The three Republican-Democrat Presidential debates and the one Vice Presidential debate were covered incessantly. Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central (yes, for the sake of the argument, I'm including it), CBS, MSNBC, whatever - we heard every possible, stupid angle on every possible response.
Factcheck.org pointed out that both sides told lies, or at least untruths. Each news source praised the side they lean toward while lambasting the other. If their preferred candidate did worse, there were other factors at fault - the moderator, the altitude, the questions asked.
Neither of these candidates represent me, and I often find myself surprised at people who allow either candidate to represent them either.
This isn't to say either candidate is bad (although that is my opinion, I respect that others may disagree). It's to say that people who are self-professed liberals will blindly follow President Obama, and people who are self-professed conservatives will blindly follow Mitt Romney. A voter will decide that the other candidate is so hateful and so awful that she forgives faults in the candidate she decides is the lesser of two evils, even if these faults are beliefs or practices that go against everything she stand for.
Obama supporters will focus on Big Bird and ignore the drone attacks. Romney supporters will focus on a confused definition of socialism (seriously, shouldn't you have to define socialism before you use it on national television?) and ignore the seriousness of rape.
During his recap of the third debate, Jon Stewart praised Obama's performance and pointed that Romney would do everything Obama is doing concerning foreign policy. At no point did he mention that Obama's foreign policy often did, in fact, mirror Bush's - a foreign policy he used to tear to shreds. But Stewart is liberal and therefore supports Obama, because the only imagined alternative is too loathsome to imagine.
How, in an age of information overload, in an age where we can barely keep track of how many choices to share ideas we have, do we still only allow ourselves the option of either Democrat or Republican? And how, in the age of the internet, do most of our news sources ignore everything that isn't a part of the two major parties?
Here's where some asshole brings up money and corporations, like I'm some naive child that needs a pat on the head. But sometimes doing the right thing IS the right political move. Barack Obama finally endorsed same-sex marriage, for example. So for us to further democracy (and therefore continue to ensure a thriving middle-class, considering a democracy is the form of government most well-suited to the middle class), we need to make sure we have options, to make sure we can vote for someone we actually believe in.
I know the candidate I'm endorsing has ideas that may be impractical, but she is 100% opposed to drone attacks while also being 100% opposed to transvaginal ultrasounds. She's against drilling for oil (which apparently both Romney and Obama support), and she has a different idea of how to approach education.
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate. I'm trying to say that there are other options. In an era where we have countless ways to communicate and share ideas, it's mind-boggling that, in the political sphere, we limit ourselves to two schools of thought.
It won't always be this way. It can't. The internet has transformed the way we socialize (Facebook, online dating, Instagram), transformed the way we receive our news (Newsweek is almost out of print), and transformed the way we watch movies (Netflix) and read books (Kindle). There hasn't been an information revolution this drastic since Gutenberg invented the printing press. It is only a matter of time that, with more access to more information than ever before, we widen our options.
The internet will save us all, if we let it. I guess I have to be patient, as difficult as that is. Long live democracy. But only if we, as a society, embrace the change the internet has made possible.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Post Birthday Thoughtzz
Two days ago I turned twenty-three.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
Monday, October 1, 2012
In Defense of Saturday Night Live
For a month of summer when I was 12, I watched nothing but reruns of old Saturday Night Live episodes. I learned two things. Saturday Night Live makes me laugh. And Steve Martin is a god.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
This sketch was funny the first time. You forget it wasn't funny after that because your childhood memories are warped.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Jesus Christ Married a Whore
It's come out this past week that there is a document from the fourth century that tells of a time during which Jesus referred to his wife Mary Magdalene.
I'm going to ignore The Da Vinci Code because that book is terrible.
Obviously, this is centuries after Jesus died. And obviously one reference like this is not irrefutable evidence that he was, in fact, married. And obviously the Catholic Church is going to ignore it because sex is the devil and Jesus was above all that because he is the Christ.
But when I first learned about this new evidence, brought to us by Harvard professor Karen L. King, I suddenly and fully remembered what having faith in my religion was like. It had been years since I'd become disillusioned with my religion, and almost two years since I had a crisis of faith concerning whether or not I believed in God and the Holy Trinity (pretty sure by any stretch of the imagine I am now officially a lapsed Catholic).
I believe in God still, sure, and I believe Jesus was totally awesome, but I sort of hate the story of his death. If you think about it (and by it I mean the crucifixion), Christianity is a rather violent religion. I'm not really here to wax philosophic on religion and Christianity, though. I'm here to talk about the awesomeness that consists of a Jesus-Mary Magdalene marriage.
There's a girl on my facebook newsfeed that has posted a status, multiple times, that drives me crazy. "Remember ladies, if you're easy to get, you're easy to forget!" First of all, who posts the same status more than once? That's dumb. Secondly, this status is not particularly insightful. We're not covering any new ground here, so the repetition was not actually necessary. And finally, the 60s happened, and now I can fuck who I want and still respect myself in the morning. Thank you.
But we as a society still have this weird relationship with sex, and it's tied up in centuries of societal norms and jealousy and love and, yes, religion. Praying to a Christ that has never had sex makes the act less than holy - gives it a bad rap. Sex is dirty and wrong unless it's within the confines of an ordained-by-God marriage, and the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Any marriage, and by extension sex itself, without thought to procreation is wrong. Jesus, because he never planned to have children, never got married, and therefore never had sex.
UNLESS HE MARRIED MARY MAGDALENE. If this is true, if we find out this marriage was real and it happened, then we know this is true: the Son of God married a prostitute. And he didn't exactly do it for the children.
A woman who got paid to have sex was not beneath the marriage bed of JESUS MOTHEREFFING CHRIST. This idea... hoo. Oh boy. I love this idea so much. I want to put this concept in my bathtub and swim in it, soak in it, live in it. Line my coffin that holds my cold, decaying corpse with it and be in it forever.
So remember ladies (assuming any of this is true). Powerful men like women with experience. Lots of experience. It's your God-given duty to be promiscuous.
I'm going to ignore The Da Vinci Code because that book is terrible.
Obviously, this is centuries after Jesus died. And obviously one reference like this is not irrefutable evidence that he was, in fact, married. And obviously the Catholic Church is going to ignore it because sex is the devil and Jesus was above all that because he is the Christ.
But when I first learned about this new evidence, brought to us by Harvard professor Karen L. King, I suddenly and fully remembered what having faith in my religion was like. It had been years since I'd become disillusioned with my religion, and almost two years since I had a crisis of faith concerning whether or not I believed in God and the Holy Trinity (pretty sure by any stretch of the imagine I am now officially a lapsed Catholic).
I believe in God still, sure, and I believe Jesus was totally awesome, but I sort of hate the story of his death. If you think about it (and by it I mean the crucifixion), Christianity is a rather violent religion. I'm not really here to wax philosophic on religion and Christianity, though. I'm here to talk about the awesomeness that consists of a Jesus-Mary Magdalene marriage.
There's a girl on my facebook newsfeed that has posted a status, multiple times, that drives me crazy. "Remember ladies, if you're easy to get, you're easy to forget!" First of all, who posts the same status more than once? That's dumb. Secondly, this status is not particularly insightful. We're not covering any new ground here, so the repetition was not actually necessary. And finally, the 60s happened, and now I can fuck who I want and still respect myself in the morning. Thank you.
But we as a society still have this weird relationship with sex, and it's tied up in centuries of societal norms and jealousy and love and, yes, religion. Praying to a Christ that has never had sex makes the act less than holy - gives it a bad rap. Sex is dirty and wrong unless it's within the confines of an ordained-by-God marriage, and the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Any marriage, and by extension sex itself, without thought to procreation is wrong. Jesus, because he never planned to have children, never got married, and therefore never had sex.
UNLESS HE MARRIED MARY MAGDALENE. If this is true, if we find out this marriage was real and it happened, then we know this is true: the Son of God married a prostitute. And he didn't exactly do it for the children.
A woman who got paid to have sex was not beneath the marriage bed of JESUS MOTHEREFFING CHRIST. This idea... hoo. Oh boy. I love this idea so much. I want to put this concept in my bathtub and swim in it, soak in it, live in it. Line my coffin that holds my cold, decaying corpse with it and be in it forever.
So remember ladies (assuming any of this is true). Powerful men like women with experience. Lots of experience. It's your God-given duty to be promiscuous.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
What The Humanization of Vampires on Your TV Screen Says About Humanity Today
Do you guys like vampires? Because I LOVE vampires. I've always loved vampires, even before TWILIGHT came out and TRUE BLOOD came on HBO. I read DRACULA and INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE while I was in middle school. Watched the movie BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER when I was even younger.
In fact, I've always been fascinated with dark stuff and magic and the supernatural and scary monsters and things that go bump in the night. Halloween was my favorite holiday growing up. My dad used to joke that all the short stories I wrote when I was little always killed someone off. In eighth grade a short story I wrote for history class was deemed too graphic by my teacher and I had to rewrite it (it was a ghost story at an industrial plant in Lowell in the 19th century - I guess she didn't like that the machines killed a little boy).
All this leads up to a moment freshman year of college, early 2008. A friend of mine had just gotten obsessed with this book series called Twilight. This was months before the movie release, when the books were really getting a following in the teenage fan girl subset of our culture. I asked her what it was about, and she told me it was a love story between a human girl and a vampire boy.
