Members Only
Most Recent Visitors
Members Only

57 • Man
Members Only

69 • Man
Members Only

21 • Man
Members Only

23 • Woman
Members Only

48 • Man
Members Only

36 • Woman
Americans are FAT Posted on Feb 15, 2007 at 05:20 PM
The law doesn't expressly cover the sell of medical waste because the law makers never considered the idea. Law makers tend to see only what is, and then legislate it. And truth be told, I never heard of human fat being turned into fuel before. Have any of you? Turns out, we got all kinds of viable fuel alternatives that we don't even bother to explore. Bio diesel can be manufactured from vegetable oil, animal fats, even recycled restaurant grease, ethanol- I have heard of that one, is an alcohol based fuel. Why aren't aggressively developing that one? Hydrogen, that's coming, but we don't seem to be in a rush. Methanol is a wood alcohol, and then of course there's electricity which we don't use simply because- I've forgotten- why don't we have electric cars? Did we get rid of them because there're the most efficient? I bet it was because those that actually drove them claimed to love them. And then there's oil. We ignore all those cleaner, burning fuel alternatives, for oil. And sure it's not so efficient, it's expensive, it pollutes the air, but it gets presidents elected. And after all, this is the United States of America, we love oil. We do charity work in the Middle East because of it. We're oil people. The world is dying, folks. Global warming is real. And what's even more real is Americans are fat. And because we're fat, we're burning billions of gallons of gasoline carting ourselves around. We love fat; it leads to more profits for the oil companies, and as oil people, how about instead we harvest the fat. We already are, if you think about it. We have about half a million liposuctions a year in this country. That's now, without the philanthropic bonus. You can imagine how that number would surge if we could not only look thinner with the procedure, but also power our SUVs. When do we all wake up? The ice caps are melting, the polar bears are dying. Planet Earth is in trouble, and we still burn oil like there's no tomorrow. Which, might be a self fulfilling prophecy... ~Alan Shore "Boston Legal"
Members Only
A *Real* Blog About Nothing... Posted on Feb 09, 2007 at 11:01 PM
It feels as if I should be a smoker. I don't have oral fixation or fiddle with my hands a lot like some people, but it feels like I should be smoking. I don't know why?I don't even like smoking. The smell, what it does to your body and your teeth, and yet? I still can't shake the notion that I should be smoking. I think a lot?often, if not all the time. Sounds normal, right? To be self aware, and aware of the things around me. I always keep both eyes open. I think, therefore I am, and all that rot. Pondering= good. Well, with thinking come questions. I'm inquisitive by nature, and it's probably caused by all the thinking. The thing of it is, "just because" is not a justifiable answer to me. What does that mean? It explains nothing. But people who are fine with the "just because" response and use it habitually, have problems with people like me who say "Because what? Why? What is your reasoning?" and so forth. I suppose? asking questions like that makes the "just because" person think, and forcing them to leave their comfort zones. So lately, I don't bother asking "why" at all anymore. It doesn't get me anywhere but an argument, and someone giving me that "you is sho nuff kwazy" kind of look. And honestly, I'm not crazy. Unusual, perhaps. Abnormal? But I see this as a good thing, because the usual and the normal is well, just plain boring, and alludes to the fact of being ordinary. I'm not ordinary. But then again, I'm not a house hold name or anything like that, so what difference does that make? I only truly exist to me, and maybe to the people who actually give a damn (about me). Basically I wrote this because? I'm tired of arguing. Or people accusing me of being standoffish because I'm quiet?I'm an artist, and fiction writer, which makes me a day dreamer or one who habitually fantasizes throughout the day. Is it so wrong that I don't want to talk all the time? Can't I just? be? What's so wrong with that? And when I do talk, people usually just want me to be quiet. What's up with that? Make up your mind?you can't have it both ways. (I suppose you may have expected me to use the "you can't have your cake and eat it to" bit, but really, it's totally hackneyed?almost as much as the word "totally," and it makes no sense. If you're having cake, why wouldn't you want to eat it? What? You're just gonna observe it? Put it in a cabinet with the fine China?)
Members Only
It's called therapy Posted on Jan 24, 2007 at 06:20 PM
1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and point a Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down. 2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice. 3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with that 4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It "In." 5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks. Once everyone has gotten over their caffeine addictions, switch to espresso. 6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write "For Smuggling Diamonds" 7. Finish All Your sentences with "In Accordance With The Prophecy." 8. Don't use any punctuation at all. 9. As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk. 10. Order a diet water whenever you go out to eat with a serious face. 11. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is "To Go." 12. Sing Along At The Opera. 13. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme 14. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play tropical Sounds All Day. 15. Five Days In Advance, Tell Your Friends You Can't Attend Their party Because You're Not In The Mood. 16. Have Your Co-workers Address You By Your Wrestling Name, Rock Bottom. 17. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream "I Won!, I Won!" 18. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking lot, yelling "Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!" 19. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. "Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go." 20. And The Final Way To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity....... Send This To Someone To Make Them Smile. Its Called therapy.
