Post Apocalyptic Diatribes of a Non-Politically Correct Nature

Sooo... There I was, a few months ago, internally dialoguing with my naïve self, saying: "Yeah, this crummy pandemic should be done soon and I'll be back at work." Oh Ye of little knowledge. As a yoga teacher, it has now sunk in that I won't be "back at work" anywhere near my pre-pandemic capacity for like, eternity. To say I've been "watching" Netflix and Prime is like saying an alcoholic had one drink. I've been gorging on television like a starving Hollywood starlet set free in a Krispy Kreme donut shop. 

In the meantime, the world has turned from total shit to "I think it might be better to be dead". Disease, riots, Trump, the fall of Hong Kong to Chinese rule, Putin's Poison Patrol and the left's adept answer to all this: the Politically Correct Gestapo. I've always considered myself to be a left-leaning Liberal but lately, I'm embarrassed to admit I have any "left" leanings at all. There has been a groundswell of rabid woke folk who somehow have deemed themselves of the purest moral fabric and pronounce their judgements on all others who do not comply with their wokeful edicts.

One is no longer allowed to have a differing opinion or ask difficult questions when it comes to issues of race, gender, sexual harassment, climate, or any other classically left-leaning subject. Take for example, climate change. The PC Gestapo claims that carbon is enemy numero uno and we must focus on reducing our carbon emissions at all costs because THIS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT EXISTS AND DON'T ANYONE DARE QUESTION IT. I choose to question it. I'm not a climate denier. I've loved the environment, recycled and hugged trees for as long as I can remember. But no one seems to be talking about the issue of plastics pollution which may kill us before carbon does, or the sustained availability of potable water, which we literally can't live without or, gee, pandemic preparedness BEFORE a pandemic hits.

There is scientific research (and researchers) stating that yes, the climate does change but we humans have little to do with it. Don't believe me? Feel free to read this; this; this, this and this. I simply feel that it's ok for me to not believe everything I'm told and to do a little research of my own to understand the full breadth and complexity of important questions. Call me crazy but I think a rational, considered response to things seems to be the best route to follow instead of listening to a whiny teenage girl tell me I'm a bad person for merely having existed on this earth longer than she has. 

The PC Gestapo has also lost sight of differing degrees of actions when it comes to things like sexual harassment. The advent of the #metoo movement was an important development and dangerous predators were stopped. I fully agree that this was a good thing. But in the midst of this karmic wave, accusations are being thrown about like yesterday's dirty underwear and people like Al Franken are put in the same category as Harvey Weinstein. With this, I do disagree. Al Franken may have behaved badly, had a momentary lapse of reason, but he's not a predator, à la Jeffrey Epstein. Human behaviour is complex and nuanced. Good people do bad things and bad people do good things. The Left's insistence on categorizing human actions and words to fit into neat little black and white boxes is ridiculous and shows very little understanding of human nature. 

"Cancel culture" in which we essentially deny opinions we don't agree with and the "Twitter Mob" which, to my understanding, is a group of reactionary puritans with a lot of time on their hands whose mission it is to destroy the lives of those who dare to think independently, are both alive and well and thriving in our crisis-riddled, pandemic-plagued present. We don't know how to have a healthy, respectful debate anymore. We don't know how to talk to each other anymore. Hurling insults on social media is not debate, it's bullying of the most cowardly kind. 

When we discuss climate, my partner jokingly refers to me as a right-wing Republican when I start questioning the current climate zeitgeist. I know it's meant in jest, and I laugh because it's funny and I still have a sense of humour, but it is indicative of our current need to categorize and pick sides. Why can't I stand in the middle and share my popcorn with everyone? Oh right, because there's a PANDEMIC.

Pre-Apocalyptic Musings of Post-Democratic Proportions

So... the biggest problem I had on New Year's Day 2020 was the prospect of Friends disappearing from Netflix. Oh Universe, you have a dark sense of humour. Turns out Friends is still on Netflix but the Apocalypse is nigh which would make Friends being on Netflix a moot point. COVID-19 is basically creating a new reality most of us have never experienced: thinking of others before ourselves. This may require actions we are not inclined to do: cancelling travel and cool shit you were going to do (think of all those lost opportunities to post your awesome picks on social media - you'll need to find alternate means to sate your hunger for attention and validation); staying at home (for an introvert like me, it's like winning the lottery); keeping your outings to essential trips only (pretty much what daily life used to be like for me - who's laughing now extrovert bitches).

It's hard to complain about a forced vacation where I can catch up on all sorts of shit I usually wouldn't have time to do; boredom is not a problem I foresee encountering. Sure, the economy is turning to shit, my investments may be evaporating before my eyes and I have no gainful employment at the moment, seeing as teaching yoga in person is currently considered a biohazard. But I get to sleep in every morning, eat corn dogs and chips without guilt (I consider these emotional support foods since my emotional support animal has her own preoccupations at the moment, like my partner and I being home all the time, disrupting her daily napping routine).

If I don't watch the news too much, I can keep my stress levels at a manageable level. If I start binge watching CBC News Network and CNN, I usually find myself curled up in a ball, rocking myself gently, self-soothing to the dulcet tones of Kenny G., and that's on a good day. But hey, I can't really complain. There are folks out there working their asses off so the rest of us losers can stay home and not spread this virus: front-line medical staff; grocery and pharmacy staff; truck drivers. The supply chain is relatively intact, and if it weren't for a few freaks stocking up on toilet paper (WTF?), we may not have felt much of a disruption at all.

