What a week and a half it's been! Lotsa goodbyes going on in relationships/marriages and on TV. And then, of course, the "Goodbye" to the hand-wringing and waiting for the Supreme Court Healthcare Decision which dominated yesterday's headlines across the world.
But, let's get off the Court Circuit for a while and delve into the really deep news I know all of you are waiting for. Yes, it's true. Tommy Cruise and his "Amazing" Katie are divorcing. After five miserable lovely years in their faux marriage, the gleam that went out of Katie's eyes the day she married the control freak "idol" of her teen years has returned, and soon she may be able to think on her own again, and maybe next time around Mr. Cruise will find someone short enough with whom he may walk the red carpet without shoe lifts.
No, I'm not slamming Mr. Cruise without reason. And no again, my cynical, sarcastic approach to today's news that Katie Holmes filed those stop using me as a beardDivorce Papers is not based on tabloid rumours. Lets just say I saw it coming. And, let's also go with what "everyone" in the Industry and elsewhere have been suggesting for years: that the marriage was merely a contract and Ms. Holmes was plucked from partial obscurity to play the part of a Devoted Wife for a specific period of time and is now honoring the clause by ending it right on time. Or not. Depends on the source.
TMZ suggests that Tom was "blindsided" by the filing and is "very sad" - or something like that. Whatever makes you happy, Harvey. I know People.com scooped you on this one, so I'll be kind.....
What other ending am I referring to at the top of this post? The demise of Johnny Depp's 14-year relationship with French Singer/Actress Vanessa Paradis with whom he fathered two children. Yep. That coupling has been over for quite some time (allegedly) as well, but was just announced last week, and now the mud-slinging has begun in both the gossip rags/blogs and trickling into part of the Mainstream Media. I won't bother to repeat the rumours of why, etc., because they are just that - rumours. Point is, another celebrity couple bites the dust.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
Of course, there is the ending of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter's infamous long-term-covert-op relationship. But enough of them. Just had to add them to the Nixed-List.
Then we have Ann Curry's tearful, rather painful farewell on The Today Show yesterday where her nemesis co-host Matt The Ripper tried to be nice when it was he who ensured her demise from the seat next to him. Did you see Ann duck his Kiss Of Death? Sure, Ann is good on camera and is best suited for serious reporting rather than frothy early morning frivolity, so, for her career's sake I'm glad she is gone. Now Matt The Rat can bump knees with Savannah Guthrie while he covertly leers in Natalie Morale's direction. I'll stop there and you figure it out.
The only truly sad, to me, ending of late was the death of Nora Ephron this week; the brilliant writer and director who made her friends feel like they were actually loved and cherished while enjoying one of her delicious home-cooked dinners and generous laughter. Gifted she was in her craft, but a full-on Winner In Life for all of what we deem the "right" reasons - such as being a Real Human Being.
As I wrote in a headline the other day, RIP, Nora. To the celebrity couples who are bidding each other "adieu" I say, So What Else Is New?
Enjoy your Friday, or what's left of it wherever you may be in the world.
OMG! OMG! Well, what a surprise! By now you must know that The Supremes upheld the Affordable Care Act via the Individual Mandate portion that was at the crux of the dissenting voices. It was Chief Justice Roberts who made it happen. I have to give him a bit of applause. I admit that very few of us saw that coming. However, on a day of Victory for the American People, I will not back down on my beliefs and feelings that several of the current justices are corrupt and voted precisely as expected. Clarence Thomas and that Scally-Wag Scalia who has seldom seen a progressive-leaning law/ruling he didn't shoot down were predictable with their dissent.
The Court has been legislating from the Bench for a while now, and it would behoove Congress, as I wrote earlier, to do something about it - the Democrats in Congress, that is, as we know how the GOP feels about saying "Yes" to Obama. Is it "right" that the U.S. Supreme Court usually rules from a political position when there is no one who is able to be impartial? I do believe there is far more flexibility with the justices who aren't heels-dug-in with one political party or another, but that may be my own bias.
But, as it now stands, The Court has spoken and the GOP feels broken. You bet this will be an interesting election year now that the GOP no longer has a spring in their step. Yes, some people are saying that the GOP base will rally behind Romney even more than before due to the ruling today. That it isn't a setback but a rallying point. So be it.
No matter what the verdict will be in approx 10 hours from the U.S Supreme Court on the Heatlthcare issue, I am learning, as with many of late, just how corrupt the Court has become over the years. Frankly, my friends, I am appalled. Disgusted. Those who are not in the middle of the U.S. drama may shrug and move on.
The remainder of us are numb from the current revelations which solidify what many of us have suspected for years. The Court is Corrupt.
It's a Big Deal. Finally, the Healthcare ruling is bringing all of the dirty soil to the surface.
Revolution? For sure against the Supreme Court. Congress must finally do something about this travesty beyond inept complaining and foolish hand-wringing.
Grow more than a pair, you people in Washington. Have a transplant if necessary.
