Girls self-conscious about their height

I don't even know who Blake Lively is.... but I found this depressing piece of garbage at IMDFB:

Gossip Girl star Blake Lively is self-conscious about her height - and fears men find her towering stature intimidating.

The 21-year-old actress stands five foot ten inches (1.6 metres) tall and is made to wear high heels while she films the glamorous teen drama.

And Lively admits her lofty stature has always made her feel unattractive.

She tells Allure magazine, "I feel like a tranny (transvestite) a lot of the time. I'm large, they put me in six-inch heels, and I tower over every man - I've got this long hair and lots of clothes and make-up on.

"I just feel really big a lot of the time, and I'm surrounded by a lot of tiny people. I feel like a man sometimes."

I just find this mind-boggling. The woman is quite pretty, but because she's tall she thinks she's unattractive??? Oh, please. What short women wouldn't give to have a few inches!

Then there's the fact that most men these days -- real men, not actors - are an average of 5 ten, and more like six feet, what's the big deal.

One wonders if she was quoted out of context, speaking specifically of the role she was playing and not her real life... after all in real life she wouldn't be wearing 6 inch heels, surely.

Child support payments

A year or so ago, I read of a former NBA star who had been jailed because he was not making his child support payments. The idiot had 9 children - most by different mothers. None of whom he'd ever married.

And my question at that time was, hasn't this idiot ever heard of condoms? After giving birth to your third child, haven't you proved your virility enough such that you can now get a vasectomy or start using a condom so you can stop impregnating your women friends?

And of course the women must bear the brunt of the blame. If you're not married to the guy, why are you having unprotected sex with him? Are you deliberately trying to get pregnant so you'll have someone to keep you in luxury for the rest of your life?

And that is what I dont understand. When these basketball players are playing, obviously they make a ton of money, so the judges can set their child support payments pretty high.

But once they stop playing..surely the amount of money they must pay should be lessened! How can you expect a guy making nothign a year to continue to pay $2,000 a month child support, especially since he's probably blown all the millions he earned as a player.

Of course it's not just athletes. I remember reading about William Shatner, midway through Star Trek. He was getting a divorce, his soon to be ex wife was getting tons of money - and he was living in his car. Now that's not right!

And that brings me to the point of this post. Seems that:

Former NBA player and University of Florida standout Vernon Maxwell has been jailed in north Florida.

Alachua County authorities jailed Maxwell on Wednesday for violation of probation charges related to failing to pay child support, according to online jail records. A message left with a sheriff's office spokesman was not immediately returned.

During his 13-year NBA career, Maxwell helped the Houston Rockets win NBA titles in 1994 and 1995. Maxwell, a three-time all-Southeastern Conference selection, played at Florida from 1985-88.

Maxwell's attorney, Robert Rush, said child support payments were set when Maxwell was still a professional athlete and he can no longer meet the financial demands.

Rush called the matter a "sad and a recurring problem."

This is the significant point:

>>Maxwell's attorney, Robert Rush, said child support payments were set when Maxwell was still a professional athlete and he can no longer meet the financial demands.

Well then, my question is, why doesn't a judge lessen those payments to be a percentage of the money he is making now? It certainly isn't fair to make the guy continue to pay NBA-level child support when he isn't making NBA level money!

Should he be punished forever for his stupidity in having unprotected sex with a woman who got pregnat just so she could have a free meal ticket for the rest of her life? Let us not forget that 70% of all black children born, are born out of wedlock. And most of those kids are not born to men who are making NBA kind of money to begin with...

And let us not also forget that while the percentage of white girls and women giving birth out of wedlock was only 30%, that percentage grew faster than that of blacks and Latinos (50%).

Now, it's only common sense. If you don't have a stable family unit - whether it be hubby and wife, or hubby and hubby or wife and wife, depending on one' sexual orientation, then the kids are not going to be well off financially because a single person - especially one who is uneduated and on welfare herself - cannot take care of kids properly.

Which is why we get teen violence, and gangs, and half the population of the country in jail at one time or another - mostly for drug use. And now that doing jail time has become a "right of passage" for black Americans, that problem is only going to escalete, because no matter how sweet and simply misguided a kid is before he goes to jail, he's going to come out soiled and resentful and full of hate... and not towards the people he should be hating - the baby momma and the baby daddy who had him even though they couldnt afford him...

Women journalists are fair game

Remember a few years ago, when a female reporter asked Mike Tyson a question, and that fine, upstanding gentleman basically dismissed her as beneath dirt?

Now we've got Dana Winter, head of something called the UFC. You know the thing. The "sport" where two men go into a cage and try to beat each other to death.

And a reporter, who happened to be female (Loretta Hunt), claimed in an article that posted on article on Sherdog.com that claimed the UFC was attempting to freeze out certain fighters' managers and agents.

