Stalkerbook, No Stalking!

I care about my privacy on Facebook. I like sharing as little as possibly outside of my friends and I don't want to use Facebook to connect to other sites. I may link to my blogs on Facebook, but I don't want Facebook to always know when I do something on another blog.

That said, Instant Personalization is back on Facebook, again. It's opt-out again instead of being opt-in, because Facebook has some sort of really annoying opt-in boner that likes being all up in my business. I don't post on sites using Stalkerbook Connect because I don't was my newsfeed to be filled with all of that idiocy, I barely care about seeing my friend's non-Stalkerbook idiocy on Stalkerbook. If I wanted to read their posts on Gizmodo or The New York Times I'd ask them what their opinion was about that. If I want to see what videos they like on Youtube, I'd subscribe to their channel so I could find their likes easier. I like keeping some aspects of what I do online separate from other aspects of what I do online. The only people who I'm friends with on Facebook are people I know in real life and a few select internet people, then like..3 "celebrities" because they were like "friend me". I don't need everything I do to get back to Stalkerbook, it's bad enough Google know just about everything, at least it doesn't spam the site telling the internet what I'm doing on the internet.

I just figured this would be something of interest to people here, because most everyone everywhere has a Facebook account. I also feel everyone has the right and responsibility to keep track of what gets shared where, and if nothing else, informing on the situation then sharing my possibly alarmist opinion helps the spread of information.


Jasmine P.

Body Hair

I'm not afraid to say this, no reason to worry either, I like porn. I like men in my porn. I like men who look like fucking men. I really dislike the trend that been going on for a while of men shaving themselves to be hairless twelve-year-olds, even when they're far from twink proportions. Seeing a ripped, chiseled, cut man rip his shirt off and he has barely a landing strip and no happy trail to speak of is saddening, and creepy. I'm not saying I want to see Robin Williams, well Young RW so it's less creepy, in porn, that man is a Sasquatch, but I want to see a comfortable amount of hair.

This question was sort of sparked by an ad I saw an Esquire for some Gilette razors that would have a man 'clean' for the boardroom, the beach and the bedroom, there were censor bars around his jaw, nipples and pubic region. I thought it was stupid. I find hair on a man to be alluring. I dislike the idea that a man should be sculpted or waxed, this goes for women too. I'm fucking proud of my body hair, I don't shave. I have reasons for not removing some hair, but my arms and legs look fine, so I keep them and I wear shorts in summer without stockings. When I see my male friends and they have a mass of hair on their arms I assume they have it on their torsos, and what little I have seen of their torsos I appreciate it not being tamed or cut back. (If any of you are reading this, sorry if I sound really creepy...) But it's up there with beards and facial hair. I am quick to say I love beards, mustaches and many of the combiations of such. I'm not the biggest fan of the just mutton chop look, but show me a pencil thin John Waters 'stache, a Van Dyke, goatee, soul patch (sometimes), handlebar, 5 o'clock shadow, full on beard, trimmed mustache-beard combination, handlebar and I'll raise an eyebrow. I'll also heartily encourage continuation of growth, or keeping it, rarely can I think of encouraging a male friend to shave, unless they have the creeper porno stache, that look should never be revived, it's too skeevy.

I was reading Savage Love and there happened to be a post a few years ago about the trend in hair removal, it seems apropos.

So the long and the short, I like men with hair. "Give me a man with hair. Long beautiful hair! Shining, gleaming, beautiful flaxen waxen!



Jasmine P.

Seven Words...

Beetle Bailey. I don't own it.

 
Shit. Piss. Fuck. Cunt. Cocksucker. Motherfucker. Tits.

Those seven words are George Carlin's original "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" (1972). It was revised a few years later to remove 'motherfucker' but the rhythm was lost so he reinstated it. It flows, say it out loud. Shit. Piss. Fuck. Cunt. Cocksucker. Motherfucker. Tits.

Wow, Sarge's cursing turned into onomatopoeia...fuckin' a...

This is 1972, it took until the 90s for asshole to really be said on television.  Slowly, almost 20 years later these words found their way to television. I'm not dead and I still have some pretty damn good morals if you ask me. Almost 40 years later A television show is getting hell for having grawlix (@!#$& in place of profanity) in it's title, in a situational comedy that I'll assume is geared towards adults. It's already self censoring so why are parent groups getting pissed over something that gets shows in the daily or Sunday comics? Hell, there's a 'no cursing' sign that's popular around Virginia Beach and possibly other public locations that is a the 'no' circle&slash over grawlix to symbolize 'no cursing.' How is that acceptable in public but having a show title with four grawlix symbols be improper for television?

Grawlix Sign

I'm at the moment raging about these frigging parent groups being worried about grawlix on television. Seriously, they're swirls, lightening bolts and exclaimation points. I've used them mostly because they're funny. And I was it was in a class sketchbook, I try to keep those respectable for my professor.

Hey! I drew this! My character Methvin slipping on ice. Classy slapstick, I know.