Ugh. My first reaction was complete and utter UGH. Because vampires are the soul-sucking undead. They feed on humans and kill them and turn them into scary monsters that can't go out in the daylight which shows you how EVIL THEY REALLY ARE and also it's super gross if you think about it because the vampire is like 100 years old and the human girl is a child.
This is what originally turned me off True Blood and THE VAMPIRE DIARIES as well. I was very anti-human/vampire love story. Vampires are monsters. Sexy monsters, that sensually bite your neck, sure. If you were some other sort of supernatural creature, fine - have fun with vampires. But as a human, you do not fuck (with) monsters.
My feelings about Twilight haven't changed much - mostly because Bella is one of the worst protagonists in modern literature, if not all time. I'm going to ignore Twilight from here on out.
But I finally got on the True Blood train right before season 4, and that is a hell of an entertaining ride (although story-wise, it's not great, but it's really fun to watch). And The Vampire Diaries? Good god is that genre television at its best. Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer made me root for a vampire/human love story (shipping Buffy and Angel foreverrrr). I have embraced the vampire/human love story, and I'm glad. It has given us some wonderful Bill Compton moments (although sometimes he kind of sucks), some glorious Eric Northman moments (season 4 excluded), some crazy awesome Damon Salvatore moments, and some truly touching Stefan Salvatore moments (one of the most mutli-dimensional characters on TV today).
Until recently, vampires were creatures to be feared. Soulless, hateful, no regard for human life. Intelligent, which made them all the scarier. Creepy, steeped in weird mythology and living in dark, dank castles that hadn't seen real human life in centuries. They were an OTHER. Even in Interview with a Vampire, told from a vampire point of view, they were still other, separate, not human.
But now we see them struggle with their humanity, their love of a particular human. They have an instinct to feed, but they have respect for human life. You can start to put yourself in the position of a vampire, feel empathy for a vampire.
It's exciting. Our bad guys used to be Disney villains that wreaked havoc for no other reason than evil. As we, as a society, understand more about the human condition, human psychology, and ourselves, we cut more slack to those we had firmly put in the "other" category simply for being different than us.
More acceptance of vampires, even if its just genre storytelling, is indicative of a society that is more accepting of those we once wrote off as "the bad guy." The humanization of vampires is a symbol of the progress we humans have made towards world unity. Towards world understanding. Towards world peace.
Thank your local vampire aficionado today. We couldn't have done it without them. (Well, us. Me too. Us.)
In fact, I've always been fascinated with dark stuff and magic and the supernatural and scary monsters and things that go bump in the night. Halloween was my favorite holiday growing up. My dad used to joke that all the short stories I wrote when I was little always killed someone off. In eighth grade a short story I wrote for history class was deemed too graphic by my teacher and I had to rewrite it (it was a ghost story at an industrial plant in Lowell in the 19th century - I guess she didn't like that the machines killed a little boy).
All this leads up to a moment freshman year of college, early 2008. A friend of mine had just gotten obsessed with this book series called Twilight. This was months before the movie release, when the books were really getting a following in the teenage fan girl subset of our culture. I asked her what it was about, and she told me it was a love story between a human girl and a vampire boy.
Ugh. My first reaction was complete and utter UGH. Because vampires are the soul-sucking undead. They feed on humans and kill them and turn them into scary monsters that can't go out in the daylight which shows you how EVIL THEY REALLY ARE and also it's super gross if you think about it because the vampire is like 100 years old and the human girl is a child.
This is what originally turned me off True Blood and THE VAMPIRE DIARIES as well. I was very anti-human/vampire love story. Vampires are monsters. Sexy monsters, that sensually bite your neck, sure. If you were some other sort of supernatural creature, fine - have fun with vampires. But as a human, you do not fuck (with) monsters.
My feelings about Twilight haven't changed much - mostly because Bella is one of the worst protagonists in modern literature, if not all time. I'm going to ignore Twilight from here on out.
But I finally got on the True Blood train right before season 4, and that is a hell of an entertaining ride (although story-wise, it's not great, but it's really fun to watch). And The Vampire Diaries? Good god is that genre television at its best. Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer made me root for a vampire/human love story (shipping Buffy and Angel foreverrrr). I have embraced the vampire/human love story, and I'm glad. It has given us some wonderful Bill Compton moments (although sometimes he kind of sucks), some glorious Eric Northman moments (season 4 excluded), some crazy awesome Damon Salvatore moments, and some truly touching Stefan Salvatore moments (one of the most mutli-dimensional characters on TV today).
Until recently, vampires were creatures to be feared. Soulless, hateful, no regard for human life. Intelligent, which made them all the scarier. Creepy, steeped in weird mythology and living in dark, dank castles that hadn't seen real human life in centuries. They were an OTHER. Even in Interview with a Vampire, told from a vampire point of view, they were still other, separate, not human.
But now we see them struggle with their humanity, their love of a particular human. They have an instinct to feed, but they have respect for human life. You can start to put yourself in the position of a vampire, feel empathy for a vampire.
It's exciting. Our bad guys used to be Disney villains that wreaked havoc for no other reason than evil. As we, as a society, understand more about the human condition, human psychology, and ourselves, we cut more slack to those we had firmly put in the "other" category simply for being different than us.
More acceptance of vampires, even if its just genre storytelling, is indicative of a society that is more accepting of those we once wrote off as "the bad guy." The humanization of vampires is a symbol of the progress we humans have made towards world unity. Towards world understanding. Towards world peace.
Thank your local vampire aficionado today. We couldn't have done it without them. (Well, us. Me too. Us.)
Friday, September 7, 2012
I'm Glad You Stuck Around on My TV Screen
What is Justified without Boyd Crowder? Or Breaking Bad without Jesse Pinkman? I shudder to think. But there was a time, in these shows' and characters' inceptions, in which they were supposed to be written off by the end of the first season or, in Boyd's case, the first episode.
There's a lot of characters on TV like that, and although they're across the board all entertaining (hence why they stuck around), the success of their storylines varies. Here is a list of the best used - and the worst.
THE BEST
1. Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins), JUSTIFIED
Justified is one of the best shows on TV. Most of the people that I know that watch it are older (my parents and my uncle, for example), which is a bummer for the young folks because they're missing out on some crazy good television. And considering there is a SHIT TON OF AWESOME (Raylan Givens, Ava Crowder, Mags, Quarles, Limehouse - hell, they even got rid of the one weak element in the show, Winona, going into season 4) in this show, it's saying a lot when I declare, with no reservations, that Boyd Crowder the best thing about Justified.
Boyd and Raylan's complicated relationship is the centerpiece of the show by this point - something of a mix of respect, dislike, distrust, brotherhood, and an underlying need of the other (mostly for information). And Walton Goggin OWNS this role. Justified is great without Boyd, but it's on an entirely better level with him.
Also he and Ava are super cute together.
2. Opie Winston (Ryan Hurst), SONS OF ANARCHY
Sons of Anarchy is one of the more entertaining shows on this list (although stretches of it can be frustrating - see the finale of an otherwise awesome season 4). However, Opie's development has consistently made for good storytelling and good television. Only supposed to be a in a few episodes of season 1, Ryan Hurst has created one of the more multi-dimensional characters on this show.
From dealing with the (spoilerss) death of his wife, to his romance in season 2, to his relationship with his father, to his relationships with Jax and Clay (and Clay's complete manipulation of him to get to Jax), Opie has become a necessary and fascinating character - a character I'm interested in, a character I want only good things for even as I know it's unlikely.
And god damn did I love his confrontations with Stahl. TEAM OPIE.
3. Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), BREAKING BAD
Obviously Jesse Pinkman is on here. In Gilligan's first draft of the pilot, he wasn't even Jesse - he was Dupree, a dumbass name that I'm glad got corrected. And Jesse became integral to the show, as his relationship with Walter White deepened, and his relationship with Mike and Gus became more and more complicated. Jesse's character development is just as fascinating as Walter White's, as he started off as a twenty-something not sure of his identity, spiraling further and further into a web of drugs, lies, and mortal danger, and Aaron Paul plays him to a T. Jesse is the man.
I put him behind Boyd because nobody beats Boyd, and behind Opie because at this stage of either show, Opie has more to do than Jesse. I trust the writers of Breaking Bad, and I'm sure he'll come back swinging next season, but right now there's not much for him to do.
4. Cheryl Tunt (Judy Greer), ARCHER
Cheryl was supposed to be the first casualty in an ongoing joke, where Sterling Archer sleeps with one of his mother's assistants after another. But then they cast the great Judy Greer, and that all changed.
What started as a funny but cliched joke turned into one of the craziest characters on TV today, and Judy Greer plays that shit like no one else could. Crazy rich, psychotic, a glue drinker, and into all sorts of weird sex stuff, Cheryl is a gem, and her character gets better every season.
5. Niklaus "Klaus" Mikaelson (Joseph Morgan), THE VAMPIRE DIARIES
Okay, I love The Vampire Diaries. I know it's on the CW, but it's my favorite vampire show (Buffy gives it a run for its money, True Blood isn't even close to as good). The characters are all great, the storylines are all interesting. There's enough critical love of this show (except for the first couple episodes) where I don't have to defend myself any further.
Klaus came on to the scene in season 2 and was a force to be reckoned with. The Big Bad. They were supposed to kill him off, but they liked Joseph Morgan so much they kept him around. Which honestly? Understandable. Joseph Morgan is fantastic.
But now this evil vampire of evil, bent on world domination and destruction, has been written as some kind of demi-god who can never die without killing off the main characters as well. We're in a bind here.