Clarence Thomas, one of The Supremes, should not only be Flogged but sent away from his cushy desk. He is bought and sold by the anti-healthcare organizations, receiving, to his family, of course, not him, 1.5 MILLION dollars from those interests. And yet he did not recuse himself on the vote we will be hearing about tomorrow? And this man is called a "Justice" of the Supreme Court? You know, COURT. Where laws are to be passed in fairness and without prejudice. I have never, ever liked this man from the beginning of his LIFETIME tenure on the Bench. Now I really, really do not like him. How could the supposedly "lawyer of all lawyers", John Roberts, allow this to happen? Hmmmm. Could it be that he wants to ensure that for the first time in Modern History the Supreme Court will vote down a law that passed through the winding entrails of Congress? Roberts will write the ruling. He is, after all, the Big Man - the Chief Justice of the Court - appointed by George W. Bush. Roberts is the one who moved the Court to the Right which is now a tainted entity in most American's eyes. Only 40% of the U.S. population who have been polled approve of the Court, opposed to a 90% favorable image in the 90's. The information now divulged regarding the monies Clarence Thomas' "family" (ie; crazy Tea Party wife) received makes me sick. But I need to be careful about getting sick because, if the Affordable Care Act is struck down, I won't be able to afford seeing my doctors, thanks to a group of people who will have free healthcare for life.
Disclaimer: Details surrounding the monies have been in question for a while. Members of Congress have attempted to force Thomas to recuse himself to no avail. For further info, READ THIS
Bring on the sad love songs, the pictures of broken hearts; clutch your pearls or grab your belt, because The Love Affair between former presidential contender John Edwards and his "mistress" Rielle Hunter, is kaput! Over. Done. Not a couple anymore, but still a "family" - all per Hunter's statement on Good Morning America today...and later, on The View.
Gee, I wonder what happened? Could the cause of their breakup last week have anything to do with the dirty-laundry-flaunting book Miz Hunter is selling on her "book tour" at the moment? The "What Really Happened...." tale wherein Rielle wants everyone to know that SHE is NOT a homewrecker; that her "Johnny" had cheated on his wife many times before she bounced his way one dark New York night and told him "You're so hot!" That because he and his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, weren't the rock solid loving couple they portrayed to the world, it was okay that she fell in love with a married man and had his child.
And, that Elizabeth Edwards was a bitch (in so many words regardless of the fact that her cancer had returned) and she was not as ignorant of her husbands' cheating ways as she claimed to be to the media. So, therefore, because Rielle fell in love with Johnny and he returned her affection, SHE is NOT TO BLAME for anything other than falling in love.
If you don't believe that, well then, too bad because Mizzy Hunter is hunting her way into the Mistress Hall of Shame-Fame, wanting everything to be out in the open. No more hiding. At least that is what she says, and has also insinuated may be part of the reason she and Johnny are no longer "together." She wanted to be out and about with her man at long last and he didn't.
That decision on Edwards' part may be one of the first clear-headed moves he has made in years. The swipes against his late wife had to have infuriated his children, who have most certainly grudgingly accepted that they have a half-sibling and that their father continued to carry on with Hunter for years. But to diss their mother in such a public way? No. No. A thousand times NO!
I can only surmise that the eldest daughter, Cate, would not play along with Daddy's Little Secret anymore (as in, he had still been seeing Rielle all these years beyond just checking on their child's welfare and being a new Father again) and all she needed was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Rielle had to go or maybe the children would tell their Dad to get the eff out of their lives.
Perhaps that played a part, too. Seems logical.
What I'd like to know, though, is this: didn't Edwards realize what Hunter's book was about? Would he have signed-off on something that would further damage his tattered reputation? What did he expect? Of course, along with many bloggers and commentators on this issue, I'm basing my queries on the assumption that The Book placed the provervial nail in their relationships' coffin.
It's also rather interesting to me that within weeks of Edwards' trial closure with no verdict due to a Hung Jury, Edwards is no longer willing to lean on Hunter as a supporter through his hard times. Man, is he Free or what? No more trials. No more neediness of Rielle's behind-the-scenes support. Whoopee! Or just another Ooops-ie?
Do you care?
If you do, on any level, and have yet to see the Worm Not Squirm, here you go: The Rielle Deal
Now, allow me to infuriate many of you who have not led complicated lives, abhor lying, cheating, adultery, out-of-wedlock-children and, in so many words, live by The Golden Rules. In all of the footage - video and basic static pap-shots - I have to say I have barely witnessed a man (or woman) look so incredibly enamoured of someone as I saw in John Edwards' expressions whenever he and Rielle were together. I mean, seriously guys, he was besotted! Those wide grins on video; the adoring wide grin stills?
Wow! What a mess he found himself in. For whatever reason (and I think it went beyond just great sex), the man felt comfortable with his mistress. He looked so incredibly happy that I don't doubt for a moment/minute/second that when Mrs. Edwards saw any footage of her husband in the same space as his lover her heart turned over and began to rage. Not a happy energy to stream through one's body in the middle of fighting cancer.
I would have killed him. But then, I'd be prosecuted and what's the good in that? However, it had to be a sickening sight. The supposed revelation in Miz Hunter's book is that Elizabeth used one particular moment of video footage when her husband enters a room and lights-up like Christmas Tree upon seeing his girl, as it were/was/always will be.
My point? If not in "love", Edwards was smitten. Period.