I used grawlix here because it was funnier than having him shout 'fuck' and I wanted to be respectful for my teacher when he saw it. I knew what he was saying, but any word can be put in that jagged speech bubble. As for the show's title "Shit My Dad Says" inspired by a Twitter feed, that spawned a book. I dunno, it's a show about a grumpy old man. The only people who'd want to watch a show about bitchy old people are  adults who have to deal with their own bitchy old people so I really don't see why parents are in such a huff over a show that I highly doubt too many children would watch. It's like me watching Seinfeld as a kid. I didn't get why the show was funny. As as adult I can appreciate it being clever and I think it's less shitty then I did when Ibetween the ages of 1-10 during the show's entire run. Children don't get adult humour.

I say 'fuck it' to people who don't curse around their kids. I'm all about them sticking to their guns, but when it gets around to policing other people I rally the First Amendment Brigade. I call upon the late and great Lenny Bruce and George Carlin who were practically martyred for being profane in their stand up. They paved the way for slowing the hell that the FCC made television and movies. I mean think about the fact that Alfred Hitchcock was the first person to not just show a fucking toilet in a movie (Psycho (1960)), but to have it flush and it was a plot device. Some show from 1947 called Mary Kay and Johnny was the first to show a couple in bed at the same time, on television.

Two beds, one couple?

All this amounts to and all my anger is that showing reality on television isn't going to kill a child. Like the book fucking says EVERYONE POOPS! Why are bodily functions so squeamish? Part of the only reason animals work so hard at hiding them is to keep from being found by predators or for sanitation reasons. A child hearing profanity isn't going to grow up to join a biker gang or or have a million kids.

Essentially I'm rallying the troops against people who have issues with words. People assign meanings to them. Words don't mean anything, I could get into that who batch of semantics, but my point is that people need to stop worrying about the children. Fuck the children (in a metaphorical way. If you're fucking children, you out to be apart of a human centipede, so fucking lie, bastards). Why is our world being dumbed down for children? The world of a child is different from the world of an adult I get that. Why are we making such a fuss to make the adult world clean enough for children. Instead society, parents, families should be preparing their children for just how harsh and rough life is as an adult. I've said it before somewhere here, but keeping a child in a bubble does them no good.Teach a child, don't shield them from the world and they will be better prepared for what's out there then if you keep them from ever learning about bad things.

Petitioning sponsors to not sponsor a show you disagree with makes you a bully and an asshole. There's more to American than 'Christian' morals. I'm quite saddened that Swingtown got canceled a few years back because some prudes didn't like a show about consensual extra-marital fornication, even if all four partners were there and agreed with everything. I would have loved to see the show come into it's own and see what topics it would have dealt with. Sex is an untapped and very un-understood vehicle for conversation. It's too fucking taboo.I wonder, is it the mechanics of it that people are embarrassed about, or the nudity? Out society dislikes it's genitals too much. Penis. Vagina. They're words, there's nothing wrong with words. People give words power over them and over their minds, which is how we get to this point that people are pissy over a pictorial representation of 'foul' language. Whatever four symbols are used for the show aren't that bad. I mean, walk through a bookstore, there's profanity on all sorts of book stores. Just look at the documentary Fuck, it takes a fair stance between the liberal belief and the conservative belief to look at how that one word gets used in society, it's actually a really heavy documentary.

I think I've lost my point and half ass ended this about three times four paragraphs ago. Long story short, leave the show's title as it is. Grawlix are everywhere, in the Sunday paper, on public property, and more. It's not 'hurting the children'. The world is made for adults, the smaller population between adults and children, but the side with power and control. Let adults watch a show geared toward what their lives are about, aging baby-boomers (and maybe hippies) who are either pissy at home or pissy in a retirement home. It's life, life happens. It doesn't kill the children.

Censorship.

Jasmine P.

Relevant or Interest Links:
Youtube: George Carlin Seven Dirty Words... Not the original performance, but still great. It gets the point. There are a few great copies and variations
The Examiner
National Journal. (.com?)
Federal Communications Commission - Dated 2008
Lawbrain
A Blog About Swearing Around Children
Twitter: Shit My Dad Says
Snopes: Early to Bed
Snopes: First Toilet on TV(Kind of)
Fuck (film)

Concepts of Beauty

My Grandmother keeps trying to get me to change what I like about myself. We're supposed to be going on a cruise this August around the Bahamas. When I spoke to her last week she told me what it was like on the boat, "you're going to forget you're on a boat, it's like being in a mall' or she'd tell me about the Governer's Ball which happens one night on the ship, and that I have to be dressed nicely for dinner. I'm like 'alright' and she continues asking me if I'm going to 'get my hair done' or wear earrings, or telling me I can't wear denims, she's old and doesn't usually say 'jeans' for whatever reason.

I try to listen, but when she asks me an honest question I decide I'm going to answer honestly:
-"Will you get my hair done in a beauty salon": no, I like my hair short and natural
-"well, will you go to a barber? How much does it cost?"; between $10-15, and no, my friend can cut my hair;
-"how do you know they can cut hair? What if you don't like it?": I'll cut it all off then let it grow back. Hair will grow back.
-"You're not going to wear a hat every day, your hair won't grow long if you wear a hat all the time.": I like my hats and I don't want my hair to grow long, Grandma.
-"Fine, you're going to wear earrings right?": No Grandma, they irritate my ears, I don't like 'em. As I kid I didn't like them.
"Well, you have to dress nice, you can't go out to eat wearing denims. When you go out with your friends you have to look nice so you can meet people."