SNL Weekend Update- good for a laugh Posted on Jan 24, 2007 at 06:17 PM
"Dr. James Dobson, the founder of the conservative Christian organization, Focus on the Family, claimed in a speech Tuesday that the cartoon character SpongeBob Squarepants is gay, and is being used in a pro-homosexual video designed to brainwash kids. And yet he gives that carpet-muncher Dora the Explorer a free ride." --Tina Fey "The city of Boston sparked controversy when it renamed the giant spruce tree in Boston Common a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree. Also, the city's nativity scene will now be referred to as the Holiday Homeless Family." --Tina Fey "Pentagon records show that at least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. Army have deserted since the Iraq war began. Hey, at least somebody has an exit strategy." --Tina Fey "This week President Bush made a surprise visit to Afghanistan. The president said he heard it was a good place for an embattled leader to disappear into the mountains." --Tina Fey "A new study suggests that middle-aged adults who go on periodic drinking binges may face a heightened risk of dementia later on in life. The study is entitled, 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.'" --Tina Fey "Bush's overall approval ratings have hit an all-time low ... If Bush's numbers don't improve, he could become the first president held back and forced to repeat his presidency." --Tina Fey "To show that his energy bill is about more than drilling for oil in Alaska, President Bush visited a plant in Virginia that turned soy beans into a clean burning diesel fuel. Which the president hopes one day will be used to fuel oil drilling machines in Alaska " --Tina Fey "A new poll shows that 66% of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job on the War in Iraq. And the remaining 34% think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church." --Tina Fey "It's been reported that in the event of an emergency situation with North Korea the U.S. is prepared to send 70% of the Marine Corps to the region. According to President Bush this will still allow us to send another 70% to Iran and keep our other 70% in Iraq." --Tina Fey "A leading Republican said Sunday that President Bush is so worried about Social Security that he is only able to sleep ten hours a night." --Tina Fey "In the wake of a successful Iraqi elections President Bush's job approval rating has jumped up to 57% or, as high school teachers call it, an F." --Tina Fey "President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation of terrorists, saying 'We do not torture.' He added, 'We freedom electrocute.'" --Amy Poehler "In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a new initiative to keep young people out of gangs, a new program called Do Right And Follow Through (D.R.A.F.T.)." --Tina Fey "Condoleezza Rice made a surprise trip to Iraq on Sunday. Also surprised to be in Iraq on Sunday: thousands of U.S. troops who were supposed to be home by Christmas." --Amy Poehler "During an interview Condoleezza Rice describes her stance on abortion as 'mildly pro-choice,' which means she would support abortion, except in cases where the mother is pregnant." --Amy Poehler The nation's energy chief says it'll take six months for energy production and prices to return to pre-hurricane levels. In a bold effort to hurry the process, President Bush fished out his old 'Save Gas: Fart In A Jar' t-shirt." --Amy Poehler "Last night on '20/20' Barbara Walters interviewed President Bush and his wife at the White House on the eve of his second inauguration. And like all of her interviews Walters did not shy away form the difficult questions. [Clip of Walters: 'Are you a cat person or a dog person?'] Are you a cat person or a dog person? Of course with President Bush the questions don't need to be difficult to seem difficult. [Walters: 'What three words most describe your state of mind.' Bush: 'Excited, hopeful and appreciative.'] You know he wanted to say 9/11 but he couldn't figure out how many words that was." --Tina Fey "A Senate committee on Thursday approved a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, apparently forgetting that our forefathers wore wigs and satin Capri pants." --Tina Fey Tina Fey: "At a high school in Canton, Ohio during the 2004-2005 school year, 64 out of nearly 500 girls became pregnant, and this year, nine girls showed up on the first day of school already pregnant. This may seem kind of drastic, but I think it's time for this school to start teaching my controversial advice book for teenage girls called, 'Your Mouth Can't Get Pregnant.'"
Members Only
Rosie's a bit of a hypocrite... Posted on Jan 18, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Okay, obviously America has no problem with ridiculing others. Otherwise, American Idol viewers wouldn't have been on a steady incline the past several years, and talking about how celebs look (e.g. best and worst dressed) wouldn't exist in the tabloids. Perhaps the tabloids themselves would be non existent. And let's not forget our school systems, where self esteem is in total abunance. Yuh huh. The people who try out for American Idol don't have mental problems as Rosie says, but are in fact in denial. Perhaps their family and friends are to blame as well, for they encourage these non singing fools to audition on national television. Hello- if they can't sing at home, they damn sure can't sing in front of the judges. (However, if there was someone who did have a disability, I mean, not guessing, if you knew for a fact that there was someone like that on the show ever, then that's different, obviously, and I am by no means referring to them). Speaking of the judges, if you've ever seen the show, even just one episode, then you know to expect ridicule for something, be it hair, clothes, or the way you sing, whatever. Simon doesn't have a sensor, and is 100% honest twenty-four seven. If you can't handle it, don't waste your time audtioning or watching his show. Furthermore, I don't know if Paula is knocking back the alcohol or not, but really, does it matter what she has to say beyond the realm of that show? Don't think so. Back to Rosie- who is she to cast stones? I mean, I love Rosie, and I watch The View more because she's on it, but hell, didn't she start a feud last week with Donald Trump? Mocking him with facial expressions and sweeping her hair to the side like a comb over? Or how about when she didn' think what Michael Richard's said wasn't all that bad? He's a comedian after all... Bah. I think American Idol is at it's best when I get to see all the folks who didn't make it- I enjoy a good laugh. Come on, people, these aren't children. And they aren't insane or disabled. They signed a waver, wanted their five minutes, and we all get to see the process. If people didn't want to see this, American Idol would have been cancled years ago... Merely saying.