My mother actually made an interesting remark regarding all this pandemonium - she said that maybe it was time we were shaken up since our respective societies are rotting from self-interest, corruption, greed and a lust for ever-expanding growth. Sometimes, we need the shit kicked out of us; a pressing of the "reset" button, if you will, to perhaps reframe how we live, how we treat others and the planet, how corporations are basically running the world and we need to address this. But will anything change once this pandemic has passed? I doubt it. We're creatures of habit. We've normalized the moronic and deceitful words of despots; we've turned a blind eye to the murder of a journalist by a brutal regime because, hey, it would mean breaking a contract worth billions.

Kenny G.'s not sounding so bad right now, is he? I want to believe that the human race learns from its mistakes but with the advent of an era of stupid and mean (Trump, Johnson, Putin, Jinping, Bolsonaro, etc...), we seem to be stepping backwards towards intolerance, ignorance and totalitarianism. At the time of writing this, there are still some spring-breakers in Georgia who refuse to cut short their vacation because "you know, we've always lived with viruses, what's the big deal"? With this specter of sheer idiocy, being forced to stay at home and not deal with people seems like a blessing.

Think of it this way: we were already living Armageddon before COVID-19, it was just happening in small increments. So maybe buy a couple extra bags of Miss Vickie's (why not try a new flavour?), pour yourself a glass of your favourite numbing alcohol, spark up Netflix, and ponder how to save the world once you're out of quarantine.
 

A divided self, a divided world

If asked what characterizes the current state of our world, the first word that comes to mind is division: us vs. them; right vs. wrong; winners and losers; black and white. This is a very simplistic way of viewing things, when one considers that there is far more grey than black and white. Not everything can be defined, cut into neat little pieces for easy consumption, or be easily understood.

It's simple to lash out and blame all our current ills on Trump, Putin, rapacious corporations, the media, etc., etc... If we are to even begin bridging the gaps, we need to look at the divisions within ourselves, at how we so easily compartmentalize without asking the big questions.

We sit back and proclaim that climate change should be addressed but we're unwilling to change our lifestyles. We bemoan cruelty to animals but continue eating meat because we're so far removed from its source that all we see is the neat little package in the grocery store without asking ourselves where it came from, how the animal was raised and how it died.

We are masters at lying to ourselves, at ignoring those dark corners we wish didn't exist, at whitewashing pain, ugliness and struggle, at extracting with surgical precision those parts of ourselves that don't fit into the current accepted narrative. If we are at war with ourselves, how can we possibly begin to bring peace to a fractured world when it is simply a reflection of our inner state?

We are not separate from anyone or anything. We are each other's caretakers and keepers of our environment, and other sentient beings with whom we share this planet. We are failing miserably on both counts.

As Gandhi proclaimed: "Be the change you want to see in the world." The only place to start is with ourselves. Can we quiet the constant stream of mental noise and distraction that only allows us to skim the surface of things? Can we summon the courage to delve deeper, get acquainted with our soft underbelly and befriend it? Can we find out where our fear resides and try to release it? Can we be brave enough to be still and listen?

Every choice we make matters. Wouldn't it be better if those choices were conscious ones?

A Song Without Music

Me: "You know how much I love spending time in the kitchen." Boyfriend: "With a phone and a take out menu."

Now that I've kicked off this post with the requisite witty humour, I can turn to other insignificant things, such as my playwriting. The idea recently flashed in my brain of sharing some of that writing here on my blog, kind of like a story in serial installments. I mean, why not?

A few months back, I began very preliminary work on a musical; the writing part, that is. I'm not sure where that project is headed but I wrote my first ever song lyrics. It's not exactly an uplifting ballad as I was exorcising some demons at the time but I think it could be a catchy tune. I call it: " A Song Without Music". 

Good morning, good morning 
You're my wife, short of a ring
You're my mother, only better
You're my daughter, don't run for cover

Good morning, good morning
Under my thumb, blessed underling
It's the only way I know, the only love I can show
Look pretty, don't think. Hint at desire, leave me on the brink

Good morning, good morning
Your submission is a sacred thing
It's your calling, weaker sex
You've got no strength, no muscle to flex

Good morning, good morning
I'm the master and you the slave adoring
My psychic steel rod violating your space
Hunting you down, because I need the chase

Good morning, good morning
Come to me and say good morning
Good morning, good morning
Bend the knee and say good morning 

Stay tuned for my next creative writing installment. I think I'll go with a comedy next time.

Stereotype cancer - an insidious disease

Yesterday, I found out that a beloved figure in the yoga world, Michael Stone, had passed away, following a lifelong struggle with bipolar disorder, a struggle he kept mostly silent and hidden. Shock rang through an international yoga community at the sudden death of one of its own. The tragedy of his passing seems all the more bitter at the thought of his internal struggle with demons largely out of his control.