So Dana Winter answers back to this reporter. But does he confine himself to the issues? Of course not. A woman dared criticize him, and so she has to be submitted - via video, of course, I guess he didn't actually track her down and scream it in her face - to the vilest of language. (Well...considering the class of kids today, probably nothing little girls dont' hear on the nearest street corner or in their own homes.)



Apparently he's apologized.... to the *gay* community... what is this? Gays watch UFC? Gays have too much power to do him harm if he doesn't apologize, but women don't.

Then we get this, from Sherdog.com

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/dana-apologize-952886/

The IQs on display there are formidable.

Military wives have no lives

It was rough being a military wife, or any kind of wife, up until the 1970s. Your job was to stay at home and take care of the house. That was it. You were only there to have kids, look after the kids, and take care of the house.

Now, here in 2009, women can be or do anything they want to be. A military wife? No problem. Go to school, get a degree, start a business. Write a book. Do something.

And what do they choose to do? Become surrogate mothers.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2009/March/Military-Wives--Surrogacy-Extends-Beyond-U-S---But-What-s-Their-Motive--.html

Of course in one way they're being capitalists - gays want children and use their sperm for the child, or infertile people use their sperm, and all the woman has to do is carry thd kid for 9 months and then hand it over.

But there's still something so.... offensive about it. It's like those 50 year old women who have babies because they have an 'empty nest' and don't have anything to do with their lives... they're nobodies, they don't exist, it's just sad that this is what 40 years of media indoctrination have done to US women.

Afghanistan Legalizes Rape

I advise you all to check out the photo on the site. Three women, swathed in burkhas and that other crap from top of their heads to their feet. They peer at the world out of slits in front of their eyes.

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the world... because people are being forcibly converted. Sure, the Christians did it... 500 years ago. Today, we're supposed to be more civilized than this... but that's not the case for Muslims.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html

Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.


In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

Related articles
US and Iran meet at Afghan conference
The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community. "It's about votes," Ms Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."

The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime, which banned women from leaving their homes without a male relative. But in a sign of Afghanistan's faltering steps towards gender equality, politicians who opposed it have been threatened.

"There are moderate views among the Shia, but unfortunately our MPs, the people who draft the laws, rely on extremists," Ms Karokhail said.

The bill lay dormant for more than a year, but in February it was rushed through parliament as President Karzai sought allies in a constitutional row over the upcoming election. Senator Humeira Namati claimed it wasn't even read out in the Upper House, let alone debated, before it was passed to the Supreme Court. "They accused me of being an unbeliever," she said.

Details of the law emerged after Mr Karzai was endorsed by Afghanistan's Supreme Court to stay in power until elections scheduled in August. Some MPs claimed President Karzai was under pressure from Iran, which maintains a close relationship with Afghanistan's Shias. The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband's sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least "once every four nights" when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".

Most of Afghanistan's Shias are ethnic Hazaras, descended from Genghis Khan's Mongol army which swept through the entire region around 700 years ago. They are Afghanistan's third largest ethnic group, and potential kingmakers, because their leaders will likely back a mainstream candidate.

Even the law's sponsors admit Mr Karzai rushed it through to win their votes. Ustad Mohammad Akbari, a prominent Shia political leader, said: "It's electioneering. Most of the Hazara people are unhappy with Mr Karzai."

A British Embassy spokesman said diplomats had raised concerns "at a senior level".

The baby conspiracy...

Last night, for the first time, I saw the Bones episode "The Salt in the Wounds", which had first aired on March 19, 2009. (I guess once they air it on it's normal channel, they repeat it a few weeks later on TNT, which is where I saw it.)

Anyway, a body is found, turns out to be a pregnant 16 year old white teenager. As the team investigates, they learn that at a certain high school, five other members of the girl's volleyball team (most white, one black) are pregnant.

Turns out, the girls had made a pact to get pregnant by a male student, blackmail mail teachers into giving them $5,000 each, and then set up house together where they could raise their kids on their own.

This is one of a couple of cop plots spawned by the real life obscenity that took place at Gloucester High School, in Massachusetts. I share Wikipedia's article on it:

On June 18, 2008, the high school drew international attention as news reports broke that a group of 17 female students had become pregnant in the last year, with some, reportedly, as a consequence of an agreement they had made. Some of the girls allegedly said that they had participated in the pact so that they could raise their babies together. There have been reports that one student went so far as to recruit a homeless 24-year-old man in her efforts to conceive.

Media reactions to the event ranged from general criticism of the episode as representing a misguided adolescent shortcut to adulthood and identity, to the matter of whether statutory rape occurred. (Many of the adolescent girls involved were sixteen years old or younger.) However, most early media reactions were not completely accurate because they had not received all of the necessary information until later.

During the 2007-2008 school year, two staff members began to publicly advocate that the school clinic provide contraception without parental consent, largely in response to the surge in student pregnancies. This recommendation drew opposition from the board of Addison Gilbert Hospital, which sponsors the clinic. The clinic staff, a pediatrician and nurse practitioner, resigned in protest at the end of the school year.[8] On October 8, 2008 the Gloucester School Committee granted the use of contraceptives by way of the Student Health Center provided that the use be approved by the parents.

