Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Three Million?

You know why it's important for news sources to check and edit their stories? Mainly so that they don't publish reports that three million people died as the result of a school shooting. I read this over yonder at

Really? Death toll rises to 3M? I don't think that it does. But then again, they're the news, so....Oh, my God! What happened? What's that? Big thumb? Oh. I see. It was really just three? No millions? Good to know. But CBS, if you need a copy editor, I'm totally available.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

A Leg Up

Yesterday we discussed whether or not JLo showed her nipple at the Oscars. (We did not discuss whether or not any sort of freak out over the alleged aforementioned areola would be warranted. That's because it wouldn't.) Today, I'd like to go over what in the hell was up with Angelina Jolie and her right leg. Behold!
And if that wasn't weird enough for you, it was like that all night. I couldn't quite figure it out. Is it some sort of prosthetic that she's really proud of? Or is it some sort of prosthetic that they put on crooked? Why's it sticking out like that? Are we supposed to be sucked in by the magic of television and just not notice that there isn't an able bodied human being on the planet that would ever naturally stand like that? Because I can't do that. And it's not like I'm the only one who noticed the leg. The leg now has it's own Twitter account, for crying out loud!

That Twitter account has over 25,000 followers. Those people know that it isn't really her leg that's doing the tweeting...right? What cracked me up the most about all of this was how out of her way Angelina Jolie went to make sure that her leg got a little airtime. She's in all of these ridiculous positions which I find simply hilarious.

I can't tell if her heel is all of the way off of the ground or if that is solely the work of a contortionist. Regardless, what is she trying to accomplish? Here's her leg! Is that her best leg? Is it a special leg? Is the leg some sort of a hero? Or is the leg just trying to escape? Look at this one:

Is she peeing? That kind of looks like the stance a female might take in the wild when needing to empty her bladder. It's a look rarely seen at red carpet events, though. Speaking of looks, can we talk about Angelina's? If the camera adds ten pounds, then she must weigh all of 60 pounds. She's damn near gaunt. Angie, sweetheart, have a sandwich. It's on me!
No, really. Did she run out of time and could only manage to shave one leg? So she's keeping that one hidden and trying to detract from its existence by constantly displaying the shaven one? I don't get it. It looks so unnatural and so uncomfortable. And there doesn't seem to be any reason for it! Doesn't she know that it looks weird? (Not that it would matter. This is the chick that used to wear a vile of her husband's blood around her neck. I'm not so certain that she gives a fat rat's ass about what's weird and what isn't.) I mean really weird. Not as weird as this, but still pretty weird.

Maybe that's really what was going on under there. It certainly looks problematic. I can certainly see why she'd want to cover up at least half of that!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 27, 2012

There's Always Room For JLo

The Oscars were last night. And apparently, there was an unexpected appearance by Jennifer Lopez's left nipple. The Internet is all abuzz about it. There's even a new Twitter account for "JLosNipple". (And you 1,407 people who are now following this short-lived novelty account really need to find a different hobby.) I swear, if this turns out like the Great Janet Jackson Nip Slip of 2004 and I have to hear about it for the next eight years (at least), I'm going to have to recommend that all women at all award ceremonies wear a burqa. (I realize that sounds a little restrictive, but not really compared to the wrath of the FCC and their inane rules and regulations.) And I'm not totally sure that there's anything there that we even saw. You tell me. Behold!

THAT?! THAT is what people are flipping out over?! THAT is what a Twitter account was created over?! THAT?! Are you kidding me?! Are we even sure that is anything at all? I don't think that we can be. There might be some nipple there, but maybe not. And besides, this IS Jennifer Lopez, right? It's not a nun or anything like that, correct? Have people lost their collective minds?! Am I the only one who remembers what sort of outfits Jennifer Lopez tends to wear? Let's have a quick refresher course. Here's what she wore on New Year's Eve. Behold!

Holy cow. I gotta say that I feel like I'm seeing a lot more with her in that outfit than I was seeing in the picture with the alleged areola sighting. Let's look at what she wore to the 42nd Grammy awards. She's all but naked. (No! Not all butt naked. All but naked. You know what I mean!) Behold!

You have GOT to be kidding me! She's not even wearing shoes! This is like the bare minimum of clothing that one would have to wear in order to not get arrested. Can we get a closer picture of this? CLOSE UP!