In truth, he wove a convoluted web of lies as most of us do when in the position between facing the consequences of having a secret/passion and not able to admit it for a variety of crazy and self-preservation tactics regarding finding comfort and loyalty with/from another who is not one's spouse. In addition, an entire world watching. Ouch!
Many people wonder if the guy has a soul. I don't know. Do you? What would you do if you were in either one of their places - and I'm talking John Edwards and Rielle Hunter here. Some of us just don't do The Nasty because we are not Nasty. Some of us do it because we're just freakin' in what we think is Love.
Truth? Edwards was caught. Something was there with Hunter that was not there with his wife.
Nevertheless, it's all a paltry mess when power, ego and libido run the Class Egress.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been velly-velly busy of late. Striking down one ruling here, another one there, and refusing (on the typical 5-4 vote) to allow Campaign Finance Reform* to march onward. Which means, go ahead anyone with millions of dollars, and pour your corporation's and your personal fortunes into the candidate of your choice. Why not buy a president if you can?
Who are these Supreme Beings of Leisure? And "leisure" is indeed an appropriate word for a group of lawyers who are given a job FOR LIFE if they want it. I would concur that a Federal Body of lawyers is needed to sort out a myriad of important rulings which can't be settled any other way were it not for the political smell that wafts off the wide bench upon where the Robed Ones discern the fate of everything from television networks' squabblings with the FCC to deciding who will be President of the United States, as was done by The Supremes in the infamous Bush v. Gore debacle when it seemed rather clear to the country that Al Gore had won the election in 2000.
It is a good idea to have differing opinions on important matters. The problem with the Supreme Court, as anyone who follows these things knows, is that these political appointees, particularly the conservative kind, tend to consistently lean toward political divisions. Right now on the Big Bad Bench, the conservative judges have the lead by one, without another Supreme to balance things out as we once had when a less rigid court was established in the not-so-distant-past.
When a supposedly impartial group of people continue to show partisanship, how will anything get done in this country if one is on the other side of the issue at hand? Where's the Deal Breaker on this court? Where is the fairness these people are to provide?
Of course, not every ruling is politically-based. And, more often than not I find myself agreeing with a few of their decisions when the more Liberal among them disagree and cast a dissenting vote. But, I'm not at all pleased with the allowance of NO LIMITS on how much money a presidential candidate can score from backers who most certainly aren't tossing buckets of money into the coffers of a candidate without wanting something in return.
I believe anyone with a clear head knows that the only reason Mitt Romney may pose a larger threat to the reelection of President Obama is due to the Super PACS and the obscenely wealthy donors such as the Koch Brothers who want America for themselves and damn the rest of you peons!
The Really Big Supremes Show arrives this Thursday when the court is to hand down their ruling on what detractors lovingly call "Obamacare". Funny, isn't it? The Conservative Senators and Congress people have been bitching about this forever while their insurance policies go untouched. They are also set for life. After leaving office, many in positions of Congressional power receive money from the taxpayers for LIFE with all of the perks that go with it - such as healthcare.
Ron Paul, of all people, dares to bandy about his dislike of what he deems to be "Socialism" with the public programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and so on, yet he accepts his Social Security check every month. The hypocrisy of the GOP on their never-ending naysaying on every single attempt Obama has made to change things, preserve what has made our country strong in the past, is why the masses are not happy. So unhappy, in fact, that many have given up and won't vote in November.
How foolish. So, Obama isn't perfect. He's made a few questionable rulings himself, and has alienated much of his Base in the process. However, given the choice of a Social Conservative who would more than likely let the sick and poor shrivel into oblivion and refused, as Governor of Mass way-back-when, to make wheelchair access accessible to the disabled when he, in turn, has an elevator in his California home for two of his cars!
C'mon, people. Bite down on your tongue and vote again this year. Give the country more time to heal its tremendous wounds from an economic mess I doubt anyone could fix if they were always blocked by a group of lawmakers who want nothing more than to regain power. Screw the peoples once again! We want our Power! We know best. We are the True Patriots!
Yes, perhaps it is the "lesser of two evils" to vote for Obama. But then, I ask, what has he done that is so abhorrent that his enemies feel comfortable lynching him in effigy? It's not as if he started a war in the Middle East for no reason other than greed and revenge, is it?
Wow! The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FCC's policy regarding the "Fleeting Expletive" FCC Ruling that was on their docket(s) this week. Now Fox and ABC, for example, can't be fined for moments when people slip out the "F" or similar words on a network, nor be all fussy about a few seconds of someone's butt on a TV show flashing by the lens. And so on - to where, I have no idea, but something's moved forward.
First off, I love the title of the issue - "Fleeting Expletive". I just love it! My mind conjures moments of future "fleeting" bleep-bleeps not bleeped-censored or fined. And then, when the person who makes the world turn on its axis by using unacceptable-to-polite-society language on TV does it, they can stop, cover their mouths, and giggle-out, "Oooops! I just did a Fleeting Expletive! Tee hee!" What exactly is a "Fleeting Expletive" you may ask? Just as the above scenario, when it deals with words, it is an unintentional blurt-out (thus "fleeting") "bad" word (as in the "expletive" part). With nudity on TV beyond a certain second or less, I have no idea what the court means for the future, although I grasp their ruling with regard to a pre-2004 FCC Vagueness on what entails indecency or what does not.
