"To hold on to sanity too tight is insane..."

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Vanity Fair...

As silly and as stupid as the word is I've actually been called a feminazi. Why? Because I believe in equal pay for women who do the same job as men. I don't think women should be subservient to men, and I certainly don't think that women should have to sexualize themselves in order to be taken seriously.

All that being said, I think people need to get over this whole Vanity Fair "controversy".

Now, hang on before all you girls out there call me a "traitor", and I say I don't believe in the cause. I certainly do, and everything I said above is true. So hear me out.

I had been looking forward to the new Vanity Fair for a few weeks. I'd heard the buzz surrounding it, and had seen some of the screen captures (Jake Gyllenhaal *drool*). I've always appreciated beautiful art and photography (my grandfather was a photographer in WWII and my father was also one, until I was born...but that's another story). I received a package in the mail the other day from my mom and in it was the new VF. I couldn't get back to the dorm fast enough to read it. The images were so well done and really quite lovely.

I knew that people weren't pleased with some of the content in it, but it wasn't until today that I actually read some pretty scathing articles addressing the content. "Experts" labeled it as "vulgar" or even as "pornography". I'm sorry, but I saw no people taking part in an explicit sex anywhere in the magazine. They said it was sad that only the women took their clothes off and it was awful that they had to.

Now stop the presses. Obviously these people haven't looked at the magazine. For one, while yes, there were more women semi-nude than men, Taye Diggs as well as Eric Bana both appeared with very limited clothing on. Also more of the women in the issue were clothed then naked.

None of the women were forced to take their clothes off. According to articles I've read, a good portion of them were quite game and excited at the prospect. Rachel McAdams was uncomfortable with the thought and not wanting her to feel uncomfortable VF told her that it was fine of her not to participate. Obviously the women who were pictured nude/semi-nude wanted to have been, or else they wouldn't be.

As for the men thing, yes there were only a couple men who were partially nude, but let's be honest with ourselves do we really want to look at a naked man? I'm straight, but I'd have to say that when looking at pieces of art, I'm much more comfortable looking at nude women then men (I'm certain most guys feel this way too). Nothing against a guy's body (because you guys can be pretty hot), but there's just something uncomfortable about looking at it for whatever reason. A naked woman is considered art more so than a naked man...at least in today's society.

So, before you bash the VF hollywood issue, take some time too look at it and to really understand exactly what Tom Ford was trying to portray. And hey, if it's not your cup of tea, then don't look at it.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Sick of Farris...

First I apologize for my long absence...but let's not dwell on that.

Out of all the stories I could cover now that I'm back, there is one that has really been driving me crazy over the past week or so. That is the story of Farris. I'm sure everyone has heard of him, it has been in the news almost non-stop here recently.

Farris is the 16 year old Floridian who jetted off to Iraq without his parents permission (well sort of) to experience immersion journalism. Farris skipped a week of school to go to one of the most dangerous places on the planet all because he thought he could walk into AP and get a journalism job.

The thing that really bothers me about this story is how his praises are being sung in the media. We are rewarding him for skipping school and leaving the country without telling his parents. Is that the right message to send to us? I guess it particularly strikes a chord with me, because I'm studying journalism. A career in political journalism is something that I am seriously considering. By covering Farris to this extent is almost like having the media say that his behavior was acceptable, that in order to be a journalist you have to do something stupid like him or else you won't get noticed.

I'm also bothered at his arrogence. He really felt that at 16 he'd be able to waltz right into the AP Iraqi headquarters and tag along and become a journalist. Hello? People go to school for years to be able to go into journalism, and even after all that schooling they have to work their way up, starting with writing uninteresting stories. Farris felt that he could bypass all of that. That's a slap in the face to those of us who are working hard in our studies to legitimately be able to call ourselves journalists.