I'm keeping him here under best, though, because I love his love of Caroline (seriously, I LOVE Caroline), because of the twist in the season 3 finale, and because he's really goddamn sexy. I mean, look at him. And when he talks? Oh god. Oh man. I love Klaus.
THE NOT SO BEST
5. Lafayette (Nelsan Ellis), TRUE BLOOD
True Blood isn't very good anymore. This makes me sad to say, because the first three seasons were damn entertaining. But between throwing every storyline possible in the mix to see what fits (werepanthers will always be my least favorite storyline of all time, although the Iraqi ifrit story tried its damndest to best it) and the awkward pacing of the main storylines due to too many other storylines crowding the episodes and some truly unlikeable characters (Tommy, Arlene, Mrs. Fortenberry), it's not a good show. Although season 5 was pretty damn entertaining.
Lafayette, who is killed at the beginning of book 2, stayed in the show around because he was a fan favorite and because Nelsan Ellis is amazing. He's still a fun character to watch, but his storylines haven't been great, making him feel somehow misused.
Keep your chin up, Lafayette - they saved Tara, maybe they can save you too.
4. Andy Bernard (Ed Helms), The Office
Andy was only supposed to be on for a season, but they combined his character with another to make him recurring. Fair enough - Ed Helms is a masterful man, and a very funny actor. I like him as boss much more than I ever liked Michael Scott (still not sure why people ever liked Michael Scott, one of TV's most overrated characters despite how awesome Steve Carrell is).
However, The Office blows now, and I don't care about any of the characters. Unfortunately, that includes Andy.
3. Spike (James Marsters), BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Oh Spike. I love Spike. Only supposed to be on for a couple episodes, Spike (and James Marsters) proved too entertaining to not bring back again and again, eventually making him a series regular.
And in the beginning, it was great. Spike was a bad guy. He fell in love with Buffy. That's fine too. Until he started to become a weaker character, and less of a bad guy, until finally there was a screwed up romance between the two, and Spike became a total wimp. Love killed any sex appeal and awesome Spike formerly had.
Which is too bad. Because Spike, before he was a love interest, was awesome. If they had figured out what else to do with him, he'd still be on the awesome list.
2. Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch), GLEE
If you don't love Jane Lynch then you can just get right out of here. She's funny in literally everything she's in.
Except maybe Glee.
That's not her fault. Signed as a recurring character because her other show PARTY DOWN was on the fence for another season (sadly canceled), Jane Lynch has done everything she can with a character that, originally, showed a lot of promise. A hard-ass over-the-top villain that played a foil to the Glee Club, Jane Lynch owned every scene she was in.
However, Ryan Murphy can't for the life of him create a consistent character, and attempts to humanize Sue came out muddled and weird. Jane Lynch did what she could with the material, but I was mostly left trying to understand how one character could have so many conflicting traits in such an unbelievable way.
Still, better than Rachel. Seriously, I hate Rachel. I don't even watch the show anymore and I still hate Rachel.
1. Dean Pelton (Jim Rash), COMMUNITY
Full disclosure: I never liked the dean the way everyone else did. I thought he was funny enough in small doses, but even in season 1 I was confused by and kind of over his shtick. Jim Rash is very funny, and everyone else likes the dean, so maybe I'm wrong.
Bumping him up from regular to recurring I think weakened the show, because a lot of his whole thing is "oh my god he's weird and creeptastic and totez in love with Jeff" and I don't find that entertaining. That said, he looks rather dashing in this picture.
It was between him and Senor Chang for this coveted position of worstest, but I liked Senor Chang for longer than a lot of other people, and I think they stopped using him as much anyway as Ken Jeong became busy with other obligations.
Anyway this is my list. I know Ben Linus from LOST is missing from this list but I still never got around to that show, and don't intend to.
Now let's all get excited for Sons of Anarchy THIS TUESDAY so we can forget how lost we are without Breaking Bad.
There's a lot of characters on TV like that, and although they're across the board all entertaining (hence why they stuck around), the success of their storylines varies. Here is a list of the best used - and the worst.
THE BEST
1. Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins), JUSTIFIED
Justified is one of the best shows on TV. Most of the people that I know that watch it are older (my parents and my uncle, for example), which is a bummer for the young folks because they're missing out on some crazy good television. And considering there is a SHIT TON OF AWESOME (Raylan Givens, Ava Crowder, Mags, Quarles, Limehouse - hell, they even got rid of the one weak element in the show, Winona, going into season 4) in this show, it's saying a lot when I declare, with no reservations, that Boyd Crowder the best thing about Justified.
Boyd and Raylan's complicated relationship is the centerpiece of the show by this point - something of a mix of respect, dislike, distrust, brotherhood, and an underlying need of the other (mostly for information). And Walton Goggin OWNS this role. Justified is great without Boyd, but it's on an entirely better level with him.
Also he and Ava are super cute together.
2. Opie Winston (Ryan Hurst), SONS OF ANARCHY
Sons of Anarchy is one of the more entertaining shows on this list (although stretches of it can be frustrating - see the finale of an otherwise awesome season 4). However, Opie's development has consistently made for good storytelling and good television. Only supposed to be a in a few episodes of season 1, Ryan Hurst has created one of the more multi-dimensional characters on this show.
From dealing with the (spoilerss) death of his wife, to his romance in season 2, to his relationship with his father, to his relationships with Jax and Clay (and Clay's complete manipulation of him to get to Jax), Opie has become a necessary and fascinating character - a character I'm interested in, a character I want only good things for even as I know it's unlikely.
And god damn did I love his confrontations with Stahl. TEAM OPIE.
3. Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), BREAKING BAD
Obviously Jesse Pinkman is on here. In Gilligan's first draft of the pilot, he wasn't even Jesse - he was Dupree, a dumbass name that I'm glad got corrected. And Jesse became integral to the show, as his relationship with Walter White deepened, and his relationship with Mike and Gus became more and more complicated. Jesse's character development is just as fascinating as Walter White's, as he started off as a twenty-something not sure of his identity, spiraling further and further into a web of drugs, lies, and mortal danger, and Aaron Paul plays him to a T. Jesse is the man.
I put him behind Boyd because nobody beats Boyd, and behind Opie because at this stage of either show, Opie has more to do than Jesse. I trust the writers of Breaking Bad, and I'm sure he'll come back swinging next season, but right now there's not much for him to do.
4. Cheryl Tunt (Judy Greer), ARCHER
Cheryl was supposed to be the first casualty in an ongoing joke, where Sterling Archer sleeps with one of his mother's assistants after another. But then they cast the great Judy Greer, and that all changed.
What started as a funny but cliched joke turned into one of the craziest characters on TV today, and Judy Greer plays that shit like no one else could. Crazy rich, psychotic, a glue drinker, and into all sorts of weird sex stuff, Cheryl is a gem, and her character gets better every season.
5. Niklaus "Klaus" Mikaelson (Joseph Morgan), THE VAMPIRE DIARIES
Okay, I love The Vampire Diaries. I know it's on the CW, but it's my favorite vampire show (Buffy gives it a run for its money, True Blood isn't even close to as good). The characters are all great, the storylines are all interesting. There's enough critical love of this show (except for the first couple episodes) where I don't have to defend myself any further.
Klaus came on to the scene in season 2 and was a force to be reckoned with. The Big Bad. They were supposed to kill him off, but they liked Joseph Morgan so much they kept him around. Which honestly? Understandable. Joseph Morgan is fantastic.
But now this evil vampire of evil, bent on world domination and destruction, has been written as some kind of demi-god who can never die without killing off the main characters as well. We're in a bind here.
I'm keeping him here under best, though, because I love his love of Caroline (seriously, I LOVE Caroline), because of the twist in the season 3 finale, and because he's really goddamn sexy. I mean, look at him. And when he talks? Oh god. Oh man. I love Klaus.
THE NOT SO BEST
5. Lafayette (Nelsan Ellis), TRUE BLOOD
True Blood isn't very good anymore. This makes me sad to say, because the first three seasons were damn entertaining. But between throwing every storyline possible in the mix to see what fits (werepanthers will always be my least favorite storyline of all time, although the Iraqi ifrit story tried its damndest to best it) and the awkward pacing of the main storylines due to too many other storylines crowding the episodes and some truly unlikeable characters (Tommy, Arlene, Mrs. Fortenberry), it's not a good show. Although season 5 was pretty damn entertaining.
Lafayette, who is killed at the beginning of book 2, stayed in the show around because he was a fan favorite and because Nelsan Ellis is amazing. He's still a fun character to watch, but his storylines haven't been great, making him feel somehow misused.
Keep your chin up, Lafayette - they saved Tara, maybe they can save you too.
4. Andy Bernard (Ed Helms), The Office
Andy was only supposed to be on for a season, but they combined his character with another to make him recurring. Fair enough - Ed Helms is a masterful man, and a very funny actor. I like him as boss much more than I ever liked Michael Scott (still not sure why people ever liked Michael Scott, one of TV's most overrated characters despite how awesome Steve Carrell is).
However, The Office blows now, and I don't care about any of the characters. Unfortunately, that includes Andy.
3. Spike (James Marsters), BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Oh Spike. I love Spike. Only supposed to be on for a couple episodes, Spike (and James Marsters) proved too entertaining to not bring back again and again, eventually making him a series regular.
