The End of Times

No, I'm not talking about Hurricane Irene nor the 5.8 earthquake that hit DC--I'm talking about the entire break down of the English language that the Oxford English Dictionary is partaking in.


I love words (clearly because I'm an avid reader and compulsive writer). So it was with horror--I mean, H.O.R.R.O.R.--that I read an article about what was being added/subtracted from the Oxford English Dictionary. And before I tell you this list, let me tell you that I'm not that old.


So the editors of the dictionary have decided that "cassette tape" no longer qualifies being mentioned in the dictionary. This is outrageous to me on so many levels. When I bought my car 6 1/2 years ago, I insisted that it had a CD player AND a cassette player (what can I say, I'm too cheap to upgrade my Paula Abdul and Wilson Phillips). But just because I haven't upgraded, doesn't mean I don't still want to hear "Rush, Rush" or "Hold On" from time to time.

This deletion wouldn't have me so up in arms if there weren't absurd things being added. I personally think you can add terms without deleting others. I'd rather have a dictionary that fills an entire library than have my descendants think their ancestors were vapid idiots. But aapparently these secret hipster editors are adding text talk: LOL, OMG, and <3. I'm sorry, but is this a joke? Two of those are abbreviations, and one is just a symbol! What warrants them being present in a dictionary? To further complicate the moronic values of these editors they've also included: sexting, mankini and jeggings. REALLY?!?

These additions are proof that the world is being taken over by pop culture and trash TV. I will fully admit I indulge in both to some degree, but I'm intelligent enough to know that the Jersey Shore broads getting colored contacts is not news. For any people who believe aliens exist in the universe, and wonder why they haven't made contact--just look at the cable line up, the "newspaper," and now the DICTIONARY! I wouldn't want to meet us either...

Golden But Not Included

The Emmy nominations were announced today--and no, I did not wake up at 5:30 AM to watch; I checked once I woke up at a suitable hour (I am NOT a television addict). Truthfully, the one person that I immensely wanted nominated I wasn't worried about. I thought, " Katey Sagal won the freaking Golden Globe! No way is the academy going to miss her!"

I truly thought that Kurt Sutter (Sagal's husband and series creator of Sons of Anarchy) was being his usual dark and pessimistic self and paid no mind when he tweeted SOA would receive no nominations. Turns out Sutter was right, and I really didn't see it coming.

If you haven't watched Sons of Anarchy--you're a fool. My husband (the die hard Shield fan) tuned in before I did, but it didn't take me long; especially because I also love Sutter's work. The show is brilliantly written by Sutter and his staff. Granted because it's Sutter it's dark, depressing at times, dirty, bloody, some WTF moments (I mean, almost boinking your sister?!), but at the end of the day it's honest.

It's very rare that a show and an actress portray a rape survivor with such realism and heart. Sagal as Gemma embodies so much of what makes women powerful, vulnerable and calculating. Sutter and Sagal are so fantastic that at times, because of my experiences, the show can be hard to watch. But to not recognize an actress just because you may not want to discuss/like the experiences of the character is bull sh*t.

The reality is the nominations, in large part, are politics. For this reason, I salute Sutter. He, most likely, will never receive a nom because he isn't in this business for the politics; he wants to create art and tell stories. It's tragic that an award for television acting isn't based on the talent but on politics. Katey Sagal steals every scene she's in (sorry, Charlie) and you can't help but feel her emotions through your television. I have cheered her on, bawled my eyes out, thought "oh sh*t," been troubled by some of her decisions, and moved by her vulnerability.

There is no other show on any network that tells darker tales and yet still inspires a close knit family. That's right--family. Yes, SOA is about a biker gang; and yes, the premise was influenced by Hamlet (still praying Sutter doesn't kill everyone). But the base line and heartbeat of the show is family: Gemma and Jax, Jax and Abel, Clay and Jax, Gemma and Clay, Jax and Tara, and finally the large extended family of the Club. If you don't believe me, rent the first three seasons on DVD or Blu Ray (Season 3 will be released on August 30). Or if that's too much of a time commitment, tune into FX in September. As long as you don't expect rainbows and bunny rabbits, you won't be disappointed.

I won't say the Academy got all the nominations wrong; after all, Walton Goggins (the only reason I will probably see Cowboys vs Aliens) is finally recognized. But based on the screw up where nominations are concerned overall, I won't hold my breath (sadly) for him to win for fear of passing out.

