Halloween Whore-or

If you get the title, then you already have an idea what this post might be about...

It's funny to see the generational differences in Halloween and how it has changed over the years.  In a nutshell, HALLOWEEN IS AN EXCUSE FOR GIRLS TO DRESS LIKE SLUTS.

Plain and simple.  Attention-seeking girls in desperate need of an ego boost.  Now, one can look at my pics from today and say the same thing.  (I won't post them here, because then it'd be true.)  However, the dress to my black cat costume wasn't half as short as some of the stuff I saw today.  

Girls in respectable positions of power, showing off their boobs, their butts and their midriffs.  Unprofessional? Yes.  Unacceptable?  That depends on whom you ask.

Logically, what these girls are doing is ridiculous. However, what guy in his right mind (assuming he's straight) would oppose this?  I don't care how tacky or tasteless it may be or what responsibilities these guys have in stopping goings-on like this in the workplace.  A man is a man.  

Sure, there are your old-fashioned, goody-goodies who may not make as big a deal out of it as other blatantly disrespectful and chauvanistic pigs would.  And of course, there are only so many times you can look at the same thing -- no matter how revealing it is -- before getting bored with it.  And the only reason why other women wouldn't approve of this is A) they're jealous of all the attention, or B) their man is the one who gets a little too immature in these situations and/or makes them feel less than adequate, compared to these girls.  

It's time to face it.  Halloween has turned into the mother of all meat markets -- Today's Special: Hooch a la Spook.

I Need More UN-Reality TV

When I was in second grade, that was when I first realized what the "Year 2000" (way prior to "Y2K") represented.  We would hear that, and automatically we would think that when we went to sleep on December 31, 1999, we'd wake up on January 1, 2000, to a world not dissimilar to the Jetsons, with sky condos, flying cars, and automated lifestyles.  Many things were automated by then, but we were far and away from living in a world where George and Jane would have video conferences (which would happen later on, especially with the advent of smart phones).
Even when I was a kid, MTV (MUSIC Television) and VH-1 (VIDEO Hits 1) were new and had actual videos, which if you think about it, are nothing more than short stories told by a band in song form.

When I was in high school, a show called The Real World probably launched the dreams of small-town kids everywhere, when a bunch of people who were trying to launch some kind of artistic career (music, acting, dancing) auditioned for a conceptual new show: the "reality" show, where things weren't 100% scripted, and edited to show that real life was also as intriguing as the old form television show. 

I can't say that I watch much television these days.  Except for sporting events, I am not a person who is all OMG-I-NEED-TO-BE-HOME-TO-WATCH-MY-SHOW-ASAP.  Even with sporting events, I can follow the action on my phone and never feel as though I'm missing anything.  My husband and I are big fans of the show Dexter, and he loves the new AMC show The Walking Dead.  I can't say I am one for zombie culture, but hey, to each their own.  Another series I am a big fan of is Desperate Housewives, and I am really sad to see this will be the final year it's on television.  One of my all-time favorites is the Sex and the City franchise, and quote it like it's Shakespeare (just don't ask this former English lit major what she thinks about Billy). 

I guess my point is that I like creativity, and always appreciate good writing, and that's what keeps me returning: the compelling art of the written word, whether it's reading a good story, website or watching one unfold on television or on the big screen.

Something that has changed somewhat in television in the "aughts" is what the public wants.  Reality shows kind of take over precedence from unreality.   Shows like Survivor, X-Factor and Biggest Loser are touted as these feel good types of rewards shows, yet the public has shown that they value the voyeur factor here.  I have to admit, the reality show contests I prefer add absolutely nothing to culture (i.e. stuff people aren't talking about Monday morning at the water cooler), like RuPaul's Drag Race and Flavor of Love.  I mean, if you think about it...those shows lean towards the more unrealistic (especially Drag Race, since it's men dressing up as beautiful and glamorous women, adhering to the whole "illusion" thing). 

Look at MTV and VH-1 now.  They promote not videos (except for VH-1 Classics or MTV in the morning or late evenings) but their own scripted reality shows, like The Hills or Jersey Shore, even Basketball Wives.  I have this here bridge I'd like to sell you if you think these shows aren't the least bit scripted, but something about voyeurism comes into play that makes these franchises successful. 

A misconception people have about reality shows is that these "actors" are somewhat not as credited as those on totally scripted fictional shows, but the reality is there they do have to file with the Screen Actors Guild.  In theory, they are making the acting playing field a little bit of a thinner margin, typical to how we fool ourselves that outsourcing jobs is somewhat good for the economy. Meanwhile no one ever applauds the people who make the shows what they are: no, not Snooki or The Situation, but the editors who make the calls about what goes on for the public to see. 