It also reveals a soft underbelly of the yogic community: an expectation or preconceived notion that yoga teachers have their shit together; that they easily rise above it all and are able to remain in a continual state of zen-like balance. They're vegetarians or vegans, don't drink or swear and lead a squeaky-clean life. These stereotypes are also propagated, ad nauseum, by popular media and frankly, are reductionist and far off the mark of what yoga and meditation are all about.

But yoga is not the only victim of stereotypes. They are widespread and pervasive, and they are harmful. In my former job, every morning when I stepped into the office, I felt like I had entered Stepford suburbia, and if I didn't conform to some incredibly narrow-minded idea, imposed by others, of who I should be: a happy, smiling, pleasant, social and above all, easily acquiescing female, I paid the price, either with social isolation or eventually, in my case, dismissal.

Stereotypes are an insidious cancer that refuse to recognize the full depth and breadth of each individual, and leave no space for variety, vulnerabilities and flaws - the very things that, if brought to light and shared with one another, actually draw us together and create community.

It is a terrible tragedy that Michael Stone felt compelled to remain silent about his mental health issues, but it is a silence I fully understand. I grappled for more than a decade with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in complete silence. I couldn't bring myself to tell my family physician I was suffering these strange symptoms that were not physical. I felt I couldn't tell my parents or my friends. Only when I was living on my own and the symptoms progressively worsening, did I finally seek help because I could see the downward spiral awaiting me if I continued to do nothing.

It was one of the best decisions of my life. I sought treatment and am completely open about it now. I've managed to let go of the shame I used to feel about it, and I'm fully aware that I'm not alone. However, there remains a stronghold of shame and misunderstanding around mental illness, one that needs to be removed, so those who are suffering can rise to the surface, come into the light, and seek the help and support they need.

As a yoga teacher myself, my students should know that I am not perfect. I have shitty days. I struggle. I make bad decisions. I eat meat. I drink alcohol. I use swear words, sometimes profusely, but that takes nothing away from my passion for yoga and devotion to sharing it with as many people as I can. We need to allow space for people to be who they are, and release these rigid ideas of who we think we should be. All we need to be is ourselves.

Leggo my Argo

I know the Oscars were on Sunday and it's now Thursday. (Insert pithy insult here relating to my tardiness.) Anyhoo, something has been nagging at me ever since we actually watched most of the telecast because there wasn't anything better on TV.

Being Canadian, this whole Argo phenomenon has really gotten under my skin. Why? Because the involvement of Canadians who basically saved and masterminded the escape of six Americans is played down while an American CIA agent who swoops in over the course of a few days to carry out said escape gets center stage.

Of course. An American couldn't possibly make a film where Canadians come out as the heroes of the day. No, it's always USA to the rescue. The US won that war. Blah, blah, blah. What's funny is that the very beginning of Argo, in an attempt to give us some historical context, explains that the US basically created the dire situation in which its citizens could be taken hostage by helping to depose a democratically elected Iranian leader and replacing him with an autocratic one years earlier.

WTF US of A? Why do you meddle in other people's backyards when you have no business being there? You did the same thing to Chile with Pinochet. Chileans also commemorate a bloody September 11, a coup d'état, backed by the US, which overthrew an elected socialist government and replaced it with a ruthless tyrant. But no one really talks about that.

It's fascinating how Americans will glorify the people who have to go in and clean up the mess they made in the first place. Why doesn't anyone make a film about years of highly questionable American foreign policy, usually based on corporate interests, not humanitarian ones.

I must give kudos to filmmaker Oliver Stone who has put together the series Untold History of the United States detailing "true" American history, starting with the Second World War. America loves to claim it won that war once it joined the Allies, but in reality, as this documentary series tells us, it was the Russians who were instrumental in ensuring the downfall of Hitler's Third Reich by pushing back Nazi troops trying to invade Russia.

The US is like an incredibly annoying, insecure braggart, needing to fudge the facts and inflate the truth to feed its sense of self-importance. I don't deny the US has had many great accomplishments. But it's ok for the rest of us to have some too. Give credit where credit is due, Ben.

Let your freak flag fly!

So there we were the other night, watching a new episode of Girls, which mainly featured Lena Dunham, naked, having sex with a very attractive man. Now, Lena is not what is commonly referred to as "skinny". She's shapely, voluptuous. She's got some meat on her bones.

The first reaction of those with whom I was watching this (they shall remain nameless) was: "That would never happen" and "she shouldn't be naked so much" and "what she's wearing is terribly unflattering" (when she had clothes on). Now, I dearly love those with whom I watched this but I found myself immediately feeling defensive of Lena. It's true, I totally poo-pooed the first few episodes of this season of Girls but those were arguments based on artistic quality, not personal attacks.

I guess this train of thought also coincides with the fact that I'm currently reading Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth. What I felt for Lena watching that episode was nothing short of sheer admiration for this woman who is completely fearless, taking every stereotype and shoving it back in our faces. You don't need to be skinny to be sexual. What is attractive to the male species differs from one individual man to another.

As Naomi Wolf states (and I'm paraphrasing here because I'm lazy) "beauty" is generic, bland, frozen, and the very idea of "beauty" is completely manufactured by corporations who want us to feel deeply insecure in our bodies so we'll be good little consumers and buy their useless crap. And it works.

From a disturbingly young age, women are taught to see themselves and other women through the lens of judgement, constantly comparing themselves to other women and seeing them as an adversary instead of an ally. "She's pretty, she must have a great life." "She's fat, she must be a loser."