Keep Staring at Russia

I tend not to talk politics because, for starters, it depends on the issue not the party for me. My parents always taught me to vote for what I believed in, which meant I could care less if a candidate is republican, democrat, independent, green, polka dot, whatever.  And technically this post isn't really about politics, but it is about a politician's family.

During the last election there were tons of issues that got under my skin, but nothing will make a person lose all credibility and respect from me quicker than not protecting rape survivors. Alas, it brings me to the first Palin offender: Sarah Palin herself. I was mortified and outraged that to save money on the Alaska budget as Governor she, at the very least, allowed survivors to pay for the processing of their own rape kits.

Yes, I'm aware that she claims ignorance of this claim despite the fact that she also claims to have gone through the budgets of different towns/cities line by line. Palin is one of, what I consider, still a small group of women in politics. In my opinion she should be a leader for women and protect them and their rights to the umpteenth degree, and ignorance is not a valid excuse for falling short.

Based on Bristol Palin's recent book, she also doesn't set an accurate or good example at home either. I will admit right now that I have not read the book, and truthfully do not intend to because this family doesn't deserve my money in their pockets. However, the last several days (almost a week) the news circuit has been flooded with Bristol and her account of "losing" her virginity.

She tells a story of getting drunk on wine coolers to the point of not remembering the night, and says that Levi stole her virginity. Then she goes on national television saying, "I never said it was date rape." UGH! (Pulling my hair out, throwing things and wanting to seriously forget that the Palins ever quit staring at Russia!)

The quote that truly sends me over the edge is the one on Good Morning America today:

"I'm not accusing Levi of date rape, or rape at all, but I am just looking back with the adult eyes that I have now and just thinking that was a foolish decision," Bristol says. "I should have never been underage drinking and I should have never gotten myself into a situation like that."

Could this sound more like a survivor (or more rather a victim that still hasn't coped)? What survivor hasn't blamed theirself at first? This reaction to an assault tells victims that they should blame themselves. It's beyond tragic that a young woman that is so well known and can get air time on television is spewing this vomitous rhetoric from her mouth. This type of rationalization is what advocates, supporters, survivors, and some law makers have tried to change for decades.

I sincerely hope that any survivor takes her words with the grain of salt they should be. And for any girl who thinks it's okay to have their virginity "stolen" on a drunken night they don't remember, I pity you. Below is an appropriate definition for a drug facilitated sexual assault:

"When drugs or alcohol are used to compromise an individuals ability to consent to sexual activity. In addition, drugs and alcohol are often used in order to minimize the resistance and memory of the victim of a sexual assault."

I highly doubt Bristol will read this, but if one survivor does and realizes the sexual assault they experienced was NOT their fault regardless of underage drinking, drugging or being somewhere they weren't supposed to be then this post will have made all the difference. But on the off chance Bristol does read it: Please, please, please quit flinging your ignorance like a poo slinging monkey around when rape survivors are already not respected and protected. Also, pay careful attention to the definition above.

Movie Theater Etiquette

In case it isn't blatantly obvious, I see a lot of movies. But I have gotten to the point that I don't go to certain theaters or to certain showtimes. The reason is because by the time the movie is over I feel like I've wasted my time and money because inevitably someone ruins the experience.

I am a complete suspension of disbelief person and I want to get lost in a movie, but because people lack social etiquette it doesn't always happen. For example:

1. I will (most likely) NEVER go to a midnight movie again. There are always large groups of teenagers so loud, I want to scream at them! If I'm a big enough fan of a film, franchise, actor to have my almost 30 year old ass at a theater in the middle of the night I WANT to be able to watch the movie in peace! So, please shut the hell up.

2. Cell phones attached to a person's fingers. It's a movie theater, which means it's dark. I don't want to see little flashes of light unless it's the usher making sure people are behaving. People who can't put their phones in a pocket or purse should have their fingers super glued to the keys. Or at the very least be kicked out and made fun of like the woman at the Alamo Drafthouse.

3. Then there's another breed of cell phone users in the theater--those who actually TALK on their phones. In no way or place is this EVER appropriate, E.V.E.R! I don't want to hear about your dog, your mom's decorations, or your friend's STD... Seriously, I enjoy a sound mix--so even if actors aren't talking on screen, you're still ruining the flick.