Her breasts are nearly falling out of that. Is that a Christmas bow on the front trying to hold it all together? Holy canoli. And people are freaking out that maybe an eight of an inch of her nipple poked its way out of her dress on TV last night? That's a joke, right? It has to be. There's no logical way to explain any sort of uproar. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised every time she shows up anywhere fully clothed. Look at the ad that she came out with this year for her new perfume. Look at it!

See, she's not kinda naked there. No, she is naked there! Full on naked! (And lookin' good might I add. I wonder what the fragrance smells like? Ha-ha, no I don't.) But people are all up in arms about her nipple that may or may not have made an appearance? This is the sort of thing that honestly makes me crazy. It makes me want to fight people. Look at the picture that was taken at the Academy Awards last night and then look at this picture for her fragrance. If you're going to be up in arms about something, shouldn't it be the fragrance ad?! (And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you should be up in arms about the fragrance ad. I'm just saying that if you have to have your arms up, shouldn't it be for something arm-up-worthy?) What is wrong with people?! If I hear that the FCC is looking into this, I will be able to state once again and with all certainty that we as a people are completely doomed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Here's Who We Need At The Oscars

The Oscars are tonight and I don't care about any of it. Oh, sure, I might watch a little bit of it, but it will mainly be to try to figure out why someone thought that Billy Crystal would make a good host this year. Hasn't his ship sailed? Seriously, what year is it? Who is that supposed to pander to? When was the last time he did a movie? Or anything for that matter? (I just checked IMDb. Looks like he did a voice in the movie Cars in 2006. Other than that, he hasn't done much that anyone would have actually seen on purpose. Looks like his last recognizable human role would have been that of the mattress salesman in The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. I think I've made my point.) Yes, he used to be very funny and very relevant at one point. But that point is so far away that it looks like a dot to you. Eddie Murphy was supposed to host, but that didn't work out for some reason. And someone thought that an adequate replacement for Eddie Murphy would be Billy Crystal?! How does that happen? I don't know.

And I really don't care because, as I have already said, I don't care. But you know what would make me watch? Do you know who Sophia Grace and Rosie are? I didn't either until the other day. They are these two adorable little girls who Ellen has had on her show a few times. They're really into music and did a fabulous stint on the red carpet at the Grammys. (So many people knew who they were! I was so clueless.) They're as adorable as they are hilarious. My favorite quote was when Ellen asked them if they got nervous when they were at the Grammys. One of them answered, "We weren't nervous, but we were hungry." (I hear ya, kid. I can get through just about anything, but I'm gonna need a snack.) See for yourself. They're great. We need more Sophia Grace and Rosie and less Billy Crystal at awards shows.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Maybe This Will Help

We're going broke, you know. Not you specifically me and not me specifically, but rather the country. That's the 'we' in this equation. The country is going broke. Rapidly. And no one seems to care. Either that or they just don't get it. But it's not that complicated, is it? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is just SO complicated that no one can understand it and that's why all of the elected officials continue to insist on spending my money like a bunch of drunken sailors on leave. (Apologies to all drunken sailors on leave. I know you're more responsible than that. It's just a saying.) Well, if that's the case, then we're all in luck! Below is a very short little video which acts out in layman's terms just how big of a problem this country's spending actually is. It's so funny that it's incredibly sad. Behold!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 24, 2012

African Americans Only

I don't know if I'm just paying attention (as I rarely do) or if there really is a recent influx in the news lately, but I keep reading about things that seem to have a double standard attached to them. And I keep trying to figure out why some things are OK and other similar things are just so NOT OK. I've come up with no answers. Only examples. And today's example comes straight from our very own President Barry's re-election campaign. Or something like that

Over yonder at, there is a short blurb by a one organizing fellow Adrenis Hook. (I wonder what an organizing fellow does. Would it be the same as an organizing chap? Would it be the same as an organizing gentleman? Hmmm. Adrenis appears to be a chick, so I guess that last one is out. But I still have no idea what that means.) The purpose of the blurb seems to be to tell us how President Barry has kept some of his promises and that we should continue to support him. Oh, wait. Unless you're white. Or anything besides black. I can only make that assumption since since she's asking for people to sign up to be volunteers over there at African Americans for Obama.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me? How are we all supposed to be united and get along when people keep separating themselves off into groups? Seriously. Why does it have to be African Americans for Obama? Why can't it just be Americans for Obama? What's wrong with whitey? Never mind all of that. Let's look at it from a different perspective. What if I started "Only Whites For Obama"? Oh, I can practically hear the uproar and the cries of "Racism!" But it's just fine the other way around? What gives, President Barry? What gives, Adrenis?