Why wouldn't an attractive man want to make love to Lena Dunham? Men don't want "perfect", which is nothing more than a commercial construct. They want women who love to f*ck as much as they do, and that requires a certain level of self-confidence and comfort in one's own body. I've often heard that what men find most attractive in women is confidence. It's not great hair, or big boobs, a perfect ass, or flat stomach. Confidence. The ability to laugh at oneself, and fart in public. Ok, I added that last bit but I suspect it's true.

Why do we stand in such harsh judgement of each other and ourselves? Why do we think skinny women are better? And who defines what "skinny" is? According to Wolf, if most women tried to achieve a model's weight, which is, according to those savvy marketers, the "ideal" for women, they would have to be in a constant state of semi-starvation.

What Lena represents is a woman unafraid to be herself. She lets her freak flag fly and doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks. If only there were more of us with such courage.

Sluts and the Tree of Life

I can't decide whether Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn, is just another artsy wankfest or one of the most deeply moving films I've ever started to watch. I say started because the boyfriend was on the side of wankfest and could no longer tolerate watching it after the first half hour. I was still undecided and probably would have sat through the whole two hours and twenty minutes of the movie to find out. 

I was expecting to see a film about growing up in the fifties, with Brad Pitt as an overbearing, authoritarian father, and Sean Penn as the adult version of a son who still blames his dad for all his problems. However, we immediately find out that the family in question has lost a son at war (it looked like that event was set in the sixties, so I'm guessing Vietnam) at the tender age of 19. 

Then, the movie turns into a PBS special on how the earth and the first forms of life were created, then to dinosaurs, with a momma dinosaur looking for her son. Translation: the mother is forever looking for her lost (dead) son, even from the beginning of time. Deep.

Up to this point, the film was mostly filled with voice-overs of poetic lamenting. This was about where the boyfriend gave up. I have no idea what happened next, or if the movie shifted to actual dialogue and plot but I'm intrigued. I may have to go back to it. It's haunting me. I need to know whether there was a point to all that existential navel-gazing. 

Speaking of existential navel-gazing, what does it mean when a fat, conservative pig someone calls a woman a slut for requesting that birth control be part of her health plan? You may have heard that's exactly what Rush Limbaugh recently did on his radio show. 

Just when you think chicks are getting a break, making progress, someone says something so utterly backwards, it's wholeheartedly discouraging. Are women only supposed to have sex to make babies? If a woman uses contraception, implying she's just having sex for the "fun" of it, does that make her a slut?

What I find most offensive about people who utter such ignorant statements is that their own morals  are far from perfect, and they're usually the ones who are the most perverted and twisted behind closed doors, or struggling with their own sexuality. I mean, Rush has had four wives. I'm not judging, but if you want to throw stones, you better make sure your own house is in order. Or better yet, don't throw any at all.

It's sad to think this level of misogyny still permeates our culture. A statement like Rush's could be considered equivalent to making a woman wear a veil to "cover herself up". How dare we tempt men with our evil, seducing ways! How dare we have sex for the simple pleasure of it! How dare we demand the taxpayer cover the cost of our whoring!

When will this double-standard finally be abolished? The more women a guy sleeps with, the more he's admired. The more men a woman sleeps with, the more she's reviled. Are men that afraid of women who claim their sexuality and express it freely? It's not like we want to take over the world, we just want to get laid.

Besides, the ladies who do want to take over the world are considered "bitches", as opposed to men who are considered "ambitious". Frankly, all we really want is equality, to be treated with the same respect and dignity as men. 

I certainly don't advocate a "women take all" kind of philosophy in revenge of past and present oppression. Let's just share the pie and all try to get along. That way, everyone wins. Yin and yang, people. You need both, in equal measure.

When "mommy" equals "money"

I heard a rather interesting radio documentary recently on "mommy blogging" and how it's turned into big business. I felt compelled to write about it since some ethical quandaries popped up about blogging in general.

Back in the day, new moms began blogging as a means to share ideas and experiences, building a supportive community of women going through a similar phase in their lives. Doing so, they radically redefined motherhood by sharing their personal stories about what it was like to raise children, which isn't always rosy.

Women in particular have embraced social media (blogging, Facebook, Twitter) as a means of communication, and increasingly, as a career path. You see, some of these mommy bloggers became quite influential when writing about products they liked which, of course, caught the attention of big business. Popular brands, such as Fisher Price, realized that by partnering with bloggers to sell their products, they had access to a whole new market.

So, companies send sample products to influential bloggers. Then, said bloggers write a review about said product (usually favorable) and presto! instant advertising to hundreds, even thousands of women. Moreover, some of these companies offer toys, trips and cash to blog about their products. Reviews are also often accompanied by contests and giveaways. And who doesn't like free stuff?

This is all well and good, however, there is an ethical question that arises when someone is paid by a company to write a review. Is the blogger being authentic or has she simply become a corporate mouthpiece? Women now yield immense power in the marketing of baby products with their active presence in social media. There are even women who start blogging solely for the purpose of career building, i.e. making money.

