for over a year and I think I figured out a way for a succinct post regarding it. (Well, succinct for me.)

The very Second Article of Faith in the LDS Church reads thus:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Essentially it means that humans come to earth with a blank slate and aren't damned because Adam and Eve ate some quince. It also means that I'mma not be eternally damned for someone else's sin. Makes sense. I've got mine, you've got yours. Seems fair.
And we members of the Mormon Church are like all stoked about this truth. Well, until things like chastity are brought up. I should still be in charge of mine and you should still be in charge of yours, but (young) women in the church are not taught this, nor are the (young) men. We're instead taught that if the (young) women don't dress modestly, the (young) men will simply lose control, that we women need to "help the men" so that we can all stay pure.

Bull.

I've dressed modestly my whole life just b/c it's in my nature and I would be this reserved if I weren't Mormon. It is NOT my duty to dress modestly so that a guy can avoid getting all hot and bothered. It is the other person's job to deal with their own arousal, not mine.
First, the idea that men get aroused faster than women is a myth and is completely untrue.
Second, each person is supposed to watch their own thoughts, words and deeds. It's insane to think that if I wear a V-neck shirt that dips only 3 inches and not 4, that I will have magical control over someone else's brain and arousal mechanism.
Third, teaching (young) women that they carry the burden for their male counterparts sinning/not sinning completely negates the ENTIRE PRINCIPLE of the second Article of Faith.
Fourth, placing this heavy burden on (young) women and telling them that if they don't dress modestly guys will get all aroused up and then, who knows what sinny-sin will go down?!?! is the same thing as telling a (young) women that she deserves what she gets if a guy does something against her wishes.
Number 4 is a damnable lie, and by damnable I mean it in the strongest sense.

I haven't had a chastity talk in a while, but if I ever end up in another one, I am no longer staying quiet. I am going to stand up for the (young) women and I am going to place the burden of thoughts, deeds and actions squarely on the person that has those thoughts, deeds and actions.

I know I've been emphatic before on my blog, but this is perhaps the most emphatic entry I've ever posted. EMPHATIC.