Blog on Blog

So it's a Wednesday, and of course I have no idea what to blog about yet again. There's literally millions of things I could choose from, and probably a million things that would be easy or entertaining, but of course I can't seem to think of one. Now, as I'm sitting here picking at my nail polish and IMing via Aim, it's not really helping much. I've looked at my friends' blogs, and basically the topics do not interest me. So I, might I say, have a stroke of genius, and decide to browse through all the blogs here on Blogger. What I came to realize, really made me think, a lot. It definitely changed my view on how these things work.

I'm going through them, expecting to find maybe recipes or photo galleries...nothing. All I'm coming up with is blogs about families. Like each family, instead of eating together at dinner, are blogging. I'm not kidding. It's like how every family stays in touch with relatives, or makes it seem like they have people who care and are probably putting there blog-link up on their 5 friend Facebook account.

Each blog literally had a family picture or a picture of some random baby (which hopefully belongs to the family) right front and center. The picture was always huge. I know know a lot of things about people I really would have never known otherwise.

Things Such As:
Jude, son of Mona and Jono, decided to wean himself from breastfeeding.
The fact that you have triplets gives you unwarranted permission to take thousands of photographs.
And that Cade is in a time out for biting. (Unfortunately though, the parents seem to think he enjoys it)

Are we really that prone to putting up everything we are on the internet? These kids, the younger ones atleast probably have no idea they're on here, and by the time they grow up probably won't even know what a "blog" is.
Does anybody watch any horror crime investigation shows anymore?! We're the ones feeding into it.

..Hope my mom doesn't have a blog.

Muscle-Toning Shoes

Coming off an injury that basically destroyed my calf-muscle (yeah, tearing it plus a fractured tibia can do that), I've been on physical therapy since mid-soccer season. This started right after the injury occured, and was mostly massages and stretching with no actual work involved. This of course led to my muscle becoming a wet noodle, and me freaking out over the fact that I couldn't run or play sports the rest of junior year. Now I'm doing more work with it in physical therapy, but I still don't think I can get it back to how it was after hell week of soccer in August.

Now, there are all these advertisements, of shoes that will tone and do all this cool stuff for your body, by just walking in them. Not running, just walking. To me, this sounds rediculous, because there are always shoes that are said to be great fro running and working out, and then aren't. (Ahem Nike Shox) (Yes I own a pair but leave me alone they match my gym clothes) These new shoes, such as EasyTone from Adidas, Shape-Ups from Sketchers, and "Fit Flops" from who knows where, are being introduced the consumers and well, Consumers are buying them.

Officials from Reebok, a unit of Adidas, say the EasyTone is the company’s most successful new product in at least five years.Shape-Ups from Skechers USA are designed to improve posture and muscle tone and promote weight loss. The FitFlop brand has been engineered to increase leg, calf and gluteal muscle activity, giving the wearer “a workout while you walk.”

These shoes have all different sorts of developments such as "balance pods" and curved soles that "make" posture better, and tone all sorts of leg muscles. But the biggest attraction of these shoes is of course, the fact that they'll shape your butt.

When in fact, a lot of this research has been put out there, only to be proven by a small number of people. Most of it is psychological, because when people think they're getting a better work out when they walk, they'll walk more, therefore they'll be more in shape.

I just think it's funny, America ever being in shape.

Mary Arnott rocks

Nothing ever exciting happens here at Calhoun, you know, except for the really classy girls who set fires in bathrooms that are MADE OUT OF TILE. It's a pretty boring town, no big disasters, no real famous celebrities that come visit (sorry Lindsay, you don't count, ever).

Now St. Peter's Girls High School in Staten Island, is definately where the party's at. Just recently, a woman named Mary Arnott, graduated and finally recieved her diploma. Now, I know I may not have mentioned this, but Mary Arnott...is 100 years old. Arnott was forced to drop out and care for her siblings after her mother died, and the former New Yorker never got the chance to graduate, until now.

Arnott went to night school and later worked for 12 years as a secretary in Manhatten. She left the city for Toronto after getting married in 1940. She survived scarlet fever, lost her husband and 30-year-old son within a few months and traveled the world - Arnott always regretted not earning a diploma.

Then her granddaughter Allison contacted St. Peter's.

"Her life story more than made up for the months she didn't spend in school,"

said Mary Haugen, the school's assistant principal and president of the alumni association.

Haugen sent the diploma with a picture of what would have been Arnott's graduating class circa-1925. The surprise gift was the highlight of Arnott's birthday party a few months ago. The diploma hangs proudly above her bed atop certificates from universities attended by members of her family.

Arnott remains healthy and active, swimming twice a week and enjoying the occasional glass of wine.

So basically, Mary Arnott, rocks.

American Music Awards

Last night, airing on ABC were the American Music Awards. I don't usually watch these things, but last nights performers were all musicians I liked, and wanted to see live, some of them for the first time.