Anyway, in the Bones plot, Bones and her sidekick, FBI agent Sealy Booth, of course have different reactions to the events. Bones sees nothing wrong with it. (Or at least, says she doesn't.) Bones says (and I paraphrase) that it's an anthroplogical imperative for these girls to take control of their own lives because they've learned that guy's can't be trusted.

Now, I like the TV show Bones, and I like the character of Bones, but that was just the stupidest thing I've ever heard or say. There was no "anthropological imperative." There were a group of girls who have been trained from day 1 that they are to look pretty so they can get married and a boy will take care of them. Girls don't really want to have careers, they want to be taken care of.

So the instigator of the plot, the most popular girl in the school, who is also the most intelligent, gets a scholarship to a prestigious college. And her parents are so pround and "begin making plans for the rest of her life." And the girl decides to rebel by getting pregnant, so she can take over her own life, apparently.

Where's the need to distrust a guy in that, is the question I'm asking myself. It's not a question of distrusting a guy, it's a question of the woman not wanting to assume any responsibility for her actions, or for growing up. So, you get pregnant, and you blackmail someone to give you $5,000. (IN real life of course, you get pregnant, and go on the welfare rolls).

But the ending of the episode was very interesting, I thought. Sealy Booth, who has a son out of wedlock himself, but whom he loves and supports, goes to talk to the "baby daddy" of these girls. And this kid is supposed to be a nerd, who is all proud of himself because he was able to get six girls pregnant (little thinking that it was not because they found him in the least bit attractive, simply because he was available.)

But he has these six kids and of course he has no intention of supporting them. We don't know why that is...apparently he had not been party to the plan to blackmail the teachers for $5,000 each...he just didn't think he'd have to do it.

And Sealy points out that he probably will have to do it. And then he tells the kid that the girl who is dead was going to have given birth to a son.

And, oh wow, the first trace of remorse on the kid's face! "I was going to have...a son..." he says. So he doesn't care diddly squat about the fact that he fathered some female children, but when he learns that he would have had a son, he gets all teary-eyed????? What's up with that?

Evil Media: King of Queens

I dont' see an episode title for this particular piece of crap.. but it is such crap.

We've got lead character Carrie who uses her friend Holly, on a regular basis. In a different episode, Carrie is sick so she guilts her friend Holly into bringing her home cooked meals every day. Then when it is Holly who'se gotten sick, she doesn't even notice or care. And Holly doesn't tell this woman to go to hell?

In this particular episode, Carrie apparently doesn't want to ask Holly straight out to borrow her van, but rather tricks her into thinking she wants Holly's advice in redecorating. Of course it backfires because Holly takes her seriously, and so Carrie has to ingeniously figure out reasons why she won't follow Holly's suggestions.

This is a popular show...what is this woman Carrie showing the young kids who watch this piece of crap? That it's okay to deceive people who think you are their friends? That people are so desperate for friendship that they'll allow themselves to be used by people who claim to be their friends?

The other plot is Doug and Deacon in a restaurant. Doug insults a waitress - a short woman. The woman threatens him physically, "I'm going to gut you like a deer." This is so not funny. If it had been the other way around, the patron would have called the police and the male waiter would have been thrown in jail. But because the "victim" is a male and the aggressor is some short woman - albeit a New Yorker, we all know they like to fight - they think it's funny?

I'm all for women sticking up for themselves and being able to karate chop an attacker, male or female, into submission. But "catfights" between two women (or girls, even, sadly) because one girl dared to kiss the other girl's boyfriend?) or women beating up on their boyfriends because they know they can (because it is the man who will go to jail should he dare to retaliate against her)... that is simply unacceptable, and to make jokes about that kind of behavior is not funny at all.

Abortion rights

Let me start out by saying I believe in abortion rights. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't be forced to have it. Of course, rather than using abortion as a form of birth control, the intelligent, or even just common sense thing to do, would be to teach these girls to use condoms or the pill or whatever. And if their guy doesn't want to use a condom... don't have sex with him. That would also prevent the spread of a little something called "Sexually Transmitted Diseases."

On a related note, for those girls who have no intention of getting abortions, but rather want to get pregnant regardless of the fact that they're only 14 to 16 (conditioned as they are to that, by the gifts of realistic babies when they're little girls), have no education, no job prospects, and don't even know the name of the guy they're having sex with.... we need to educate them as well, to value themselves as human beings first, and sex objects last!

Anyway, the point of this particular entry is an interesting bigoraphical note on a "Doctor Who Companion."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-397508/The-intriguing-story-Dr-Whos-sidekick.html, Anneke Wills.

In the 1960s, she was the live-in girl friend of actor/singer, Anthony Newley, and was pregnant with his child. He went off to America and fell in love with Joan Collins (whom he would later marry.) According to Wills, he sent her a rather cold-hearted telegram, ordering her to abort their child.