4. Another etiquette (common sense) issue is children in theaters. Let me say here: I like kids; I want to be a mommy. However, certain ages of children are not appropriate at some films. For instance, if your child can only talk in terms of "poopoo" and "peepee," please--for the sake Pete--don't take them to a R rated movie that includes zombies being hacked up, kinky sex, and/or any four letter word that adults use to express anger, disbelief, or excitement.

5. And lastly, be on time; better yet, make it for the previews. If being late can't be helped, find an outside seat. 15 minutes into a movie, when I actually feel connected, I don't want you bumping my legs whispering a yelling, "excuse me." There's also a very easy solution to this problem: movie theaters typically screen the same films every 2 1/2 hours--wait until the next one!

I'm sure there are countless other things that get on my (and everyone else's) nerves. As a matter of fact I have one more: I'm in the industry, I want to watch the credits. A person jabbering behind me means I have a hard time reading. It's still dark, be quiet.

See? There are so many ill-behaved people at movie theaters in today's age it's easy to list them out. I blame cell phones and poor parenting.

In case you were curious, this post was prompted by:

Same Story, Different Death, No Outrage

So, Rihanna has a new video ("Man Down"), which means there's a media firestorm. It's an amazing look at what every survivor feels at one point in their recovery--the desire for vengeance. But, of course, over concerned parents are bashing it. Parents Television Council, Industry Ears and the Enough Is Enough Campaign are all asking for the video to be banned from airing.

In the video Rihanna kills the man who sexually assaulted her the previous night. Rihanna, having experienced abuse before (whether sexual or not), hasn't killed anyone in real life. Instead this video in my opinion, and from what I can tell Rihanna's, is about a very real emotion that all survivors experience. I call it vengeance, but that's not really it. It's the desire to get back an innocence and power that was once yours. No, you don't have to kill the rapist to do that; but it's certainly a thought survivors have--or at least I know I have.

I, in no way, am condoning murder. It's something that I don't think I could ever be capable of, but it doesn't mean that I haven't wanted to lash out. I understand parents wanting to protect your children. But by not talking about sexual assault parents aren't protecting their kids; parents are just making their kids unprepared (and possibly more susceptible) for the future. The reality is that 1 out of 6 American women will be raped in their lifetime, which means these parents who don't want to talk about the issue probably know at least one survivor.

The other thing that is incredibly startling about this current outrage is a song released almost 20 years ago: Tori Amos "Me and a Gun." In the song, Amos discusses a night where she was violently raped. She talks about the thoughts that ran through her head--places she'd been or places she hadn't yet seen, the fact she sang hymns during the act to survive, and (in case you can't tell by the title) the knowledge that she was going to die.

Luckily for all survivors out there, Amos (co-founder of RAINN) was able to survive because the attacker needed a drug fix. But I don't remember any outrage over this song, granted there was no video other than live performances. How can this be? A painfully vivid commentary where a victim (now a survivor) talks about her attack. Why didn't the parents get outraged at the violence towards a woman? I find it sickening and disturbing that the public is more in arms over the death of an assaulter than they ever were of even a potential death of a victim.

Both artists are giving a voice to a topic that still no one wants to talk about: this crime and assault against all human beings that has only been illegal in all it's current forms for not quite 40 years. Yet still it's the only crime where the victim catches as much heat if not more than the criminal (I mean take the NYC cops who were acquitted all because the victim wasn't "believable" enough).

Both artists give a raw, honest look inside what all survivors feel. The helplessness, tarnished, broken, angry, mutilated mind and soul that first surrounds the survivor before they learn to survive again. We should commend Rihanna for wanting to open this conversation up for young women and men. This video should be applauded for giving a voice to an ever silent epidemic. I, as a survivor, thank both artists for using their platforms to speak out for all of us.

Studio Deserves a (Expletive) Slap!

So, during all of my excitement last week over Scream 4, I ignored (or maybe hoped I hallucinated) that Relativity Media was remaking The Crow. First of all, I'm not a fan of the idea of  remakes (reboots) in general. I've found that in most cases, non-creative people take a film I loved and turn it into a mindless drivel with popular stars of no substance. Harsh; huh? But true.

The Crow remake/hack job is just the most recent announcement of Hollywood trying to ruin my adolescence and teenage years.  (On this note, I don't understand why it seems to be the "cult" classics being remade... No one wants to blatantly rip-off Pretty in Pink I guess.) I could go on and on about the remake craze, and probably will at a later date; but for today I want to focus on this one.

