If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.

Saturday, July 29

Some Girls Have All the Fun...


This pic is for Scott J. Because I failed to check my blog mail in a timely manner, I missed out on a party at his place which included both beer and mud wrestling. Two of my favorite pastimes. This took place during a work/charity event last Spring. I got to wrestle my former supervisor and sink my boss in the dunk tank. Good day. It was supposed to be all fun and games, but I did my damndest to make her eat dirt. We raised A LOT of money that day. I highly recommend this gimmick for any other professional fundraisers out there.

Saturday, July 22

Why Polly Can't be President

Okay, I know I'm heading into troubled water here, but I've had CNN on non stop for days now and I can think of little else than the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Seriously, I really need to turn off the tube, but Polly is painting her entire first floor this weekend and I need the company. At this point I can lip sink Headline News, and have come to the conclusion that we are a nation of freaks, who grow ever more freakier for the chance to see our obese selves on CNN. I'm never eating again. Celery and Diet Coke for life, I tell you.

Anyhoo, I digress. I began squarely on Israel's side. I did. Hezbollah should have never crossed the line and kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers. Stupid decision. But then Israel starts launching attacks left and right, killing innocent civilians and blowing up the infrastructure of a poor country that has been struggling to rebuild after its last civil war. Hezbollah exists within Lebanon, no doubt, but it is NOT Lebanon. The KKK is not America. Everyone involved and not involved agrees that Lebanon's infant government is impotent in ridding the country of Hezbollah. It also seems all are in agreement that Syria and Iran are to blame. Then why in the hell is Israel punishing innocent citizens and demanding the ultimate sacrifice for another's crimes? Don't bother whining to me about 9/11 and Afghanistan. Two victimized soldiers by Hezbollah is not equal to 3,000 murdered by the Taliban. Yes, I know that Hezbollah has caused Israeli fatalities in all of this, but not nearly as many, and only after Israel started firing at will. To me, it looks like Israel was just itching for a reason to bomb their neighbor.

It will end one of two ways. Diplomatically, with a prisoner exchange. Not likely. Or Israel will occupy Lebanon until it believes it has adequately bombed and disarmed Hezbollah (learn from our mistakes guys, not freaking likely) leaving Lebanon once again in tatters, and the rest of the Middle East itching to pay Israel and it best buddy, the U.S., a nice heaping dose of revenge. Oh! Along with two dead, but immensely precious Israeli soliders to boot.

What the hell does Connie Rice mean when she stated, "There is no point and nothing to be gained by a "premature cease fire?" Well, Con, how about the prevention of the extermination of innocent lives? Something you would think Israel -and the educated world- would well understand, let alone practice.

As troops amass to storm into Lebanon, I can only predict that it won't be much longer before the United States puts its big, fat mouth/thumb into this mess resulting making the whole thing worse. To that end, I say we give the country that yells "Uncle" first the entire state of Nevada. Or Nebraska. We don't need it. Surely we can find another place to dump our nation's nuclear waste or house our cattle. I know Nevada and Nebraska aren't the holy real estate that Israel or Lebanon are, but something's gotta give, and I don't see this ages old conflict ending unless someone moves. I know, I know, and I agree - they all deserve a homeland. So, lets give them a chunk of ours. "We" stole from the Indians, now's a chance to make amends by giving stolen property to a deserving war weary people. Israeli and Lebanese both qualify.

Any takers?

Monday, July 17

But What TYPE of Gay?

Awhile back I watched an Oprah Winfrey show which featured Melissa Etheridge and Dolly Parton as guests. Melissa Etheridge asked Dolly Parton whether or not she believed homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Dolly Parton replied, "Hell, Yes! Equal rights! Why shouldn't you all have to suffer like the rest of us?"

The silly season is upon us, otherwise known as elections. Gay marriage seems to once again to reign as the supreme issue de jour. Petitions have been signed. Voters will be asked to define, constitutionally, what exactly constitutes a marriage. Courts are weighing in on the matter en masse.