And in the beginning, it was great. Spike was a bad guy. He fell in love with Buffy. That's fine too. Until he started to become a weaker character, and less of a bad guy, until finally there was a screwed up romance between the two, and Spike became a total wimp. Love killed any sex appeal and awesome Spike formerly had.
Which is too bad. Because Spike, before he was a love interest, was awesome. If they had figured out what else to do with him, he'd still be on the awesome list.
2. Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch), GLEE
If you don't love Jane Lynch then you can just get right out of here. She's funny in literally everything she's in.
Except maybe Glee.
That's not her fault. Signed as a recurring character because her other show PARTY DOWN was on the fence for another season (sadly canceled), Jane Lynch has done everything she can with a character that, originally, showed a lot of promise. A hard-ass over-the-top villain that played a foil to the Glee Club, Jane Lynch owned every scene she was in.
However, Ryan Murphy can't for the life of him create a consistent character, and attempts to humanize Sue came out muddled and weird. Jane Lynch did what she could with the material, but I was mostly left trying to understand how one character could have so many conflicting traits in such an unbelievable way.
Still, better than Rachel. Seriously, I hate Rachel. I don't even watch the show anymore and I still hate Rachel.
1. Dean Pelton (Jim Rash), COMMUNITY
Full disclosure: I never liked the dean the way everyone else did. I thought he was funny enough in small doses, but even in season 1 I was confused by and kind of over his shtick. Jim Rash is very funny, and everyone else likes the dean, so maybe I'm wrong.
Bumping him up from regular to recurring I think weakened the show, because a lot of his whole thing is "oh my god he's weird and creeptastic and totez in love with Jeff" and I don't find that entertaining. That said, he looks rather dashing in this picture.
It was between him and Senor Chang for this coveted position of worstest, but I liked Senor Chang for longer than a lot of other people, and I think they stopped using him as much anyway as Ken Jeong became busy with other obligations.
Anyway this is my list. I know Ben Linus from LOST is missing from this list but I still never got around to that show, and don't intend to.
Now let's all get excited for Sons of Anarchy THIS TUESDAY so we can forget how lost we are without Breaking Bad.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
I Still Like This Era We Live In. Period.
It's a fun little game, trying to see what decade you would rather live in than this one. The 60s is a pretty popular answer. Sometimes the 20s. The 80s. A conservative or two misses the 50s. Some douchebag without a firm grasp of history gets teary-eyed about the 40s. Sometimes people venture even further back in time. 1800s, Enlightenment, Renaissance, etc.
If karma's a bitch, nostalgia's a whore. Nostalgia, you ignorant slut.
Me, I'm good here in 2012. I like my phone and my computer and the internet. I know we're going through some tough times, but I also know we'll move past it. Well, I don't KNOW that, but I believe that.
And as much as love learning about our past, I'm not particularly interested in living it. The 60s was a time of political unrest and upheaval that makes these days seem pretty damn tame. The 20s was an entire decade where alcohol was illegal, so definitely no thanks. The 80s sucked for being gay, but at least they understood good hair. People in the 50s knew how to dress, sure, but the fact that that decade directly resulted in the 60s tells you all you need to know about how much I'm not at ALL interested, thank you.
Women's rights is an issue if you go too far back. My mother couldn't apply to the Ivy League schools because they were still all-male, for example. But at least then, as a woman, you knew that a bad date was still going to pick up the check. This is no longer a universal truth.
But that's not even the biggest issue for me. Here is a tale explaining in full why I am perfectly fine with living in the present.
In 2004 I was 14 years old. One day I visited my grandparents in Leisure Village, a retirement community up in Camarillo. We were having a grand old time, playing bocce and ping pong, maybe swimming. At one point I had to use the restroom and found my underwear covered in blood. Ugh, menstruation.
By this time I'd been getting my period every 4 weeks for about a year, but it still surprised the crap (well, blood I guess) out of me every time. I'd look down and get confused, like it'd only been three and a half weeks since my last one ended so why was it back again already? I was never expecting it. But going to an all-girls school and being on a girls' soccer team usually meant I was around others who were prepared, so I was used to getting lucky.
Not so on this fateful day in Leisure Village.
Grandma, you see, had not received a visit from Aunt Flo in a few decades now. Her friends were on her same page. In fact, it's safe to say the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was on the same page. I was totally screwed.
I told my grandma, and together we walked to the Senior Center, hoping they might have something for us. The lady was very nice, saying she didn't have anything but the public restroom down the hall might.
See, it's just not a thing I think about. You have tampons with applicators (my mom kept threatening me with tampons without applicators but like that is totally disgusting mom stop it). You have pads - thin pads, thank you. You have birth control that sometimes lets you skip that step altogether. These are the products I am used to. This is the beautiful life I have come to take for granted.
So in 2004, when 14-year-old me ominously stepped into that public restroom on the off-chance it would have something to stop the bleeding, I was... not prepared. For the box that was easily one cubic yard big that held a single pad meant to fit inside my underwear.
With the exciting new tagline: "Pad: Now Without Garter Belt!"
Now Without Garter Belt.
NOW WITHOUT GARTER BELT. This was a thing to brag about. Now without garter belt. Now without... now without garter belt.
Well, we have two options, don't we? I mean, the pad's going in, that's not an option. The options I'm talking about are as follows: either women's hygiene has come a long way in a VERY short time, or this pad was older than I care to think about.
I cried that day*, for the decades passed in which women lived these disgusting, bloody lives. For the ladies that came before me, who didn't have access to shoving cotton with a string up their vaginas and instead had to wear it inside their underwear, without adhesive, tied around their waist so it wouldn't fall out. I heard tales of cloth you would simply throw out afterwards. Horrific. HORRIFIC. Mother. Grandmothers. Aunts. Great-Aunts. You have been through so much that I may never, ever know.
So today I salute all the women who came before me. You are an inspiration. And I am glad as all hell that I live in the now, and not in the past. Because honestly, nothing sounds worse than a tampon-free period.
*Not true. This is hyperbole.
If karma's a bitch, nostalgia's a whore. Nostalgia, you ignorant slut.
Me, I'm good here in 2012. I like my phone and my computer and the internet. I know we're going through some tough times, but I also know we'll move past it. Well, I don't KNOW that, but I believe that.
And as much as love learning about our past, I'm not particularly interested in living it. The 60s was a time of political unrest and upheaval that makes these days seem pretty damn tame. The 20s was an entire decade where alcohol was illegal, so definitely no thanks. The 80s sucked for being gay, but at least they understood good hair. People in the 50s knew how to dress, sure, but the fact that that decade directly resulted in the 60s tells you all you need to know about how much I'm not at ALL interested, thank you.
Women's rights is an issue if you go too far back. My mother couldn't apply to the Ivy League schools because they were still all-male, for example. But at least then, as a woman, you knew that a bad date was still going to pick up the check. This is no longer a universal truth.
But that's not even the biggest issue for me. Here is a tale explaining in full why I am perfectly fine with living in the present.
In 2004 I was 14 years old. One day I visited my grandparents in Leisure Village, a retirement community up in Camarillo. We were having a grand old time, playing bocce and ping pong, maybe swimming. At one point I had to use the restroom and found my underwear covered in blood. Ugh, menstruation.
By this time I'd been getting my period every 4 weeks for about a year, but it still surprised the crap (well, blood I guess) out of me every time. I'd look down and get confused, like it'd only been three and a half weeks since my last one ended so why was it back again already? I was never expecting it. But going to an all-girls school and being on a girls' soccer team usually meant I was around others who were prepared, so I was used to getting lucky.
Not so on this fateful day in Leisure Village.
Grandma, you see, had not received a visit from Aunt Flo in a few decades now. Her friends were on her same page. In fact, it's safe to say the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was on the same page. I was totally screwed.
I told my grandma, and together we walked to the Senior Center, hoping they might have something for us. The lady was very nice, saying she didn't have anything but the public restroom down the hall might.
See, it's just not a thing I think about. You have tampons with applicators (my mom kept threatening me with tampons without applicators but like that is totally disgusting mom stop it). You have pads - thin pads, thank you. You have birth control that sometimes lets you skip that step altogether. These are the products I am used to. This is the beautiful life I have come to take for granted.
So in 2004, when 14-year-old me ominously stepped into that public restroom on the off-chance it would have something to stop the bleeding, I was... not prepared. For the box that was easily one cubic yard big that held a single pad meant to fit inside my underwear.
With the exciting new tagline: "Pad: Now Without Garter Belt!"
Now Without Garter Belt.
NOW WITHOUT GARTER BELT. This was a thing to brag about. Now without garter belt. Now without... now without garter belt.
Well, we have two options, don't we? I mean, the pad's going in, that's not an option. The options I'm talking about are as follows: either women's hygiene has come a long way in a VERY short time, or this pad was older than I care to think about.
I cried that day*, for the decades passed in which women lived these disgusting, bloody lives. For the ladies that came before me, who didn't have access to shoving cotton with a string up their vaginas and instead had to wear it inside their underwear, without adhesive, tied around their waist so it wouldn't fall out. I heard tales of cloth you would simply throw out afterwards. Horrific. HORRIFIC. Mother. Grandmothers. Aunts. Great-Aunts. You have been through so much that I may never, ever know.
So today I salute all the women who came before me. You are an inspiration. And I am glad as all hell that I live in the now, and not in the past. Because honestly, nothing sounds worse than a tampon-free period.
*Not true. This is hyperbole.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Dear Little Girls: One Direction is Bad for You
Is One Direction a shitty band? Yes. Are their songs catchy to the point that I probably know all the words to "What Makes You Beautiful"? Yes. Yes I do.