Maybe it's just me (and my mom), but this story has really struck a nerve with me. I don't think it's responsible of the media to joke about him (such as the references to Ferris Bueller's Day Off). He put himself, and men in our military in danger. He was irresponsible and stupid. He does not deserve our praise, he deserves a good spanking.

I'm tired of our country rewarding stupidity. I'm sure he will be rewared. He'll make all the morning and late night circuits, he'll probably get a book deal, hell he'll probably get a movie deal out of it too.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Fluff...

I hope everyone had a lovely Thanksgiving, filled with lots of turkey (or whatever it is that you eat). In honor of the holiday spirit and for the fact that I am not in a ranting mood this post will be pure celebirty fluff...oh what fun!

So, Nick and Jessica called it quits last week...and who is surprised? I read tabloids religiously, so I knew they were on the rocks (yes, tabloids are capable of producing some form of truth from time to time). I wonder if they're going to do a reality show about their divorce...

Rumor has it that Jennifer Garner gave birth on Black Friday...but it has yet to be confirmed. *Gag* I'm sorry, but I have lost all respect for the woman. I used to be quite a fan. And no my respect for her didn't go down the drain with Alias (though of course her screwing up that once awesome show played a part) it happened when she hooked up with Benny Boy. I have never been a Ben Affleck fan. Sure he and Matt Damon wrote and starred in a really great movie ages ago, but Ben hasn't done a whole heck of a lot since. He's starred in crappy movie after crappy movie and hooked up with half of Hollywood...but then again, can you really blame him for that? Anyways, it makes me mad the way that Jennifer is behaving. She's all anti-paparazzi now (because of Ben), yet had no problem with them during her previous relationships, and quite honestly they probably helped her become who she is. She also let's Ben smoke around her...which is hideous. I don't care if she wants to get cancer from second hand smoke, but I don't think her baby would like it. I don't care if he's "trying to quit" if it were my husband I'd have kicked his ass out long ago until he kicked the habit. If my dad could do it for my mom when she found out she was pregnant with me after smoking for 18 years, then I guarentee you Ben could do the same.

Speaking of kicking someone's ass out, that's exactly what Britney Spears needs to do to "K-Fed". Ugh...I get chills just thinking about him. He is a deadbeat. Why she couldn't see this before is absolutely beyond me. I mean, he has 2 kids that he can't support already, why on earth did she think that he'd be there for hers? He's a poor excuse for a human and an even poorer excuse for a father. He goes out to strip clubs and gets drunk almost every night of the week and spend excessive amounts of Britney's money, while she's at home taking care of the baby. Sorry Brit, but the rest of the world knew this would happen. My advice to you is to dump him. He's not going to change his ways, and he'll never be the bread winner (trust me on this, I heard his first song, I wanted to shoot myself...after I stopped laughing). If you leave him now then you'll only have to give him $300,000.00, and then you can fight for him to pay child support (so, if he actually does make money off of his record you'd get your money back). Not too shabby. Plus then you'd be free to hook up with your one true love...Justin Timberlake.

Kimberly Stewart and Talan (from Laguana Beach) announced they are engaged last week. Now as someone who thinks Kimberly Stewart is dumb and who has never watched an episode of Laguana Beach, I didn't really care. But the fact that they had been dating for like 2 weeks before he gave her a 5 carat diamond (I've been dating my boyfriend for over a year and a half and I haven't gotten 5 carats) made me laugh (especially since it was on CNN). Now c'mon, will this last? Her best friend is Paris Hilton for crying out loud. She keeps moving from shipping heir to shipping heir. I don't see this lasting past the holidays. But then who knows, maybe money does buy love.

Alright, that's it from me. Another post sometime soon (if school isn't kicking my butt too bad...ugh, I'm already stressed out).

Thursday, October 27, 2005

House Republicans are at it Again...

Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination for the Supreme Court, is of course the talk of the town. But c'mon people...as if we didn't see it coming?! Republicans were ticked off by this nomination and she would've never been confirmed, so I don't find this a big surprise.