I don't know about you but I find the greatest feature of blogging is its sense of community and personal expression. Once corporate interests seep in, blogging becomes a dog and pony show and loses much of its power as a means of communication. I personally get very turned off by blogs that used to be about content, then got really popular, and are now, basically, about selling products. That's when I stop reading them.

I don't mind ads on a blog but when the content itself veers toward product reviews, contests and giveaways, it merely becomes a vehicle for selling stuff. I wouldn't trust a review knowing the writer was paid to write it. Even if they fully disclose they were paid, it's still a conflict of interest.

Corporations are rapacious and will do anything to get their greedy hands on new consumers. Do we really want them taking over the blogosphere?

I must credit the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) - a full audio version of the documentary can be found here. I was not paid to write this.

No one needs a 2.5 million dollar bra

A few reasons why movements like Occupy Wall Street exist:

1 - Model Miranda Kerr will grace the catwalk in a 2.5 million dollar bra at a Victoria's Secret fashion show.

2 - The demise of Kim Kardashian's marriage is getting more media attention than both the Afghan and Iraq wars.

3 - NBA players are squabbling over their multi-million dollar salaries, refusing to play, while the unemployment rate in the US sits at approximately 10%.

These are the types of things that really irk me. Who the hell needs a 2.5 million dollar bra? I'm guessing it'll be worn once for a fashion show, then shelved or put on display somewhere, and that 2.5 million will have been an absolute waste. 2.5 million dollars that could have been invested in education, or given to a charitable organization or used to create jobs.

Everywhere I turn, there is mention of Kim Kardashian's failed marriage. Now, I'm not immune to reality TV. I watch some pretty trashy stuff on occasion. I get it. It's great mind-numbing fluff. That being said, media coverage of these so-called celebrities should not overtake actual current events. 

When the vast majority of people are debating whether Kim's marriage was staged or real rather than focusing on the fiscal future of a precarious capitalist system gone awry, and the disintegration of the very social fabric that brought the US to greatness, there's a problem. That this family of vacuous bimbos rakes in millions for displaying their moronic lives on TV is simply immoral. 

Then we have the NBA players. Bitching because they want to make 21 million instead of just 20 million. How much is enough? This is greed gone wild. 

Chelsea Handler said it very eloquently when she appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight recently. The wealthy have a responsibility to share their good fortune with others, to help others rise up along with them, and the more you have, the greater your responsibility is to do this.

A number of celebrities have publicly stated that they would pay more taxes, following Warren Buffet's lead. However, it's up to the US government to change its tax policies so this can happen.

The Occupy movement has certainly brought the legitimate concerns of a middle class stretched too thin to the forefront of public discourse. But will it have any long lasting effects? Will regulations be put in place to govern the activities of Wall Street? Will the salaries of corporate CEOs, professional  athletes and celebrities be reduced, or will they at least be required to pay their fair share of taxes? Will the US government start working for its people rather than the corporations who currently own it? 

The status quo cannot continue indefinitely. For any substantive change to occur, America's citizens need to re-frame their priorities, and ask themselves some serious questions about what kind of future they want for their country. 

The US is in a grossly decadent phase, much like Rome was, before it fell. History can be ignored but it doesn't change the facts. Much like the captain of the Titanic, believing his ship to be invincible, it is that very belief that will sink the US unless its citizenry vigilantly dedicates itself to taking back the country that is rightfully theirs. 

Occupy Hollywood

As I'm sure you all know, there is a huge grassroots movement spreading throughout the US that originated in NYC, called Occupy Wall Street. I, for one, am glad to see this. The American populace is finally rising up against these shameless corporate crooks who basically bankrupted the middle class, but took their tax dollars to save their sorry asses, and are now back to making record profits, while that same middle class struggles to survive.

I read a great article on the Huffington Post by Jo Piazza stating why it's time to Occupy Hollywood and target celebrities who rake in ludicrous amounts of money for "entertaining" us. She states that most celebrities are on a higher pay scale than most CEOs, surgeons and lawyers. They are in a class all their own - the overpaid and overblown.

We, as the consumer, are not entirely innocent. No one has boycotted these celebrities in protest of their completely disproportional salaries. No one has refused to pay the thousands of dollars that people like Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, of Jersey Shore fame now commands for speaking engagements (that's an oxymoron, if I ever heard one). 

I was perturbed by the apparent dumbing down of America to the point of simply accepting that the Kardashian family rakes in millions in a single year. And for what? Airing their dirty laundry on TV? Who are these people? And why do we care?

Sure, we can probably all admit we have a secret weakness when it comes to reality television or such and such a celebrity but the reality of a growing number of Americans is forcing us (even us Canadians) to reevaluate where our values lie. We cannot simply continue within the status quo.

Michael  Moore appeared for a full hour on Piers Morgan Tonight this week, along with a live studio audience. Listening to the stories of these average Americans was heartbreaking. University graduates with Masters' degrees, crushing debt and no job; middle class folk behind in their mortgage and bill payments, struggling to make ends meet; people working well into their 70s to be able to afford health care. This is more than just "not ok"; it's criminal.

There is enough wealth on this planet to feed, clothe and shelter every human being on it. Why is the equitable distribution of wealth such an unacceptable concept? What are the obscenely wealthy so afraid of? They would have much less to fear with a general population that is thriving and content.