I like pop music. I'm not about to apologize for singing along to Demi Lovato. And errbody loves Carly Rae anyway (and if you don't let's not hang out ever). And there's a LOT of pop music that has terrible lyrics. Katy Perry's ET, for example, is about a woman who straight up says she "wan[ts] to be a victim, ready for abduction." This is also a terrible message for twelve-year-old girls, because that is not love, that is Stockholm Syndrome. There is a difference.
But I'm talking to you about One Direction, because they are crazy mondo popular with the tween set right now in a way only matched by Twilight. So let's dissect their two most popular songs, "Insecurity Is Sexy" and "I Love You For Unnamed Thing/Reason."
1. "What Makes You Beautiful"
"You're insecure
Don't know what for
You're turning heads when you walk through the do-oh-or
Don't need make-up
To cover up
Being the way that you are is en-oh-ough"
Okay. So far, so good. A girl who's pretty but doesn't know it. Typical teenage girl, honestly. This type of thing goes on for about half the song, until we get to the money lyrics:
"You don't know you're beautiful
THAT's what makes you beautiful."
Listen, little girls. This is a catch-22. It is perfectly okay to wear make-up and know you look pretty. It is also perfectly okay to not put effort into your appearance and act all DGAF and what not. But thinking you're ugly attracts all sorts of the WRONG guys. Guys worth your time appreciate some good old-fashioned confidence. And being pretty but not thinking you're pretty is a shitty reason for a boy to like you. Being insecure about how you look is NOT beautiful.
Insecurity as sexiness keeps you in a place of subservience to boys who are scared of strong, confident women, and those kinds of boys are beneath you. OH DID I JUST FEMINIST ANALYZE THE CRAP OUT OF ONE DIRECTION???? Yes.
Don't listen to One Direction for dating advice. All their hairs are stupid anyway.
Moving on.
2. "One Thing"
The chorus is as follows:
"So get out, get out, get out of my head
And fall into my arms instead
I don't, I don't, I don't know what it is
But I need that one thing
And you've got that one thing."
First of all, these lyrics are crazy dumb. Good, glad we got that out of the way. Secondly, "I like you but I don't know why" is like the worst of all terrible pick-up lines. NEVER FALL FOR IT. There should be something about you that he can point to, that he likes, that is concrete. Otherwise there is no basis for an actual connection.
"Now I'm climbing the walls
But you don't notice at all"
WHAT. IS HE STALKING YOU NOW. GET OUT. PEEPING TOMS ARE NOT CUTE.
"Something's gotta give now
Cuz I'm dying just to know your name"
Okayyyyyy. Hoooolllllddddd up. This dude is in love with you. Right? You're all he can think about. And yet. This guy. Does not. Even know. Your fucking name.
(Disclaimer: At this point I'm not even aiming this article at 12-year-olds so I'm gonna fucking swear OHFUCKINGKAY????)
(Second disclaimer: songwriters, this is really on you, isn't it? Specifically, record company stiffs who write these songs AIMED at these 12-year-olds)
What is the definition of love? What is required for a good relationship? These boys, they don't love you. They will sex you because you're pretty and then when there is no connection they will inevitably leave you.
Be you, do you, be happy and proud and confident and KNOW you're pretty and KNOW you have all sorts of things to offer besides this mysterious, undefinable, BULLSHIT "one thing" that doesn't even exist.
Also, seriously. You'll see it when you're older. But their hair? SO stupid.
I like pop music. I'm not about to apologize for singing along to Demi Lovato. And errbody loves Carly Rae anyway (and if you don't let's not hang out ever). And there's a LOT of pop music that has terrible lyrics. Katy Perry's ET, for example, is about a woman who straight up says she "wan[ts] to be a victim, ready for abduction." This is also a terrible message for twelve-year-old girls, because that is not love, that is Stockholm Syndrome. There is a difference.
But I'm talking to you about One Direction, because they are crazy mondo popular with the tween set right now in a way only matched by Twilight. So let's dissect their two most popular songs, "Insecurity Is Sexy" and "I Love You For Unnamed Thing/Reason."
1. "What Makes You Beautiful"
"You're insecure
Don't know what for
You're turning heads when you walk through the do-oh-or
Don't need make-up
To cover up
Being the way that you are is en-oh-ough"
Okay. So far, so good. A girl who's pretty but doesn't know it. Typical teenage girl, honestly. This type of thing goes on for about half the song, until we get to the money lyrics:
"You don't know you're beautiful
THAT's what makes you beautiful."
Listen, little girls. This is a catch-22. It is perfectly okay to wear make-up and know you look pretty. It is also perfectly okay to not put effort into your appearance and act all DGAF and what not. But thinking you're ugly attracts all sorts of the WRONG guys. Guys worth your time appreciate some good old-fashioned confidence. And being pretty but not thinking you're pretty is a shitty reason for a boy to like you. Being insecure about how you look is NOT beautiful.
Insecurity as sexiness keeps you in a place of subservience to boys who are scared of strong, confident women, and those kinds of boys are beneath you. OH DID I JUST FEMINIST ANALYZE THE CRAP OUT OF ONE DIRECTION???? Yes.
Don't listen to One Direction for dating advice. All their hairs are stupid anyway.
Moving on.
2. "One Thing"
The chorus is as follows:
"So get out, get out, get out of my head
And fall into my arms instead
I don't, I don't, I don't know what it is
But I need that one thing
And you've got that one thing."
First of all, these lyrics are crazy dumb. Good, glad we got that out of the way. Secondly, "I like you but I don't know why" is like the worst of all terrible pick-up lines. NEVER FALL FOR IT. There should be something about you that he can point to, that he likes, that is concrete. Otherwise there is no basis for an actual connection.
"Now I'm climbing the walls
But you don't notice at all"
WHAT. IS HE STALKING YOU NOW. GET OUT. PEEPING TOMS ARE NOT CUTE.
"Something's gotta give now
Cuz I'm dying just to know your name"
Okayyyyyy. Hoooolllllddddd up. This dude is in love with you. Right? You're all he can think about. And yet. This guy. Does not. Even know. Your fucking name.
(Disclaimer: At this point I'm not even aiming this article at 12-year-olds so I'm gonna fucking swear OHFUCKINGKAY????)
(Second disclaimer: songwriters, this is really on you, isn't it? Specifically, record company stiffs who write these songs AIMED at these 12-year-olds)
What is the definition of love? What is required for a good relationship? These boys, they don't love you. They will sex you because you're pretty and then when there is no connection they will inevitably leave you.
Be you, do you, be happy and proud and confident and KNOW you're pretty and KNOW you have all sorts of things to offer besides this mysterious, undefinable, BULLSHIT "one thing" that doesn't even exist.
Also, seriously. You'll see it when you're older. But their hair? SO stupid.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Quick Note
Going over my posts about Todd Akin, I decided to delete them. I realized it offered no new perspective that hadn't been said in a more eloquent way by someone else, and if I'm really going to keep a blog I should at least make sure it offers an original point of view - a reason to read my work instead of someone else's.
So enjoy reading about hipsters, TV shows, and super old works of literature. You can't find this kind of thing anywhere else on the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So enjoy reading about hipsters, TV shows, and super old works of literature. You can't find this kind of thing anywhere else on the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Being Weird Doesn't Make You Interesting
I went to a college party last night. I know, I know. You guys are super jealous. Well, I had two revelations. Both of which I'd had before. So I guess it was like re-revelations. I get re-revelations so many more times than first-time revelations it's ridiculous. Like "oh right, I hate the way my breath smells after a cigarette" or "don't go see a children's movie on a Saturday afternoon" (ParaNorman was awesome; the screaming children were not).
So the two re-revelations were as follows: I am too old for college parties already, and being weird doesn't make you interesting. I'm not going to talk about the first re-revelation because, well, I've already said everything I'm going to say. But let's talk about the second one.
You ever hear of this college USC? Good at football, located in LA. I'm being annoying. Anyway, I got a cousin at the film school there, so I went down to see what all the talk was about and also I like my cousin because he's a cool guy who knows how to throw a cool party. I had some good times, some laughs, maybe a Bud Light or two. I don't like crowds or pretending to care about someone I just met, but you know. I'm too old for college parties.
I mention the film school thing because it gives you an idea of the type of crowd you might find there. Mostly white, a little hipster, loves movies/TV/internetz. People who just, like, HAVE to express themselves (like bloggers, so I felt right at home! Hurray!). And while walking to say hello to my brother and my cousin at one point, the button on the back of my pants got caught on the dress that one of these fine gentlemen had chosen to wear.
It's the weekend before school. You're trying to make a statement. I get it. But when I first saw Dude in a Dress (trying as hard as possible to look like a dude in a dress - seriously, not a cross dresser, just this dude in a dress), I thought... nothing. Literally. I might have thought he was overdressed. Like, I wouldn't wear that dress to this occasion, personally. Wasn't really my style, either. I was sort of planning on spending the evening never talking to this dude because at some point the conversation was going to end up being about why he's wearing a dress, and I so just did not care. There is literally no single answer to why that dude was wearing a dress that I would find remotely interesting.
But alas, my pants got caught on his dress while walking by and I don't even know how but it happened. So I say "I'm sorry" and fix that problem. He turns to me and asks, "Why did you grab my dress?"
"I didn't. I got caught. I'm sorry."
"What's wrong with my dress? Why would you grab my dress?"