Members Only
Not that anyone gives a frig... Posted on Jan 10, 2007 at 11:43 PM
... and I'll probably have to drop my head in shame from lack of comments. But anyway, I'll be gone from the internet till sometime next week. I'm going to a national summit in D.C. for this fellowship program that I'm in. Sure I'll get a room to myself, but I won't be able to enjoy it cause I'll be working the whole time... Meh, oh well. Laters.
WARNING- Do NOT Drink the Kool-Aid... Posted on Dec 21, 2006 at 08:31 PM
I don't much see the point in "choosing sides" or creating blogs for the sole purpose of demeaning another member. Really, who cares? Okay, to be fair, clearly a lot of people, because a lot of people continue to respond to them... How's about we all ignore the B.S. and not be sheep, following arguments that will pretty much never cease, appearing again in a different shapes and form for the duration that the blogs on this site exist. Seriously- no matter who it is, or what the disagreement may be- they are NOT going away. I have been here for several months, and there was always someone bitching about someone for whatever reason. Let it go, people. I know that I'm certainly too old for this siht...
Members Only
More from the "Defeat-ocrat" Posted on Nov 14, 2006 at 07:16 PM
"There is no devil, so stop blaming your screw-ups on him. Last week, one of the biggest evangelical leaders in America, the Reverend Ted Haggard, was outed for drugs and extramarital gay sex with a male prostitute. Or as Fox News reported it, "John Kerry hates our troops." Now, this was big news because Reverend Haggard was frequently at the White House and a big fan of President Bush, who he described as "tan, supple and firm where it counts." And as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Haggard presided over 45,000 churches and was a rock star for the Christian right. And like a rock star, he was getting his freak on a lot. Sometimes, the sodomy left him so exhausted he could barely use idiotic, old fairy tales to get people's money. Yes, Reverend Haggard was leading a shameful double life. But, hey, you can't keep being an evangelist secret forever. Now, I bring this up because I believe it connects deeply to the Republican rout this week. They lost because they came to represent the opposite of everything they were supposed to be. Competent? No. Spendthrift? Hardly. Ethical? Rarely. And the last straw was when the party that was at least supposed to be carrying the water for the gay bashers turned out to be a closet full of repressed screamers. Who knew when the Republicans got in bed with the Christian right, it would be in a stall inside of a truck stop restroom on the New Jersey Turnpike? Reverend Haggard's plight led many to ask, "Is it genetic? I mean, can a man actually be born a hypocrite?" Because Ted Haggard was the leader of a mega-church. And mega-churches are presided over by the same skeevy, door-to-door Bible salesmen that we've always had, just in an age of better technology. But they're selling the same thing: fear. Fear to keep you in line. And to get your money. And it's not a coincidence the Republican Party has, in recent years, operated in the same way. It's also no coincidence that people of too much faith just don't see reality. Bush not seeing Iraq for what it is, is not that different from the way Reverend Ted's followers still think he's not gay. I'm not kidding. In their world, there are no gay people. There are just straight people who are sinning. They don't want to do it, but the Devil makes them! He targets people like Reverend Ted. That's how it happened. The Devil got hold of Reverend Ted, and Ted said, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" "And put it in, gently." Come on, the man was anointing people with Astroglide! He was preaching "fire and rhinestone!" In conclusion, I'd just like to say, on this historic week, that the legacy of the religious right will be that, despite their holy pretenses, they made politics not cleaner, but dirtier. Because when you're so sure you're right, you wind up acting so wrong. ~Bill Maher
Members Only
"Defeat-ocrat" Posted on Nov 14, 2006 at 06:59 PM
I see more blogs out there about the election or Democrat bashing, and myself being entirely too drained from my school work, cosequently drained my Muse of creative eloquence. Therefore, I have posted this extensive Bill Maher reply, for he says it best, and (if you're not too uptight), you'll get a laugh. "New Rule: Controlling Congress is for closers. Listen up, Democrats, it's as simple as A-B-C. "Always Be Closing." First prize: subpoena power in the new Congress. Second prize: set of steak knives. Third prize: you're fired. The election is four days away and I'm through around with you. Here are the leads. Here are your talking points. One: when they say Democrats will raise taxes, you say, "We have to because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden." In just six years, the national debt has doubled. You can't keep spending money you don?t take in. That's not even elementary economics. That's just called, "Don?t be Michael Jackson." Two: When they say the terrorists want the Democrats to win, you say, "Are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream." He inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies. Three: When they say, "Cut and Run" or "Defeat-ocrat," you say, "Bush lost the war. Period." All this nonsense - this nonsense about "the violence is getting worse over there because they're trying to influence the election"; no, it's getting worse because you drew up the postwar plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee's. And of course Democrats want to win. But that's impossible now that you've ethnically-cleansed the place by making it unlivable. Just like you did with New Orleans. Four: When they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are denigrating the troops, you say, "You're completely full of shit." Remember when Al Gore caught all that flak for sighing and moaning during that debate? Yeah, don't do that. Just say, "You?re full of shit." If I was a troop, the support I would want back home would mainly come in the form of people pressuring Washington to get me out of this pointless nightmare! That's how I would feel supported. So when they say, "Democrats are obstructionists," you say, "You're welcome." Sometimes, good people have to intercede to prevent dire consequences... So I would be happy to frame this debate as a fight between the obstructionists and the enablers. There's your talking point. Vote Republican, and you vote to enable George Bush to keep ruling as an emperor. A retarded, child emperor- but an emperor. So, Democrats, you've got four days to get out there and close! And it's not about slogans this time. Although, when it comes to slogans, the only one I'm prepared to accept from the opposition is, "The Republican Party: We?re Sorry." ~Bill Maher
Members Only
Qualified Party or Just Party? Posted on Oct 30, 2006 at 09:39 AM
So, my mother and I had this discussion today about voting Democrat or Republican. There was a smear campaign against Tammy Duckworth (a Democrat) about how she wanted to allow illegal immigration, and giving them free social security, making our taxes go up. I told her that if that were true, that I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a Democrat. Just like I wouldn't vote for Hilary just because she's a woman, or O'Bama because he's black. And I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Condoleezza Rice under any circumstancesm should she run. I'll vote for who is the most qualified, and I won't put each party into a group of Democrats and Republicans and say "this one good, this one bad." Anyone agree or didsagree? Qualified person first, or their party?