A line up of 17, yes, 17 performers including acts ranging from; R&B acts like Whitney Houston,Pop acts Jay-Z (no I do not count him as a rap act when Alicia Keys is in the song) and Rihanna, (Alternative) Rock acts such as Green Day and Daughtry, even country acts like Keith Urban and Carrie Underwood wowed the crowd with what seemed like a never-ending list of performances. (see full list of performers here)

Some memorable acts were the "returns" of both Rihanna and Jennifer Lopez, who in my opinion was one of the best performances of the night, debuting her new song "Louboutins".

(Even though she literally fell down, she managed to keep her cool and continue on with her "comeback performance".)

Rihanna on the other hand played a collaboration of songs off her new album called "Rated R". This was her first performance after the Chris Brown incident, and she came back strong with a powerful pairing of new songs.
(Plus her super cool jacket that reflected the strobe and laser lights, was actually the sickest thing i've ever seen.)

The only part of the show that really bothered me, out of all the performers and nominees, was the fact that Taylor Swift won Artist of the Year over Michael Jackson, it's true that he wouldn have won it because he died, but his death did have an enormous impact on the musical world. Swift was intelligent enough to mention the Jackson's in her acceptance speech (via video-feed from London), which consoled me a little bit.

After that, Adam Lambert, who some say went too far, closed the show in his break-out performance also, which was of his new single "For Your Entertainment". I say it was brilliance and confidence, and that's awesome to have at the beginning of his sure to be fantastic career, following the footsteps of the sucessful post-American Idol artists.

Sarah Palin

Everybody knows who Sarah Palin is, running mate of John McCain in the most recent Presidential election. Obviously McCain lost the election to Barack Obama in somewhat of a landslide victory of sorts. Sarah Palin, McCain's intelligent attempt at winning back over Hillary Clinton's women supporters, ran for Vice President.

Palin hasn't been the most, educated nor professional political persona, stating pretty...dumb things during her campaign, that voters and people all over the world took note of. Aside from saying things, she's also been involved now in all sorts of drama involving her teenage-daughter-mother-lady Bristol Palin and ex-boyfriend / ex-fiancee Levi Johnston drama. The feud between the two obviously getting major negative press attention, causing Palin representatives so say things such as,

"It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well-being of the child"

and

"We're disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration and even distortion of their relationship".

These types of statements causing the Johnston family to fight back, and for it to lower Palin's actual credibility even more.

With all this going on and being a subject of the media, one would think Sarah Palin would lay off a bit, maybe relax.
Not a chance.

As seen here, Palin posed for a cover of Newsweek, with "thoughts" of it only being displayed in Runner's World magazine. Nothing ever goes that smoothly Mrs. Palin. Especially not with you. The former governer (she stepped down, by the way) of Alaska seems to just keep herself out there, no matter if it's negative or positive, and if it's political, or not.

Extra Credit Blog - Civil Liberties

This spring, civil liberties groups and internet companies became extremely concerned when a US Senate Bill proposed that the White House would be able to disconnect and somewhat control private computers from the internet. Even with this bill already starting drama, Senator Jay Rockafeller of West Virginia and his aides have been revising the bill behind closed doors since this whole thing began.

The new version being drafted would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to computer networks not involving the government and do what's necessary to respond and react to the threat. Other sections of this new proposal include a government certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that some private computer systems and networks in be managed by people who have that liscense.

Does this new possible bill interfere with our rights? Does the government, no, should the government have the ability to control the internet? A place where words fly and opinions are expressed through every type of media possibly known to man. When the bill was introduced in april, supporters of passing it claimed it was to "protect national cybersecurity".

Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising
this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue,"

he says.

Why should buisnesses be private in the first place, if the government can all of a sudden propose and revise a bill giving them power to basically de-privatize the system. This bill impedes on our civil liberties, and impedes on the rights of the people.

Thanksgiving >< Christmas

So now that Halloween has passed, the next holiday coming up is Thanksgiving correct? Correct. Now why is it that all the stores completely surpass this holiday? We go from seeing jack-o-lanterns and pumpkins used to decorate every store, to all of a sudden Christmas trees, snow-men and holiday lights? It's ridiculous that Thanksgiving is completely skipped, and all this Christmas stuff is coming out way too early for my liking.

I understand the preparations for Black Friday, arguably the most intense shopping day of the year, being taken by Wal-Mart, to be taken relatively early. Considering it's when a majority of sales-driven customers do their "power Christmas shopping", but I don't understand the fact that stores are lining the aisles with Christmas decorations! It's only November!

I think what really annoys me most is when Christmas songs are being played on the radio. The other day I was literally on my way home around 3pm, and Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas" began pounding through my mom's speakers. This made her start ranting but then again she's a mother so she does that anyway. Thanksgiving is completely overshadowed by early Christmas celebration and decoration, and to me is being turned into more of an obligation than a holiday.