I'm so amused (easily, apparently) by "Fleeting Expletive" that I hope everyone starts using it in their daily conversations. One could be talking about the most banal thing in the world with a group of friends, but once one of them uses "Fleeting Expletive" a passerby will think everyone in the group are/is/was/were discussing chemistry or something. Impressive, eh?
If you intend to follow my whimsical mood and use the words in the company of others, make sure you are pronouncing "expletive" correctly. Sometimes the word can become a foreign language in your throat and your tongue will turn it into an wretched mess halfway through the utterance. I know. I've done it. In the ears of close to 1 million people en masse.
Yep. That was a grand moment of DJ/AnnouncerNightmare Shame: mispronouncing words. For some reason I decided that saying "expletive deleted" during a little in-between music yammerings would be cute - or smart - or whatever I was thinking when this happened over 30 years ago. When the time came, I made "expletive" into something incomprehensible and my timing on the almost "joke" was botched. Oh well. That's what happens when you're putting yourself out there and miss the mark.
I survived. But don't ask me how I mis-pronounced the street name "Sepulveda" during my first live on-air commercial in the LA Radio Market after I'd been in Los Angeles for less than a week.
Hilarious! That's when I should have pulled a "Fleeting Expletive".
While Syria implodes, and Greece and Italy appear to be getting bail-outs to save their countries, those of us in the States who are temporarily on hold in our own economic and uncivil political divide, can divert our attention by numerous petty and large scandals in which human nature leads the way on what we so lovingly call "rubber-necking" while watching an accident or crime scene unfold.
In this case, I'm referring to the trial of former Penn State University's one-of-many-football-coaches, Jerry Sandusky. The friendly guy with the warm grin who loves to be the "Tickle Monster" to young boys while either showering or "playing" with them in wrestling games, allegedly grabbing a bit of non-consensual and illegal "fun" along the way.
Today the Defense rested their case - whatever they think their "case" is, as it doesn't look like anyone other than Mrs. Sandusky and a few non-molested boys stood up in ole' Jerry's defense. In fact, can you imagine being his wife? "Dottie" Sandusky? Reports are that Mrs. Sandusky is a rather formidable person and you don't want to mess with her. On the witness stand yesterday, she basically let it be known that she has a bit of a mild memory problem but can't possibly imagine why so many boys and a faculty member would suggest her husband was a pedophile.
Can you imagine being in her place? How utterly horrid it would be to be told by so many varying sources that the man you have slept beside for years in matrimonial harmony is accused of having sex with not only boys, but boys who were sleeping in your basement while your husband "played" with them?
From what I "get" from reports of Mrs. Sandusky's demeanor, she's an "old school" gal and she, like many women of her generation and/or mind-set, simply will not allow that sickening intuitive "gut feeling" of something being amiss with one's spouse to become comprehensible. The thoughts/feelings must go away - stuffed to the darkest parts of one's psyche, just as deep as the distance between the basement in her home and the upstairs where she went about her own business.
No, I'm not blaming Dottie for her husband's alleged actions. She wore beautiful blinders for years, I'm sure, and taking them off now that they have become a part of her would be so painful one can't imagine how such an unveiling would affect her life. The Blinders have become a second skin. Try ripping that off. No way is that going to happen. At least at this stage.
I've read accounts of women who discovered, usually after a long, trying process, that their husbands were serial killers, rapists, robbers, etc. Almost all of the women were oblivious, yet a few knew something wasn't "right" but had nothing tangible with which to validate the feeling.
But in Mrs. Sandusky's case, I believe (based on other articles I've read) that she had, at the very least, an inkling that Jerry had a bit of a problem. She just wouldn't/couldn't digest it. Who would want to? He's who she married. He was the genial "nice guy" with a sterling reputation in Pennsylvania and an easy-going manner (we presume), not to ignore the basics: the cliche'd "good provider".
Nope. I would not want to be Mrs. Jerry Sandusky right now. Especially when the judge reads what I imagine will be a "Guilty" verdict in the near future. If she had been wanting a little space from her newly chaotic life with a man accused of 51 counts of child sex abuse, she may get her wish when he goes away to the Isolation Section of a jail because, as you know, if pedophiles are mixed into the general prison population, their life expectancy is almost zero. Thus, it's a silent, grim life.
I hope Dottie is ready to spend the remaining years of her life visiting her husband behind glass shields and the occasional conjugal visit where they'd probably hug and cry more than anything else. Yep. That's a sad vision, isn't it? But let's get real. Deluded or what, it does not look "good" for the Genial Coach.
Gee-Haye-Sews! Hey there. How's it going? Where have I been today? As it happens, a simple blog post I began earlier to discuss why I wouldn't be blogging today has become a treatise; some kind of personal thesis/step-by-step account about a personal health issue.
The story is filled with unfortunate human frailties. Just what no one else in the world is doing in the interviews and on their blogs these days - as if that's why you stopped-by anyway: to learn about my odd history of medical issues - but as it goes in the lost moments of insane creativity and self-focus, I looked at the time/clock, and to my utter dismay, realized I must be in a different time zone than I had been in for months by meeting my noon deadlines. Now it's more like noon in another country, if not morning.
My first thought? I must write something!