You'd think I'd be dizzy from rolling my eyes so much. I finally get her to stop this ridiculous attempt at changing me by explaining I wear and present myself how I like. I don't like dresses or earrings so I don't wear them. I like my hats so I wear them. I have the commonsense to not go to a nice dinner in baggy messy jeans or cargos, but it's the same commonsense that keeps me from going to a messy art class in a really nice shirt. It's neither the time nor is it the place. No, I won't wear make-up, no I won't conform to society's conventions of beauty because I don't like them.

I am me, let me prove to you my life is fine, that I'm happy, when I'm not depressed - my appearance doesn't affect my depression, so I'm happy in how I look, how I dress and ow I carry myself. I have been told that things I have ae nice, that they look good, stop trying to compare me to my mother. Stop trying to compare me to other people, be happy that I'm happy.

I don't know. I could easily just say yes to everything she says I should do, but I wouldn't be happy. It's better to get this stupid non-important argument out of the way now instead of it being a stupid non-important argument in three months when sh sees me to wearing earrings, not wearing make-up, not wearing nail polish. I'll primp to my own tastes not hers. The thing is, like I said, I like how I dress, I like the clothes I wear, I don't want to 'work' that goes into being 'beautiful' and that shit all costs too much. Concealer, mascara, lipstick, blush, facial wash, zit cream, nail polish, nail polish remover, hair rollers, hair relaxant. If I had one of each of those things I'd've spent $100 easy. Why? To fit into what society considers to be beautiful. I want to buck trends and fuck convention.

It's like I questioned in this image http://dichigo.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1kcwn9 a scribble from a few years ago, I want to go back to it again at some point, but why should I listen to the magazines, the voices outside. To hell with them, if I'm happy how I am, why do I have to listen to people out there who work so hard to change themselves and others to their own conventions and beauty, to what they think society would like. No, that's not me.

When I leave for that cruise I will have some nice shirts, I will have one or two skirts, I will also have sneakers, sandals, denim gouchos, one or two of my hats, either my FreakAngels or Israeli Paratrooper bag, at least one sketchbook, pens, pencils, two or three novels and my DS, plus other odds and ends. I'll have things to look nice in, to look nice with that I like, and I'll have the things I like that are comfortable. It's what I like

Jasmine P.

I Am A Judgemental Scunt

Earlier this week I was having a conversation about inappropriate clothing with some people in my local coffee shop, Borjo, and ultimately realized I am a judgemental scunt when it comes to other people's clothing. In part it's based in my mother's opinion, but it's also about a bit of professionalism. I mean, going to class is baggy messy clothing is one thing, but going to class in pajamas looks like you don't care about how you present yourself, or shorts that are just barely more material than your underoos looks very whorish in my opinion

These are all so fucking unnecessary to wear on a daily basis to classes. It's not really warm, we keep getting cold, wet and rainy days and girls are going to class in these. Going out in shorts that cover so little is unnecessary. There's a time and a place for things like this, and going to class on a daily basis is neither of those. I mean, I've seen more pantyshots than I'd ever care to because people's clothes are stupid small. I mean, why not just go out in your panties, these aren't really covering much. I see girls, sitting in chairs, trying to pull their two inches of 'skirt' or 'shorts' down because their legs are cold or are touching the seat. I mean, really. You don't know who had what on where and you're showing that much leg. It's not like we're at the fucking beach. I think I'd be a little less judgemental if I saw this at the beach. But no, people are going to college classes dressed as if they're tricks.

I think my biggest issue is the lack of professionalism in wearing clothing like this. If I ran a business, I would not take someone seriously if they came into my place of business wearing something like this. Hell, even if it was retail, if someone is coming to me for a job, I want them to dress at least as professional as they need to. Business casual or something similar and not the shortest shorts they can find.

I look at girls around campus wearing this crap and seriously, the first thing I think is that they look like tramps. It leaves so little to the imagination that if I were a guy I wouldn't see the need in talking to someone dressed like this. With someone who dresses like they have some sort of sense there's a challenge. A challenge of getting them out of their clothes, but also the challenge of actually getting to know them. Someone who dresses like this in my eyes, doesn't present themself as someone who really has a lot of self esteem, and therefore has to dress like this beause they want the attention that so little clothing brings.

I'm not saying women should be wearing hemlines to their ankles and to not show any skin ever, but be classy about it. If not classy, dress to be respected, it doesn't always have to be to impress. I have never thought I looked like much more than a bum in what I wear on a day-to-day basis, but hell, I like wearing hat, I bought a new one that looks more 'presentable' so when I talk to professors I don't have a pin that says 'fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck' above my temple. Hell, most days I think I look like a bum, baggy pants, a tee from threadless and a cap. I've overweight and usually cold so I grab a sweatshirt or something in general to cover my arms. When I need to look a bit better, I do. That second photo if from my summer conference, we didn't have to be super dressed up, but I did want to dress nicer than my day-to-day of tee-shirts and apparent gender ambiguity. I'm a function over fashion individual, so yes, I wanted to look a bit nice, but I dislike skirts for the simple reason if I need to haul ass, a skirt is a whore and a half to run in, and if I can help it, you know, it's nice to not give people a chunky-panty-shot as I'm running from a fire or some shit.