Who's REALLY Screwing Our Children? Posted on Oct 18, 2006 at 09:33 PM
If you think the worst thing Congress doesn't protect young people from is Mark Foley, then wake up and smell the burning planet. The ice caps are cracking, the coral reefs are bleaching, and our poisoned groundwater has turned spinach into a "side dish of mass destruction." Read the labels on your food. It turns out the healthiest thing you can put in your body is Mark Foley's penis. But that's America for you: a red herring culture, always scared by the wrong things. The fact is, there are a lot of creepy, middle-aged men out there lusting for your kids. They work for MTV, the pharmaceutical industry, McDonald's, Marlboro, and K Street. And recently, there's been a rash of strangers making their way onto school campuses and targeting your children for death. They're called military recruiters. More young Americans were crippled in Iraq last month than any month in the last two years. And the scandal is that Mark Foley wants to show them a good time before they go? When will our closeted gay congressmen learn, our boys aren't for pleasure, they're for cannon fodder? Why aren't Democrats and the media hammering away every day about who we're supposed to be fighting for over there, and what the plan is? Yes, Mark Foley was wrong to ask teenagers how long their penis was. But at least someone on Capitol Hill was asking questions. You know who else is grabbing your kids at too young an age? Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. By convincing you that your kids are depressed, hyperactive or suffering from ADD. In the last decade, the number of children prescribed anti-psychotic drugs in America increased by over 400%. Which means either that our children are going insane-which we might look on as a problem-or more likely, we have, for profit, created a nation of little junkies. So, stop with the righteous indignation about predators. This whole country is trying to get inside your kid's pants, because that's where he keeps his wallet. I don't care if Mark Foley had been asking boys to describe their penis because I have some sad news for you: your kid is so larded out on Cheetohs and YooHoo, he can't even see his penis. So many of our kids are fat drug addicts nowadays, it's almost as if Rush Limbaugh had puppies! So we can pretend that the biggest threat to our children is some creep on the Internet, or we can admit it's us. Because when your son can't find France on a map, or touch his toes with his hands, or understand that the ads on TV are lying, including the one where the Marine turns into Lancelot- then the person fucking you. (Real Time With Bill Maher Transcript)
Members Only
"The Best Man to Marry, or Date for that Matter" Posted on Oct 01, 2006 at 08:01 PM
(Not to be taken seriously. I'm not so provincial as to truly pass judgment in such a manner. It's not my style. This meant to make a point; a point that should be obvious) *Some* Asian men are quiet and well mannered, but generally stick to their own race, so why even bother bringing them up? They get the short end of the stick, in more ways than one. *Some* black men are just in it for the sex and money and the use of the woman's car after all. But there is an exception in Mr. Federline, is it not? *Some* Latino men want white women, will settle for their own, and lust after black women, though we are certainly (to them, and probably others as well, including *some* black men) not good enough for LTR's, or official relationships in general, for that matter. I have noticed that *some* white men can be controlling and overbearing, often jump to conclusions in various matters and are generally full of it. They need to be babied and have their needs met first. They generally want subservient women who will praise them at everything they do, even if they're sullying it all up. Then there are *some* Greek men who are generally perverted and like sodomy. This is in general, not one hundred percent of course. Oh, and I can't forget the Italians who like to beat their women, and silence them with the threat of even more bodily harm. Oh, what fun! I have to cover my butt and not say "all", cause that would make me sound like a prejudice witch who likes to group men in certain categories because of different races and cultures. Because I'm not. I'm sure you women out there know what I'm saying. Any man who bitches and moans about this blog or objects clearly has nothing better to do with his time, and is suffering from small penis-itis. Or limp dick-itis. Or has "secretly in the closet-itis", if not all three. In conclusion, the best type of man to marry is, well, none. I would say those Asian guys, but if you're not an Asian woman, then shucks, you'd just be S.O.L.
Members Only
I'm fairly certain that "No means No..." Posted on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:47 AM
In fact, I am damn sure of it. I don't see what makes one think that just because of a few simple dates that it gives one the right to demand sex of any form. I don't think that anyone should have to feel obligated to sexual relations after date three or date seven. What kind of dumb ass limit is that anyway? Come on, who *really believes if you ask for the same thing seven or ten times in a row, shoving objects in someone's face that you'll get what you want and think you deserve? Oh, hell naw? Patience is key, and finesse opens the door- not force or sounding like a lame, broken record. I'm sure for those of you who are wise can read between these lines. Have an auspicious day everyone.