Second: This is what I did - above. I wrote something.
Next thought. So what?
So - know that a story is on its way, although if you are looking for a political swipe or any tripe on anyone or anything, you'll be disappointed. It's a vent for me and beyond that - until published - we'll just let it be.
Happy Scrappy Monday!
UPDATE: My issues on health-related concerns will remain private. The info is only for a personal journal, not a personal journey. I was way-too-associated with my "stuff" when writing the above. Don't expect too much personalizing - at least until the fall. Then, as I anticipate, all Hell Will Break Loose! Until then, I remain your strange friend.
The angels spoke in the early hours today, and whisked another cultural icon, this time Rodney King, up and away to wherever The Universe stashes its Bad Boy Icons. The 90's symbol of racial inequality in the U.S., the focus of a near-death beating by four LAPD officers in 1991 and the hub around which the 1992 LA Riots were based, bit the big one around 5:00 A.M. this morning in a strangely appropriate scenario:
Via TMZ, confirmed by CNN, troubled Bad Boy Forever Rodney King, at age 47, left the world in a fairly bizarre manner. Possibly drunk and buzzed on weed, a nude King was heard by his fiancee', Cynthia Kelley, loudly banging on a glass door (or window, depending on who is reporting) from the outside, yelling, and then the next thing she heard was a Splash sound into the pool. Next we know, he is discovered at the bottom of the pool and she is calling 911. Less than an hour later he is pronounced dead from what the police say is "drowning" with no indications of "foul play".
Huh? No Foul Play just because there are no marks on his body? Why was he outside at 5:00 nude, anyway? And why would he bang on a door/window unless he was locked-out? I mean, I'm not saying his fiancee' did anything to him...I'm simply asking questions out loud, as it were, that I'm sure other people are thinking right about now.
Now I just read new info that Kelley said she had been talking to him outside before she returned inside their home and heard the "splash." What's the real timeline, here?
Did he fall into the pool on his own volition? Was he pushed and fell into the pool by accident? Ah, am I stirring up a conspiracy by even suggesting such a thing? Naw. Chances are we are to believe (and it may be the exact truth) that he was too drunk and high to retain his balance and had been wandering around outside pre-dawn and went into some kind of drunken tirade and banged the glass door (or whatever it was) and growled-screamed loudly to no one in particular and then possibly backed-up from wherever he had been standing, lost his balance, fell in the pool, got a mouth/nose-full of water and drowned as he was too drunk to save himself?
Yeah. Something like that, right?
An investigation of sorts will surely tell us more, particularly after the autopsy report comes in.
Meanwhile, my sleuthy mind thinks Ms. Kelley might have some 'splainin' to do. You know, naked fiancee' banging on doors at an odd hour and ending-up at the bottom of a pool? If they just had a fight and she locked him out until he sobered-up, everyone would understand. Even if they couldn't get along?
Rodney King's cliche'-ridden "trouble-like" moniker is not and should not be his legacy despite continued problems with police and alcohol. A simple guy who messed-up a lot said it best: "Can we all get along?" That sentence went a long way to curb the riots and to this day is still one of the best statements for peace I've ever heard. So basic. So real.
Well there. Here I am at last - only hours past my self-imposed publishing deadline once again. I wish I could find something worth writing, but it's been one of those weeks and today was one of those days. Today's weirdness hasn't been helped by the fact that I've been on a schedule that is the reverse of my usual daily routine.
Rather than begin the day with a roam through the Interwebs, then writing a few words here, finding the music, the art, posting, finding errors and re-editing, and then handle personal and household business until the day is done and night brings - whatever, today I needed to handle cleaning the house, the front of the house, and all of those things first (as a biz meeting is afoot in a few hours), then, as in NOW, the later mid-afternoon, I'm supposed to blog and do my duty, as it were.
But I'm so bleeping tired from the not-so-glam adventures of Cinderella with the floor washing and laundry washing and folding, then more dusting and sweeping...that the only subject I feel like writing about is how my back hurts and that the rug in my part of the abode needs to be steam-cleaned. Should have installed hardwood flooring instead when minor remodeling went on a few years ago. The owner is in regret about it.
See? This is what happens when one has been housecleaning and sweeping those dratted leaves and endless dried-up-and-always-falling-to-the-ground palm fronds outside for hours. All I can think about are things that need further cleaning, fixing, organizing, removed, improved, painted, replaced, planted, weeded....
I don't think I'll do this new reverse thingy again any time soon, as "they" say. But it is true, that other thing "they" say: A woman's work is never done.
I have a question: What is the Big Deal about women's breasts? Why such intense focus throughout history on women's upper body parts when they are exposed that is so scandalous in most cultures? Men can't handle the nice ones or the saggy boobies without restraining their lust or disgust - depending on which titties one is viewing? Of course that's the answer.
Asking why Breasts are constantly photographed, discussed, analyzed, hidden, revealed, may sound a bit naive. Not so. Breasts are considered a "sexual organ" but are also a vehicle of life sustenance for a baby. Completely not-sexual. Men even have them...some, just not so big. But, when so, men can waltz around shirtless even if their titties are swingin' in the wind.