While it understandably is getting coverage in the news today, there's another story that really isn't getting the attention that I think it should.

House Republicans voted to cut several programs today. These budget cuts add up to over $50 billion dollars. Sounds awesome, right? We got some programs and save a bunch of much needed money.

Sadly, they are wanting to cut programs, that I at least think are very important. They want to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement, aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices, and are also proposing cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies.

Looking at these programs, you know that there are millions of people every day that benefit from them. With student loan subsidies they are going to impose new fees on students default on loans or consolidate them. As well as putting higher fees on parents who borrow money to send their children to college. That's awful. Going to college is really expensive. Luckily, I come from a family, that while not rich, has the means to be able to send me to a good University without having to rely on loans and the like. But there are so many people who depend on these loans to further their education. I have friends who are good students, but didn't stand out enough to get scholarships, so the only way they were able to afford going to college is to have their parents take out loans. I just don't seen the rationale behind this...especially when tuition costs are increasing at such a dramatic rate each year.

The child support enforcement program may confuse some people. Basically this program hunts down "dead beat dads" and gets them to pay some form of child support on their children. By cutting funding, who knows how many fathers can just get away with not supporting their children. Just think of the numbers who do now.

Then the ironic thing is that they want to also cut Medicaid and food stamps. Umm...hello. While I'll be one of the first to admit that food stamps are abused, there are people who use them that actually need them. Many of the people who use them are single mothers, struggling to support their children. But now with cuts to the child support enforcement program which may have helped them get at least some money from their baby's daddy, they are now facing getting cuts from the system that helps them to get food. It makes no sense! I just can't wrap my head around any of this.

It bothers me that the people who want these cuts to occur are rich Republicans, who naturally will never use these programs. I know some of them are abused, and that not everyone on food stamps should be. But instead of cutting the program's money, why not give them more money at the start. That way they'd have more resources in determining exactly who should qualify for food stamps, thus saving money in the long run.

I just have a real problem in cutting these programs, that make a difference in so many people's lives, when we're spending billions of dollars on an unjust war in Iraq. I'll never understand it.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Abortion...

Hmm...it's been awhile, so I thought I'd post a good old fashioned political post about none other than abortion.

I'm a member over at All Alias, and the abortion topic is always lively, and given the recent surge in posts, I thought I'd go ahead I'd post my thoughts on the issue (bet you can already guess what those are).

I am unapologetically pro-choice, and that will never change. I think that the fetus is part of the mother and the mother should get say in what happens with her body. I'll never be convinced otherwise.

I've encountered many arguments from the other side, and in order to make my point I'm going to post some of the bigger ones and then answer with my response.

If you don't want the child then give him/her up for adoption, so they can go to a loving family.

This is a good idea in theory...but not at all realistic. I've heard this argument so many times that it makes me want to scream. First off that still requires the mother to put her life on hold and carry an unwanted child for 9 months. But without even getting into that aspect there is no guaranteer of a "loving family". Yes, there are many children who do get adopted by families who desperately want them and love them. But then there are so many others who don't. They end up living in orphanages, or being bounced around from foster home to foster home. There are half a million children living in foster care in the US, and there are over 40,000 that are eligible for adoption each year and don't get adopted. 16% of those children are under the age of one...so newborns aren't being adopted (which probably has to do with a race issue). If pro-lifers could give me a guarantee that every child would be adopted into a loving family, then maybe I'd rethink my stanuch stance on the issue...but that's not going to happen.