Look, if folks want to rally 'round and take up President Barry as their cause, I'm all for that. What I am not all for is dividing people out by race. Because quite frankly, I don't give a fat rat's ass what race you are. It isn't a factor in how I determine which decisions I am going to make in every situation where I have a choice. NEVER. It's never factor. But for some people (I'm guessing like African Americans for Obama) it seems to always be an issue!

I don't understand this and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But I'd like it to stop. Or at the very least, I'd like some sort of explanation as to why African Americans for Obama is even "necessary" when you could just as easily go with Americans for Obama and not be all inclusionary and what not. If I was actually a little bit more for Obama, I might actually make "Whites For Obama". Just to see what would happen (even though I'm not sure I want to know).

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 23, 2012

More Double Standards

I was thinking about yesterday's post in regard to double standards and it made me think about all of this Jeremy Lin nonsense that's been happening. It made me really wonder why poking fun at some stereotypes is OK, but poking fun at other stereotypes is totally off limits. I don't mean a little off limits. I mean WAY off limits. Like so far off that you're assumed to be a Klan member if you even take a whiff in that direction.

Let's look at this sign below that showed up at a Knicks game last week when Jeremy Lin was right in the middle of his hot streak. Behold!

Now, I don't know if the fact that it's being held up by an Asian has anything to do with it being OK. I wonder what the reaction to this would be if it was a white guy holding it up. I haven't seen anything against this particular sign. No one has said that it's "racist" or that people shouldn't "stereotype" (or some sort of utopian drivel). It seems to be just fine to have that kind of a sign. As it seems OK to have this kind of a sign as well...Behold!

Again, I haven't heard of any backlash over this particular sign either. I don't know if the person with this sign was Asian or not. All I know is that no one was having a cow over it or anything. And that bring me to my question. What if someone in the stands at a sporting event had a sign that referenced a black stereotype with a black player? Like, let's say that Kobe Bryant and the Lakers were playing a team that had previously beaten the Lakers by over 70 points. And let's say that the next time that Kobe faced off against that team, someone in the stands had a sign with a picture of Kobe Bryant eating fried chicken? And the caption read "What's the matter, Kobe? Chicken?" And let's say it looked like this...Behold!

Oh, COME on! You didn't really think I was going to include a picture of Kobe Bryant eating fried chicken, did you? Are you kidding me? I'd never hear the end of something like that! Can you imagine the self-righteous outrage?! Well, I could! And that's why I gave you a picture of a cute puppy instead of one that would make even me cringe at the sight of it. (His name is Bob Barker. How cute is that?!) But that it's OK for the Jeremy Lin puns and signs to dabble in racial stereotypes all the while it is so NOT OK to dabble in anything racial in regard to those who are black? That perplexes me. I wonder why it's like that. Not just for the Asian stereotypes to be "OK", but for people to think that they're "OK"

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Seems Like A Double Standard

Remember the whole Chris Brown beatin' down Rihanna ordeal a few years ago right before the Grammys? If you don't, it's pretty much like I just said there. Chris Brown beat the hell out of Rihanna and was subsequently arrested and given some sort of petty sentence that I don't believe included jail time. And as you would imagine, what happened was that people were pretty anti anything that had to do with Chris Brown. I'm good with that. You can't expect things to stay the same after you beat a woman. And if you're a public figure, expect the public to figure in to how this whole thing is looked upon. (Here's a hint: It isn't favorable.)

After that happened, Chris Brown anything was taboo. Stores wouldn't carry his album. He was no longer a spokesperson for milk (because while milk may do a body good, a beating most certainly does not do a body good). People didn't buy his album at the stores that did carry it. Radio stations wouldn't play his songs. And rumor had it that the reason the Jay-Z and Beyonce didn't perform at the BET awards right after this happened was because Chris Brown would be there and they didn't want anything to do with someone who beats women. Good for them. All of these people were all up in arms over him because he beat up a woman. Perfectly logical and I'm glad they did it. But wait! There's more!