I'm curious about the focus on almost every well-known woman out there who is photographed in a bikini with headlines shouting about it and then more shouting headlines about their "Boobs": who has the best for their age? Who just had implants? Guess whose boobs fell out of their dress. Here, we have a blurred-out picture of it for your vicarious or whatever-it-may-be pleasure! Whoops! There went another one just jumping out of someone else's dress! Oh look! Oh wait - don't look! Madonna just flashed a nipple! How shocking!
Then we have the strange Rihanna's Nipples Revealing Bra-Walk Of WTF in Manhattan on Monday when the Queen of Denial strolled almost Zombie-like through the urban jungle in a pink lace bra that did not hide her nipples, something frilly as a skirt, and way high top Converse tennis shoes. The entire "appearance" on the street was bizarre even without the Nipple Explosion. The perpetually blank expression she added to her ensemble appeared as if she were a strung-out trick wandering home after a long, rough night.
But back to the boobie/breast situation women have had to abide by for centuries: the rules concocted by men that it's just not right for a woman to publically expose their breasts. Until cultures stop teaching us from the beginning of our lives that women's breasts are "forbidden" and can grow beyond the sexual association - as women can with men who have great bodies: appreciate but not hyperventilate, I gather we're in for a long series of more boob-based headlines next time another actress deliberately or accidentally exposes one or both of her special "friends."
I think the common vernacular of a casual sexual hookup should change from "Booty Call" to "Booby Call" the way our society is so obsessed with them, don't you think?
The Flogging Whip and I have been tussling over what and who deserves the required "40 lashes" today when so many targets are available. In fact, I had to get out of its way during our little chat when it began waving its knotted ends in my direction. Do we once again bash a celebrity who constantly lies to the police whenever she is in trouble? Such as when she hits other cars/trucks/people almost every time she's behind the wheel; or should Penn State University plummet into the same category of the Catholic Church that deals with predatory priests by simply sending them to another church rather than have them arrested - or at the least banished from the church? I suggest this downgrading of Penn State now that we know the former university VP, Gary Schultz, had been maintaining a "secret file" on the child molestations and strange behaviour of the now infamous sexual predator, Jerry Sandusky, rather than fire him as well as alert the police to his behaviour, citing how "inhumane" it would be to place poor Jerry in a jail? Or how about Mitt Romney's plan to dump "Obamacare" should he win the presidency, ensuring that anyone with a pre-existing condition will be turned down for needed medical coverage? Which means you and me, in all probability no matter what your age may be. How about flogging the hell out of the endless parade of huge and tiny leaves that line the balcony and front of my home every ten minutes because the trees are so high and shed leaves like an animal sheds their dander - causing a daily mess in an otherwise manicured neighbourhood - making this home stand out like a wart on an otherwise pristine complexion? What about flogging myself for a new trend of falling asleep too early to enjoy Stephen Colbert's brilliant show? Nah, that's too easy. There are next-day re-runs so I have no excuse for that one, do I? How about if the Whip just goes about its lashy ways all day on anything that displeases it because it's in a foul mood? Yeah. It's one of those days.
I have to do it. Write about the most stunning development in Zoo-Land. If you haven't already read the story that is making the rounds on the I-Net, be advised that a box of Kleenex may be needed. For tears, of course. Not your allergies - unless turtles trigger sneezing attacks.
After 115 years together, I guess all of us might become tired of seeing the same old wrinkled face and a mate that won't listen but will retreat into their shell. That's the story with two Giant Turtles living Down Under for 36 years following their upbringing in Switzerland.
Maybe they should have remained in the land of neutrality because the female of the two just kicked her life-partner out of their cage - after biting off a piece of his shell. And, get this! Their very concerned Keepers attempted Couples Therapy with them to no avail. Obviously the female has a few issues. Or the Male's scent has changed. Or the Female has decided she's gay. Or simply wants to spend her remaining years roaming a cage without bumping into Mr. Turtle one more time.
Now what does this situation tell us about long-term relationships? Someone becomes fed up, grumpy, bored, or is tired of the marriage cage and - poof! - it's over! Just like that! So sad after 115 years. If they can't make it to 120 years together then all hope is lost.
A few details have been left out of every article I have read thus far on Bibi (female) and Poldi (male). How many offspring did they have over the years? Did they live long? Still around? Where are they? Maybe a family unit of sorts would have kept them together? Is one of them prepping to die? No one is answering these questions - yet. It's all about the "Divorce" as if they drew up papers and rolled their shells in ink to roll further onto a piece of paper officially ending their cohabitation.
Yeah. It's silly, but also interesting. How anyone(s) or thing(s) can spend 115 years together without arguments or violence (until recently) is indeed quite an accomplishment. But, I do feel sorry for Poldi. He can't live in his home anymore and is missing a chunk of his well-kept shell. Then again, I've read he may be tired of the sight of Bibi, too.
Holy sheet! Who is that man beside us here? A taut, haunted-looking stressed-out replica of the man once known as John Travolta. The picture is from last evening's AFI Lifetime Achievement Award presentation to sassy Shirley MacLaine where the presenter-speakers had been booked for months. John was on the list for a while and had to show up, I gather. Although what he's wearing on his head may have been a last-minute decision.
John didn't look ready for Prime Time last night considering the extremely complicated morass he's found himself in of late. It goes beyond the masseurs and cruise ship employees and into the skies in a jet with a pilot - for 6 years. All courtesy of a former personal assistant.