It's the woman's fault for having sex in the first place

*rolls eyes* Give me a break. So it's okay for men to have sex because they can't physically get pregnant, but it's not alright for women? Ridiculous. I guess women shouldn't have sex unless they are trying to make a baby, because there is always a risk for getting pregnant...now c'mon, how realistic is that? Sex isn't only for baby making...it's pleasurable! Get a grip people...of course it's pleasurable, why else would people think about/do it constantly? This argument just holds no grounds with me. Especially when you consider that well over half all women who get abortions were on some method of protection when they got pregnant. Obviously these women were taking precautions to protect themselves, and they sadly failed. Should they be punished for that? I don't think so. And no, these are not all unmarried women who are "sleeping around". There are plenty of married women in stable relationships who get abortions as well. They might not feel that the time is right or may not be financially stable yet and feel that an abortion is the best option.

Post-abortion depression happens to many women who have abortions

Nope. Sorry, but there is no such thing. Post-abortion depression is a myth that has come about in a large part because of pro-lifers who want to use medical backing to get their point across. Sorry, not working. Now while it's true that some wome who do get abortions become depressed it's like 1% (and the majority of this 1% had a history of mental illness). But, let's just say that there was credence to their argument. So, we should ban all abortions because some women experience depression after having one? Well, I guess that must mean that we should ban all pregnancies in general. The vast majority of women who give birth suffer from depression (so actually you have a much higher chance of being depressed carrying the baby to term then you do if you abort it). 15% of mothers experience the serious post-partum depression and 70-80% experience the less serious baby blues (something which my own mother experienced after having me). Bottom line is the number of women who suffer depression after an abortion is so extremely small...there just isn't an argument here.

Alright, I would add more to it, but I'm tired, so this will have to do for now.

Friday, September 30, 2005

The Death of Alias...

*sigh* Alias premiered last night. I cried. And threw things at the TV. And yelled some very choice words at the TV. I'm better today, but still pissed off. All I can really say is that the writers/producers/directors/cast/crew are all a bunch of fucktards...and I hate them.

So, I knew it was coming. I gave up trying to be spoiler free after I stumbled across some by accident over the summer, so I decided to embrace them. It was pretty obvious from very numerous sources that Michael Vartan's character Michael Vaughn was going to be killed off very early on in the season...and he was, last night.

It was terrible! Yes, I adore Michael Vartan and am pissed for them killing him off the show, but I'm even more mad as to the reasons why. None of it made any sense. The whole episode didn't seem real...it seemed too screwed up. Vaughn has NEVER given any indication that he was working for the other side (except that one time he was looking into Irinia...but that was justified and he was just protecting Syd). Anyways the storyline to show him being "unloyal" was so utterly laughable.

Basically his name isn't really Michael Vaughn, it's Andre Michaux. His father was involved in some cryptography with a bunch of other guys. When these guys started to get shot and killed, Vaughn's dad decides to change their names and join the CIA. Ok, wtf?! Umm...you'd think that you wouldn't be able to get a job with the CIA if you had just changed your name. Don't you think they'd look into that? Especially since Vaughn's dad wasn't a native American (as his name points out). So he changed his whole family's name with no one being the wiser and joins one of the top US governmental branches...not all that plausible.

Along the way, Vaughn meets Syd and decides to take her case because she mentions something that he's been looking into. They fall in love but he never once mentions anything along the lines that he's working with members from the other side, nor do any indications of this pop up...until last night's episode.

It was like that everything we've seen in the 4 years of Alias prior to last night was just a bunch of crap. None of what we know about Vaughn would ever suggest that he'd do something like this. My God, he went on a wild goose chase last season to find his father and didn't know what his father was into. Last night, he knew exactly what his father was involved in and even took up where he left off...what the hell?!