It would seem that Rihanna and Chris Brown have recently rekindled their love and are once again a lovely couple. Quoting from various sources on the Innerwebs "...a source close to Rihanna said Tuesday, “They are definitely back together, and very happy about it.” Also from the Innerwebs, "Rihanna has told her best friends that she simply needs Brown back in her life. Without him, despite her mega-success, she has told pals she feels emotionally “empty.” Oh. Well, that would explain a lot. OK, so now I have a question.

If everyone is going to be all upset about what Chris Brown did and if
they are going to show that displeasure by not buying his albums, not playing his music, not performing with him, and everything else that goes into not supporting someone's craft, are they now going to do the same thing with Rihanna? It does not send a good message for the person who got beat up to go back to the man who beat her. And if we're all going to be so anti guys beating up women, are we going to be equally against the women who go back to the guys who beat them up?

I think that for any of it to mean anything (whatever that means) that we have to react similarly in both instances. If we're anti Chris Brown for all of the beating up, then we're anti Rihanna for going back to someone who we're against. But I'm guessing that this won't happen. I'm guessing that there won't be a huge backlash against her for returning to a guy who has already sent her to the hospital once. We'll call her stupid and we'll move on. But why don't we do that in the first place with Chris Brown? I don't get it, but I'm interested in how this one going to go down.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Presidential Tailoring

Ever wonder what it would sound like if the 36th President of the United States was ordering some pants over the phone and instructed the tailor to leave about an extra inch in the crotch area so that the seam didn't ride up on his crack, and to leave about an extra inch in the rear going right up by his (and I'm quoting here) "bunghole"? Well, if this is the sort of Presidential history that you've been clamoring for, then you are in luck today! What we have here is audio from just that very sort of phone call that former President Lyndon B. Johnson made from the White House when he was in need of some new garments. I find it to be hilarious. What a guy.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 20, 2012


Yesterday I talked about the little fiasco over there at ESPN when someone decided that a good headline referring to Jeremy Lin would be "Chink in the armor" when the Knicks lost. (In case you missed yesterday's post, that particular headline was a bad idea.) ESPN apologized and they took the headline down and they did so within 35 minutes. (Doesn't take long for an Internet ruckus to get going.) And of course, that wasn't enough for some people.

According to the Huffington Post
, the "...Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, an organization that promotes civil rights for Asian Americans, wants the network to do even more". That's right. Even more. They apologized. They took it down within 35 minutes. And that isn't enough. Apparently, the AALDEF (who should really think about shortening their acronym) says "The time for apologies is over." Sooooo...I guess we shoot them? I'm so confused.

They went onto say "The media and the general public must understand that racist language and stereotypes used to describe Jeremy Lin are an insult to all Asian Americans, and no one should tolerate their use." Huh. I'm pretty sure that the "media and general public" DO understand that. If the media didn't understand that, wouldn't we see more inappropriate language in their reporting? Does this happen often? I don't think it does, but that might be based upon my definition of "often". Since I keep up to date on current events all the live long day, I'm pretty sure that my reading material isn't frequently peppered with racial insults. Based upon that, I'm not sure that it's the HUGE problem that they want to make it out to be. The headline that ESPN used? Now THAT was a problem. But is it widespread? I really don't think that it is. (By the way, the picture that I used for this paragraph is ALSO a problem. Whose idea was that?)

Now let's address the concern that they have about the general public. If you're reading this blog, you have to know that the general public is stupid. Paste eating, mouth breathin' morons is what a lot of 'em are. You know it. You know them! But the media and the general public are two completely different entities. Good luck at getting the general public to consistently adhere to an acceptable group of standards. There will always be those who don't go with the flow and who can't play nice with others. I'm not saying that it should be tolerated, but I don't think that people should be overly surprised when they encounter such softheads.