Last night was the first public event where Mr. Travolta has shown his strained face since all of those Menz started to hit John below-the-belt just as they claim he did to them, minus the "hitting" part. More like "grabbing-groping" - the part that bothers me about the accusations. As I wrote in "Sweaty Night Fever" it's sexual predatory behaviour, and as much as I like Travolta, always have, and could care less if he's gay or not, the COS - $$$$ = blackmail and a form of mind control - and his deal with wife Kelly Preston - make the entire issue icky.
Icky because he appears to be trapped no matter what he does other than open his wallet to a few of the accusers to make it/stories/them go away, and keep his wallet available to the very controlling CO$ while his faux marriage strangles the truer life out of him. Kelly is a big-time CO$'er. Oy. I wouldn't want to be in even his most comfortable dancing shoes right now.
Hence another glance at that person above who is looking not only as if he is a mere shell of himself, but terribly shell-shocked.
Too bad it's such a tangled web.
Who gets the flog on this one? Too many people to count.
Back on the Other Side Of The Pond, with a heavy heart, I acquiesce - albeit temporarily - to the Koch Brother's major win in Wisconsin last night when the utterly indescribable douche-guy Of All Douchey-Guys Scott Walker, won his "Recall" election. Oh, Bollox, I say, to the nay-sayers who huff, "He won fair and square."
Hey, he won share-by-share of monies funneling-in via varying sources all involved with the Koch Bro's in one way or another.
This, my American friends and foes, is what the country is up against more than ever before in our history - as I wrote in a post several days ago. Money-money-money-money. Unlike the past, finally the gruesome-looking headstones of The Powers That Be behind the headlines are popping-up like the Zombies To Our Economy they are in name. The Presidential Election With Romney and Friends, Inc. By Proxy, will gather amazing steam now that the GOP and Tea Party Handlers have groaned into the reality that the Slick Mitt will have to be "their Man." Yes, it's come to this. The inevitable. So much wasted drama in the GOP Nominate Me Fracas, correct?
Now that Scott Walker's political life was saved last night via his mucho heavy-lifting backers who live nowhere near Wisconsin, it's the first battle in what we will be seeing in the Elections Of 2012, which, I believe, will go down in history as the most publicly-bought political influence election cycle - evah.
Oh yuck. Bleck. Why give a damn, then? Why bother to vote? You take the time to vote because if you don't want the "other guy" to win, then the better "other" needs your vote. You know, as in voting for your fav on American Idol or something similar? You can have a voice. Yep. Look how the Judges in all of the Reality-Talent-TV spectrum's are strangely overruled when the populace adds their votes.
Oh, but wait! In the U.S. we have another potential snag in place to make tight elections even more corruptible and/or "checked". And that little nugget is the "Electoral Vote". These "electorates" seem to have the final sway in who becomes Prez or not in our up-until-now-it-seemed, nicely working Democratic System.
WTF? No wonder we often query why should we bother to vote if a group of weird strangers in some kind of Voting Block will be the Ultimate Deciders in a presidential campaign instead of US, you know, the people who cast ballots and things like that? Nevertheless, somewhere along the classic line, The People seem to have clout.
We shall see as November becomes a reality. Will the will of the People will-out in truth? Or is it who has more money behind them to change the world. For real. More than ever. As it has been for many, many years. The election isn't a foregone win for either opponent at this stage. Democrats in particular would behoove themselves to stir up some political dust to leave in their wake following an inevitable anti-Obama statistic or complete lie a pushy reporter-journalist wants the candidate to clarify?
Naturally, not everyone will or does agree. If you're heavily opposed to the current occupant of both wings of the White House, and would accept a man whose word has changed more than the common vernacular has in the past ten years to lead the country into some kind of Draconian Blur, then go right ahead and vote the waffle-iest of all of the GOP Waffles who have been playing around for the past year to gain the nomination into office.
Just don't blame those who disagree when the waffles turn out to be under-cooked and more than bit "runny".
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee is now over.The Queen seemed to enjoy herself. I believe one of the most sincere smiles I've ever seen cross her sober face occurred without warning when a camera was there to capture it. Not a Queen fan or non-fan, at it were (as who is really a fan - of the Queen, I wonder), I found myself warming to this elderly dame-ette who has held up after 60 years in a peculiar ancient system-tradition that continues to exist in the 21st Century. More for window-dressing, but is still there nonetheless.
But aside from the foul weather on Sunday during the laughable CNN coverage of rain-sogged quasi-ugly boats drifting about on the Thames under a dark, ominous-looking sky, and Prince Philip's ill health, the Queen actually looked happy from time to time, which has caused me to like her after all of these years. Now, of course, somebodies had to come along and throw wet sod on Her Majesty's Jubilee. Talk about being left out in the cold! Read This
However, with Prince Philip not at her side it's oddly karmic how Camilla became her seat-mate during today's ride in the open gilt carriage from Westminster Hall to Buckingham Palace earlier today as Prince Charles, stiff as a board this outing (aside from the elegant hand kiss to his mother), sat face-to-face with both as the carriage rolled its way onward.