The Crow for me is one of the world's most perfect movies. It has special meaning for me because it helped me cope with death, and became a staple for Christmas Eve for my mom and I. It was also just amazingly well done; and starred a man, that I think most of my generation will agree, was taken from our movie screens way too soon.

I read a blog by Annette Bourdeau about the 20 reasons why Bradley Cooper should not be Eric Draven. Annette inspired me to come up with a list of my own... The 10 reasons why a remake/reinvention/butchering just SHOULDN'T happen:

10. A remake without the original cast will likely be met by the same ill-fate as it's 3 sequels and one television show.

9. Casting is clearly already heading downhill (and I'm a Bradley Cooper fan way back to Alias, but I just can't be behind this). While I don't think anyone should reprise the role of Eric, it should at the very least be someone with a similar (not same, because there isn't anyone) presence.

8. I don't know how the music will play in this one. At the time true rock and heavy metal were still extremely popular if not mainstream. I would hate for a studio to do to The Crow what another person (::muffled cough voice:: Howard Stern) was trying to do to Rock-n-Roll High School without the Ramones (i.e. can't/shouldn't be done).

7. Why does a cult classic that had good box office numbers the first time need to be another cash cow for someone else? And, truthfully, based on the buzz thus far who is going to buy a ticket to even see that happen?

6. If you do a remake, shouldn't you employ the same rules as the original. In other words, no mega-names to be cast? The script and story are soulful and shouldn't be outshined by anyone.

5. The closest thing to a truly tortured soul character Hollywood has presented (won't say pulled off) in recent years is Edward from the Twilight series. This does NOT bode well for our generation's dark dream hero of Draven.

4. The other problem with a remake of this caliber is the outrage from the fanbase. We weren't behind sequels, despite new characters, because there was no Brandon Lee. Now Relativity wants to retry the original without him? This will denigrate and possibly piss off past Cooper fans and anyone else cast in the film.

3. According to IMDB they have already slated a new screen writer (and it's no longer Nick Cave, who I actually may have liked). Granted David J. Schow hasn't done much of note since the original; he's still out there in the world...unattached to the new re-hashing.

2. Hollywood can't do intense love stories anymore; and at the bare bones of The Crow, that's what it is.

1. To have the character Eric Draven on the big screen without Brandon Lee is sacrilege. It's a slap in his face over his death. At least the other three sequels (if not the television series) were aware of that.

All of this being said, I'm sure my blog won't put a wrench in this butc-er, remake. They should cast appropriately. I'm not sure who this would be because I don't think anyone can be Eric Draven with Brandon Lee in the ground. But a tan frat boy with baby blues doesn't come close. I just ask that Relativity Media give Draven fans the respect they deserve for wearing out our VHS' and memorabilia. Despite what travesty comes from this, we should all remember it "can't rain all the time."

Call It What You Will

In February a lawmaker from Georgia recently decided that the language for a complaint about rape, stalking, and domestic violence is too harsh. He proposes that a victim (I call them survivors) be called the "accuser" instead of victim.  

Image pulled from hope4survivors.com

To me this is beyond idiotic. We don't call kidnapping, theft, attempted murder, or physical battery victims "accusers." We call them victims because that's what they are, and to some small minded people it's because we can see or quantify the damage done. But that is true with the above crimes as well, it's just not an item missing. 

Also in January politicians started to try to redefine the actual word rape by rewriting an abortion law. The proposal was to say that abortion would receive no funding except in cases of "forcible" rape. After the years that women have spent to make sure all survivors are treated with the dignity, respect and support they deserve--lawmakers want to negate it all and say only if force is used. Keep in mind not all states have even adjusted "force" to in their laws to include date rape drugs or other narcotics used to eliminate a woman's senses (i.e. too much alcohol).

These proposed play on words are another case of people calling into question crimes against women that no one wants to talk about it. These crimes are dirty, deviant, disgusting, violating and affect a woman for her whole life in one way or another. No one wants to talk about those crimes where victims can talk back; but we, as a society, have to talk about them in order to make change in this world. 

