Intriguing v. Interesting

Pardon me a selfish rant but I've always wondering what word would be describe my enigmatic nature.  I've been told that I'm a "special kind of person" which I have not taken to offensively.  I'd rather be singled out for the things that I couldn't explain than ignored for the things I could.  However, I've juggled two words in my head "interesting" and "intriguing."  Interesting means holding the attention while intriguing means engaging the interest to a marked degree.  Now I will say I think I am freakin' awesome and if you disagree feel free to fornicate yourself repeatedly and to completion with a railroad spike.  But I could say that I am intriguing and interesting?  I think that I do peak the interest but my ability to maintain that interest can wane from time to time.  I think I can be interesting but at times lack the intrigue.  What does one do when they can't find the perfect word for themselves?  I guess let others find it for them.

You Should Call Your Penis Lisa

As am sure you all know, men have the tendency to refer to the inanimate objects they own by feminine pronouns and adjectives, i.e. "My car's a beauty, she purrs like a kitten" etc.  But what I've noticed is that men always seems to refer to their penis as a guy.  Why the distinction?  As far as we know penises do not come alive at night, jump off their holder and live a life unto their own.  This would lead one to believe that they are inanimate.  And unless your junk is on loan I'm pretty sure you own it...so why can't you refer to your penis as Janet instead of Johnson, Pauline instead of Peter?  Does is it have something to do with the fact that a penis is a source of a man's power and that to associate power with a female is just to mind-bottling (mind-bottling, you know when your thoughts get trapped in a bottle) to comprehend? Perhaps maybe.  It's clear that despite the machismo, men low-key have a subconscious fear of women overpowering them.  I would too, women are crazy! But I digress, just a thought that you should try it some time and see how you feel about it.  Calling your wang Lisa instead of The Octagon just sounds so much nicer.

This is me keeping up with my blog

Nothing of particular note today but this is the beginning of the new blog

Chapstick Anyone?

What makes the world go round? Although I hate it with every fiber of my being, part of the spinning world's lubricant is the spit coming from the asses that get kissed daily by it s citizens. Never was a more apt example of apple-polishing than the law school environment. Everyday, it is a never ending battle to not whip a book at one of my classmates who decide that the way to get ahead in school is to pander to our professors. Now I give credit where credit is due but these are regular people who put their proverbial pants on one leg at a time. So I wonder why all the brownosing? And I begin to realize, the mediocrity that plagues their personality is motivating them to under a deeper truth than most would not not like to admit. If you can kiss enough ass then you can get somewhere faster than the person who actually believes they are equal to their presupposed betters. Diplomacy, ambassadorship, peace talks....fancy talk for kiss ass opportunities. How else are you going to get far unless someone gives the ol' reach around to the person in charge. Windmill anyone? A few HJs probably would've helped the most despotic of leaders. They say it's better to be at the right hand of the devil then in it's path...how else to get there without giving him a good ol'fashioned rusty trombone? So perhaps next time I get ready to turn my face at the highly pathetic acts of sucking up, I'll swallow my pride, pucker my lips and ask Chapstick anyone?

Twitter

Recently joined and I'm still trying to determine the allure. is it because we need to feel like someone's always paying attention to what we're doing? Or we need some vindication for the meaningless things we do everyday?

Top or Bottom?

So I read this very interesting article y'day (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653?GT1=43002) and essentially what it addressed was a Biblical defense of homosexuality. Now this won't be a response about that article but merely a thought that resulted from it. This article addressed something that I hadn't realized until now. There are no lesbians in the Bible. Now I checked myself just to be sure but yeah no mention of lesbians. Men yes, women no. And then I thought to myself y? Is "lesbianism" not as "offensive" as the "sodomy" mentioned in the Bible. I mean a whole town burned because of the "sodomy" going on. And then I realized maybe its because you can't have two powerful forces in a relationship. Allow me to expound. In the beginning God makes man from dust and breathes life into him and decides that he needs help so he creates all these animals but he decides he needs more help so he makes him a woman. How you ask? By creating her from man's rib and calling her woman b/c she came from him so that they could be man and wife. (Gen 2: 7-25 KJV) Now in the Bible as well as in other cultures it is understood that the man is the head of the household and the woman should bend to his will yadda, yadda, oppression and subjugation, which leads me to believe that homosexuality btwn 2 women isn't referenced in the Bible b/c as a woman the amount of influence and impact is less than that of a man's so essentially who would care if you fight over who does the laundry. BUT two men would mean too much power in one relationship and according to gender roles one would have to submit to the other. Which leads me to believe that the issue is more so related to who gets to call themselves the boss and the possible misrepresentation of a man's "role" in a relationship.

Are you the next Jesus Christ?

No blasphemy intended but I often wonder why ppl put so much import on looking for the next greatest leader since sliced bread. Why don't ppl ever believe they're that leader? If you believe in the presence of a Higher Being and in the possibility of a new world--why couldn't you be that person that brings in that new world. Yes we know that Jesus was the son of God and that imbibed him with a supernatural "aura" but it wasn't the miracles that made ppl follow him it was his promises and his conviction. If you believe so strongly y couldn't you also encourage others to believe. Jesus wept, and bled and also doubted at times that this was his purpose. Son of God yes--devoid of human emotions--no. And if Christians consider themselves to be a child of God would that not enable them to take up the same charge. Oftentimes ppl put all this energy into following pastors and deacons and Sunday school teachers without realizing these ppl are working with the same materials you have. Seminary studies can be available to anyone--without even thinking about the school the message is still readily available to all. So the next time you find yourself enthralled in the pulpit b/c of the pastor's interpretation consider this for a moment if you read the same passage would you see it the same way and would it be any less important than his/hers?