Then he's shot 15 times...but doesn't die immediately. Give me a break, if someone took 15 shots to the chest, they'd be dead. But then we have this agonizing hospital scene where he "dies". Now there are some people out there who think he's not really dead...and I do think that some of their points are valid. Syd and Jack didn't seem that upset about it, Syd gave him something to drink right before he flat lined, they kept sharing these meaningful looks, and it was a closed casket funeral. C'mon people, Vaughn is GORGEOUS. His face wasn't injured, why wouldn't they want to show that beautiful speciman of a man? So, I guess those arguments could prove that he is alive (though I doubt we'll be seeing much of him...even if he is alive, I don't think we'd see him come back until the second half of the season to wrap things up, like make an honest woman out of Syd...since this will be the last season). The only argument people are giving that he "must be alive" that really bugs me is because he was sitll listed in the credits. Give me a break, people are listed in the credits all the time when they die, then next episode they are taken out. Like Kellie Martin in ER. The episode that she died, she was still listed as a main character so to not give away the fact that she did die.

Honestly though, I would almost be madder if they did bring Vaughn back. I love him, but I hate how Alias ALWAYS does that. They kill somebody by mistake, people don't like it, so they bring them back. I just want to tell them to grow some balls and leave the dead for dead...idiots.

Alright, enough of Vaughn, here are some other things that bothered me. The pregnancy thing. I'm sorry but I hate the fact that she's pregnant. I know she is in real life and that it can't be really helped...but give me a break, it's such a strech. And the ways that they were "hiding" it were so laughable. She held this huge purse in front of her stomach or kept a shawl on her arm that she held in front of her stomach...it's like duh, we know that she's pregnant. Then all the episodes will be 4 months after last night, to explain her huge stomach. Thanks a lot Jennifer Garner.

I don't know what to do anymore. Part of me wants to completely wipe my hands clean of anything dealing with the show. Another part wants me to watch so I can see the whole thing self destruct and laugh while they try to pick up the pieces. And another part wants me to watch, because I have for 4 years, and I keep hoping (even though I know it won't happen) that they can make this better. It won't happen, wishful thinking.

So, that's my analysis on Alias. And while I might seem like a crazy person, my comfort is that I am certainly not alone.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The War on Porn...

*sigh* The topic title would be hilarious...if it weren't for the fact that it is the title of an actual "war" that we are fighting.

Yes, the Bush administration has launched the War on Porn! We can all breathe a sigh of relief. We can go to bed safely, knowing that there are men and women out there that are protecting us from the big bad porn monster! Thank God!! Not a day goes by that I don't worry about whether or not my young, innocent mind could potentially see such vile images. I'm glad that the Bush administration has gotten its priorities in line. Screw those guys fighting in Iraq, the real issue that needs to be addressed is legal pornography! Go Bush!

...Alright, now back to reality. There is an actual War on Porn...didn't make that up, and yes, we have dedicated at least 10 FBI agents and other various people to the "cause". It is listed as "one of the top priorities" of our Attorney General.

Here's what I'm not getting...what the hell is up with this?! Before you go off, this is not targeting child porn. Infact this operation has absolutely nothing to do with child pornography, and the agents involved aren't looking into that. These guys will be studying/collecting information on legal porn that is involving consenting adults.

Alberto Gonzales says that porn is a threat to our families and children...bullshit. I don't know where there is any evidence of this being true. I suppose that there is some correlation between men who watch porn and sexism towards women...but there are plenty of asshole men who don't watch porn and do the same thing. Likewise there are plenty of wonderful men, who enjoying watching/looking at a little porn once in awhile to relieve stress and other such things.

If parents don't want their children looking at porn, then put up blocks on those webpages. Or better yet monitor what webpages your child is visiting and put the computer in a high traffic area in your home. I'd be more concerned on the education my child was receiving and the low quality of many public schools. Or I'm pretty concerned with the other freaking wars that we're supposed to be fighting.

I know some really great guys who watch porn, and I have seen it. Yep, I've watched porn before. Mainly out of curiosity, and not a whole lot of it. I watched one weird Showtime movie with fairies and I've seen a few websites. It certainly isn't my thing, but there isn't any harm in it. If porn had that big of an impact on society and was that terrible then I think a lot of bad things would happen...that isn't the case.

I just feel that this whole thing is dumb and a waste of our money and time. What's next, The War on Twinkies because they make some people fat?