It's still unclear to me what the AALDEF wants anyone to DO. 35 minutes response time might be some sort of a record. And ESPN said in a statement "We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again". OK, I don't know what "cross-platform editorial procedures" even means. I don't know if even ESPN knows what that means. But they also said "We regret and apologize for this mistake." There you go. It was a mistake. They didn't say "We're going to immediately fire the person who did that because it's clear that they are a flaming racist and are also probably a Klan member." It was a mistake. They apologized. And from what I can tell in reading the reactions to this debacle, the only person who thought it was a good idea in the first place was the moron who wrote it.

I'm all for making people aware of when things aren't OK because they have a racist tone to them. But there are instances when it's just a stupid mistake. I'm pretty sure this is one of those times. I'm pretty sure that everyone at ESPN is NOT a racist. I'm pretty sure that the person who wrote this wasn't a racist. (Really, if you were a racist, do you think that the most appropriate way to get your racist views out there would be to risk your job at ESPN with a comment as lame as "Chink in the armor"? Please.) But I guess now we're just supposed to shoot these folks or something because an apology isn't enough. Seems a bit extreme if you're asking me.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 19, 2012

This Linsanity Needs To Stop

If you don't follow sports, let me take a minute to explain a couple of things. First off, sports people seem to really love a good nickname. Actually, I take that back. It doesn't even have to be good. (See "Chad Ochocinco".) Any nickname will do. Well, almost any nickname. And it seems that the good and apparently clueless folks over there at ESPN forgot the part about "almost" when they were sucked into the "Linsanity" of New York Knick Jeremy Lin.

In case you're not familiar with the guy, Jeremy Lin is a guy who was born in the United States to parents who had immigrated here from Taiwan. That makes him kind of Asian. This will be relevant shortly. He's just recently started playing for the Knicks (basketball, don't ya know) and he's just kicking ass and taking names (though why anyone would sign up for an ass kicking is beyond me). Cue the media to begin the onslaught of easy to make puns/wordplay based upon Jeremy Lin's name.

We have things like "Linsanity", "Lincredible" and "Linconceivable". There's the "Linderella Story" and "Super Lintendo". Don't forget not-so-clever phrases such as "To Linfinity and beyond" and "Thrillin". And remember, he's "Amasian". (That one is a little combination of "Amazing" and "Asian". I spell that out for you because I am surprised at how very few people can figure that out and I really hate for a pretty good wordplay to go to waste.) And I think that it was that last one that caused ESPN to go right over the edge with their attempt at a witticism of their own the other night. Yeah, after the Knicks winning streak with Lin was snapped the other night, ESPN went with the headline "Chink in the armor". Oh, for cryin' out loud. Freakin' behold...

Now, as you may or may not be aware (or care about) the term "chink" is not exactly an accepted (or preferred) nomenclature for those of Asian descent. In fact, it's quite the opposite and is now more of a racial slur than anything positive. Granted, I haven't heard that particular term used in a derogatory (or any other manner, as if that was even possible) in a long time. But maybe that's because I don't hang out with racists (or really old people who refuse to acknowledge that World War II is over and we're no longer mortal enemies with Japan). So while I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to whoever came up with that headline, I don't even know what that sort of benefit would look like.

It's obviously an insensitive term at best. Racially offensive at worst. But either way, whoever came up with that headline had to know that it wasn't a compliment, didn't they? If not, I think they need to step away from ESPN for a little while and maybe read a book or take a class or something. Something that would help them grasp a basic understanding of why "Linsanity" is perfectly OK to use, but "Chink in the armor" is SO not OK. What is wrong with some people? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that whoever wrote that headline did so to be racist. I'm saying that it's a racial term that really should not be used in any headlines. Or anything else for that matter! Go back to "Super Lintendo". It's stupid, but I don't think it will offend an entire race of individuals.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 18, 2012

How To Handle A Cheating Spouse

You know what you do when you catch your spouse cheating on your your bed? You do what this marvelous guy did. Yep. This is exactly how you handle this sort of a situation.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 17, 2012

Misplaced Outrage Is Misplaced

I'm a little surprised that radio talk show hosts John and Ken were suspended yesterday for making on-air remarks about Whitney Houston that didn't exactly paint her in the most flattering light. If you're not familiar with John and Ken, it's not like they're journalists or anything. They mostly go over their topics from a subjective point of view. And I'm trying to figure out why what they said was interpreted as being so over the top that they were suspended until February 27.