All in all, I'm judgemental, and I think most girls on my college campus look like whores on a daily basis. There's a time and a place for short-shorts, but class every day is not one of those places and seriously not one of those times.

Jasmine P.

Male Lactation

http://www.thelocal.se/21842.html

I don't understand what the big issue is. This guy wants to stimulate his nipples and breast to see if he can lactate. It is physically possible for men to lactate, and he wants to see if he can build a better, or different relationship with possible future children because women bond better with children due to this early bonding stage. I don't understand the rampant hate that some people have. All in all, it's a scientific experiment, or an experiment, I don't know how 'scientific' is truly is. He wants to try something, and it's not like men can't lactate. I don't understand why people are so aggro about. How it's 'wrong' and shit. If it were truly wrong, men wouldn't have nipples, nor the ability to lactate. If it was 'God's Will' for men not to lactate they'd be flat like a Ken doll. I believe evolution had a reason for this, possibly some time ago men did help feed the children, but then it dropped off, like many things have. Who knows what results this experiment will yield.

Jasmine P.

Rants of an Internet Nobody

Sometimes, I'm sad that I'm an 'Internet Nobody' but usually that means that my opinions don't get lambasted for much of the 'net to see. I have an opinion, put it out here, and it usually gets ignored. Sometimes I want a response, but when someone decides to hate on my because I don't fall on my knees to worship something else, that would almost make me question if I have a right ot an opinion. I have an opinion, if you don't like it, so what?

This is about a response to a post by David Faraci on CHUD.com. His opinion of the movie was that it wasn't as special as James Cameron is making it out to be. Someone from the crew of the film decided that Faraci was not allowed to say that the film wasn't revolutionary. The story doesn't sound all that interesting to me, I'm not out to see this movie. Some paraplegic military-man gets some magical alien legs and is The One who will save the alien world. Big whoop.

I see where the crew member is coming from, to a point when starts defending Cameron's work. The one Cameron film I saw was Titanic. I thought the movie sucked. Hell, I probably would have liked it more without the romance, but then it's a ship full of [mostly] white people going down. I never gave a rat's ass about Titanic before, so that's not something that's really going to change for me. And so what, one guy, on one site didn't like the preview. Why is he not entitled to not like something?

In my decision to have some sort of response, I have decided to question what this man, let's assume, wrote. It's after 3 o'clock in the fucking morning, and his e-mail was poorly written. I'm not saying this criticism is perfect by any means, but why not entertain myself for a bit?

----

Everyone is entitled to views, yes even you Devin. which as colleagues point out you share endlessly on "Attack the show" or whatever the title may be. and all this was before a friend shared with me your views on Avatar...

That should be a comma and not a period between 'Devin' and 'which'. If you're oging to criticize him, be respectful enough to get his show title right. I didn't seen Faraci's name on 'Attack of the Show' so I don't know what this person is talking about. Ooh! Does having a differing 'view' from yours means he lost his right to having one?!? Where oh where did you get that magnanimous power to revoke someone's ability to have an opinion? Use the fucking 'shift' key. I assume you're an intelligent enough adult to know where it's place. It gets used sporadically. Jumping down a bit.

James Cameron has a vision, James Cameron has a cause, and that cause is to make the viewing experience of watching a film, better for the movie going people, not to mention the home market. James Cameron doesn't compromise. so when i read shitty statements like "The story that I could gather looked very bleh" it really f**ks me off.

I've already spoken about how this guy doesn't know how to use the shift key Something I learned in English or in Journalism in high school, after using someone's proper name the first time, you don't need to use their entire name. I see the point, but it almost seems akin to talking about yourself in the third person. Learn how to use the comma, it will only then be your friend. And should be use at the end of that list of how Cameron's film will change things 'forever.' I'm also curious as to how words on a screen and fuck you off. I mean, what doesn't that entail? Is it anything like fellatio? Something like masturbation? Or does it feel like someone is shoving those words up your rectum, or up your urethra?

this is Avatar, NOT dances with wolves in space. and further more it will be a CLASSIC. and what movies are ever classic just for CGI ? so are you aware that this movie IS going to change the face of cinema ? its already started. and when the change hits home for you, lets have less bitching and whining, and have more for the people striving to make you movie going experience a better one! after all isn't that where your bread and butter is made ? unless of course you still want to be watching movies in 20 years time the way you are now ?

I guess I'll stop hounding on this guys inability to use the shift key. How do you know this will be a classic, and since when were classics in ALL CAPS? Why does that next sentence start with 'and?' The word is in capital letters seems like that is more of a statement than a question, and like he's yelling. Is he yelling? I guess he's been yelling for most of his letter anyway, so why not yell a little louder? 'people striving to make you movie' I guess I can't turn a blind eye to that typographical error. Comma after 'after all' Why are there spaces before almost all of his question marks? Excessive comma use use earlier, and not enough commas in that last bit.

Avatar IS photo real.