And she did so.

She recalls being taken by Newley's manager to see the two psychiatrists necessary to agree to an abortion.
'No expense was spared,' she says bitterly. 'I was in shock, absolutely heart-broken. I didn't know why he had changed his mind.'
When she finally booked into a clinic in Hampstead for a Caesarean abortion at four-and-a-half months pregnant, she remembers taking a doll with her.
'It was ghastly,' she says. 'I was sobbing my eyes out.'

Now, obviously, the 1960s were very different from today. Today, a girl would think, why should I have an abortion? This is your baby, I'm going to have it and you're going to have to support it. (The main reason why guys today should either get vasectomies or wear condoms - don't saddle yourself with child support payments for a one-night stand! Better still don't have a one-night stand to begin with...)

But what intrigued me about it was the fact that she had to see two psychiatrists before she could have an abortion. What did she tell them? "I want the baby, but my boyfriend told me to get an abortion." and they nod and say, "Well, as long as your boyfriend has told you to do it, he knows best."

Anneke Wills story is a sad one...

Let's Have A Little Veracity...

The real Amelia Earhart

In Night at the Musuem, starring Ben Stiller (a movie I enjoyed, by the way), Robin Williams played Teddy Roosevelt...and he was made up to look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Now we're gettign Night at the Museum 2, and Amelia Earhart (or at least, a model figure of her) is apparently going to come to life.

And this figure looks nothing like Earhart. Too many curves! And quite pretty. (Actually, I wonder if it is supposed to be Earhart. Because Earhart never wore a jacket like that, either. Hers was long and covered her rear end... hmm... just another artistic license? Musn't cover a woman's best feature, eh?????)



And I'm torn. On the one hand, Amelia Earhart was quite slender, and in some ways matches the skeletal look that women today are supposed to look like. (I have no doubt she didn't have an eating disorder, she was just naturally slender). On the other hand, this actress, Amy Adams, is all curves - which at least gives a healthy body image for viewers to see.

But the face.... it's just not Amelia. Even Diane Keaton looked more like Earhart than this woman does.

Here's Hilary Swank as Earhart in the upcoming movie.

Evil Media on the Cartoon Channel

I'm staying at a Motel 6 in Williamsburg, Virginia, researching locationss for a pamphlet on travel to the city.

I've got a TV that's got Cable, although with only 22 channels its pretty lame! One of those channels is the Cartoon Channel.

I turned it on at 11.30 pm at night, when I suppose all impressionable kids are in bed. Thank god for that because the comercials are obscene, as is the programming - Family Guy. A cartoon that features bestiality - the dog has sex with the wife, and the young baby who speaks lie an adult but is still breast fed and has nothing but contempt for his mother...

Ah..I see this is "Adult Swim." No wonder this country is headed into the toilet in education, class, morals et al.

Edited...I'm surfing channels and have comew across WHRO. Full nudity of women's breasts, and genitalia, at a strip club! I didn't think this kind of stuff was allowed except on pay channels!And all those women should be euthanized for the disservice their doing their sisters! Take out the guys who go see that crap, too!

Evil Media: Disney Commercial

Okay, it's got nothing to do with women and culture per se, but it just annoys the heck out of me, because its part of the dumbing down of America.

I'm watching Frasier on the Lifetime channel, and have just seen a Disney commercial which I've seen a few other times.

Male kid, perhaps 10 or so, is sitting in a classroom, looking bored out of his mind (as with the rest of the 20 or so kids in the room) while a pompous teacher attempts to teach them something. Kid opens his notebook, and there's an envelope that says "Happy birthday." He opens it up, and the fireworks of Disney shoot out. All the kids ooh and ah...

So what is this commercial teaching kids? That school is boring, and always will be boring, and learning isn't important, anyway, because you can always go to Disneyworld on your parent's money....

Evil Media: King of Queens

I've been watching the King of Queens recently - I've missed many a show on its first run, but that's what syndication is for. I've never really cared for it... but I watch it to see just how offensive it really is.

It was and obviously is very popular. Doug Heffernen is an overweight IPS driver, his wife Carrie is a slender, very attractive woman who could probably have her pick, but as is the way in these shows, she's fine with tubby Doug. (Why is it we never see sitcoms with handsome men and tubby women to whom they're devoted?) Carrie is secretary to a law firm (or perhaps at this point in the episode I'm discussing below, she's secretary at a real estate firm, at any rate, she's employed).

Anyway, the episode I'm wathing this very minute is called "Queasy Rider." Doug wants to get a motorcyle, and his wife says, "No, you can't get it." No discussion, etc. She says this in front of his friends, he gets all embarrassed because they make emasculation jokes, and he gets the bike anyway.