Image pulled from http://victimempowermentsa.wordpress.com/

I hope these proposals are all turned down and not brought up again. A person only has to say the word "no" for it to be rape--and if a person it not able to speak, it's still a "no." It does NOT matter whether a rapist uses drugs, alcohol, body, knife, threat or a gun: It's still rape and a violation of that woman. Lawmakers can call it what the will, but survivors know what happened.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual assault, please call and talk to someone: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) or by logging on to the online hotline at http://www.rainn.org/.

Speech Trumps Privacy

I was a political science minor in college and I thought that I learned alot from one of my favorite people: Dr. Robert Carley. But this week I have to question how much I really learned based upon a Supreme Court ruling.

One of my favorite people: Dr. Robert "Doc" Carley.

In my Constitutional Law class we learned that a person's rights only existed as far as someone else's rights started. In other words, your rights are sacred as long as they don't infringe upon someone else's. Apparently, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't agree... at least not in regard to Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy.

The horrible, non-profit "church" I mentioned in an earlier post was granted their right to freedom of speech by the Supreme Court. This allows them to continue picketing/protesting families' private funerals for soldiers and any other funeral they think will earn them press. It's disgusting that the Supreme Court finds that right more important than protecting the privacy of those who lost loved ones fighting for the very rights we are discussing here.

I expected more from our esteemed Justices. I thought that our "sensitive" society would hold the privacy of mourning more dear. Clearly, I was wrong; but I having a sneaking suspicion that I wasn't the only one proved wrong.

Happy Hallmark/ Heathers Appreciation Day

From liewcf.com

I wrote in an earlier post that I believe in letting people know you love them beyond just a specific day. This is why I call Valentine's Day, Hallmark Day. And Hallmark supported this theory by one of their latest slogans, "Valentine's Day is for saying 'I love us.'" In other words, "We are aware we have commericalized this day WAY too much, but we have a solution."

I guess this is a good time to say: I. Do. Not. Like. Valentine's. Day! My husband will readily admit that he is more romantic than me. Don't get me wrong I do loving cards and gifts, but 9 times out of 10 there is always a smart ass edge to them. For anyone who wonders if I wasn't shown affection as a child, that's not even close to the case. I just always did my own thing, and adding smart ass humor to sweet, serious, or mushy stuff is a large part of it.

Beyond just the smart ass side of me, I also have a very warped sense of humor. I love dark comedies and my favorite is Heathers (it's actually one of my favorite movies period). I always joke that it's incredibly romantic. I realize murder isn't actually romantic (although most horror films can be traced back to some sort of love), but I hated high school and found it hysterical. Heathers is my favorite movie to watch on Valentine's Day because of it's truly warped sense of "young love."


From sharetv.com

I want to be clear before I complete this post: I, in no way, think love is a bad thing. I do think, however, the notion of having a day to celebrate love and rub it in other's faces is inappropriate and disgusting. I find the whole day aprehensible and bitterly mean. I believe strongly that you love the people you love, and you tell them that as often and as much as possible. Don't wait for a "special" day or a greeting card company to tell you to.

So, instead of Happy Valentine's Day, I leave you with this:


From 1heckofaguy.com



Can You Hear Me Now?

Today is one of those days that noise drives me, well...CRAZY. I talk on the phone for the majority of my work, which means hearing is essential. This essential part of my job isn't made easy: I do not have my own office, there are several televisions around me, and tons of other people. None of this includes phones and other operating systems around the office.

It was one of those days that I would rather just have a jack hammer next door than a loud voice. There are some people who's voices just carry shout, no matter what they are doing. If you don't know what type of person I'm talking about, you should meet my grandmother. Her voice was our beacon if we got lost at the fair or Disneyland (and no, I'm not kidding). The voices with that volume make you wonder if they are hard of hearing or if you soon will be.

My wonderful grandmother, Ed Nanny, and me at the fair. I didn't get lost! :)

The phones are often the most annoying, because I don't know how anyone in this century doesn't know how to silence or, at the very least, place their phones on vibrate. Some just think their ring tones are cool: which, let's face it, it's a phone, it's not that cool. Others swear they would never realize their phone was ringing without the noise, but there are two possible ways to solve that problem. They make carriers to put it on your hip so you can feel it, or place it in front of you on that flat surface we call a desk.

Anyone who knew me growing up is probably shocked at the news that noises drive me crazy. I was always super talkative and known to play my music WAY too loud (I even had my dad install extra speakers in my Escort). But as I've gotten old(er), I appreciate days where I can hear myself think, talk and type.