How? It's a CGI environment. The flora will be based off of what's found on Earth. A different planet means evolution happened differently, so the plants won't be the same as those found on Earth, so how is a 'photo real?'

"your walk of shame speaks volumes for the real you" while there may well be people who hate Avatar when they see it, i promise you they will be the minority, anyone who knows anything about movies in a professional light is going to be as swept up as the person next door, who goes once a year, and owns scary movie on DVD.

Woo! Run on sentences for the win! Two separate thoughts and that comma doesn't work. A semi-colon or better yet, a period should be between 'the minority' and 'anyone who.' Does the person next door know anything about movies? How does any of this correlate to someone owning a horror, excuse me, 'scary' movie? Or does he mean Scary Movie, use of that silly little shift key would have that all clear and easy to understand.

and as for the rest of you, real movie fans with no hidden agenda. have faith in us and show up. we will not let you down. we promise.

There are so many paragraphs in between those last two quotes that I didn't feel like tearing to pieces, so fuck them. I question, since when did movie fans have an agenda? My film going agenda is pretty much to be entertained, maybe to think about something if the movie is a thinker piece. Here we have another instance of comma-period transference. Well, I don't have that many expectations about this film so if I ever do see it, I might not be let down. I mean, how much further could it go? I've gone into movies with low expectations and have been surprised. I've also gone into movies with high expectations only to see them go crash and burn.

you will see things never seen before, in ways never considered before, made for you by one of the last great gunslingers of our times. oh and there wont be a talking ape in sight :-) sorry Devin. we like our talking guys and girls tall and strong.

If something hasn't been seen, how could it be considered? I mean, God has been 'considered' in many ways, does that count as being 'seen?' 'There wont be a talking ape?' Webster's defines 'wont' as 'accustomed' 'there accustomed be a talking ape'? Ohh! He means 'won't' as in 'will not' Silly lack of apostrophe. I don't even know what to make of that last sentence.

what is the in word for the online community ? EPIC FAIL ? NOT US :-)

What? This e-mail was an 'epic fail' in an of itself.

----

Wow, that hour just flew by. I could have said more, but I think I did enough. That, and I would like to go to sleep now. This was almost as much fun as group editing English papers in class! And by fun, I really hope person had no hand in writing Avatar because this was so abysmally written. I could have written a better angry e-mail in 10th grade.

Jasmine P.

Mr. Smith

Kevin Smith,
It is apparently imperative that I write a letter you will most likely never see. If I in fact leave my waning sanity and send it to you, this line would be kept in because that's how I roll.
To being, let's put something in perspective, you graduated high school the year I was born.
Now that that's out of the way, to the meat and potatoes of this little little bit of verbose lovefest. I seriously loved Clerks. The second time I tried to watch it. Funny thin is it's been about two months since the first time I tried to watch it, but something wasn't right with me. I loved the cartoon and had to see where it all stemmed from, and finally after readng Silent Bob Speaks and after watching Robert Rodriguez's first couple of movies I had a better appreciation for 1) modern black and white film and 2) something as box destroying as Clerks.
I have spent the past month of January loving El Mariachi, Desperados, From Dusk Till dawn, Four Rooms and The Faculty and I read his book Rebel Without A Crew which put a whole new perspective in my mind about smaller budgeted films that legally there was no way I was seeing when they came out.
What I have decided I have to say to you is that I have spent my entire evening watching Clerks, about 4 times, and most of the special features from the Tenth anniversary collection that I rented from an independent movie rental place near my college campus. I loved the writing. I loved seeing words that most people don't see much too much further than outside of an English class room or in a dictionary when they're looking for dirty words. The rifts between the characters were hella realistic. That's not near how I talk with my friends, but we can and have gotten into conversations, deep conversations on such a variety of topics that how serious they were when they were talking about the most trite of subjects was one of the things that made it special.
Every group of friends has their topic[s]. It was an interesting peek inside your world, well, the world you lived in when you were about my age [you old fuck :)]and it is always nice to see that the youth of the world do have the love of a good conversation or debate, no matter what age they are. Here, it's that awkward stage between being an adult and being a child. I mean, in my eyes right now, I don't usually think of myself as an adult, and I don't can, truly call myself a child.
What this movie has done was inspire me to take my writing mroe seriously. I don't really want to write for a movie, but like many non-famous people I am interested in meeting some celebs. I'm much more interested in getting my own comic drawn and published, or to become a world reknown botanist. Those are things that make me happy. Comics and plants. What was the point of that, note sure, these things are mostly rants to tell the truth.
I loved Clerks and when I have the chance I'm renting the rest of the flicks from the Askewniverse. It seems to be an interesting place to visit every now and again. I know the rest won't be like Clerks, but I'm sure I'll fall in love with each of them for different reasons.
And another point, I loved Zack and Miri Make a Porno. That was the most interesting romantic comedy I've ever seen. The characters did seem to be the most real and they didn't follow the stereotypic relationship arc as in most romantic comedys. And the set up that they've known eachother for just about the entireity of their lives and they live together is a great set up for why they never slept together themselves. I loved what you did with the characters, everybody. Everything fit into the rules of the world. Every movie world has it's own set of rules, and the rules for Z&M were engaging and awesome.

Jasmine P.