And frankly, I'm with him. It's a running cliche that when two people get married, the woman is always a nag out to change the husband - you can't play golf this weekend, you can't buy a motorcylce, et al - and the husband always comes across as henpecked. And I'm like - the guy's got a job, if he can afford it he should get the motorcyle. Equally, if the woman can afford it, she can get a motorcycle!

Now, obviously, this is a sitcom, so things have to come out in a funny way. In this episode, turns out Doug doesn't actually like the bike - he gets rained on, people laugh at him, and he continually runs into the wall of the garage.

Meantime, Carrie and her father (an annoying man who lives in their basement) have a discussion. "I made him get rid of it because it was too dangerous."

And father says, "What's worse is someone resenting you forever for making them give up their dream."

So at that point Carrie gets a clue and goes back and buys the cycle for her hubby. But of course, Doug has to admit that he doesn't like the bike. So, they're going to return it (and she expects to get the same price she paid for it - like that ever happens!)

But...she does apologize to hubby... but not for ordering him around, but rather for making her "buzzer" sound, which he finds demeaning.

I've seen a few other episodes, and they're little better. In one, Doug and his friend Deacon find a sum of money - $5,000 I think it was. If he gives it to the wife, she'll just make him invest it, so instead, he and Deacon blow it all in one day and a variety of things - renting a Lamborghini, playing golf at a ritzy place, et al...

In other words, Doug is always really stupid, and Carrie is sensible but bossy, and Doug always finds ways of doing things behind her back. The 2000s version of I Love Lucy and other sitcoms where the ditzy wife was always trying to do stuff despite sensible hubby's adavice against it.

After two Kings of Queen's comes two Everybody Loves Raymond's, another show which I really despise. But I'll talk about that in a future entry.

Urine therapy????????

In a different blog, I commented about some poor Brazilian woman who holds the record for plastic surgeries - she's had over 40 different procedures. Her latest one was because she wanted to "look beautiful" for Carnival time. Fortunately for her, her husband is a pastic surgeon, so perhaps it doesnt' cost her anything - except the time lost from use of her body while it heals from plastic surgery, her mental health as she is clearly a deeply insecure woman, and the fact that her body will probably look exactly the same 100 years from now should anyone ever bother to dig her up. OR perhaps they'll just stick her in a corner somewhere as a sculpture after she dies, as there won't be anything left of her to decompose.

Anyway, everyone knows what urine is, right? IT's that yellow liquid that we pass out of our bodies, full of waste, but not solid waste such as goes to form the stool. But regardless....it comes out of our bodies, so who in the world got the bright idea that injecting someone with urine would cure anything, and who in the world is stupid enough to even try this type of therapy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29126420/



Women have been under attack since the dawn of time, really, but I'll just deal with the last 100 years. It's all about keeping up with the style. Flappers in the 20s weren't supposed to have breasts, or waists, and the trend toward skeletal woman has continued from then to the present day. Take a look at Marlene Dietrich in The Blue Angel, when she was Germany's idea of a sex symbol - all curves, and contrast that to the way she looked in the States - glamourous, sure, but probably didn't eat enough to keep a mouse alive.

The "beauty" business - whether cosmetics or dieting, is a multi-million dollar business, and they got that way by promoting insecurity in women. You must cover the splotches on your face, you must never have a tummy buldge, if a guy wants you to have bigger breasts, put in that silicone!, if he leaves you, put in that silicone so you can keep your next man!, when men turn to look at you it's not like they're eyeing you like you're a piece of meat, it's really a compliment!

It irritates me everytime I see little girls, or even teenagers, walking around in those short shorts that go right up to their butts... it'd be fine if guys had to wear the same short shorts as well, give us heterosexual women a bit of eye candy, but of course if a guy does it, it signifies one thing... he's gay and looking for a guy...

And straight guys don't think girls who wear short shorts aren't advertising their wares? Well...they don't really care what the girls think, I guess, they're just grateful for the eye candy.

Should non-Muslim women wear a headscarf?

When on duty in Muslim countries that have religious law (i.e. Sharia - the law that says not only that women should be stoned to death for adultery, but also carries out that sentence) many American and European service women would cater to their sensibilties by wearing headscarves. (Of course, their sensibilities must be catered to. When Muslims come to the US, their sensibilities must still be catered to - nothing about them catering to the sensibilities of the US who find headscarves offensive...)

Anyway, Annette Bening and some other female actress I'd never heard of went to Iran to give talks on making film. And of course they wore headscarves. I must admit I was shocked and relieved to ssee it was only scarves, not the full burkha that covered the entire face, leaving slits for eyes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hs08h0N-fFTlnRAblLSMrXwXLnPg

And, of course, the Iranians who invited them over are in trouble with the government now. (You'd've thought they'd've cleared the visit before inviting the Americans!) Seems Americans have insulted Iran in 30 years worth of film making, making them seem like a violent country with a violent history.

(Well...gee...name one country that doesn't have a violent history - from the indigenous populations on upward, people were killing each other and different tribes for being different... it's what poeple did then and its what they do today. Now the IRA is getting started up again...)