"I... didn't."
"What do you have against my dress? Why would you do that?"
Then this girl comes over. They must be friends because she's wearing a flower bonnet.
A FUCKING FLOWER BONNET. Oh Jesus I am so bored by these fashion choices. "Look I'm different!" it tries to scream. "Great, I give zero shits," I silently reply.
"She grabbed my dress," he tells her.
"No, I didn't, my pants got caught-"
"Why did you grab his dress?" she asks.
"I didn't."
"What's wrong, are you biased against his dress? Why do you hate his dress?"
(Because it's fucking ugly.)
"What do you have against his dress?"
"Why would you grab my dress?"
"What's wrong with you? Who does that?"
"Why are you harassing me?"
"Why are you harassing him?"
At this point her stupid face combined with her stupid flower bonnet make me not want to look in her direction. So I end up facing this dude's chest. Whose nipple is on full display. Because of all things, he picked a dress that didn't even fit right. Seriously, at least wear a dress that covers you up. AT LEAST DO THAT.
"Why are you staring at his chest?" she aggressively asks, and there's a pause, like they have emerged victorious in making me feel like such shit. THE MOVIE BULLY CAME OUT THIS SUMMER COME ON NOW.
"Well, this has been so much fun," I say, finally thinking of some response that (I hope) let's them know that I judge them for being boring dickshits just as much as they judge me for... whatever terrible thing it is that I did.
Because really, your dress and your flower bonnet are not interesting. They're boring. The reason I'm talking about this at all is because of how cunty you two acted during an unlucky chance encounter when, if I had had it my way, I wouldn't have talked to either of you at all. Because your outfits conveyed one thing: you think you're fascinating because you wear something "different," which means your grasp on how society works is juvenile and simplistic and also I hate you, you pretentious, boring fucks.
Being weird. Does NOT. Make you interesting. It makes you weird. Weird is not good or bad, unless it is combined with boring. Boring and weird is quite possibly one of the worst combinations ever. So take pride in making people uncomfortable, because there's precious little else you have to offer.
You stupid, flower-bonnet-wearing, dressy hipster douchebags.
Thank you. End of rant.
So the two re-revelations were as follows: I am too old for college parties already, and being weird doesn't make you interesting. I'm not going to talk about the first re-revelation because, well, I've already said everything I'm going to say. But let's talk about the second one.
You ever hear of this college USC? Good at football, located in LA. I'm being annoying. Anyway, I got a cousin at the film school there, so I went down to see what all the talk was about and also I like my cousin because he's a cool guy who knows how to throw a cool party. I had some good times, some laughs, maybe a Bud Light or two. I don't like crowds or pretending to care about someone I just met, but you know. I'm too old for college parties.
I mention the film school thing because it gives you an idea of the type of crowd you might find there. Mostly white, a little hipster, loves movies/TV/internetz. People who just, like, HAVE to express themselves (like bloggers, so I felt right at home! Hurray!). And while walking to say hello to my brother and my cousin at one point, the button on the back of my pants got caught on the dress that one of these fine gentlemen had chosen to wear.
It's the weekend before school. You're trying to make a statement. I get it. But when I first saw Dude in a Dress (trying as hard as possible to look like a dude in a dress - seriously, not a cross dresser, just this dude in a dress), I thought... nothing. Literally. I might have thought he was overdressed. Like, I wouldn't wear that dress to this occasion, personally. Wasn't really my style, either. I was sort of planning on spending the evening never talking to this dude because at some point the conversation was going to end up being about why he's wearing a dress, and I so just did not care. There is literally no single answer to why that dude was wearing a dress that I would find remotely interesting.
But alas, my pants got caught on his dress while walking by and I don't even know how but it happened. So I say "I'm sorry" and fix that problem. He turns to me and asks, "Why did you grab my dress?"
"I didn't. I got caught. I'm sorry."
"What's wrong with my dress? Why would you grab my dress?"
"I... didn't."
"What do you have against my dress? Why would you do that?"
Then this girl comes over. They must be friends because she's wearing a flower bonnet.
A FUCKING FLOWER BONNET. Oh Jesus I am so bored by these fashion choices. "Look I'm different!" it tries to scream. "Great, I give zero shits," I silently reply.
"She grabbed my dress," he tells her.
"No, I didn't, my pants got caught-"
"Why did you grab his dress?" she asks.
"I didn't."
"What's wrong, are you biased against his dress? Why do you hate his dress?"
(Because it's fucking ugly.)
"What do you have against his dress?"
"Why would you grab my dress?"
"What's wrong with you? Who does that?"
"Why are you harassing me?"
"Why are you harassing him?"
At this point her stupid face combined with her stupid flower bonnet make me not want to look in her direction. So I end up facing this dude's chest. Whose nipple is on full display. Because of all things, he picked a dress that didn't even fit right. Seriously, at least wear a dress that covers you up. AT LEAST DO THAT.
"Why are you staring at his chest?" she aggressively asks, and there's a pause, like they have emerged victorious in making me feel like such shit. THE MOVIE BULLY CAME OUT THIS SUMMER COME ON NOW.
"Well, this has been so much fun," I say, finally thinking of some response that (I hope) let's them know that I judge them for being boring dickshits just as much as they judge me for... whatever terrible thing it is that I did.
Because really, your dress and your flower bonnet are not interesting. They're boring. The reason I'm talking about this at all is because of how cunty you two acted during an unlucky chance encounter when, if I had had it my way, I wouldn't have talked to either of you at all. Because your outfits conveyed one thing: you think you're fascinating because you wear something "different," which means your grasp on how society works is juvenile and simplistic and also I hate you, you pretentious, boring fucks.
Being weird. Does NOT. Make you interesting. It makes you weird. Weird is not good or bad, unless it is combined with boring. Boring and weird is quite possibly one of the worst combinations ever. So take pride in making people uncomfortable, because there's precious little else you have to offer.
You stupid, flower-bonnet-wearing, dressy hipster douchebags.
Thank you. End of rant.
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Problem with Annie's Boobs
I watched the first two seasons of Community because it was great television. As far as I've heard, the third season was also the bee's knees. I stopped watching because I was tired of the show's attitude that the only reason they're not popular is because America is stupid. It's insulting, and there's plenty of smart shows on TV who manage to put out great content without being insulting to those who simply don't watch their show. It's juvenile, at best.
You've heard all the great things about the show. Shirley, for one, is one of the best characters on television today. Troy is amazing and I want to lick his face because Donald Glover. Britta is also fantastic, an incredibly multi-dimensional character that I want to be best friends with. The show is creative and fun and comes up with really compelling stuff. Part of the issue is that I think meta jokes are funny once in a while, but can grow old very quickly. Community as a show disagrees with me on that score, and that's fine.
But one of the BIG problems I had with this show is what they did to Annie's character between seasons 1 and 2. In season 1, Annie was a freshman in college getting over an adderall addiction because of the stress she put on herself. She wanted to be a top achiever and was type A to the point of being OCD. Annie's character was going to grow, loosen up, become an adult. She had a really beautiful coming-of-age story to tell, and I was excited to watch it.
Between seasons 1 and 2, Dan Harmon realized that she had boobs, GREAT boobs, and that the fan boys on the internet love boobs. And thus began the destruction of what could have been a fascinating character on television.
Because 9 out of 10 storylines concerning Annie now had something to do with how sexy she was. The weird relationship with Jeff. Troy and Abed staring. A monkey named "Annie's Boobs" (which, under different circumstances, could have been really funny if I wasn't already so annoyed). Hell, Dan Harmon even said he created scenes of Annie running so the internet could make gifs of it. They took a multi-dimensional character with a coming-of-age story to tell and turned her into a sex object.
Now I know she still had other storylines. Her relationship with Pierce, her relationship with her parents, even her future came up once and a while. But compare that to the sheer number of storylines or jokes about how sexy this nineteen-year-old character was. As a girl who started off relating to Annie and has no interest in being a sex object, I found this depressing.
I love Katrina Bowden's character on 30 Rock, whose main punchline is also how fuckable she is. The difference? One character shows up rarely, every few episodes, and that was ALWAYS the joke. The other is a major character who was supposed to be well-rounded and fully-formed and THEN got degraded to a sex joke.
And maybe in a way that's Community commenting on how, in this society, even a girl with that much potential is going to be marginalized if her boobs are nice enough. Or maybe it's just them contributing to the problem.
Annie could have been so much more than her boobs. And for a show that prides itself on being so smart, that sure as hell was a damn stupid move.
You've heard all the great things about the show. Shirley, for one, is one of the best characters on television today. Troy is amazing and I want to lick his face because Donald Glover. Britta is also fantastic, an incredibly multi-dimensional character that I want to be best friends with. The show is creative and fun and comes up with really compelling stuff. Part of the issue is that I think meta jokes are funny once in a while, but can grow old very quickly. Community as a show disagrees with me on that score, and that's fine.
But one of the BIG problems I had with this show is what they did to Annie's character between seasons 1 and 2. In season 1, Annie was a freshman in college getting over an adderall addiction because of the stress she put on herself. She wanted to be a top achiever and was type A to the point of being OCD. Annie's character was going to grow, loosen up, become an adult. She had a really beautiful coming-of-age story to tell, and I was excited to watch it.
Between seasons 1 and 2, Dan Harmon realized that she had boobs, GREAT boobs, and that the fan boys on the internet love boobs. And thus began the destruction of what could have been a fascinating character on television.
