Thursday, June 7, 2012

3 Things Rursday

Always loved how they put R for Thursday. Why not TH? It's a vast conspiracy I'm telling you.

1) So the twitter world was abuzz (you'd know if you followed my ass) w/ Prop 29 stuff in California this past week. The measure, which failed by a minuscule margin, was to authorize an additional $1 tax on cigarettes. The money collected would be spent toward cancer research. Sounds good in theory. Fellow doper Lance Armstrong was a major advocate. This excise obviously targeted smokers exclusively and therefore was blatantly discriminatory. As a non-smoker, and someone who goes through great lengths to avoid the stench, I think it was a draconian measure. Sure, I wish more people would quit smoking. Sure, revenue for cancer research is important. However this was not the right way to achieve either of those things. A simple majority (in this case would've been barely 50%) should not impose its morality onto others. Ever for that matter. But to enact punitive policy that's specifically targeted is no better than passing anti-gay marriage bills in my eyes. People should voluntarily donate to cancer research. And the government should not be meddling between you and a pack of cigarettes.

2)  The radio show I listen to this morning was debating the chances of a 19 y/olds marriage (in this case, Miley Cyrus) succeeding. Obviously, this is NEVER a good idea. It's way too young to be making a commitment (however irreverent in this day and age via divorce). In fact, that parenthetical deserves more attention. That seems to be the elephant in the room when it comes to marriage. So what if it doesn't work? Just divorce. Undoubtedly, divorce can be debilitating - monetarily, emotionally, etc. But they still happen with great frequency. And really, why not? Sometimes it's in the best interest of all parties involved (spouses, kids, pets). When something stops working, why keep doing it? In my generation's eyes, the 'sanctity' or 'credibility' of marriage has lost much of its luster. Sorry baby boomers, you scarred us. Now, many folks my age and older are forgoing marriage altogether (or getting married much later in life). This is a mature reaction. The government (in another act of blatant favoritism) incentivize(s) marriage, which is why most couples get hitched. The religiosity of such an event has been diluted and the societal revere has also been besmirched.

Surprisingly the fairly progressive (mind you, music radio not talk) folk were upset at one of the shows contributor's for saying it's silly to get married that young. I think it's silly. Despite the flippancy of many weddings, marriage still connotes SOME level of commitment and legitimacy. And you're just not adequately prepared for it at 19. You can spare me anecdotal evidence of relationships that have worked at that age. Empirically you will lose that debate. More marriages succeed when couples wait and are older and more mature and experienced. I think people have the autonomy to do as they please..but if it's MY friend, or MY sibling...I'd give 'em a good talking to at 19.

3) How long is acceptable to admire yourself in front of a mirror? I've been pondering this question lately as I walked into a public bathroom and some (semi-attractive) dude was checking himself out. He was in there before I got in, and barely moved after I left. We all spend time in front of a mirror shaving, applying makeup, tweezing, and other primping. But when does that time become excessive? To me, I spend a lot of time flexing in front of the mirror in jest (in private mind you). In public, I'm in and out. I find it arrogant and somewhat repulsive when people stare at themselves in public mirrors. But today I was thinking, you know what Conor, you never thought you were handsome enough to warrant a long look (even in private). It sounds like an insult but it's really how I feel. I'm fairly attractive, not ugly, not gorgeous. Somewhere between a 6-8 on the scale (of 10). And really, I know damn well what I look like. The more I pear into my soul(less) ain't gonna change a whole lot. Unless a pimple needs popping or my hairline looks particularly awful, I'm good to go. In and out baby. I wonder if I thought of myself as more handsome if I'd look longer? Or less? What do you guys think of the matter???    


Anonymous said...

Longer one looks in the mirror the more self-conscious one becomes therefore if you want to act relaxed and confident in a group its best really to ignore your looks entirely. This may seem counterintuitive but try it and you'll see I'm right. Mirror staring always creates inhibited behavior. And confident intelligent people are rarely narcicists.

Anonymous said...

Look, the govt. has the responsibility to protect the health and well-being of its citizens hence regulating deadly drugs certainly is under its purview. The fact that this same govt. ignores white collar crimes that destroy the economy and family's with it- is hypocritical but at least by taxing smokes they are doing something positive for once. Kudos .

Anonymous said...

You are correct about marrying when older and the stats will support the thesis. That being widely acknowledged ,I can personally tell you that I am familiar with 2 early marriages which are perhaps the strongest, tightest, most fun of many I've seen. So what does that tell you? Perhaps it has more to do with internal forces like maturity and upbringing more than age and social pressures.

Anonymous said...

I've heard that it's physically impossible for you to pass any reflective surface without glancing at your reflection and asking "who's that handsome devil?"
This seems slightly different than your account of mirror usage above...

ConArtist said...

Confident, intelligent people are rarely narcissists!?!?! I dare say anyone who claims either is almost assuredly.

No, the gov. does not have that responsibility. I can supply copious examples of the opposite and remarkable hypocrisy. The gov. is nothing but a tool of the powerful. I'm continually amazed that people assign so much legitimacy to ANY government. It's astounding really. I can't even debate it because your premise (legitimate government) is inherently flawed.

It tells me that's anecdoatal evidence is what that tells me. I actually think that 'social pressures' can be ascribed to the former marriages which you brought up. Perhaps the pressure to get married and stayed married bound them together. Indian culture has arranged marriages at young ages that stay for life...good system??? You be the judge.

No...if it were me I would say, "It's amazing all that handsomeness is consolidated in one face."