Talent

I'm rubbing my back here for this, but my writing has time after time amazing and surprised me with just how well written things may be, or just how I say things.

The first time I noticed this was when I was proving some point for another and referenced my Flintstone Syndrome journal that I wrote last June or July. I was seriously stopped in my tracks when I read it. The writing surprised me because it was written at a level different from where I was. I mean, I know I'm a good writer, but I never re-read my work aside from a quick skim for major typos or grammatical brouhaha, but I never notice anything like this. I actually had to finish the journal just because I liked what I'd written so much.

I've been thinking about this for about a week off and on, and today I had another of those moments. It was one of those memes that's like '15 things about you' and i said "Death is the ultimate spoiler. Tell me how I'll die and I'll tell you how I'll live"

That just seemed like a poignant message. It was something written in the blink of an eye before, but now, it seems to have that much more weight to it. I don't know how, but I think it's an interesting display of my strength that I don't always feel. Seeing it so blatantly in front of my eyes, it's no wonder that I scare people. Now I seriously need to find someone who can compete with that strength. Match it as a perfect foil, keep it in check.

I dunno. I'm a mite distracted, and I got most of my point here. But this brings up another point of my journals. Some of them are incredibly unfullfilling because I end them when I lose focus. It's like running into a brick wall. But I also know that when I can't focus on them properly, the over all tone changes and then they become both a drag to read and a drag to write.

Anywho, I'll be back here...some other time. I finally have things to write, like about yesterday's tournament, but not now. I should start my paper before the night is over.

Jasmine P.

Two Girls and a Guy response

I picked up this movie Two Girls and a Guy for two reasons. First, it stars the ever sexy Robert Downey Jr. Second, it was controversial and was originally given an NC-17 rating because of an extended rim job. But The movie on a whole is an intense look at love, life, and honesty. It talks about the power of words and just how much people truth those they love or think they love. It shows how intense emotions can be. It's an amazing look at like in general, but especially at relationships.

These people were honest in their feelings, even as they lied to each other. There is a lot of emotion and a lot of things felt as they spend this day and night fighting.

What's amazing in the movie is the use of silences and expressions. Few movies focus on the range of human expressiveness, but few actors are strong enough to be able to pull off working in silence. The monologues are great and the character's delivery makes it seem like these aren't lines, but it's how they really felt. Each actor really threw themselves into their part and gave it their all. It's a powerful movie. So much strength even when the characters break down and their lives fall apart, over all they are all still amazingly strong and in control. It's fucking awesome. This movie draws you in, you have to see where it takes you and it's one amazing, entertaining and soul searching ride. It makes you wonder how much you believe your own lies.

Jasmine P.

Movie Review: Tropic Thunder

I don't usually write review, but responses to movies, but there isn't anything to respond to, so a review instead =D I also think I need to analyze something before I go crazy, and this is the most recent thing I have to analyze.

TT was not a great movie, it was okay, it is worth seeing again. The fake trailers were ehh, Satan's Alley made me laugh the hardest. The the theater the audience laughed the most at the trailers and the Booty Sweat commercial and not as loudly at the rest of the movie. Or I stopped paying attention to them seeing as how I was wrapped up in the movie. Overall it was poorly written and disjointed, my opinion saved by RDJ's excellent acting, and secondary character Jay Baruchel as Kevin Sandusky. Stiller was weak, Black was in a very Black type of casting, and everyone else filled their parts fine, the pyro/FX technician, Sargent dude, etc. Cruise's character was odd.

Hmm, the movie was disjointed in the fact that there was the set up, then the middle seems to be kind of random, then the conclusion makes sense, well the 'movie's conclusion' before they go to the fake Academy Awards. Also, the characters had very rapid personality growths. Only character Baruchel and Brandon T. Jackson's character 'Alpa Chino' also seemed to have somewhat logical growth, having not changed until whenever the award ceremony was.

I think the conclusion to the movie that would have been more satisfying for me would be something related to how the Downey, Black and Stiller's characters had changed after their ordeal instead of having Cruise dance around for another 5 minutes. I would have liked to see how each actor changed, even if it was some simple little 'post ceremony red carpet' type of thing.

Downey in those blue contacts was one of the scariest things I have ever seen. Well less scary and more disturbing because it didn't work. I loved his use of accents in the movie. No issue with the blackface, because the movie did it's job of straight up making fun of self-absorbed celebrities.

Jasmine P.

The Notion of 'Bad' Movies

I don't think that there are any really 'bad' movies. First and foremost a movie is meant to entertain and most do. Even boring movies have their merit, they an be excellent for getting people to go to sleep. I'm tired of seeing people harshly criticize every last detail in movies thinking that every movie needs to be the next Citizen Kane [which I've heard is boring as all hell, even if it's one of the greatest movies of all time].

I just saw Shoot 'Em Up and the perfect comment's title is 'gun porn' because that's all the movie was. It glorified guns and violence in a very cartoony fashion. It was Kill Bill: 1 with guns, seriously. People gave the movie harsh criticism because there was naught much other than shooting going on in the move. But look at the fucking title. It says what's going to happen right there, fucking shooting! I resented the fact that the author of the excellently titled critique said his friend's review was to be 'expected' because the friend was female. I quite enjoyed the movie, but wasn't looking for anything other than a violence fest.