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if heads will roll on the Iranian side:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=190528

"Non-profit" rewards Octomom

Pretty interesting article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/09/2009-03-09_octomom_nadya_suleman_agrees_to_roundthe.html

First the world learned she already had six kids and lived in her mother's cramped three-bedroom house in Whittier, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles.

Then came news she was unemployed, single and living on a combination of food stamps, disability payments, student loans and her mom's retirement checks - all while her mom's mortgage went unpaid for nearly a year.

And now, thanks to her 8 kids who are still alive, Angels in Waiting is rewarding this irresponsible individual with a free house and free round-the-clock childcare.

Meanwhile, average, poor citizens - as Octomom used to be - who got irresponsibly pregnant but at least only had one child, can barely make ends meet and there's no one to help them with round the clock child care.

I've never donated to Angels in Waiting, but if I had I'd demand my money back and I certainly won't be giving them anything now, either.

Forget Obama's snub of British PM, his wife should cover her arms!

I cannot believe this.

Michelle Obama, whom I detest, goes around wearing sleeveless shirts. She's got sculpted biceps, so no one's complaining that she needs to cover up because she's got that whole flabby under arm thing going, neverthless apparently President's wives aren't supposed to wear sleeveless dresses.

Bull crap ola.

Go after the woman for what she says, what she does, not because of her appearance! What's the deal, Barack Obama's ears are taboo but its okay to criticize his wife's arms?

I think I heard something about this during the campaign as well, and this piece reminded me of it:

During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses, because her muscles, combined with her potent personality, made her daunting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08dowd.html

Michelle Obama needs a few teachable moments on what made the USA great and what can make it great again, but she doesn't need word one about the way she chooses to dress.

Evil Media: The recent Cheetohs commerrcials

I like Cheetohs...and I really loved the old Cheetohs commercials, with the late Phil Hartman as a megalomaniac businessman trying to steal the secret of Cheetohs, and the Cheetoh Cheetah foiling the plan.

But what do we get today, in 2009?

So far I've seen two Cheetohs commercials, repulsive on so many levels.

Each one has two female characters. Both relatively young and attractive.

But one is, ostensibly, somewhat snobby, or more successful than the other one.

In one, they're at two separate tables having breakfast or something. The one who is *not* snobby tosses some cheetos on the ground beside the one who *is* snobby, the implication being she will soon be divebombed by pigeons looking for a free meal, and who will dishevel her perfectly put together appearance. And serve her rigtht for being so snooty, the commercial seems to say.

The next one is of two women at a soccer match, I guess. And one woman, dressed in a white jacket, is bragging on her son. The other woman hugs her and rubs her Cheetoh-covered fingers on the back of the woman's jacket. Then she walks away, smirking.

Class envy, anyone? The "poor" destroying that what the "rich" has? The "rich" deserving it because they're so "snooty." Didn't do anything to deserve their wealth, so they don't deserve to be happy with it?

But also the women are just so spiteful... I hate it. They're not funny, and they give little brats ideas for destruction rather than lifting kids up with good examples!

Now more than ever, we need commercials that lift up America, don't dumb them down or encourage such spiteful behavior.

Honor kills ARE murder!

Just saw a talking head saying "what's on the program next." And one of the spots coming up is, "The Muslim executive who killed his wife. Was it an honor killing, or was it murder."

See, here's the thing. In Muslim communities, if a woman "disgraces" her husband or family in any way, as for example by wanting a divorce, or telling someone he beats her, he gets to kill her to avenge the stain on his honor!

But according to Muslim tradition, honor kills are merely domestic violence.

Indeed, this Muslim executive is only facing second degree murder charges. What does a guy have to do to get first degree murder charage these days, for god's sake?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494785,00.html

But psychologists and some American Muslims said the slaying has all the markings of an honor killing.

"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."

Following multiple episodes of domestic violence, Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6 and obtained an order of protection that barred her husband from their home, according to attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.

Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.

"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."

Chesler said honor killings typically are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes and largely involve teenage daughters, young women and, to a lesser extent, wives.

But Chesler said the "extremely gruesome nature" of the crime closely matches the characteristics of an honor killing.

"Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife."

Chesler called on U.S. and Canadian immigration authorities to inform potential Muslim immigrants and new Muslim citizens that it's illegal to abuse women in the two countries.

"As long as Islamist advocacy groups continue to obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West, such murder may even accelerate," Chesler wrote. "Unchecked by Western law, their blood will be on society's hands."

In an effort to deflect criticism away from the Muslim religion:

"There will be time for that later," Hirschfield said in a statement obtained by FOXNews.com. "I will only say to those who leap to the conclusion that this kind of thing is intrinsic to Islam, ask yourselves if you think that drunkenness is intrinsic to Irish Catholics, or cheating in business is to Jews?"

