Hating In Peace

I'm not a huge fan of rap (or hip hop as it is apparently now being called), but as a lover of pop culture, I do know who various rappers are. Today, we're going to take a look at a rapper called T.I. and what he thinks about gay people who don't like it when other people don't like the aforementioned gay people.

T.I. did an interview with Vibe magazine. During the interview, the subject of all Americans having equal rights came up. Here are his words of wisdom on the subject: "While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. "They’re like, 'If you have an opinion against us, we're gonna shut you down.' ... That's not American. If you're gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you're against it you should have the right to be against it in peace."


Soooo....wait. He's saying that if someone doesn't like you because of who you are that you should just take it? You shouldn't say anything? You should just let them have their opinion even if it's 'wrong'? And what's this about having the right to be against it "in peace"? See, if someone has an opinion of someone else that is hateful simply because of who that person is and then they kept that opinion to themselves, that would be being against it "in peace". It's the ones who are not against it "in peace" that folks have a problem with.


And wait a minute. Does T.I. know that he's black? Because he's kind of sounding like he doesn't. See, because there are and have been a lot of people who are and have been against people just because they're black. Is he saying that folks just should have let those closed minded bigots be that way in peace and not say anything about it? Is it "un-American" (in T.I.'s weird little world) to try and change narrow minded thinking when it's about skin color? It sounds kind of like it might be. And while I didn't really know who T.I. was before reading this about him, I didn't have an opinion about him. Now that I've read this though? I have an opinion, all right.

Sphere: Related Content

No, That Doesn't Look Crazy At All

What we have here is either really bad journalism (probably not) or really one-sided politics (more likely). If you're going to call yourself a news source and you want to "report" on the news, what say you do it in a way that your subject does not look like a crazy person unless, in fact, they are a crazy person. In this situation, we have Michelle Bachmann. She's not crazy, but Newsweek has her plastered on their cover looking like a lunatic with nice hair and conservative makeup. Behold!

Seriously, Newsweek? What's with the moniker "The Queen Of Rage"? Your article doesn't mention the word "rage" once, so it's a little confusing as to why you'd put that on your cover. And was this really the best out of all of the pictures that were taken? I can't imagine that it is. Y'all are just a bunch of biased journalists. And you suck because of it. Whoever it was that paid a dollar for the whole Newsweek operation, well, he overpaid.

Sphere: Related Content

A Photoshop Is Worth 1,000 Words

Isn't it just assumed that every single magazine cover out there is Photoshopped? I thought that was a given. I thought we all knew at this point that no one looks like the people that are on magazine covers and that includes the people that are on the magazine covers! So why deny it if you're called on it? Tell you what. How about you get someone who can actually Photoshop worth a damn or you get someone who can copy edit worth a damn and then you won't run into debacles like the W Magazine cover with Demi Moore, OK? OK.

Here's the story: Demi Moore does a cover story for W Magazine. The magazine comes out. People take one look at it and say, "No effin' way." Now, it wasn't a "No effin' way" in a jealous sort of manner. It was more of a "No effin' way" in a "Where's the rest of her hip?" sort of fashion. Behold!

Yeah, that's frightening. How old is she? 47?! Wow. Well, listen, Photoshopped or not, that's a pretty darn good looking 47 right there. But whether or not she looks good isn't necessarily the point. The point is that it seems fairly obvious that this photo was touched up and yet W Magazine and Demi Moore are denying that it was. Here are some of the flaws that I'd like to have explained.

First we have this arm over here. Behold!

That seems like a fairly muscular arm and it doesn't seem to be mirrored in it's counterpart, also known as "Her Left Arm". That could just be lighting, though.

But over here, if you look at the picture from W with this shape made with her right arm (that would be on your left) and you compare it to the picture that Demi (also known, seemingly only by herself, as Mrs. Kutcher) posted on her Twitter account (it's called a TwitPic. It's pics for twits. Catchy, eh?) you will notice that it's not the same. It seems to be a little bumpier in the W shot than in the "original" shot. It's not much, but it's there! But bumpy or not isn't so much the point as is really that it adds to the assertion (by everyone except for W and Demi Moore) that it has been, shall we say, touched up a tad?

Honestly though, are we all really supposed to believe that the TwitPic posted by Mrs. Kutcher is just one of the photos right after the popped out of the lens? I don't think that we are!

But here's the kicker: Where's the rest of her leg? Behold!

Yeah, see, you're going to be needing some leg there. See, that's the main reason people are crying Photoshop because do you see that place where there isn't any leg? But there should be leg? That's it! That's where you're going to need your leg. Where's your leg, Demi? Why does it do that?

Perhaps if she wasn't wearing something that merely resembled a conglomeration of one of Michael Jackson's military outfits and Liberace's drapes, she could explain her missing chunk of thigh by saying that she was wrapped tighter than a tourniquet. But judging from the loose fitting-ness of the outfit there, I hardly think that's the case. Someone screwed up. Someone else didn't catch it. The thing went to press. Everyone else pointed and laughed. Isn't that what happened? I'm pretty sure that it is.

Look, again, don't get me wrong, she looks great. A little thin, but great. But she doesn't look that great because no one looks that great. You know what I mean? Of course you do. Am I saying that people shouldn't look like that because it sends the wrong message? Um, not exactly. I'm saying that I'm not a big fan of the Photoshopping of models and acting like they're not Photoshopped nor freaks of nature. If you're going to do it, at least admit it. But really, if you're going to do it, do a better job at it. Sheesh.

Sphere: Related Content

R.I.P. Playgirl

(Sorry this is late. Things got a little busy. Or something like that. Hey! Y'all aren't always reading this on time! I can be late too. Geez. Tough crowd. )

Well, the crappy economy is having an effect in areas that you probably didn't think it would. I know that for me, when I hear about the "troubled economy" I don't automatically think, "Gee, I wonder if magazines like Playgirl will still be able to stay in print." See, now HAD I thought that, I wouldn't be so surprised at the news that the magazine Playgirl will cease to be a magazine and will only offer it's content on the web.

Apparently, the last print issue of the " glossy, soft-porn magazine" which "debuted as the women’s alternative to soft-porn men’s magazines in 1973" will be the "Jan/Feb 2009 magazine, which comes out Nov. 18." That according to gaywired.com. In other news, there is a gaywired.com.

Really? 1973? Huh. So 35 years of glossy soft-porn marketed for women, but loved by gay men around the globe. Ok then.

And did you know that although Playgirl was originally designed with females in mind, it quickly grew a large gay male fan base as well. Shocking, I know. Actually, while not "shocking", it is interesting that Playgirl would have a significant gay male readership base, but I don't think that Playboy has a significant gay female readership base. And I guess that guys are supposed to be "more visual" when it comes to things like this, but you'd kind of maybe expect the same sort of behavior then from the gay females because, well, just because. You do the math.

I always find it amusing when the articles that are about subjects that everyone knows plenty about feel the need to state the blatantly obvious. (You know, just in case someone's been living under a rock since 1973 and are just now learning that this fabulous new periodical called Playgirl, will soon cease to exist.) "Playgirl features pictorials of nude and seminude men in erotic poses, accompanied by articles on sex, lifestyle topics and celebrities." Huh. Nude and seminude men in a magazine, you say? Interesting. Tell me more. What?! It's over. Crap, I'm late for everything.

Well, fine. Adios Playgirl. We hardly knew ye. Let's see, what to put on the headstone of the newly deceased publication? Um....Ah. Got it.

PLAY GIRL MAGAZINE

1973 - 2008

REST IN PENIS

Sphere: Related Content