Many things have changed since I was in second grade, talking about the Year 2000 and beyond.  I suppose one of the things that had to evolve was the television, which itself evolved out of radio shows and soap operas.  Now, soap operas are going the way of the dodo, and reality shows based on daytime dramas are taking over.

Call me crazy, but the idea of television and entertainment is escapism.  Haven't these reality-type shows jumped the shark yet?  Gimme more fictional shows, or don't give me anything at all. The only thing that should be reality, in my opinion, are sporting events.

Removing All Doubt

I am all for free speech.  I like being able to speak my mind without ramifications from the government.  I like that I can disagree with a policy or social mores or whatever is on the docket and not have to worry about going into a political prison.  That's what great about our country, I'm sure most of us can agree upon.

There's an old saying that goes, "Best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  There are some folks in the public arena who certainly subscribe to that notion, but allow themselves to be raked all over the press.  I don't necessarily agree with some of the viciousness that's spread around, but that's a drawback of free speech, that flame speech is up for grabs.

That is, unless, you are being paid by an entity who feels your comment may have crossed some invisible lines.

There is an old saying in the corporate world that if you are to do something, and mostly if that something is "visible," what would it look like to the company or entity if it showed up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day?

In recent days, the recent debate about Hank Williams, Jr., "Bocephus" himself, made an inflammatory comment about President Barack Obama, wondered how far "free speech" ethics and limitation of those with a difference of opinion affects his status on ESPN's Monday Night Football.  You see, Bocephus provided the MNF intro and was incredibly recognizable to that brand.  I have no idea what the terms of his deal were, but let's imagine that Walt Disney Co, the owner of ESPN, is paying a whole bucket of money for the copyright usage and rights and all that jazz to use that music. 

Oh and what he said?  He just happened to compare President Obama to possibly the worst war criminal in the history of the world.  Other have claimed that what he said was taken out of context, the usual, or that it was "perfectly okay when someone said it about President George W. Bush."  Now, I have to admit, I was probably one of W's biggest critics.  I thought the "Hitler Didn't Need Search Warrants Either" bumper stickers were a bit much.  But you know what -- the difference here isn't that Bocephus has a difference of opinion, or that his comments were taken out of context or even that he said them on Fox News and is a Tea Party supporter.  It's that these schmoes who sold these bumper stickers or made them in their garage are folks like you and me.  They are not on a world stage.  They are trying to make a buck off a political item.  When someone like Alec Baldwin said he did not agree with Bush is another thing.  He did not come out and say, "Bush is Hitler."  There's a big difference between what Williams said about Obama.

Now Williams claims his First Amendment rights were violated here.  Here's a guy who has had the privilege of having a famous name, of being his own man and beloved by millions for his music.  I mean, this guy has made an empire out of the very things that Good Ole Boys stand for.  Not to say he hasn't worked hard to where he got, I mean I remember listening to old Hank Williams Jr songs in my dad's truck as we drove around on the weekends...but he parted ways from a private corporate entity, that had to deal with backlash from derogatory remarks that could be potentially damaging to their brand.

It's nothing to do with race, class, free speech or corporate versus private thinking.  Hank Williams Jr is no schmuck like you and me: he's not begging someone for a job or living paycheck to paycheck.  When this whole thing blows over, he'll still make out nicely, methinks.

Despite what your political or social beliefs are, what makes this world go 'round isn't just love, but also differences of opinion.  It's okay to not like the President of the United States, especially if he's your President and you've come to that conclusion yourself after careful thought, not having been told by a news organization to think a certain way. 

But that brings me to another double-standard about this whole shebbang.  Remember in 2003, when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made an offhand remark about how the band was ashamed that President Bush was from Texas?  This happened to take place on a stage in London, and the night before attacks were launched on Iraq.

Remember what happened next?  These three talented and family-oriented women were thrown under the bus by the very fan base who supported them, they were called derogatory names like "Dixie Sluts" or told to get back into the kitchen.  I had to admire Natalie, Martie and Emily for taking those negatives and turning them into positives for themselves and their fans who didn't care what they thought?

The difference?  They were women who didn't agree with the President's philosophy, and their music was banned from country radio stations, particularly in the Bible Belt.  These women worked very hard to get to where they were, and were not employed by these radio stations per se.  They disagreed with them and subsequently trashed them to support their own views.

And you know what?  Maines' comments about Bush were not even a millionth as nasty as Williams' was.  Which leads to the question that Richard Roeper from Chicago Sun-Times asks, if Maines was a traitor, is Williams too?

Kind of makes you think, right?  There is a difference between working under someone's brand name and working under your own, and making a flame comment that the world can see or hear, as opposed to privately.

Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, indeed.