In one way he's got a point, in another way... um, honor killings are a bit more serious than getting drunk (especially when you can get so drunk that you fall on the subway tracks, and still get paid millions of dollars by the subway company because "they" were at fault for running over him. Eutanize that guy and give that money back to the state.) and Catholics don't make their wives wear burkhas in public. Orthodox Jews have some weird restrictions - I believe there are places in New York of a Sunday where women can't leave their home.... or can only travel in "their neighborhood" so they put these little symbolic signs on the walls of the streets as far as the nearest store, and that allows them to be able to walk out of the house, because "technically" they're still at home. Now if that ain't stupid...

Evil Media: Wife Swap

This piece of trash has been around for a couple of years, I guess. At least, they had enough episodes to have a marathon for President's Day. Or was it Valentine's Day that the LIfetime Channel showed this piece of crap all day long.

The very premise is reprehensible. Two wives "swap families." And husbands too, let's not forget. I wonder if they give the hubbies some sex while they're in the house? I don't watch it, but the commercials show that typically the kids are snot-nosed punks that need to be euthenized, and the husbands aren't much better, and the women who'd actually particupate in this crap... hell, euthenize 'em all.

All it is is another mass media indoctrination that women are "interchangeable" - they exist only to serve the men.

I mean, why not call it "Husband Swap"? Wife with a dumpy husband gets one who's young, virile and sexy. No...you'd never see that. Guys don't have to participate in that kind of crap. It's only the women who have to participate for the "hottest bachelor" and so on.

Soooo offensive on so many levels,... and the fact that thisshow is popular...very frightening.

Do We Really Need People Telling Us How to Save Money?

I don't watch Oprah Winfrey. Well - I don't watch any of those shows - Montel Williams, Jerry Springer...all those that take the dregs of the earth and parade them on TV for everyone to look at...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021709/content/01125112.guest.html

Anyway, apparently Suze Orman, financial advisor, was on the show before Obama's election, and was giving advice on how families could save money.

(Because, of course, people who need to save money are too stupid to figure this out on their own.)

Her viewers were asked to make a financial pledge. (Now, I'm just quoting what the Rush Limbaugh show was told. It doesn't make any sense to me, if its true.)

1. Don't use your credit cards for a week.
2. Don't spend any cash at all for two weeks.
3. Don't eat out in a restaurant

Now, points one and two just don't make sense. If you don't use credit cards, and you don't use cash... how are you getting food? Is this being delivered by Obama's elves? Or perhaps what wasn't given was a preview that they weren't talking about food, but other stuff - don't buy shoes, don't buy new clothes, etc.

And that of course makes sense. If you can barely afford to put food on the table, you don't need to buy a new pair of shoes every week. (Buy a book instead and get an education for god's sake.)

But do people really need to be told this? They can't figure it out for themselves? Obviously not.

The 3rd point about saving money... don't eat out in a restaurant. Well, that makes sense, of course. If you can't afford to put food on the table, you sure can't afford to go out to a restaurant.

But if you're trying to save money... is not eating at a restaurant really a good deal? For one thing, all the waiters and cooks...if they don't get customers, they get fired... then they'll be in the boat of not using their credit cards or spending cash...

I don't know about guys, but as a woman with a modest appetite, I usually get twice as much food as I need in a restaurant. I don't throw out what I don't eat, I take it home and have it for lunch the next day. Saves money - two meals for the cost of one.

It's tough economic times out there. And thanks to Obama, and the politics of entitlement, its only going to get worse.

When Does A Woman Not Have the Right to Have Children?

It all depends on your ideology.

If you're one of those people who think that people should stand on their own two feet - earn their own money and pay their own way, then a great portion of the population - those people on welfare - have absolutely no right to have children. Get an education, get a job, get off welfare, then you have have the right to have kids, as many kids as you want and can afford.

If a woman is on welfare, and already has six children, she has absolutely no right to have any more, especially not if she has to get them through in vitro fertilization! Who the hell paid for this woman's operation, that's what I want to know!

Eight children - you know they're all in the hospital, each one probably costing $1,000 a day in care. This woman doesn't have that money, her family doesnt have that money.... so the tax rolls are being sucked dry to pay for this woman's children.

And once they go home... who's going to supply the money to buy their food? Their clothing? And so on.

One cannot let helpless and innocent children starve, of course. That's the kicker, that's how these religious types around the world get their hooks into everything. "The poor you shall always have with you, they were put here in order to keep us charitable."

You got that right. It's called the welfare business. People make a great deal of money running charities to take care of people who can't - and won't - take care of themselves. Average people like you and me, and certainly some wealthy people also, donate money to these charities, so that the administration can live high off the upper most part of the hog while they dole out 60% of donations to the people who need it.