Rated "T" for Thick- Viewer Discretion Advised Posted on Aug 09, 2006 at 10:43 PM
A few months ago, the Dove Company started a campaign for women of average size. The agenda was to sell a firming cream. The ads, for the most part, featured women who may be considered large or "fat," that is, in comparison to the rail then models we see everywhere else. They were realistic, happy, and in their tighty whities. About a month and a half ago when all of the campaigns began appearing on the sides of buses, newspapers, etc., of course, that's when all of the commentary (for the most part negative) began its wrath of distaste, contempt, and disgust for these women. I suppose it's hard for most people to face the gritty, "ugly" truth. I don't understand what exactly was so offensive about these women besides the fact that they weighed more than the standard Hollywood 105 pounds. So what? Most women, in the real world, do. These women were not wriggly and jiggly, exposing stretch marks or rolls. In fact, to a certain extent, I would say that perhaps they were ideal. They were firm and smooth, and the ads were done tastefully. What the frig was the big deal? Gosh... I am not much of a newspaper reader, however, I will read a particular article that catches my interest for example, or Richard Roeper. For the most part, I respect his opinions and laugh at his somewhat wry humor. However, I completely disagreed with his statements in regards to the Dove campaign. He describes the women as "chunky," which they weren't, and the ads as being "unsettling." Personally, I find dropping down to eighty-five pounds, dying your hair blond, and then prancing about like some frail, crack head for the world to see seems "unsettling." What I also found to be unsettling was the fact that Dove, although quite daring for their ads (which says a lot about society today), never made any commercials that were seen in abundance. I think it would have been interesting to see the unattainable, yet sexy Victoria's Secret IPEX bra ads followed by a realistic REAL women Dove commercial. Talk about a self esteem boost (not that I don't love my Victoria's Secret). My point is, we need a balance to all of the anorexic looking women out there. I don?t mean regular, more conventional ads with small women, because there are women sizes two to six who do look healthy. And that's what the Dove women look like-- healthy. Health of a different kind of degree is all. They were not in skimpy underwear with long flowing hair that was being casually blown by an unseen fan, or even wearing makeup beyond the au natural look. They were relatable and inspiring. I also did not like Roeper's statement here: "If I want to see plump gals baring too much skin, I'll go to the Taste of Chicago, OK? I'll walk down Michigan Avenue or go to Navy Pier. When we're talking women in their underwear on billboards outside my living room windows, give me the fantasy babes, please. If that makes me sound superficial, shallow and sexist -- well yes, I'm a man." All men do not prefer these "fantasy babes" of which Richard Roeper speaks. In fact, the Dove women may be the fantasy babes that some men have been waiting a long time to see in public ads. In regards to the statement of him going to the Taste to see "plump gals baring too much skin," I find that offensive. I have seen these women at the Taste, and they would thank their lucky stars to have a body like the women in the Dove campaign. Do not these women showing a healthier attitude towards their own self image make other women feel better about their own? I would think so. It helps us to strive for the obtainable and not plastic surgery. Also, I think that Dove has given up the fight too easily. I do not even see these ads anymore. Where have they gone? Why couldn't they make new and fresh ads using those same women promoting their product? Does the Dove company honestly believe that I want to continuously see the likes of Teri "Boney" Hatcher or Mischa "Rail Thin" Barton in ads? If I want to puke out every other meal or starve myself, then yes, I would. The Dove women made me feel better about myself physically. I have faced the fact that I will never be 110 pounds. And guess what? I don't care. Personally, I think the next step Dove should take (or any step really, since they seemed to have abandoned this campaign), is to get certain celebrities to join in, such as Queen Latifah, Roseanne, Camryn Manheim, Monique, or Kirstie Alley. Even Tyra Banks, Kate Winslet or J. Lo. They look healthy too. The best part about those ladies participating would be that they aren't afraid to make fun of themselves, speak the truth, or fight back against a majority prejudiced media.
Gay Marriage Posted on Aug 09, 2006 at 10:05 PM
"Those who do not know their opponent?s arguments do not completely understand their own." ~ Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints I've known several comedians who would start a joke with something akin to "We all have one in our own family. A crack head, funny Uncle Joe, who was really just a child molester, the one who is always unemployed, begging for money, and the gay one [family member]" etc. Well, as it turns out, I have several gay family members. And it doesn't bother me one bit. I never understood that out of all of the things or types of people to hate, some people choose good Samaritans who happen to be gay. What's the big friggin' deal? Especially why anyone would oppose gay marriages. Oh, that's right- it allegedly desecrates the "sanctity" of marriage. Uh huh. This in a country where we have had reality shows such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" or where celebrities often get quickie marriages and then divorced in less than seventy-two hours. Before I actually read any material on the subject, I never did understand fully why people would be opposed to gay marriages, besides the fact that they are prejudice, of course. But as I researched more of the subject, I found that the reason goes far beyond phobias of gays and what they may or may not do behind closed doors. The reason that these seemingly hateful people have against gay marriage is "the word of God." I believe in God and Jesus Christ, however, I am not one of those types of people who take the Bible literally word for word. Nearly all of the material I read regarding the reason why gays should not be allowed to be legally married is because "it is against God's will." Nearly all of people against gay marriages quoted some scripture from the Bible, and would be followed by a statement similar to "So you can see, God sees this act as an abomination. To even have a desire or thought of gay acts will make you lose your spot in heaven" etc. They like to use the word "abomination" quite a bit. If we were to take everything to heart that's in the Bible, then any menstruating woman would be an "abomination" as well. So herein lies the fallacy: there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, and in the definition of marriage, it says that ": the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." (Street Law 216) It is limited to man and woman because of the Bible. Besides the fact that this definition of marriage is formatted under the laws of the Bible, which it shouldn't be because of the alleged separation of Church and State, why is it that people automatically assume that the Bible is the correct text to use anything as a basis for when there are so many other religions out there? And what of the people who are not religious at all? No one considers the benefits of gay marriage. If two people are truly in love and wish to be together legally as well as in the eyes of God, whom I believe loves all of His children ("I have looked out on everything I have made and behold it is very good." Genesis 1:31), then why not allow gays the right as the rest of us heterosexual Americans has as well? This is supposed to be a nation of freedom, when this bias clearly points out that it is not. Many people against gay marriages, or people prejudice against gays, or homophobes consider it all to be deviant acts. But if we accept their unions, it can possibly help with low-self esteem that can lead to social problems. If one is gay, then one probably knows it at a fairly youthful age. Shouldn't we give gay kids "a sense of a real and responsible future, instead of a void where they will be condemned no matter how they live their lives?" (Sullivan) EMAIL OF THE DAY: A statement of the obvious: "It seems to me that maybe something that goes without saying needs to be said again-- one of the steps that any sane policymaker would take to slow the resurgence of HIV infection among gay men would be to recognize-- and, indeed, encourage-- gay marriages. Obviously, marriage is not for everyone, straight or gay, but the availability of marriage inarguably decreases the spread of STD's among straights. Why wouldn't it have the same effect among gays? It certainly couldn't hurt." Some viewpoints I have read consider homosexuality to be the "assault of what remains of America's sexual morality," (Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints) that gays and lesbians are a danger to society. But how is it that if two people who are committed to each other and want to have a family be wrong? I have seen first hand some heterosexual married couples who were just entirely one hundred percent wrong for each other, and where the environment had become hostile. For a couple to be straight does not give them an advantage to a happy, healthy marriage. If anyone wants to take "the plunge," then they should by all means be allowed that right just like anyone else. I believe the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to gays is simply the replacement to biracial marriages and opposition to blacks. It seems as if [as a whole and as a community or country] we don't have something to fear and hate, then we simply cannot function. In 1958 in Virginia, a white man and black woman wished to marry, but it was illegal in their state. They went to Washington D.C., got married and returned home. They were shortly thereafter arrested, and the charges would only be dropped if they moved out of the state of Virginia for twenty-five years. They left, fought the case, and later won. The case was Loving v. Virginia. Nikki Giovanni once said that "if Mathew Shepard wasn't Emmet Till, then who was he?" I think that with time, people will move on from hating gays and gay marriages to something else entirely, as they did with racial differences and anything or anyone else before it. Our country is deep seated in prejudice and hatred, though some would like to believe it is righteousness and following the word of God. How long will it take before we stop hiding behind the Bible? "When you look at the crystal meth epidemic or the underlying psychological reasons to pursue sex for sex's sake, you have to include the fact that gay teens and gay men have close to no social incentives for coupling or monogamy? Marriage will save and lengthen gay lives, as it saves and lengthens straight ones. There will be no ultimate solution to HIV in the next gay generation without it." (Andrew Sullivan) Some people are against gay marriage because of the welfare of the children. Some people fear that a gay couple will attempt to make their children gay, forcing them into a life of "deviancy." Or what of when the gay couple divorces? Who will have the legal right over the child? If one of the parents is the biological one, then the answer should be simple. But what if the child is adopted? Then clearly, that should be debated in a court case for custody, just as with any heterosexual couple who had adopted a child and are then divorcing. I think the law and defintion of marriage should be altered. I think that it should include man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. As long as it is a union between two persons alone, then it should be legal in the "land of the free" that is America. The term "free" should include all races, ethnicities, creeds, religions, and sexual preferences. If we want to talk about the "welfare" of the children, then, going back to what Andrew Sullivan mentioned, how is this train of thought affecting the gay youth as well as straight children? We are teaching the straight children by poor example that it is okay to single people out, and to condemn, and to be unaccepting of those who are different from us. We are teaching them to not see people on the content of their character, but on their personal, private business. We are teaching gay children that there will eventually be no love or acceptance for them as far as relationships and having families of their own. We are teaching them that straight people are better and will go to Heaven, and we are teaching them self hatred. Have we learned nothing from the "separate, but equal" time in our history? We are in fact allowing history to repeat itself, which should not be occuring. It may not be the same situation, but it is in fact parallel. "We have now had one year of legal same-sex marriage in our state. Despite predictions, we have not witnessed any threat to so-called 'traditional marriage.' There has not been an attack on family, and almost all would admit that very little has changed. In fact, however, something has changed. Many of our citizens have experienced the joy of marriage for the first time where the laws of our state have said, 'You are equal.' We have seen that joy in our son. To take that away would be an injustice. It would be devastating for our family and the real values we believe family should represent" (The Boston Globe) And what of mothers and fathers who want their children to be happy and healthy, no matter what their sexual lifestyle? We are working on the deconstruction of our community. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual activity or legal bindings between two consenting adults. If we want to talk about abominations and deviancy, then what of a situation involving a pedophile wishing to marry an eleven year old? Then there would be cause for strong opposition. In the past year or so, Mary-Kay Letourneau married her former victim Villi Fualaau. A lot of people decided that perhaps it really was true love for those two, in spite of the extreme age gap and that it was between teacher and student (Villi was 12 at the time their relationship began). They also have two children together. Though some still feel it's gross, the two lovers had the right to legalize their union under the eyes of God, even though the relaionship started when he was only a child, and essentially, she was marrying her victim. When wi
Members Only
Ridiculous Stereotypes Posted on Aug 08, 2006 at 09:35 AM
I'm on another site that posts an abundance of bulletins. This one was a quiz to see how white one is. I thought it utterly ridiculous, but my point was to show that stereotypes are often stupid and wrong. I put my thoughts in parenthese after each stereotype. Thoughts and comments are welcome. According to this quiz, I would have been 40% white. [x] you go to a private school (because obviously other ethnicities can't afford to. My college is a private one, btw.) [ ] you watch the show laguna beach (I think this one just means I have good taste because I don't) [ ]you live in the suburbs (I know people who aren't white who do, and I have never lived in the ghetto) [x] you know what a poncho is (if you deal with rainy whether, you should know this regardless of race) [] you have heard of a band called panic! at the disco (there are other artists in other genres of music that I don't know as well. And disco?) [] you shop at american eagle/hollister (I guess they forgot to mention the Gap and Old Navy, cause that's obviously the only places whites shop- and yes, that was sarcasm) [ ] you play hockey (I don't play any sports) [ ] you have a dog that is NOT a pitbull (I?ve never owned pitbull. I own a German Shepard. In fact, out of the several dogs my family collectively has had, none ever owned a pitbull. We did have a Scottish Terrier once. How white of us.) [] you bend the bill of your hat (I don?t fancy hats) [] you own a pair of dc's/etnies/vans (I prefer K-Swiss myself) [ ] you would get jumped if you said the N**** word (personally, I don't think anyone should say that word) [x] you cant jump (rope, yes. In a basketball sense? No, and I'm black and tall) [ ] you have long hair(not braids) (again, you don't have to be white to have long hair... I have had it on occasion. And white women where extensions too) [] you say the word DUDE alot (I say "alot" alot) [x] you think cops are good (I only had a problem with a cop once- and he was black) [] you have absolutely no idea what Twista is sayin when he raps (he is at times hard to comprehend) [x] you listen to rock (I don't just listen to one genre) [x] you know who willie nelson is (I don't listen to his music, but he's been on several television shows) [x] your grandparents are over the age of 60 (you don't have to be white for this to be true) [x] your parents give you money when you ask (what does this have to do with being white, exactly? Are other parents allegedly too poor?)
Members Only
How Awful it Is... Posted on Jul 29, 2006 at 08:26 AM
It utterly amazes me how awful and deceitful people can be. The lengths that one would go to in order to manipulate an innocent person, believing that their intentions are good and true, only to have their heart ripped out and spit upon. I'm talking about all of the innocent people out there who are being used and don't even know of the nefarious plans their alleged man or woman have in the works, just waiting until they get what they want, not caring of the emotional road kill they leave behind. I don't believe in using others to get a means to an end, and it angers me when I see it happen to those around me, whether I know them or not. I know that some people welcome being used, and that they even perhaps thrive on it. But what of those who are unaware? Who are blind not because they choose to be, but because of the intricate cleverness of the illusion that the deceiver creates? I feel helpless in the fact that it is not my place to point these things out to certain individuals, and that someday they will know the truth as I have come to know it- the hard way, burgeoning with pain and torment, guilt and regret for not realizing the fool you slowly became, knowing that there will never be a way to rectify your past mistakes, feeling suffocated by your own tumultuous, traitorous thoughts of "If only they came back..." How awful it must be; how awful it is.
Members Only
Just leveling the playing field a bit... Posted on Jul 03, 2006 at 10:30 AM
"All stressed out with no one to choke..." Well, a lot of people were in a tizzy over a vulgar, sexist blog about women that was posted recently. So, I just decided to post this for well, obvious reasons. I guess now we can all "lighten up a bit" ;) 1. Men are like .Laxatives ...... They irritate the siht out of you. 2. Men are like . Bananas ...... The older they get, the less firm they are. 3. Men are like . Weather ..... Nothing can be done to change them. 4. Men are like . Blenders ..... You need one, but you're not quite sure why. 5. Men are like ....... Chocolate Bars .... Sweet, smooth, & they usually head right for your hips. 6. Men are like... Commercials. You can't believe a word they say. 7. Men are like ........ Department Stores ..... Their clothes are always 1/2 off. 8. Men are like ........ Government Bonds ..... They take soooooooo long to mature. 9. Men are like ....... Mascara ...... They usually run at the first sign of emotion. 10. Men are like ....... Popcorn . ..... They satisfy you, but only for a little while. 11. Men are like . Snowstorms ............ You never know when they're coming, how many inches you'll get or how long it will last. 12. Men are like ........ Lava Lamps ..... Fun to look at, but not very bright. 13. Men are like ........ Parking Spots . All the good ones are taken, the rest are handicapped. Now send this to all the remarkable women you know, as well as to any understanding good- natured, fun kinda guys you might be lucky enough to know.
