Political Underwear

Or rather, how your political affiliation, at least for guys, is rather like the kind of underwear you choose. Actually, the similarities are many. There are myriad designs, patterns, and makers of underwear, but the choice is ultimately boxers or briefs, as it has been since before time began (there are cave paintings concerning the boxer/brief controversy--trust me).

Choosing a big government is like choosing briefs. Both will give you added security and take away some of the risks associated with government/underwear. Unless it goes wrong. Which, in underwear looks like the briefs riding up (not fun) and which in government looks like totalitarianism (you always knew it was a pain in the butt). Both briefs and big government keep you nice and close, indeed restricting your freedom a little bit, though you're willing trade that for the benefits.

Small government, on the other hand, is like boxers. Boxers don't restrict you nearly as much, though your risk of accidents or embarrassment is admittedly greater. I suppose the risks associated with a small government is anarchy, or in the case of boxers, the loss of your underwear entirely (which usually doesn't happen if you're wearing pants...could pants represent human decency? Maybe this metaphor is going too far). Briefs and small government allow greater freedom, acknowledging that you are responsible for the risks.

I can't tell you definitively the answer to the boxer/brief controversy or the big/small government controversy. The choice is up to you.

Except that briefs decrease your sperm count.

Iron Man 2

Yes, I did go see the second installment in the Iron Man series. I have to say, after seeing both Iron Man movies as well as Holmes, I think whoever got Robert Downey Jr. clean should get a medal. The man is a fantastic actor. As for the movie itself, the story was decent, the action was excellent, the characters and dialog were fantastic. I must admit, my single favorite moment was probably Rhody in the weaponized iron man suit sawing a drone in half with a minigun. That pretty much made my day. I would recommend this film to anyone, especially because there's no sex shot like in the first, so even younger kids could probably see it without asking awkward questions. (I hate awkward questions; one time my aunt asked me if I thought I would marry my girlfriend (now ex-girlfriend)) Anyway, see Iron Man 2. Now I just need to see How To Tame Your Dragon.

Looking forward to talking with my Periwinkle Ninja tomorrow morning :)

NFS

I play the game Need For Speed 2 a fair amount, primarily to drive the Lambos, but that's another story. Anyway, playing the campaign, near end I began to notice a pattern in the other cars. Namely, the th car that would be out in front would be identical to my own. If I was driving a yellow Murcielago, the best AI driver also had a yellow Murcielago. If I was driving a green Aston Martin Vanquish, so was the leader. At first this trend irritated me, since I knew the person I was competing with had a car with stats identical to my own. But then I realized: they had given me an evil clone!

And that was just all kinds of cool. I mean, sure it's fun to beat the other drivers and get gold and all that, but if you beat your own evil clone then it just becomes epic. So, instead of being mad at NFS, I was appreciative. Very few game designers would be so considerate as to give me an evil clone to whomp, so thanks NFS2, I appreciate it.

The only problem arises when the clone wipes the track with me...

Tough Issues

I rarely let people know that I am, in fact, opposed to homosexuality, usually because they promptly give me look like I'm a dog-kicking child slayer directly after I do so. It's not at all popular to disapprove of homosexuality these days (especially in academia), and it's easy to see why. After all, homosexuals are people just like us, and don't deserve to be treated any differently, right? I wouldn't discriminate against a black person, so why would I then discriminate against a gay person? At this point in the conversation I have to interject, usually, that I disapprove of homosexuality in the same way I disapprove of stealing, lying, or cheating. It's a bad thing to do, but the person is no less deserving of my love and God's than I am. Lord knows I've stolen, lied, and cheated before (not in a big way, but God doesn't discriminate between sins), and I'll be the first to tell you I'm in desperate need of forgiveness.

At this point, people will usually interject to say that my dislike of homosexuality is based on outdated Judeo-Christian principles, which have no place in our government (or, if they're harsh, no place in our society). At this point, my real argument begins. Why don't we let people copulate in the streets? Why don't we approve of people cheating on their spouses? Both this law and this commonly held social belief have no logical basis outside of the Bible. Nothing beyond a modicum of stability is gained by our thinking that men should stay with their wives and vice versa. Nothing is gained by our not allowing people to copulate in the streets. We dislike both of these things why, then? They don't hurt us. They don't inconvenience us personally (well, the copulating couple might be a little difficult to walk around if they're in the street, but so's a mime). Why, then, do we dislike cheating on one's spouse or having sex in public?

The only answer that makes sense is the Bible. Most Americans, even if they don't really believe in God anymore, still hold on to the basic views of right and wrong in the Bible. Adultery is wrong. Sex is private. Alas, if you want to accept these, you must also accept the other, more commonly advertised tenet of the Bible: that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that anything else is a perversion of what God made us for.

Lastly, people often argue about a "gay gene" in the populace, that many people are homosexual simply because they don't have a choice. Now, the definition of "disease" in the Oxford English Dictionary reads thus: "A condition of the body, or of some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged." If a gene in the body prevents someone from using their genitalia for procreation, which is undoubtedly their function, then the gene is acting like a disease, and ought to thus be classified as a genetic disease, oughtn't it? If, on the other hand, the homosexual is not compelled by any genetic influence to be the way he or she is, then homosexuality is a choice, and thus falls much more easily into the realm of a moral question, rather than a scientific or political one.

Now, of the very few people who read this post, chances are they will probably be offended. Most Americans are when they see such blatant "homophobia" (I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I think what they do is wrong). I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings or offended anyone's sensibilities. I'm simply giving you my opinion, and offering what logic I have to back it up. Hmmm...I suddenly feel like I'm more likely in these modern times to be burned at the stake for opposing homosexuality, rather than being homosexual. Ah well, hate me if you wish. If you have a logical answer to anything I've said, leave a comment, please.