Life's little twists and turns don't follow a specified recipe. I'm definitely okay with instability, amidst daily comforts, of course. This little bloggy is a firm example of random-ness. Truth defined by yours truly. Enjoy, or not, a peek into skewed opinions and spurts of subpar brilliance.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Maybe she's born with it.

A girl asks her significant other, "When you gonna get that haircut?" Significant other's response, "Yep, I do need a cut....When are you planning on cutting yours?"

Ladies, what is wrong with this reply? Everything. Am I right or am I right?

First of all, I don't care how much a girl yaps on and on about the emergent need to cut off those wretched split ends, or perhaps how she needs to lose those 'extra' 5 lbs, a man need (always) understand this:

Do not attempt to perfect a lady. A lady already knows her flaws - we're the consummate professional when it comes to detecting our imperfections. When she asks, "Do I look fat in this?," chances are, she knows, or at the very least, thinks she looks fat in it. She only wants confirmation that you appreciate the extended curvature regardless of her own skewed perception. Clearly, Heidi Klum is not staring back at her reflection, but it would be nice to know the guy in her life sees model material. Hips, thighs, ass and all. Same goes with Pantene Pro-V hair. Whether she has it or not, lie to your little princess.

Trust me, it not only saves you needless hardship, but also saves her from further insecurity. Leaving you both satisfied with the oh so unique gifts Mama gave her. And don't you fret Mr. Perfect, Mama gave you some unique gifts too. That receding hairline for one...

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The blind man sees. Who knew?

The GOP are at it again. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from the great State of South Carolina told ABC's "This Week," "If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed. I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Do you dude? Chances are you're kinda rusty buddy. In the last 8 years you didn't get one glimpse of it. Nor did we - the average, unintelligible citizen. If I can step up on my soapbox for a small sec, here me when I say, "I cannot stand politicians - their scheming and maneuvering is shameful - at best." Am I the lone American with this sentiment? Let me venture to guess: Nope.

"Hey, Senator Graham, we don't need your words of wisdom to know what it feels like to be screwed, my friend. (Stolen from Mr. Wisdom himself, John McCain. Remember him?) Trust me friend, we felt the gas nozzle hit us harder than what's deemed comfortable, and it didn't feel exactly pleasant." Not to mention a laundry list of other fragmented matters....my friend.

This 'divided we stand' policy is old news, not dissimilar to the GOP partisan policies we've all come to know and widely not accept. The fact that Mr. Graham and his cohorts have nerve to bash on our President, not even a whole month into his term, is mind boggling. Does humility mean nothing to these rejects? You and your 'bi-partisan' approach was acutely unsuccessful. Wait, that was putting it mildly. Let me refresh - Shut your pie hole Mr. Graham! You all did a damn horrible job and you have absolutely no right to discredit an administration that has barely had the opportunity to move in the last box of kitchenware into the White House. 8 years people! You had 8 years. Enough is enough already.

I know I'm not the lone American when I affirm: Please humbly step back Mr. Graham and you too Mr. So-and-So (R-insert U.S. State). Let the new guy take his rightful place and give this country a real chance for Christ's sake.




~Disillusioned and disgusted in Seattle.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Californians whining. (And we're not talking about the kids.)

Nadya Suleman: a Los Angeles, CA 33-year old, single Mom with 14 children - collects food stamps, capitalizes on Medi-Cal benefits (the State's Medicaid equivalency), and receives Social Security disability payments (in California: $793 per each disabled child) for 3 of her children (currently totaling $2,379.) The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family (the now notorious "Suleman octuplets.")

Just so you know, Californians are pissed about this latest 'news' story. I too don't see the stability in it, and can fully understand all the rage coming from Californians, where much of the money needed to raise these 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a State already billions of dollars in the red.

STOP! (Just for a second.)

I am really troubled by the outcry I've heard from several friends who just cannot understand or comprehend how this woman could do such a thing, and how and why should their pocketbooks be responsible for her lunatic behavior. Frankly, here's what I say: suck it up and take this time to recognize the real problem in California (and in the US of A as a whole for that matter.)

The real outrage: How and why does this story make headlines? As absurd as it is, I'll give you the numbers that should make the TOP of the headlines:

-115,000 kids in the foster care system in California alone.
-500,000 in care nationwide; 800,000 "served" - in other words, kids are floating from their abusive homes, only to be placed back in their abusive homes -

Why? Not enough non-abusive homes willing to welcome these kids in. It's not my responsibility. You're right, it sure isn't, just like Nadya Suleman and her children are not your responsibility either. But guess what, news flash people!! Yes it is. It is our tax money that supports this system, including paying adults who, at times, are shamefully abusing the children in their care. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system. But gratefully, we have great people who open up their homes to these children, and my guess, it's not these people who are ranting on about Nadya Suleman. They understand there are bigger fish to fry....

Then again, the responsibility should lie with the biological parents, correct? If you're going to have children, raise your own children! I agree. In a perfect, Utopian society, absolutely, 110%, yes. The thing is, most people rave on about 'parental responsibility' when they don't want to hear about the shocking and very real "statistics." Sadly, these numbers are real displaced, and real abused children.