To be honest, I am not completely comfortable with gay marriage. However, I can't honestly think of a logical reason to justify preventing it. It is traditional to allow only one man and one woman to marry. So what? The most heinous of society's ills were traditional at one point or another. Slavery, for instance. At one point in this country it was traditional to burn women at the stake if society thought they were witches. Frankly, a lot of traditions annoy the hell out of me. My significant other's family has a "tradition" of letting the women slave away in the kitchen on huge meals during holidays while the menfolk watch football. After the men gorge themselves, they return to worship the television while the women wash the dishes. Sucky tradition. I asked my significant other why his name was printed first on everything. From checks to address labels to junk mail, the guy's name always seems to come first. My significant other justified it by shrugging and saying, "It's tradition babe." Huh. I thought "ladies first" and alphabetical order were also traditional, but the tradition of sexism tends to take priority over both of the aforementioned. Tradition alone as a justification to ban gay marriage doesn't wash.

How about the breakdown of society? How do you figure? Allowing two consenting adults to marry is going to somehow going to threaten civilization? What, two men get married and suddenly people will want marriage to include three or more people or even pets? Not likely. Marriage represents a lifetime commitment to another person. Folks who are into three or more ways don't strike me as the committed type.

It isn't natural. It isn't? Who says? Anyone who has watched rabbits, deer or dogs have likely witnessed homosexuality in species other than humans. I have heard some argue that if homosexuality were, in fact, "natural" or alright with the All Mighty, homosexual intercourse would result in conception. Like there is a shortage of people? Our species is on the verge of extinction is it? If humans are threatened it is because there are too many of us depleting resources. Homosexuality has been with us since ancient times. Perhaps it is nature's or God's way of preventing over population. Don't misunderstand me. I think gays can make good parents. There are plenty of kids out there who have been neglected and abused by heterosexual parents.

With a divorce rate of over fifty percent, it would seem that heterosexuals are the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. It would seem that most heterosexuals have difficulty maintaining and staying committed to a member of the opposite sex.

The full truth is that there is a certain type of gay that I find revolting. It isn't homosexuality in and of itself. Two women or two men in a committed relationship don't threaten or disgust me. However, I have been to Castro Street in San Francisco, seen a gay parade or two in Chicago, and seen a television series or two which all seem to promote a lifestyle that is absolutely perverted.

Think of the "Jack" character on NBC's Will and Grace. Heterosexual or homosexual, if your sexual desires overshadow absolutely everything in your life, you've got problems. That is, if ALL you are is a sexual being, regardless of sexual preference, well, you would fall into my "icky" category as a person. Over sexual beings exist in both worlds. Think of the guy at the bar with his shirt unbuttoned to his navel, the sleaze who has wondering eyes and hands, desperately trying to score with anything female. Icky. I wouldn't want the Jack character or the barfly to be my children's teacher or coaching little league. I don't want to have to rent an apartment to them. They are not normal. I don't trust the judgment of either of them. I don't hate either of them, but I do think they have made sex into something unhealthy and some personality disorder, perversion, or at a minimum- a sexually transmitted disease, likely lies in each.

On the other hand, I have no problem with the "Will" character on Will and Grace. Will represented most of us, I think. He sought a partner to share his life, have children, and grow old with. Most of society shares the same goals. Nothing abnormal there. I'm not a prude, and I'm not saying that sex should be outlawed for those who are not married. I'm not sure I would define sexual intercourse as a "sacred act" even within a marriage. Puhleeze. Is there a married person out there that didn't pursue sex with her or his spouse as a cure for insomnia? Nonetheless, most of us more mature non-prudes, who have lived long enough to have a few regrets, can likely admit- there are few things less satisfying and ultimately more lonely than a one night stand.

It seems to me that the easiest way to try to stamp out the perverted type of homo AND hetero sexual is for society to embrace and promote marriage for both. Society has much to gain from mature adults in committed relationships. Society has much to fear from those who promote sex as just another bodily function, nothing more special than, say, blowing one's nose or going to the bathroom.

Monday, July 3

Hello

Polly is okay. Will be back when I can.

Blog Archive