But to where I started, I've spent my summer watching a lot of movies and I've found something to like in each of them. I've either liked and actor, their performance, the story, the cleverness of the script or other. I don't understand why people can be so closed minded about movies. Before this summer I wouldn't have called myself a movie fanatic, but after watching 50+ movies over the summer [hell, I've got one on atm for BG noise] But what I'm saying is, there's something good in every movie something to like so why are people so harsh. You can tell when you look at the movie when walking up to see it the type of movie it's going to be. If you're not going to like it, why see it?

Not every movie out there is supposed to have a message. Not every movie is supposed to have a life lesson. Movies still have the merit to be pure entertainment and that's what Shoot 'Em Up was meant to be. Why can't people go to a movie and just enjoy the wild ride they're sent on, I mean really. Even movies that are poorly made have the merit of being camp and kitch. They're fun because of how bad they are. I like most every movie I've seen and never really call things bad. But I'm also artistic, so I guess I feel bad in calling someone's artistic attempt to be inherently 'bad'.

Hmm, well, my point is not every movie is supposed to hit the same point. Some are pure entertainment and love stories to some random item. It's like a romance story, no real sustenance, and you can usually predict what's going to happen, who's going to get together, but they're still entertaining...sometimes, in what happens to force the couple apart. Some movies have a moral to the story, and others have subtle messages. People need to learn to rate movies on their own personal merits and not just the genre's they fit in. I guess that's what the cult following is for, but people who understand what was being accomplished. I can't expect the many to accept the amazing of the few.

I've kind of lost my point, but that's not new in these.

Jasmine P.

Fucked Up Future Babies

I think that if television and movies and other forms of entertainment continue to follow the trends that the Baby-Boomers are leading us towards that our entertainment will start to retard and become infantile.

What I mean is that with the biggest movie and television companies they're omitting things that people do because they consider it to be marketing of negative habits or traits that children will hone in on and replicate. They're slowing getting rid of smoking in tv shows and in movies, so people don't smoke, but when you walk down the street, through and amusement park, a regular park, people are smoking. It's what they do. My mom smoked, that never really made me want to try smoking, and it's my lungs and decision. I understood it wasn't something one did until 18, and it fucks you up so why do it? The addiction. Okay, whatever, that's your M.O.

They're getting rid of things that people just do because they're pessimistic thinkers in how impressionable children are. If they're taught properly to do or not to do something they will or won't do it. If they watch things geared toward their age group, they're also less likely to bear witness to something 'harmful'.

I also think it's quite idiotic that that Disney is going to retroactively ruin so many of their movies be omitting cigarettes and smoking. That's an integral habit to that character, or the stereotype the character represents. The father, Darling I think his name was, from 101 Dalmatians smoked like a chimney the night the puppies were born, so they're removing his cigarettes. Cruella just plain smoked like a chimney and if I remember right the other characters reacted to her throwing ashes all around from her cigarettes and what not. I know they own the right and the property, but there is still artistic integrity to not change something so long after the fact. When the cartoon was made, it's what people did. People smoked. They gave away cigars when their babies were born. Or re-rating it by the MPAA. Why?

With the trend in making the world 'child safe' I don't see things boding well for mainstream entertainment. I think once they've gotten that nasty little smoking habit kicked from TV, and movies, they'll go after drinking if they're still in power. I think that with the degradation that seems to be going on will last for another 5-15 years until whatever our generation is. Y or whatever bull shit they decided to name us. I think that when those of us who were born to the liberal stoner parents or that generation, the 70s and 80s babies. We're in our 20s and 30s now and we look at the changes going on in TV and think it's a waste. There are signs of a culture. I'd rather not see the only smoking in movies in stoner flicks, they're not all bad, but what about a post coital fag every now and again. It's what people do!

I hope that when the babies of 80s/90s babies are born that the 70s/80s adults will be in control of the movie companies and such so that television will show realer people being real. People smoke, they drink, they fuck. I swear, they're going to also remove instances of pre-maraital sex from movies and such probable in an attempt to get kids to not have sex randomly. It happens, it's always happened and it will continue to happen. Where things are going, people want to protect their children from the world. You have to let them experience things, let them experience life and learn what really happens in life. I'd rather have a kid that knew too much than one that knew too little. Too little knowledge of the real world and there will be severe culture shock.

If I become a parent, my children will learn just how bloody history was. They will have the opportunity to see violent, perverse movies and television, I will find someway to get a DVD player once we move onto something more futuristic. I will explain just why on TV people sit in all white rooms and talk about the weather and not about the news. My kids will have the opportunity to experience the same things I have. I'll hold onto my books so my kids have the chance to read some hard hitting literature, some idiotic literature, some violent literature, intelligent everything I own. We're moving closer to a Fahrenheit 451 dystopic future that needs to be stopped.

When I say 'book' I mean paper. Fuck digital books. Maybe I'm just a bibliophile, or a romantic, but it's not the same to read digital print. There's something about the scent of ink on paper. There's something about actually seeing a different font in a book something that's sans serfs [aparently serfs are important for letter recognition] Hell, it's cozier to hold a book than a cold piece of hardware with a million books downloaded. It's nice to sit in a library and to have hundreds of books up on the walls.