One way this incredibly lopsided distribution of wealth will change is if the consumer changes, and demands that the entertainment industry cease to pay these ridiculous amounts of money to "stars", and adopt a more reasonable pay scale, especially for such luminaries as Kim Kardashian and Snooki. And if they don't, we'll simply boycott the celebrities. 

We seem to forget, the consumer holds all the power, not the celebrity, and not the entertainment industry. Without fans, the celebrity is nothing, just another face in the crowd. It's time to wield that power, people.

Instead of paying some celebrity a gazillion dollars to appear in some mediocre Hollywood flick, how about paying them less and reinvesting the rest into creating jobs for people who desperately need them, and maybe throw in some benefits too. Is that really too much to ask?

Hollywood's generosity knows no bounds

It seems the world, as we know it, is crumbling around us. The US is up shit creek without a paddle and now Europe is buckling under the weight of its debt. So, I was a little peeved when those annoyingly plastic Entertainment Tonight hosts (say what you will, no one beats the dynamic duo that was John Tesh and Mary Hart) were talking about Hollywood heavyweights taking a "pay cut" for their TV gigs.

Let's see if I remember this correctly... Ashton Kutcher is making $700,000 per episode for Two and a Half Men, making him the highest paid TV actor. Ashton Kutcher. Highest paid TV actor. WTF? Then we have Tim Allen, Ted Danson and Keifer Sutherland making something like $250,00 or so an episode on their shows. Man, that is rough. What a sacrifice.

What does a school teacher make? Approximately $30,000 a year or something? Or a nurse? Or a police officer? Or a firefighter? Or a soldier? I couldn't help but be somewhat disgusted by the gaping abyss that separates the ridiculously wealthy from the rest of us.

It's a slap in the face to say that these actors are taking a "pay cut". They're still grossly overpaid. Like corporate CEOs. Who needs that much money? When is enough, enough? The French had a little thing they resorted to called "une révolution" when their royalty got a little too greedy. The middle class rose up and started chopping off aristocratic heads. Don't think it can't happen again. London is burning. People are pissed.

Sure, the middle class has been complacent, much to its own detriment, and still doesn't seem upset enough to mobilize on a grand scale and throw corporate fat cats out on their asses. Which they could do, if they wanted to. But if things keep going the way they are, and the circus side show continues in Washington, the middle class will keep getting squeezed until they snap. I suspect, however, they'll have moved past the guillotine.

And if there's any sure sign that the US is in decline, it's Katie Holmes guest judging on So You Think You Can Dance. I'm sorry, there's just NO excuse for that.

Whip out the octagon - a married couple is fighting

Not that this reality show could top Toddlers and Tiaras on the "will cause me nightmares for months to come" scale, but it deserves an honorable mention. 

A few months ago, we started watching The Marriage Ref. Apparently, it got some lukewarm reviews but we stumbled upon it one evening and the celebrity panel of "advisers" on that particular episode convinced us to stick with it.

Imagine, if you will, Larry David, Madonna and Ricky Gervais doling out advice on marital issues to Tom Papa, the hilariously entertaining marriage ref. My boyfriend and I are convinced we saw Tom open for Jerry Seinfeld, but we can't be sure. We were either sitting too far from the stage to distinguish facial features or we were very drunk at the time. But I digress.

For the most part, The Mariage Ref is entertaining. The celebrity panel and ref watch videos sent in from married couples detailing their "problem du jour", mostly trivial domestic spats, the panel discusses it, advises the ref on it, the ref makes a final decision and informs the married couple who "won". 

This is all good and dandy except that my boyfriend and I started noticing a disturbing trend. Most of the women in these couples were nagging bitches while the men seemed generally accommodating and sweet. Of course, there were one or two exceptions where the guy was a douchebag but it was rare. 

What we were witnessing were not relationships but power struggles. This got me thinking... Is this what most relationships/marriages are like? One of the two people involved basically bosses the other one around, treating them like a family pet while the other tries to fulfill his/her partner's needs until he/she is pushed to the point of utter exasperation?

Dude, that is harsh. The very word "relationship" implies a balance of give and take. We are living "in relation" with another being. A relationship shouldn't be a space where you act out your childhood issues - that's what therapy is for.

I suspect there's also a common misconception among women that to express their "girl power", they need to outwardly display their dominion over the relationship. That is a fallacy. This type of sophomoric "do what I say or I'll withhold sex" (for example) is using force which is not the same thing as personal power, meaning your sense of control over your own life and decisions. 

Exerting force in a relationship may get you what you want in the short term. However, in the long term, it will succeed in pushing people you care about out of your life. Cultivating a sense of personal power has nothing to do with controlling others - it has everything to do with getting to know yourself and deciding what is best in any given situation, for you and, here's the kicker, for OTHERS as well. 

Personal power is about finding out what your "buttons" are and disabling them so others can't easily "push your buttons", it's about working on your shit and becoming a better person. It's about not blaming everyone else, namely your partner, and looking inward instead. 

Unfortunately, it seems women have placed men in one of two categories: doormat or misogynist. In our post-feminist world, I fear the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Yes, women were horribly oppressed for a bazillion years but now, ladies, it looks like we're doing the oppressing. 

We need to find that middle ground again. Man is not the enemy, and trying to control anyone besides ourselves is a useless endeavour, one that usually leads to deep-seated resentment and alienation of affection by the very people we claim to love.