Here's part of what they said. Tell me how this is crossing some sort of line. "She's been cracked out for 20 years, and we heard how obnoxious she was these parties, I mean, she's doing handstands, she's babbling like an idiot, running around ... she's a mess ... She's been doing this for 20 years.... So, how much of a pain in the ass do you think she was? Can you imagine, you're Clive Davis, and she has not been -- she has not had her head screwed on right for 20 years? At some point you’re just sick of it all, and so is everybody else in the industry, all her friends and hangers on, everybody who knew had to deal with her, it’s like, 'ah, Jesus, here comes the crack ho again, what’s she gonna do; Oh, look at that, she’s doing handstands next to the pool. Very good, crack ho, nice.' After a while, everybody’s exhausted. And then you find out she’s dead. It’s like, 'really ... took this long?'"

Wow. That does not seem like it's suspension worthy. John and Ken say an awful lot of things and I'd consider some (or a lot) of them to
be more inflammatory than that. Is it because of the 'ho' part? I mean, I don't recall there being any hard evidence that she was, in fact, a ho. So that could be misleading...if you're a complete moron. If you're a complete moron and you're listening to that and what you took away from that was that she was performing sexual acts in exchange for crack then you should never listen to the radio ever again. Turn it off immediately and read a book. Preferably something factual like a dictionary or a phone book. Whatever you do, just do not listen to anyone's opinion. And please don't listen to anyone's sarcastic opinion. That's not going to help you.

But other than that, I don't think that they said anything that is out of line. In fact, what they said seems kind of like what a lot of other people have said and/or what a lot of other people have thought. She was on drugs. She was a mess for 20 years. She was obnoxious at parties. But now that she's dead, no one can say that in a sarcastic manner? Or has 'ho' become SO offensive now that it's the new n-word? This is ridiculous.

Let's look at some "political" cartoons that are out there depicting the death of Whitney Houston. Now, none of them use the word 'ho', but they're not showing anything that is not almost just what John and Ken said. Like this:

"Do not snort the clouds" is acceptable, but "crack ho" is not? Yes, I know that there are two different companies involved here and that they are in no way expected to do the same thing, nor adhere to the same ambiguous "standards" as each other. But if there was "outrage" over the "crack ho" comment, why isn't there outrage over "Do not snort the clouds"? And what about this cartoon:

There's a syringe in the background of that cartoon. Do we know for sure that she was injecting drugs? I haven't heard that (though it wouldn't surprise me if that took place at least once). How come it's OK to make a drawing that implies intravenous drug usage, but it isn't OK to refer to her as a woman of extremely loose sexual morals? Again, I realize that these are two different companies that are involved here, but where is the outrage over this? Same with this cartoon:

There's a syringe. Why isn't there outrage? I don't get it. (By the way, I like this cartoon. It's probably a pretty accurate depiction of how she felt. I'm guessing. I have nothing to base it on other than her having everything at one point and then spending twenty years doing drugs. That's all.) John and Ken say "crack ho" and they're off the air for a week? It makes no sense. Way to go, Clear Channel. How many people actually complained? I can't imagine it being that many. And even if it was, so what? They don't have to listen. They need to get over themselves. So does Clear Channel. Way to go, morons.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Off The Rails

People have seriously gone off the rails with this whole Whitney Houston death thing. I'm getting a little tired of everyone reporting her death by giving a brief recap of her life where they mention what a great voice she had and they omit how she ruined her voice by doing drugs for twenty years. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious about the whole thing. I just think that it's something that needs to be mentioned so that her lifestyle or her choices aren't glamorized.

According to the Washington Post, the governor of New Jersey, the ridiculously large Chris Christie, has decided that all flags in New Jersey shall fly at half mast. Because...she was a war hero? Hmm...I don't think that's it. I think I'd remember something like that. No, I'm pretty sure that she was a really good singer about 25 years ago and wasted her talent by doing a bunch of drugs that would appear to have ultimately killed her. And folks in New Jersey are supposed to honor that with the flag at half staff? Are we just doing that for anyone now? Anyone with any shred of public familiarity is worthy of having the flag at half staff? Way to trivialize what that gesture actually symbolizes, Governor Christie. She was found dead in a hotel bathtub, for cryin' out loud! It's NOT commendable!

