Saturday, January 20, 2007

I'm not even cross-dressing today!

My roomie wanted to go shopping today. I tagged along with her to the mall, contemplating buying a jacket or a lightweight coat, as I managed to leave my coat in Middle Tennessee and Memphis is experiencing a cold snap.

As usual, shopping for clothing put me in a bad mood.

We went to Aeropostale first. I like a lot of the clothing in Aeropostale. The look appeals to me: not frilly, simple lines, basic clothing. In fact, as I walk in, I see a denim jacket that I like. When I note that the top jacket, which from a distance I would have pegged for an extra-small, is actually a medium, my heart falls a bit. But I flip through the rack until I find an extra-large. (When stores have clothing that fits me, I alternate between large and extra-large, occassionally a medium.) The extra-large, of course, is just a bit too small on my large shoulders. Oh well, by this point I'm used to clothing from stores and departments aimed at my age group not fitting me. (By the way, I find it ironic that a clothing brand called Self-Esteem doesn't make shirts that will fit me.) I see a couple of shirts that I like in the girl's section, but a quick holding up of the shirt to my shoulders indicates that a correct fit is not to be found in the store. While my roomie is trying on some pants and shirts that she found I did a quick survey of the jeans section. Most of the jeans in the store were between sizes 0-5. I located about four, maybe five pairs of 11/12 jeans and a grand total of two pairs of pants in the 13/14 size. I spared myself the pain of bothering to try on the 11/12s that were in a style and wash I liked (I'm a twelve in some brands). I doubt they would have fit me. The 13/14s were in a hideously light wash. My suspicions that Aeropostale was being paid off by whoever profits from driving girls who like me are caught between regular and plus sizes to thoughts of becoming a nudist confirmed, I became bored and wandared to the boys side of the store.

I regretted my decision to stop wearing mens clothing. Boys clothing appeals to me for some reason. I have a tendency to go shopping for my little brother and come home with clothing for me. Plaid shirts, baggy cargo pants, proportions that aren't overwhelmed by a large bone structure, (for those of you hearing excuses, I did order a larger class ring than the marjority of the guys in my class), plaid shirts again, boys have all the good clothing. The comfortable clothing, the clothing I like. I looked with longing at the cargo pants hanging on the wall. So many pockets. I love pockets! And there would be pants that would fit me. Not a fashionable fit, of course, but they would fit. 34x34 or maybe even a 32x34. (It's been a while since I bought boys jeans. My last, beloved pair, beautifully broken in pair became capris over the summer.) Futhermore, why do manufacturers give boys a more logical and consistent sizing system? I overcame temptation. But then the plaid shirts began to call my name. They were such a pretty blue. A good blue for me. And I don't have to worry about the fitting being designed for breasts larger than mine! But again, I preserved.

And I don't know why I did. Because I really liked those pants.

So, I don't understand a couple of things. First, why in god's name can't the fashion industry manufacture jeans for slightly larger girls? (I'm always finding lots of tiny jeans 0-7 and lots of larger jeans 16-24. This suggests to me that either the gods of clothing hate me, or there are a lot of young women out there who share a body size with me 11-14ish and consistently beat me to the stores.) Secondly, why do guys get the decent clothes? Damn binary gender construction! Futhermore, why did I decide to stop wearing boys clothing?

Monday, January 15, 2007

Assume away, disgusted ones!

Just in case you, along with the rest of the United States was hypnotized by the liberal media into thinking that the Shrub had claimed, as justification for invading, that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, he's here to explain that in addition to spreading freedom (which is, as dish best served via AK-47) invading Iraq with prevent 'instability' in the region. From the Washington Post, which conveniently shows up in my inbox around 5 am most mornings.
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Bush said that although Iraq has descended into instability since the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the removal of Saddam Hussein nonetheless was worthwhile. Hussein's remaining in power, he asserted, would have only led to a potential nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq, which would have created even greater instability.
Now, I assume a lot of things in life. I assume that I exist and an not a voice in someone's head. I assume that the visible world is more real than the voices in my head. I assume that I possess free will. I assume that no single human can ever know the totality of the Divine and therefore can not claim to know the will of God.

Anyone of these assumptions could be wrong, so perhaps I shouldn't come down too hard on the Shrub for assuming that Hussein had WMDs or that Iran and Iraq were going to become engaged in a nuclear arms race, or that his actions (invading some countries, giving the finger to other countries, etc) wouldn't result in other countries feeling a bit worried about their national security and deciding to shore up their defenses by pursuing nuclear weapons.

But then, as a typical rule, mass numbers of people don't die from my assumptions. Unless, of course, the voices in my head who have dissappeared due to gross neglect were indeed more real than the visible world.