School is for suckers! Why not become mayor of Wasilla, Alaska instead?

Back in the early 90's, the fabulously original and quirky TV show Northern Exposure made me yearn to discover the great beauty of Alaska, as well as its inhabitants. Of course, my zeal for such an adventure has waned since, and more so since reading this headline and  accompanying article on Popeater.com: Levi Johnston: I don't need to be qualified to be mayor. Click here for the full article.

If you're not aware of the latest Alaskan political news, Levi Johnston (Bristol Palin's baby daddy) announced that he is running for mayor of the town of Wasilla, Alaska. Yes, it is the very town where the illustrious Sarah Palin made her political debut. Now, I could refrain from pointing out the obvious but that wouldn't be any fun, now would it. 

Levi's statement about the irrelevancy of qualifications really explains a lot. I wondered, for the whole duration of his presidency, how someone as grossly incompetent as George W. Bush could be president of the United States for eight f*cking years. Well folks, if the woman who ran for Vice-President in 2008 didn't need any qualifications to be mayor, I'm guessing you really don't need any to be elected to the White House. It all starts at the grassroots level people, don't ever forget that. 

As Levi stated, the only qualification needed is to live within the city limits of Wasilla for a year before a mayoral election. So, if you want to be President, I think the only thing that really matters is that you were born in the good 'ol US of A. 

Don't get me wrong, I dig Obama, and I think he's a smart guy but from what I hear in the press and from Americans I've crossed paths with in my travels, he hasn't done a whole hell of a lot and, so far, has disappointed many.

Memo to Obama: you cannot reason with lunacy, i.e. a Republican. You cannot all try to get along. You have to rip out that weed from the roots and show no mercy. That's what good Republicans do to Democrats. Playing nice ain't gonna cut it. If people like Levi Johnston can run for mayor, without any qualifications whatsoever or a platform, for that matter, you are operating in a political free for all, where any whino can stake his claim. 

Then again, Obama notwithstanding, maybe you need to be someone with no substance and severe delusions of grandeur to survive in today's political climate. 

Come on, I have "mayor" written all over me. No, I won't shoot you in the face. God, I'm not Dick Cheney. ( A loud shot is heard.) Shit! I didn't think it was loaded.

Diary of a Hollywood starlet

Last night, while watching the latest season of America's Next Top Model, during commercial breaks on Dragon's Den (yes, it was our "B" show, and yes, we have adult onset ADD), I was highly disturbed by the extreme thinness of the contestants. 

Sure, they sent one home for being too skinny a couple weeks ago but the current front runner practically disappears when she turns sideways. She is skinnier than a stick figure, and the judges were praising her latest photograph. Said in faux French accent: "This is high fashion. You own that picture." This got me thinking, and no good can come of that.

It reminded me of what seems to be every new Hollywood starlet's story. In that spirit, I present to you a photo diary of a Tinseltown ingenue:

I can't freakin' believe I got discovered! Although I knew it would happen sometime. I mean, look at me, I'm a talented, intelligent, gorgeous, self-assured, voluptuous woman. I ROCK.

Ok, so, um, lose a few pounds. Sure. I can do that. Actually, it's probably good for me. I was a little on the heavy side, and the camera adds like, ten pounds, so yeah, it makes sense. It's a healthy choice. Really, in the long run, it's what's best for me. It's not like it's gonna take over my life. I'm still focused on my career, and my craft.

I am WORKIN' IT! F*ck, I am hot. I haven't eaten in a couple days but I feel great! That Red Bull is kicking in. And smoking has really suppressed my appetite. I could run another mile but, oh God, I'm feeling faint. Gotta stop... out of... breath.... Maybe just a short break, then I'll hit the gym for the afternoon and burn off the celery stick I ate last Monday. What is that, like, 10 calories? Gotta work it off, gotta burn that shit off my thighs. I am a f*cking STAR!

Chewed some sugar-free gum this morning. Ran 2 miles. Had to stop. Head rush. Ran another mile. Had to stop again. Out of breath, heart pounding, feeling weak, might pass out. Could eat half a baby carrot. Then will have to go to gym. Damn paparazzi! They're everywhere! Did they get my good side? The one where I look really skinny in my sports bra and spandex? Do I look perfect? I'm almost there, I know it. Just a few more pounds, and I'll be perfect.

Perfect...

Will I be pretty?

This is dedicated to Demi Moore whose recent Twitter bikini spread compelled me to post this.

The epiphany of the swan dress

I was reading a story recently on Popeater.com titled: Charice Pempengco, 18, Gets Skin Tightened and Botox for 'Glee' Role. Somehow, coming across this article reminded me of Icelandic artist Bjork. You may remember the infamous swan dress she wore at the 2001 Oscars. Let me refresh your memory:

I know, I know. Your first reaction might be: WTF is she wearing!? and, who is this strange dame? I had the good fortune of being introduced to Bjork's music years before this picture was taken. I was later astounded by her acting abilities in Dancer in the Dark for which, I believe, she received an Oscar nomination for best song which led to the above-stated red carpet moment. Bjork should have also been on the nomination list for best actress. Dancer in the Dark is easily one of the best, most profound and moving films I've ever seen. 