And as long as I'm rambling on about things I don't get about this whole ordeal, let's talk about her funeral. At first, it had been announced that it would be a public funeral at the Prudential Center which holds 19,000 people. And while that's a nice gesture for her fans (and people who would want to post pictures and footage on YouTube), her family decided that they wanted to just do an invitation only event. For 1,500 people. Am I the only one who finds that ridiculous? It's not like it's going to be an intimate affair or anything with that many people there. It's their deal. I get that. But I just found it ridiculous that they first announced it would be a public funeral in a venue that could hold 19,000 people and then they changed their mind because they wanted a smaller affair and are still inviting 1,500 people.

I'll be glad when all of this is over. Granted, we still have to wait for toxicology reports to come back and then tough it out while the collective media machine wets itself over the results. But then it'll over. Until it happens again to someone else.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Mock Everything

Yesterday was simply exhausting. Don't get me wrong. It had nothing to do with Valentine's Day. No, not at all. In fact, let me sum up my feelings about the ol' V.D. Here we go...
So, yeah. Whatever. It was, however, brought to my attention that I somehow overlooked including Nicki Minaj in my Grammy fashion montage yesterday. How that happened I have no idea because it is definitely something that should have been addressed. But I'm good with being a day late. Timeliness is often overrated anyway. Behold!

Yes, if it appears that she's dressed as some sort of weird Little Red Riding Hood who is being escorted by a faux Pope, then you've clearly grasped the content of her outfit. What is still perplexing me is the reason behind such an outfit. Oh, wait. It's the Grammys. She appears to be channeling Lady Gaga and 1990s Madonna in an effort to be "shocking" on live national TV during "music's biggest night of the year". I don't know about you, but I'm bored with shock. It's just not that "shocking" anymore. Come on, we have the Internet. If you're looking to be shocked and you're turning to a nationally televised prime time music awards show instead of going online, I fear for the day when you stumble across something on the Internet which is truly shocking. You don't know what "shocking" is unless you've crawled through the underbelly of the Internet for a little while. There are things on there from which one might not ever recover. But a "shocking" act at the Grammys? Please. Gimme something I can work with.

Regardless of how not shocking the sorts of performances like Nicki Minaj's are, they still occur for some reason. What she did was dress up like Little Red Riding Hood and then had herself surrounded by fire and dancers. I think it was supposed to represent hell. (It represented my own personal hell. Dancing? That would be hell for me.) But then the Pope guy showed up again and there was some sort of "levitation" that took place. Still fire. Still dancing. Little Red Riding Hood is floating and some guy dressed like the Pope then performs an "exorcism". Shocking, right? Not to me. I thought it was a bit ridiculous, but I wasn't shocked. I certainly wasn't appalled. Can't say that I can say the same for some Catholics and for some Catholic based organizations. Yeah, they were not amused.

Here's the thing: As it was pointed out by someone named Bill Donohue of something called the Catholic League (a name that makes it sound like they fight crime), "None of this was by accident, and all of it was approved by The Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammys" I'm OK with them approving it. (Would I rather that someone not seemingly mock a religion in a public forum such as the Grammys? Yeah, I think I would. But that doesn't mean that I think that it shouldn't happen. If an "artist" wants to mock religion, how about if they do it on their album or in their songs that people can choose to listen to if they want and not subject everyone to it?) But what I want to know is what if it was another religion that she wanted to mock?

Think about it for a second. What if she wanted to mock Islam? Can you imagine the massive s-storm that would ensue?! Oh, we'd never heard the end of it and I'm sure that there would be "Death to America" chants coming from various sand lands around the globe. Or what about Judaism? If someone got up there at the Grammys and made a mockery of the Jews, I think the world's head might explode. So what makes it OK to mock the Catholics? What's the difference between that and mocking Islam? Oh, right. Muslim extremists want to kill us. Hmmm. That's problematic, but it shouldn't be an excuse that works. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the Catholics adopt the tactics of Muslim extremists. (I'm not suggesting that the Muslim extremists adopt the tactics of the Muslim extremists.) I'm just pointing out that it's so weird that mocking some religions seems to be perfectly OK and mocking others seems to be complete taboo. Mock ALL religions!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content