Because 9 out of 10 storylines concerning Annie now had something to do with how sexy she was. The weird relationship with Jeff. Troy and Abed staring. A monkey named "Annie's Boobs" (which, under different circumstances, could have been really funny if I wasn't already so annoyed). Hell, Dan Harmon even said he created scenes of Annie running so the internet could make gifs of it. They took a multi-dimensional character with a coming-of-age story to tell and turned her into a sex object.
Now I know she still had other storylines. Her relationship with Pierce, her relationship with her parents, even her future came up once and a while. But compare that to the sheer number of storylines or jokes about how sexy this nineteen-year-old character was. As a girl who started off relating to Annie and has no interest in being a sex object, I found this depressing.
I love Katrina Bowden's character on 30 Rock, whose main punchline is also how fuckable she is. The difference? One character shows up rarely, every few episodes, and that was ALWAYS the joke. The other is a major character who was supposed to be well-rounded and fully-formed and THEN got degraded to a sex joke.
And maybe in a way that's Community commenting on how, in this society, even a girl with that much potential is going to be marginalized if her boobs are nice enough. Or maybe it's just them contributing to the problem.
Annie could have been so much more than her boobs. And for a show that prides itself on being so smart, that sure as hell was a damn stupid move.
Monday, August 13, 2012
UPDATE
There is an animated movie called ROMEO AND JULIET: SEALED WITH A KISS about two seals who fall in love despite their parents' objections.
I bet their deaths in the end are epic.
I bet their deaths in the end are epic.
Romeo & Juliet is Overrated and This is Why
Juliet Capulet is a dumb beezy.
I mean, Romeo is dumb too. But in the beginning I feel bad for him. He's heartbroken because this chick Rosalind would rather join a convent than marry him - like, she'd literally take NO SEX EVER before she marries Romeo - and that totally blows. Romeo, I feel for you. That's gotta hurt.
So his boi Mercutio, who's kind of a douchebag but then again he's an Italian teenage boy so it's chill - convinces him to sneak into the home of his family's MORTAL ENEMIES. Like, these families HATE each other. Oh my god you know this part already. But this is important so I'm reiterating.
So Romeo sneaks in and kaBLAM he falls in love AT FIRST SIGHT with some 13 year old beezy. Soo that heartache concerning Rosalind took all of like a half hour to get over. This boy's love track record blows. Moving on.
At first he's all "OMG she's super cute" and then he finds out that's JULIET CAPULET THE DAUGHTER OF THE ENEMY so he's all "oh shit looks like I'm in love with the daughter of my father's enemy now oh well" so then he goes over to her and flirts with her and she's all "omg he's super cute" and she, being kind of slutty for such a young age (it's called college, sweetie, you can wait), makes out with a dude whose name she doesn't even know.
And then later she finds out it's ROMEO who SNUCK IN EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE ENEMY. Like, the dude snuck into his family's enemy's house and made out with the 13 year old daughter.
Honey, you got played.
So she should be all sorts of pissed but instead she's all "oh who cares it's just a name I know he loves me" and luckily for her she turns out to be right.
OH WAIT. FOUR DAYS LATER SHE DIES BECAUSE LOVE. So maybe a healthy dose of taking a step back and thinking things through isn't like the worst thing that could ever happen.
And as evidenced by Romeo's crazy fast getting-over-Rosalind thing that happened FIVE DAYS BEFORE HE DIED BECAUSE LOVE, all they had to do was take a step back and remember "oh right I'm a teenager it's hormones also Italy." They're confusing love with infatuation. I bet they would hate each other so hard after a year.
Like, let's see what that marriage looks like. None of their kids would have the same daddy (because love all the time), and Romeo would be on a first-name basis with every whore in... Venice? Is that where they are? Whatever. (Also because love all the time.)
And then we get modern updates where Romeo & Juliet live in the end which is dumb because their deaths are the BEST part of the play. When I read it and I was like GOOD DIE YOU STUPID STUPIDHEADS. Like what's a couple teenage death when it means the end of hostilities between feuding families? Looking at you TayTay Swift.
Anyway there are like way better love stories that Shakespeare wrote so we can all do better than get hung up on stupid teenagers killing themselves because they're emotionally unstable.
End Of Thought.
I mean, Romeo is dumb too. But in the beginning I feel bad for him. He's heartbroken because this chick Rosalind would rather join a convent than marry him - like, she'd literally take NO SEX EVER before she marries Romeo - and that totally blows. Romeo, I feel for you. That's gotta hurt.
So his boi Mercutio, who's kind of a douchebag but then again he's an Italian teenage boy so it's chill - convinces him to sneak into the home of his family's MORTAL ENEMIES. Like, these families HATE each other. Oh my god you know this part already. But this is important so I'm reiterating.
So Romeo sneaks in and kaBLAM he falls in love AT FIRST SIGHT with some 13 year old beezy. Soo that heartache concerning Rosalind took all of like a half hour to get over. This boy's love track record blows. Moving on.
At first he's all "OMG she's super cute" and then he finds out that's JULIET CAPULET THE DAUGHTER OF THE ENEMY so he's all "oh shit looks like I'm in love with the daughter of my father's enemy now oh well" so then he goes over to her and flirts with her and she's all "omg he's super cute" and she, being kind of slutty for such a young age (it's called college, sweetie, you can wait), makes out with a dude whose name she doesn't even know.
And then later she finds out it's ROMEO who SNUCK IN EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE ENEMY. Like, the dude snuck into his family's enemy's house and made out with the 13 year old daughter.
Honey, you got played.
So she should be all sorts of pissed but instead she's all "oh who cares it's just a name I know he loves me" and luckily for her she turns out to be right.
OH WAIT. FOUR DAYS LATER SHE DIES BECAUSE LOVE. So maybe a healthy dose of taking a step back and thinking things through isn't like the worst thing that could ever happen.
And as evidenced by Romeo's crazy fast getting-over-Rosalind thing that happened FIVE DAYS BEFORE HE DIED BECAUSE LOVE, all they had to do was take a step back and remember "oh right I'm a teenager it's hormones also Italy." They're confusing love with infatuation. I bet they would hate each other so hard after a year.
Like, let's see what that marriage looks like. None of their kids would have the same daddy (because love all the time), and Romeo would be on a first-name basis with every whore in... Venice? Is that where they are? Whatever. (Also because love all the time.)
And then we get modern updates where Romeo & Juliet live in the end which is dumb because their deaths are the BEST part of the play. When I read it and I was like GOOD DIE YOU STUPID STUPIDHEADS. Like what's a couple teenage death when it means the end of hostilities between feuding families? Looking at you TayTay Swift.
Anyway there are like way better love stories that Shakespeare wrote so we can all do better than get hung up on stupid teenagers killing themselves because they're emotionally unstable.
End Of Thought.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Holy Moly
This is my first time keeping track of who reads my blog. I'm international! That's pretty darn cool.
I mean, it's not a LOT of people, but I can legit say I don't know anyone in Russia, so... I guess people I'm not related to read this thing too. Thanks, guys! Mucho love. That's espanol for you're all awesome.
I mean, it's not a LOT of people, but I can legit say I don't know anyone in Russia, so... I guess people I'm not related to read this thing too. Thanks, guys! Mucho love. That's espanol for you're all awesome.
An Unoriginal Thought on Celebrity Gossip
I don't care about who's dating whom.
No, stop, I know you've heard this one! And it's not a new idea, and what's the harm since they're never gonna know you, and everybody is guilty of gossip (except those assholes who make you feel bad about it, which, ugh, amirite?) so who cares.
And I used to be ALL UP ON THAT. I loved celebrity gossip. I loved taking sides in Jennifer vs Angelina (hard to feel bad for Brad in this case). I loved seeing how craycray Tom Cruise was gonna act next. Ohmygod how stupid is KStew for smoking pot in public? Britney shaved her headddd and Miley is the next Britneyyyy and some other celebrity got caught with naked pictures and then pretended they weren't her LOLOL Lindsay Lohan enough said.
I'm not gonna go for the "it's ruining their lives" argument because that argument sucks. They didn't have to be famous, they didn't have to be trashy, blahblahblah who cares they are that's part of the deal.
The real problem is this: who gives a shit.
See, the reason TMZ and Perez Hilton are always the first to give you the goss on who is preggo is because they're willing to be totally wrong. Which, for a news source, is totally wack. But they're not trying to be news. They're gossip sites. They really couldn't possibly care less if they're wrong.
So you get this juicy story on who Kim Kardashian is seeing now (and yes, at this point we know it's Yeezy and that is so great OMG let's have an opinion), only to find out it's wrong. Jennifer Aniston apparently gets her heart BROKEN after 2 dates with a guy, which couldn't possibly, in any universe, be accurate. Pooooor Jen. Maybe she found love with Justin "Played a Dick Lawyer on Parks & Rec" Theroux.
The reason it's hard to care is because half the time the info is wrong. We're talking in half-truths about the relationships of people we've never even met. All of that sentence bothers me, but the half-truth really stings. If we can't even get our facts right, we have to consider just why we care so much about getting the facts in the first place.
So. Say it with me. "I don't care who Rihanna is sleeping with. I can't believe Katy Perry and John Mayer sleeping naked together is a story. How did the Jennifer/Brad/Angelina love triangle stay in the papers for FIVE YEARS. I don't know these people, I don't know anything more than what the publicity machine tells us, and it makes me look like an idiot for getting emotionally invested in people we legitimately nickname KStew and RPatz."