How times change. At least on the surface. And through a rude awakening via the handling of Princess Diana's death by the Queen, and the foolish adherence to the rule that a King of England is expected to marry a virgin. Now her son's ex-mistress is his wife and the Duchess of somethings-or-other and that's the end of that, thank you very much.
Did everyone have a good time in-person or vicariously? What did you think of the always-amazing Grace Jones and her Hula-A-Hoop last night at the concert? That's what's rocking - hula-hoops are in the background of "Comet" - a tune I posted on this blog recently that I love more on each listen. Grace has shown everyone else how to do it since 2009, but now competitors and followers will soon be doing the same now that it's hit the mainstream media headlines.
And that's good. More kids need to use a hula-hoop with the obesity thing going on in America. Let's keep it in the spotlight.
Now, back to real life. No chariots/carriages, uniforms, pomp, circumstance, fashionable hats, royals on display in parades; rock stars entertaining your guests.....
What's an Anglophile to do? Wait for Prince Harry to have another night out with Beckham or dance until the club closes wherever he may be? Heaven knows the lives of Kate and William appear deeply entrenched in the Windsor-Mill. Hip-hip and all that. Except Kate does know how to rock a unique hat.
Lovely picture of the Queen and the Literal Ladies-In-Waiting beside her. Kate made sure not to be missed in pure red. One of those discreet colours, you know. But to dare suggest she was upstaging the Queen is just a no-no-no. Someone else has done it big-time. The man in the picture with the ladies.
We are now into Day 3 of Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee! And wouldn't you know it, but Prince Philip, after spending too many years standing in her various purses' shadows, decided to come down with some sort of bladder infection and is now in (a) hospital. Upstaging much, eh, Prince? Or basically finding a way to avoid falling asleep standing up next to your wife one more time as she waves and recites platitudes to her subjects.
The Queen deserves her celebration/jubilee to go along smoothly and untouched by the basic terrors of being human, such as becoming ill - or having to deal with the subject at all. She has ruled her Empire for 60 long years. The woman doesn't need a suddenly needy husband languishing in pain in a hospital bed while the BBC puts on its star-sparkled in faux diamonds concert this evening at Buckingham Palace following a quaint Queen-sized picnic there. Even Stevie Wonder will be performing. In fact, if there is a massive celebration or funeral, it's not the same without Stevie behind the keys these days.
There is only one more day to go in the festivities, and then the Queen may have the time to check with her lady-in-waiting to check with Philips' Man Servant on the Prince's condition. Am I being too harsh? Surely the Queen will deign to set foot at her husband's bedside during a time of ill-health? I mean, the man is 90 and infections at that age don't go away as quickly as they once have.
Meanwhile, the Queen and her entourage carry on in their stoic way to fulfill the duties and uphold the traditions expected of them today. Tonight I'm sure the cameras will spend more time on Prince Harry and Kate and William during the concert than the Mum, anyhow, so she can wince in private should she wish to do so and only her guards will know.
It's a quiet, overcast Sunday morning. The neighbourhood is silent - for a pleasant change. At the same time, the stillness is a tad unsettling. Where is everyone? The nanny's with the strollers? The gardeners. Contractors. Dog walkers and dogs walking their owners. Oh, but it's Sunday and all the work has ceased. No one is buzz-sawing yet another tree away, either. Or catching-up on weekend carpentry projects which always involve loud sand-blasters.
In the void of external distraction, the past week's news of cannibalism and quasi-cannibalism still have my attention as I consider what to write. People are devolving in the most insane ways lately. One would think we're living in a virtual Horror Film as each new day produces more examples of inhumanity. One person ripped his intestines from his body and threw them at police. Someone else decided to emulate Hannibal Lecter and dined on his friends' brains and heart. I heard, somewhere, that someone else tried to bite and rip the flesh of a policeman.
Not to ignore the Face-Eater, Rudy Eugene, who set the subject on fire in Miami when he, you know, did that awful thing to homeless Ronald Poppo, who still remains breathing in a hospital ICU.
Who needs to see a film or TV show about Zombies and cannibals when it's in Real Life and on the front page every day in one week?
Well, I'm taking a break from the gory visions in a few hours to attend the World Premiere of a clever documentary that I believe will soon receive a lot of publicity. I can leave the Cannibals behind for a few hours and fall into a revealing world of a film and TV director's Facebook friends.
I'm not getting a break in any fashion for writing about the film, and have had minor contact with the director who I will meet for the first time today, so it's a pure plug I'm making to shift the course from all the weirdness out there to what someone can do to turn their life around and, in the process, change the lives of others. All on the premise of how social media can be good, but is also an obstacle to face-to-face contact.
The idea of the film intrigues me. The director, Katherine Brooks, had 5,000 FB friends but found herself feeling extremely alone with no physical contact from anyone in ages. Just a simple hug. So, she decided to put up an announcement on her FB page that the first 50 of her FB friends who responded (and lived in the States) she would arrange to visit and film the encounter, turning the idea into the documentary, "Face 2 Face". She and one and sometimes two other people drove across the U.S. last summer to meet the 50 people and learn their stories.
Great idea, eh? And what makes the film so intriguing is that the director discovered how different the people's true lives were compared to how they presented themselves on their Facebook status reports and Profile Page.