All in all, this was written over the course of an hour , in between surfing the net. It's quite unusual I was able to maintain focus every time I came back, but it's equally unusual that I didn't just bust this out all in one go. But my point is if things keep going at the rate they're going and where they're going, the children of the future will end up being bigger pansies than we were as children, and don't fucking deny that you weren't a pansy. Look at the shit that kids had during the middle ages, or hell, even the early 20th century. So grim and gruesome, but they were fine. There was smoking and drinking everywhere and they were fine, so why not now and into the future. People say they do things for the children to protect them, but it's more for their twisted, idiotic lives. They don't want their kids to fear the things they feared so they don't want them to experience it, but that only makes things worse, delaying the inevitable. Let them grow up with it and they'll be fine. They'll be better adjusted to life outside America if they know of the violence and the harsh reality of reality.

Jasmine P.

What Do You Believe In?

I've seen Dark Knight twice, which is adequate to give it a proper review and I have a lot of opinions about the movie and Gotham U. to think on and respond to.

Part the First: Joker.

When I say 'Joker' I don't just mean Heath Ledger, but also Jack Nicholson, The Joker from the books, every series and entity of Batman ever and will be.

Quite understandably and considered by many people, but I agree with the opinion that the Joker is the greatest Batman villain of all times. Batman has such contempt for the Joker, and the joker goes to such great lengths that no one understands that makes him the greatest villain in my opinion. As described my Christopher Nolan, The Joker has no creation story. He's just a Freak that shows up in Gotham one day and runs amok. I think that part of the reason that The Joker is the greatest villain is the fact that he doesn't make sense. He has no motive that Batman can figure out or find. The others in his rogue's gallery have a reason for their vendetta against Gotham. Joker's motivation seems to be that Batman exists at all. I think that's an important aspect of the character that writers need to keep in mind when writing for him. When writing him in general. The best Jokers are the ones who don't have a plan. The one's who confuse Batman to no end. The ones who make you want him to win instead of Batman.

Part the second: Batman's Rogue's Gallery

I think that Batman has always had one of the classiest of Rogue's Galleries out there. This has to do with what Gotham is and when Gotham takes place. Not the stories, but Gotham itself. No matter when, integral parts of Batman cannot leave the 40s when Kane and everyone else created the characters. Gotham is a character in the story and in the Universe. It's a character that encompasses everything else. But as for the villains, some of the villains that give Batman the greatest challenge are the classiest dressed. Not quite the best, but the classiest. The Joker, The Penguin, Two-Face, Solomon Grundy, and The Riddler to name a few. If the Batman U wasn't next to time the way it is people wouldn't accept the villains staying so dressed up. Many of the other big comic book series out there have everyone in spandex or native clothing to their homeland, or something out there. Batman has some of the most down to earth dressed characters, with some of the most whacked out personalities.

In my opinion, his Gallery is one of the most impressive because they're all brilliant. They can't be stupid in what they do. They know their risks, they throw caution to the wind. The know their chance of survival, partially due to Batman's no killing stance. They know he'll never kill them, but they also know he'll beat them to a bloody pulp. They're also brilliant in how they monopolize the lives of so many and in how they systematically harm them. Some of the greatest were listed above, but some of my favorites are Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn and Catwoman. Catwoman is the greatest female villain because she is so wrapped up in Batman and he in her that they can't resit one another, costumed or not.

I think my favorite aspect of the Batman U is that everyone is a human. They're marred humans, but humans none the less. They don't have super powers, they have abnormalities created by science and the real world that make it ever more acceptable.

Par the Third: Short Comings

Yes, I do love and adore the newest Batman, but there is something missing. There's a feeling, a tast of something missing from the movie. There are also a few too many threads in the movie. They could have introduced Dent without Lau. I think Dent in court as the DA for the mob would have been fine without adding in Lau. He was a bit of an unnecessary complication in my opinion.

There were also a few strings in the over all story that could have been cleared up a bit better.
They could have displayed Gordon's family interaction a bit more than just after his return home and saving them. Lau's presence.

Things would have been just as entertaining and simple if there was just Batman, Joker, Harvey, the mob and the socital stance on Batman which is always important to the series. But I still love the movie. It can't be compared to Iron Man because though both movies were about superheroes, they were on two different aspects of heroism, their motivation is entirely different, their execution of being a hero and the over all feeling of both films were different. Iron Man overall was a lot more light hearted than Batman was. That's just how both movies are. I love them both for different reasons.

Last thing: Joker in drag, favorite part ever! Well, the Joker in general. Fave villain after Catwoman. Well, not quite after, but next to. They're awesome for their own reasons and the two of them are upfront in my mind, but everything the Joker was in the movie was amazing. The greatest tragedy of Ledger playing the Joker is that the Joker is such a force in the Gotham underworld that it can't be right without him and whoever puts on the white face paint next won't be right. IT won't work out as well in this entity of Batman. The joker damn near shouldn't be used again until the next endeavor because of what he is to Gotham. Such a power that can't be controlled and can't be the same.

Jasmine P.