Now, if I knew these people personally, it'd be a whole different story. I love that kind of gossip. But come on. This is lame. Let's do better.
No, stop, I know you've heard this one! And it's not a new idea, and what's the harm since they're never gonna know you, and everybody is guilty of gossip (except those assholes who make you feel bad about it, which, ugh, amirite?) so who cares.
And I used to be ALL UP ON THAT. I loved celebrity gossip. I loved taking sides in Jennifer vs Angelina (hard to feel bad for Brad in this case). I loved seeing how craycray Tom Cruise was gonna act next. Ohmygod how stupid is KStew for smoking pot in public? Britney shaved her headddd and Miley is the next Britneyyyy and some other celebrity got caught with naked pictures and then pretended they weren't her LOLOL Lindsay Lohan enough said.
I'm not gonna go for the "it's ruining their lives" argument because that argument sucks. They didn't have to be famous, they didn't have to be trashy, blahblahblah who cares they are that's part of the deal.
The real problem is this: who gives a shit.
See, the reason TMZ and Perez Hilton are always the first to give you the goss on who is preggo is because they're willing to be totally wrong. Which, for a news source, is totally wack. But they're not trying to be news. They're gossip sites. They really couldn't possibly care less if they're wrong.
So you get this juicy story on who Kim Kardashian is seeing now (and yes, at this point we know it's Yeezy and that is so great OMG let's have an opinion), only to find out it's wrong. Jennifer Aniston apparently gets her heart BROKEN after 2 dates with a guy, which couldn't possibly, in any universe, be accurate. Pooooor Jen. Maybe she found love with Justin "Played a Dick Lawyer on Parks & Rec" Theroux.
The reason it's hard to care is because half the time the info is wrong. We're talking in half-truths about the relationships of people we've never even met. All of that sentence bothers me, but the half-truth really stings. If we can't even get our facts right, we have to consider just why we care so much about getting the facts in the first place.
So. Say it with me. "I don't care who Rihanna is sleeping with. I can't believe Katy Perry and John Mayer sleeping naked together is a story. How did the Jennifer/Brad/Angelina love triangle stay in the papers for FIVE YEARS. I don't know these people, I don't know anything more than what the publicity machine tells us, and it makes me look like an idiot for getting emotionally invested in people we legitimately nickname KStew and RPatz."
Now, if I knew these people personally, it'd be a whole different story. I love that kind of gossip. But come on. This is lame. Let's do better.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Guys this is really important
Hippy means someone with big hips.
Hippie is someone who hates war and doesn't shower.
You can be a hippy hippie.
But a hippy is not necessarily a hippie.
Thank you.
Hippie is someone who hates war and doesn't shower.
You can be a hippy hippie.
But a hippy is not necessarily a hippie.
Thank you.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Why We Don't Care
Try to
get a young person engaged in a foreign policy debate.
No, go ahead. Try it. Oh, too busy on the facebook, twitting at
their friends and tumbling without even getting up off their chair (words don’t
mean what they used to, that’s for sure).
Try to
get a young person to care about social issues.
Abortion or gay marriage.
Economic issues. Tax cuts or
health care. They haven’t even looked up
from their iPhones yet. Rude, in
addition to not caring. My generation is
the most apathetic and shallow generation of all time.
I was
born in 1989, which puts me square in the middle of us Millenials. Social media started to come into its own as
I was entering adolescence (AIM in middle school, myspace in high school,
facebook in college). When I started
high school, only a handful of friends had cell phones, for emergencies only,
about 73 minutes every 3 months. By
college, every single one of my friends had a phone. Phones that took pictures, even. By the end of college, you could go on
facebook and check your email from the cellular. My generation never has to be bored again.
Not that we ever were, really. My generation is a generation of kids that were overbooked from age 5 with too many extracurricular activities - to be a well-rounded student to get into a good college to get into a good grad school to have the perfect life. Stressed with school and play rehearsal and soccer practice and SAT prep.
In 2008, the economy crashed. After an expensive war, continued deregulation of the economy over decades (despite overwhelming historical evidence that that NEVER WORKS WHY DO WE DO THAT), the constant desire by all Americans to buy more and more on more and more credit with less actual cash to back it up, and a furthering of bipartisanship of this nation, our economy finally fell under the pressure. And as statistical evidence has proven time and time again, the Millenial generation has been the one to bear the brunt of this crash.
In 2008, the economy crashed. After an expensive war, continued deregulation of the economy over decades (despite overwhelming historical evidence that that NEVER WORKS WHY DO WE DO THAT), the constant desire by all Americans to buy more and more on more and more credit with less actual cash to back it up, and a furthering of bipartisanship of this nation, our economy finally fell under the pressure. And as statistical evidence has proven time and time again, the Millenial generation has been the one to bear the brunt of this crash.
And now
we’ve graduated college. We’re working
at Starbucks. We’re living at home. We have a couple thousand dollars to our name
and tens of thousands of dollars to pay off in student loans. We don’t know what the future will hold.
But at least there's always another video of a stupid kitten stranded on a zipping zoomba to watch. A job in your field? What does that even look like?
But at least there's always another video of a stupid kitten stranded on a zipping zoomba to watch. A job in your field? What does that even look like?
Whatever, I'm over it. Rob Delaney just tweeted something on twitter and I'm gonna go on a wikipedia rampage, looking for wild trivia facts. This afternoon just got awesome.
An Open Letter to Girls Who Hate Girls
I
didn’t get my ears pierced until after college.
I don’t know what color foundation I’m supposed to wear. I hate drama and avoid it like the
plague.
This is
where I say “I’m not like other girls.” And
all the other non-girl girls nod their heads in agreement and we all pat
ourselves on the back for being fellow non-girl girls who are totally not like
other girls because ugh, OTHER GIRLS, am I right?
No. Absolutely nothing in the first paragraph
makes me special. This is the myth we’ve
been taught to believe: the average girl
is a crazy, shallow bitch, and if you’re different, you’re “not like other
girls.”
I
remember the first time I was hated on by another girl simply because of my
gender. I was 19, and a couple guy
friends were having a party. I was over
there pretty often, so I knew almost everyone there. But there was one girl, a friend of Bob’s
(not his real name), who I didn’t recognize.
So I thought, in the spirit of drunken friendliness, that I’d try to
engage. My girlfriends and I are firm
believers that alcohol + music = dance party, so I invited her to join us.
That
look she gave me, like I was some kind of ditzy freak that was just not worth
her time, confused the shit out of me. I
confronted my friend about it the next day and he explained to me that “she
just doesn’t like other girls.”
What. First of all, she’s a girl. If she met herself at a party, she would hate
herself. Right? Do I have that right? Secondly, I’m awesome. Why would she want to deprive herself just
because of my gender? Which happens to
be HER gender?
Since
then, I’ve been introduced to this concept time and time again. I haven’t experienced quite that level of
immediate disdain since, but I HAVE been told that “all my friends except you
are guys because I hate girls” from other friends of mine.
This
isn’t to say dump your guy friends. I
have a ton of guy friends (ohmygodI’msopopular) and they mean the world to me,
just like my girlfriends do. Sometimes you
just like typical “guy” stuff, so you have more in common with dudes. That’s not girl hate; that’s guy love. There’s a world of difference.
But
here’s the thing. Too many of my female
friends are drama-free cool chicks.
They’re smart and funny and easy to get along with. They are NOT the exception.
And
plenty of guys I’ve met are gossip-mongering dicks who passive-aggressively
attack their friends, often just for a chance to bang some chick. We recognize THEY are the exception. Why do we not recognize that for
ourselves? If a girl is a drama queen,
she’s typical. If a guy is, he’s an
anomaly.
But I’m
guilty too. When I’m at a party and I
see some hot girl there, my first instinct is to assume that bitch is judging
me. It takes a few moments to realize
that I am also that bitch, that she might be super cool, and that not all
instincts are created equal and I should just be chill and say hi.
Because
I’ve been that slutty girl showing off my ass in that dress. Wearing make-up doesn’t make a woman shallow.
Saying “like” every other word is just
how I communicate. I can’t judge others,
because none of the above negates my own personal awesome.
We have
to fight against these prejudices every day, and instead of getting mad at the
prejudices themselves, we get mad at the people we perceive to be propagating
these prejudices. No! It’s the prejudices that are fucked up, not
the made-up numbers of ladies we assume are actually like this.
And
maybe I’m wrong. Maybe most girls are
crazy drama queens who body snark behind each other’s backs. But honestly, I don’t give a shit. My girlfriends are too important to me to
assume that every girl I meet sucks. I
fucking hated it when that was assumed of me.
You’re
not awesome despite your gender. You’re
awesome – end of sentence. Solidarity,
sister. Solifuckingdarity.
About Me
My name is Caitles Marie.
This is my blog.
I will tell you things that I think.
If you think I'm full of shit you're probably half wrong, at least. Maybe more. Who knows.
Like all other blogs on the internet, let's be as civil as possible.
I'm shitty at HTML so this is gonna be simple and consist mostly of words, maybe a picture sometimes.
Thank you for your time enjoy this I hope you will.
This is my blog.
I will tell you things that I think.
If you think I'm full of shit you're probably half wrong, at least. Maybe more. Who knows.
Like all other blogs on the internet, let's be as civil as possible.
I'm shitty at HTML so this is gonna be simple and consist mostly of words, maybe a picture sometimes.
Thank you for your time enjoy this I hope you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)