cLuB un-21 Posted on Jul 03, 2006 at 09:24 AM
[This is an excerpt from an essay I wrote freshmen year at Columbia] What is it that is so magical about age twenty-one? What is it that makes that number so exclusive, and therefore, more important than ages eighteen to twenty? At age eighteen, you can vote, you can go to war, you can get married without a parent or legal guardian's permission, and buy cigarettes. Hell, you can even drive at what, age sixteen? You can do all of these things, but it's illegal to go into a club and drink alcohol. Why do people think that just because you're twenty-one, you automatically become more responsible and knowledgeable? I know some young people (who aren't twenty-one, obviously) who are extremely more responsible, and perhaps more knowledgeable (to an extent) than some near thirty year olds. I feel that it is a common misconception that just because you are not a certain age, that it takes away your credibility as a decision maker. Shouldn't we judge others on the content of their character and the decisions they make? Would that not be the more intelligent way of doing things? In the past, I have seen several of my friends "go off the deep end" as some might put. The first chance they were around some real alcohol, they were insanely irresponsible. They were all over the place, drunk, and doing some, well, not so respectable things. One of my friends did not make it out of a bad situation unscathed. I was told that she had had several drinks. Alcohol for her was like the unattainable. Her dad was often strict, and she sought out alcohol and guys like they were some type of salvation. When they were passing them out for free, she couldn't seem to help herself. It turns out that she was possibly raped. I have a cousin, who always thought that alcohol was no big deal. Why? At age eleven, her parents allowed her to drink wine. Not an entire glass, or anything, but enough for her to see what it was like. Because of this, as she grew into her teen years, trying to find out what alcohol was like was never on her agenda. She is one of the most responsible people I know at only age nineteen. I think the whole "you'll know more by the time you're twenty-one, and will be able to make smarter decisions, dear," is bull. Plain and simple. If that's true, it's like saying if I don't go to college for the next two years and come back when I?m twenty one, studying at a junior's level when I've missed two years of experience, I will somehow be magically prepared. I guess some fairy will come and tap my head, and my brain will start bursting with knowledge and material I have never even seen or heard of before. Yeah, right. My point is, if the experience is not there to begin with, then it won't be there when one becomes twenty-one. I think the main issue is people being so secretive. Simply saying that "you're too young" or "it's just bad" is not enough. I think that young people are capable of comprehending the real reasons behind parents' feelings. But in the end, the ultimate decision is theirs. Whatever parent that may believe that they have sole power and control over their child is in serious denial. As soon as that parent turns their head, their child is going to as much as they can without regards to consequences. Why? Because they know that their parents do not believe in them as responsible people, and they end up proving them right. If they had some freedom and a little leeway, I don?t think that they (teenagers) would act in such irresponsible manners. But I bet you're thinking, "If I give them certain freedoms, they will abuse it and take advantage of me." Chances are parents, they are taking advantage of you anyway in rebellion, and it could potentially be a lot worse. And for those of you who think that your child is the proverbial angel, well, you know how the old saying goes: It's always the preacher's daughter who acts the wildest. What does twenty-one mean anyway? It is just another age. Somehow, it has come to represent the unattainable for those of us who feel that we are (more or less) already grown, who want to hang out with our twenty-one plus friends and/or relatives. I think that if one is a college student, then they should be allowed into clubs just like everyone else (with proper I.D, of course). I feel that it would cut down tremendously on fake ID's, juvenile delinquency, irresponsible drinking, and lame parties. My explanation for the responsible drinking statement is this: if you've ever been to a "real" club for people twenty-one and over, then you would see that drinking is not that big of a deal. But at parties for people who are under aged, then, drinking becomes a very big deal because they rarely are able to get their hands on any. Usually, the alcohol at those types of parties are not any good anyway. You have people the same age as you there attempting to pass themselves off as bartenders, when they are more or less mixing whatever it is they've got with cranberry juice, disgusting jello shots (because they can't make them properly) or there is nothing there but beer. It is not classy one bit. My conclusion is this: parents, do not expect your child to go to a well of knowledge and drink from its waters at 11:59 p.m. on the day before their twenty-first birthday, because it is not going to happen. If you give them the chance to be responsible, maybe, just maybe they might surprise you and do the right thing. I am a strong believer that one cannot rule with the iron fist alone. All it does is alienate and push people away, making them sneak out and do bad, irresponsible, stupid things. If you give someone your faith and your trust, then it might just guilt trip them into doing the right thing. Responsibility does not come with age, it comes with *experience.
He's old enough to be your father!?- Whatever that means? Posted on Jun 20, 2006 at 09:13 PM
So, we've all heard this exclamation at one point or another, whether it was directed at you, or someone you know, etc., you know what it means. Does it have any *real meaning? If a guy happens to be twenty years plus older than you, does that mean he's automatically off limits? Why is it so frowned upon? today? Years ago (and I do mean *years), this was a common thing more often than not. If it happens today, someone or both parties come off as looking desperate. Why is that? I think we should keep up with the times, and try not to be so biased and judgmental. If someone were a mere fifteen years my senior, then why, he'd still be old enough to be my father in this day and age. So friggin' what? I'm twenty years old, and I find that, unless I have had an extensive relationship with the guy previously (school, work, etc.,) I find that guys my own age are quite boring, and bring nothing to the table (i.e. intellectually). If I have to spend my time telling him all the things he doesn?t understand, and I'm unable to have a substantial conversation (which is something I enjoy doing, as well as debates), then I'm not doing anything besides wasting my own time. So yea, in that sense, particularly conversation wise, I find older guys, excuse me, I find *men more intriguing. In addition to that, I've been told countless times that I *don't act my age; that I seem much more mature when a person actually gets to know me. In fact, I'm more mature than some twenty-something's and thirty year olds that I know. Age has no bearing on intelligence, on life's experiences, and on an individual's personal state of mind. I'm not quite sure how this sounds, but it is nothing but a mere observation. Any thoughts? Comments? I'd love to hear some...
Members Only