The only way to end poverty is for poor people to stop having children --- until they get an education, until they get good jobs. It's a lot easier to stop being poor if you only have two mouths to feed - you and your spouse, rather than two adult mouths and four kids (or as is more likely, one adult mouth and four kids, each by a father whose names the mother does not even know). (And since we're in the midst of an overpopulation explosion, I'm all for people not having kids at all. I'd rather see a mile long strip of veldt with a lion in it, casually ripping a gazelle apart, than a mile long strip of cheap apartments, or even well-to-do apartments, full of drugged out individuals who will never accomplish anything in their lives except consume food, alcohol, and valuable oxygen, and who have to go out and rob and steal to feed their habits.)

Here's the article that set off this rant:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/octomom-loses-p.html

Evil Media: Golf Now Dot Com Commercial

I'm watching the last 6 holes of the SBS Open at Turtle Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. It's an LPGA event, Michelle Wie has a one stroke lead.

I'm torn. I don't like Michelle Wie, and I really hope she loses. On the other hand... if she's actually matured... should a dislike of her former behavior prevent one from accepting that teenagers can mature?

But that's not the real point of this post.

Just saw a commerical for GolfNow.com.

I don't even give them the courtesy of making their link into a hotlink.

Middle-aged Man on a computer in the background.

Middle-aged womaan in the foreground, pruning bushes. I paraphrase. "That's my husband back there, pretending to pay bills online. Really, he's booking a Tee-time. He's going to come up in a minute and tell me he's going to play golf tonight, and I'm going to pretend to be annoyed. It's just one more step to getting those new chairs I've always wanted. So everybody wins. Thanks, golfnow.com."

And I'm like... "What the hell is this?" It's the 21st century, women still feel like they have to guilt their husband into buying them things? Worse, do women still feel like that in real life???

You want new furniture? Buy 'em with your own money - assuming you have a job - or play golf with your husband and beat him with a wager on the furniture!

Considering that this commercial takes place during a LPGA event, you'd think any women in the commercials would at least be golfers!

The Emperor's New Groove

I like this movie in spite of myself.

Eartha Kitt plays Ysma, the villainess, and she does a great job. She's got quite a few hilarious lines.

And, at least she's out to kill the Emperor so that she can take over his kingdom, not because he's more beautiful than she is - as is typically the female villain's raison d'etre in these Disney films. (Where of course, typically she's going after a female victim - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc.)

Here's a clip showing Eartha Kitt's voice artistry.

Her elaborate plan to kill the Emperor, starting by turning him into a flea:

BK Burger Shots

Just saw this commerical. TNT, just at the end of the Rookies-Sophmores game during this NBA ALlstar weekend.

Nerdy guy comes out with three "Burger Shots" - Burger King's answer to White Castle, I guess.

And this nerdy guy is surrounded by beautiful blonds - who don't look too skeletal, at least, crooning over these hamburgers like they were little babies.

I just cringed with embarrassment for these women.

But, of course, you can't have guys crooning over hamburgers like they were babies. No - the guys eat 'em.

The women don't eat... they just look at the forbidden fruit and croon.

Yet another example of the infantilism of women by the media.

The Avenging Emma Peel Manifesto

Women (in the Western world) have never had more opportunities to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. They can wear the clothes they want, they can go to schools formerly reserved for men, they can enter fields formerly reserved for men - they can do anything they want.

And yet statistics show that a lot of women don't take advantage of their opportunities. They are oontent to spend their days obsessing over their looks, and over boys, and over finding someone to take care of them (rather than they looking after themselves - as adults).

Is this just because it's "the way women are," or is it because, for all our newfound freedoms, all our role models showing us it is possible to be the best we can be, there are insidious forces at work keeping us in the same old rut?

And what are those forces? Mass media advertisements. From the day a boy and a girl first learn how to recognize objects, what do they see? Boys and men ogling the opposite sex, as eye candy. Girls obsessing over their looks - six year olds who can't go to school without getting up an hour early to put their makeup on so they can appeal to those little boys!

Boys get the fun toys in the toy commercials, girls get the dolls, the makeup, the crap.

Girls and boys are still indoctrinated with a certain mindset - that girls are put on the planet to serve boys's needs. That it's perfectly okay for a boy to watch a total stranger walk by, and feel perfectly fine to comment on her bodily shape. Girls are expected to walk around in really short, short shorts (they've done so for decades.) Funny...put a boy or man in those short, short shorts and you know there's only one thing he's looking for.

In any event, this blog, therefore, will, for the most part, cover the way women are depicted in media. The good, the bad and the ugly of today's world and the place of women in it... I share it all here.

At the beginning of my post, I said this:

Women (in the Western world) have never had more opportunities to do whatever they want to do,

I deliberately emphasized "the Western world" because, sadly, our sisters in the "Eastern world" or more accurately, Muslim countries - at least those under Sharia law rather than secular law - are being beaten down every day. We can help Muslim women...we must help them. (I say this from the standpoint of an atheist who can't understand why people follow any religion, but for women the Muslim religion is particularly insidious... men can't help looking at women so instead of the guy's wearing blinders all the time, it's the women who have to wear burkhas and crap? Bah.)