And to add more fuel to this fire, here's news flash #2: Most, if not all, of these kids come from low-income families who are already receiving public assistance. Surprised? I bet you're not. So now, and please ensure you're sitting down for this, we have families receiving the precious taxpayers dollars, and their children who are placed into care, are now, in addition to their parent(s), receiving the glorious taxpayers money too! "Tell them what they've won, Johnny!" This includes, but is not limited to: State Social Services funding, Private Agency funding, medical assistance, Social Security benefits, licensing fees to run the licensed foster homes, licensing fees to run the massively expensive group homes, and not to mention, the countless other mental health/wraparound services that are doing their best to help solve this 'little' problem. Quite pricey, eh?

Ask yourself, who should we be talking about: Nadya Suleman - a woman who is taking care of her own children (w/public assistance), albeit, in her own home, and as far as we know, in an abuse-free environment - OR, should the focus be on the shameful foster care system and on the thousands of abused children who would love to have their stories told? You tell me. Personally, I think it's fairly evident. And if you're sole worry is still your taxdollars, lay off of Nadya dummy, that's merely a drop in the bucket.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

I don't believe in you. And me. But do in me.

I challenge you to take a look back at your fondest relationship. Or at the very least, the one you thought was so great at the time that it was supposedly so great. Still great? I highly doubt it. Friendships are similar to relationships, in that, most have a time and a place. But few stand the test of time.

I cringe at the thought of a previous fling I had not too long ago. What the hell was I thinking? Was I in a moment of sheer desperation? How embarrassing. Looking back at a more serious past relationship, however, although I can't argue neurosis, I can say that both time and memory have made it harder for me to quantify or recognize the level of greatness that once was. More importantly, and attempting to bring the memory to present day as best as possible, I ask myself, would that person play a role in my life had I met him today? I think he would. BUT, not in the same way he did 5 and 12 years ago (marking both the end and beginning of.)

My guess is he still has the same witty sense of humour and our compatibility and ability to communicate will still be there if our paths somehow crossed again. What comes to mind as I ponder is the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The theme I remember most from the film is 'would you do it all over again if you knew the final outcome; would it be worth the heartache in the end?' Perhaps this is the real reason why I argue the relationship 5 years ago wouldn't be the same now. I already know how it ends. This changes my perception of the relationship - completely altering the course from beginning to end. The person at those end moments reflects something that never revealed itself in the thickness of bliss. Sadly, it's generally these moments we're left to remember, and we often walk away from the relationship with these left open/open-ended questions to contemplate:

Is this the real person, of whom I never quite knew? Was I only fooling myself to think he/she was this amazing person, a seemingly perfect fit? Yes and no. Yes and no. The answers will never be concrete. Coincidentally, the questions aren't either. It's probably best to stop asking. Maybe it's more apt to ask these questions when we're in thick of it, not after it's said and done. In poor taste and proving ineffective time and again, we tend to glamorize people, particularly, our current fling; a guilty charge I'm willing to admit - which brings me back to my original point. This past fond relationship, minus the sour ending, had its moments of greatness, but if I'm entirely honest with myself, I can distinctly say, the relationship is meant to stay in that time, and in that very place. It was never meant to stand the test of time.

Convincingly, experience, growth, the human spirit, and even those embarrassing flings, teach people a thing or three - Namely, this is what works and this is what doesn't - the two lessons that conceivably matter most. Lesson number three: nostalgia lies a lot.

Friday, February 6, 2009

The mirror has one face.


Don't be a two-faced bitch.
Be an original.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

I am woman, hear me mother effing roar.

Being a woman is hard. To be a strong woman, even harder. And to be a strong woman with compassion, the ultimate challenge. The meek women often fail to understand, there is solid value in opinion. The aggressive often lack the tact necessary to be heard -- Loud, obnoxious rants get you nowhere, and a quiet, subdued existence is a boring waste of valuable space.

(Perhaps, the difficulty comes in finding balance between maniacal monster and muffled mutant?)

I believe the real misfortune lies in having to be a mindful female in the first place. Versus just being - is it not true? - genuine authenticity comes when you stop trying to be anything outside of you. Being authentic shouldn't take a great deal of thought or a great deal of work. Even balance would be cheating oneself. As balance is intended to normalize, to find an in-between. Maybe normal, or the in-between, doesn't fit for you. Or for me either. For her or for him, however, normal could be a perfectly normal fit.

(In my world, boxes confine people. Confinement suffocates. I fear enclosed spaces...)

And so it goes, I was talking to a friend who said he'd like to be 5 years old all over again when in this set time, authenticity is at its finest. In Kindergarten, kids fight over toys and crayons, yell at their peers when they feel justified to do so, and mutually, quickly move on without any malice or over analytical thought processing about why that kid took my crayon. And in Kindergarten it was okay to be a girl rough housing on the monkey bars, no real fear of the boys looking up her skirt, never once thinking she was any less of a girl for doing so; composure was not ever a forethought. Or an after thought for that matter. Likewise, boys and girls were both equally capable. Of friendship. Of sharing. Of disagreement. Of equal partnership; no real definitive lines drawn between the sexes. Aside from the occasional crush - both raw and honest - that really, only a 5 year old could naturally pull off.

Rather unfortunately, the adult male and the adult female have learned the trade, forgetting life when it was easy and when it was natural. When it just was. Expectations were few. Now, and amongst all of the skewing of lines, women genuinely have it hard. It's damn hard to be a woman! Not just any woman, but a real, respectable woman.

*BIG ass sigh*


In theory, the challenge for we women is quite simple:

Just be. A woman. A beautifully brilliant, wonderful woman. Find solace in the creation of you and take refuge in your natural state.

In practice, a challenging simplistic experiment:

Just be. An original you.