Predictably, everyone and their dog jumped all over this dress, and she was ridiculed far and wide. So it's not your typical, "glamorous" Oscar dress. It is however, original, just like Bjork. She looks like no one else, she sounds like no one else and she aspires to be no one but herself. I was quite upset at the time that no one commented on her immense talent as an artist. So she doesn't fit the Hollywood mold - she could easily out-act most leading ladies today who are, more often than not, barely distinguishable from each other.

I guess that brings me back to this 18-year-old Filipino singer who professes to be "very proud" to be Asian but underwent a procedure to "narrow" her naturally round face and help her look "fresh" for the cameras. What is wrong with a round face? If I'm not mistaken, Glee spent at least one episode in Season 1 expounding the virtues of being yourself. 

Articles such as this trouble me deeply. If an 18-year-old feels the need to cosmetically enhance herself to fit some American TV image, it reflects our overall Western values which apparently are based solely on conformity and regurgitation of tired bullshit that's been done already. 

So when a true original like Bjork shows up on the scene, she is completely misunderstood and scorned. Which leads me to this passage I'd like to share with you. I wish I could attribute it to someone but I don't know who wrote it. I hope it inspires you as much as it does me.

The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd.

The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been before.

Creativity in living is not without its attendant difficulties, for peculiarity breeds contempt.

And the unfortunate thing about being ahead of your time is that when people finally realize you were right, they'll say it was obvious all along.

You have two choices in life: you can dissolve into the mainstream, or you can be distinct.

To be distinct, you must be different. To be different, you must strive to be what no one else but you can be...

Do as I say to you, not as I say in an interview

I've never been a fan of Jennifer Love Hewitt. Now, I think she's even more of a douchebag after reading this. The title pretty much says it all: "Jennifer Love Hewitt loves her body, wants a different one". First, she shares her infinite wisdom with young girls, telling them to love themselves as they are right now. Then, she goes on to say she would rather have a body like supermodel Gisele Bundchen.

WTF? This does not help, you fecking hypocrite! Either stand behind your statements to young, impressionable girls or admit that you hate your body and want another one. If Jennifer really loved her body, she wouldn't wish to have someone else's. She'd be perfectly happy with what she's got. 

I'm the first to admit that I don't love my body. I wish I did. It performs very well for me, and still looks quite youthful. People often assume I'm younger than I actually am. But a part of me simply cannot let go of the self-loathing. Maybe it's because I've never really known how else to be for the past 20 years. I was a pretty scrawny kid up until about 15. Then, things changed. Suddenly, what and how much I ate mattered. I started to put on some weight, and the body issues began. Looking at women's magazines made me want to jump off a bridge. They still do, sort of.

I remember leafing through a fashion mag once and it had an article on anorexia followed by an ad with a rail-thin model. That ad basically negated everything in the article. It was blatant hypocrisy. Eating disorders are bad but we only use models who look like they eat once a week. 

If we were serious about addressing body image issues, we would demand that models bear a much bigger resemblance to the average person and do away with these impossible ideals. We would also demand that Photoshop not be used whatsoever in fashion photography. I mean, let's get real.

The fashion industry would probably posit this rebuttal: but fashion is about fantasy and play, it's not about real people. To which I would reply: who is buying your shit?! Do you just make clothes for models to wear on runways and at photo shoots? I think not. If that were the case, you would be making far less money and the whole fashion industry would be relegated to some underground freakshow for clothes fetishists.

The power lies with us, the consumer, and right now, we're asleep at the wheel. We're simply accepting standards we didn't choose, driven by a money-hungry, consumption-obsessed culture. If we universally boycotted all fashion magazines until they changed their policies and views on who can and cannot model, you would see changes faster than John Mayer finding his next lay.

Just sayin'.

 Yeah, that's hot.

Hand Job

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Victim porn, the latest addiction

In an interview this week on ABC's Nightline, Jesse James claimed he was physically abused as a child. So, is that supposed to distract us from the fact that he's a lying, cheating bastard? This sickens me. We have become a culture that glorifies victimhood, not taking any responsibility for our actions. 

I cheated on you = I was abused as a child, I have no boundaries. 

I'm an addict = I come from a broken home.

I'm a raging narcissist = I wasn't adequately loved as a child. 

I beat the crap out of someone = I was never taught to accept myself.

I could justify being a complete bitch to everyone I meet because on a Tuesday in 1978, I was spanked by my mother for misbehaving, which now qualifies as "physical abuse", and I never quite got over it.

You get the general idea... Whatever happened to: I cheated because I'm a selfish f*ck. Yeah, we'll hate you for a while, then we'll get over it. But this whiny, poor me, victim bullshit has got to stop. If you have issues, go to therapy, do some volunteer work, get over it. Stop defining your identity and your every action by some transgression you may have suffered years ago. 

There's a new kind of porn out there that's just as addictive as the sexual kind: it's called victim porn. You know what happens when you play the victim? You give your personal power away to someone else. You let someone other than you control your thoughts,  emotions and actions. Is that what you really want? 

Using victim porn to slither your way out of an embarrassing situation just makes you more of an asshole. Fess up. Face the music.  It'll only hurt for a bit, and then it'll pass. We'll be on to the next scandal before you know it.