School fundraisers and food drives are what Thanksgiving is now representing, there are rarely any turkey decorations in stores, any autumn themed town cheer, it's just everybody getting ready for a holiday that's over 40 days away. Thanksgiving isn't supposed to be about the obligation, it's supposed to be about spending time with one's family and being grateful for the things you have. Not getting extra points for bringing in a can, or better yet having 5 year old Justin Bieber come to your school to squeal, I mean, sing, for you.

We're losing the meaning of Thanksgiving, and it's all because of Early Christmas.

Gustavo Zamora

This week I came across an article that absolutely blew my mind. That was an exaggeration, so yeah just kidding but it came up on AOL with the headline reading: Snatched 55 Kids Around the World. I clicked it thinking he would be in jail, or suffering these horrible consquences, because the words make it seem like a kidnapper or a child abducter. What I read was the complete opposite.

A man named Gustavo Zamora, Gus, for short, has gone around the world "re-claiming" children from custody battle "losers". What this means is, if a couple gets divorced with children involved, therefore leading to a custody battle, the losing parent sometimes (I know, shocking) will take the child and flee the country, with no destination and no information on where they're going. Gus, and his associates, conveniently named Zamora & Associates make it their duty to find the child and bring him/her/them back home to the rightfully custodied parent.

You might be thinking, how is this possibly legal, but keep in mind the custody-losing parent in all reality as harsh as it may sound, is a kidnapper, even though it is their child. Zamora makes sure that he reviews the cases to make sure his clients are within their rights.

As a last resort, Zamora said, he will grab the child and run. "That's when you've run out of other options," he said. Zamora will go through all means necessary, facing opposing governments, using threats if necessary, for when things don't go peacefully, which is his preference.

Gustavo Zamora is not just some hard-ass former army ranger who re-steals children for a living, he recognizes in a quote from his website that,"I wish the system worked, but the fact that it doesn't works means I'll be working" he recognizes that these children are in horrible situations either way, but the government and the "winning" parent, need to be shown justice.

Halloween

Halloween.
October 31st.

Why do people feel the need to ruin this holiday? The one day of the year you can dress up, be as creative as you want, and get free candy for it. So tell me, why do people not understand this simple concept?

Halloween is not a time to be a slut. It's not a time to be a Sexy Firefighter or this years most realistic "Sexy Category" costume, the construction worker. Let's face reality people, when you're working....you don't dress like that, and if you do, maybe a re-evaluation of job choice is necessary. The prices on said costumes are also rediculous, making it basically reversed prostitution, because instead of selling your body for money, you're spending money, to give people your body.
*Keep in mind that obviously when you get the costume, as in the descriptive pictures, you apparently get a busting chest and can wear it without inducing vomit.
*Oh wait, no, that doesnt happen.

Halloween is supposed to be for the kids, it's supposed to be another outlet of expression, and a day to have fun, more than half the children out there don't know the real reason for Halloween, so why should this currently happening conotation be allowed to take place? Let them beleive that the ghost costumes are scary and that they can be their favorite character for a day, not that it's only fun until you grow up where you have to have a sexy costume to be invited to (God knows what type of) Halloween Parties.

Keep Halloween For the Kids
(and people like me, who absolutely adore it)

Public Affairs

We all read the tabloids, watch the news and whenever there's gossip it's always fresh off of everyones tongues. But why is it that every affair, every time a man cheats on a woman, or even the (I find hysterical) woman cheats on the man, if it's a celebrity, it's suddenly this huge big thing that everyone sucks in air over like it's something new or out of the ordinary.

Most recently, Steve Phillips, former general manager of the New York Mets (rough.) and ESPN sports analyst, admitted to cheating on his wife with assistant Brooke Hundley, who apparently harassed Phillips' wife with phone calls. The story is the same for every celebrity affair, people like Shania Twain and Sienna Miller , the girls that if any non-celebrity guy out there had, would never be cheated on.

Why do these affairs interest us so much though? Is it because they're famous? Is it something more demonic? The fact that there hearts are probably broken and we get to read every juicy detail as if we mattered in there lives? Truth is, millions of people have felt this way, millions have had their hearts broken and have probably have had some instance of betrayal.

Scratch that, here are the numbers, which to me were shocking, yet expected nonetheless.
In an aritcle done by the US News, it states that

15 to 18 percent of "ever-married people have had a sexual partner other than
their spouse while married." And just 3 to 4 percent have cheated on their
spouse in any given year

That's a lot of people, who's stories we have never heard, and probably never will hear, but in my opinion, would be extremely more interesting than any celebrity I can't relate to. So my question is...

What makes a celebrity broken heart special?

Lady Gag(a)

She wears outfits you wouldnt dress your abused poodle in.
Her songs contain horrible lyrics that make no sense whatsoever when written on paper.
Yet she's the next big thing in music? and "screams originality"
Oh there are screams alright, and not from her being "original"

Lady Gaga started out with a song called "Just Dance", and c'mon, everyone knew every word to this song, even I did, because I know I've belted out the hook and chorus in my bedroom more than enough times, and it was catchy, you could dance to it, and it was just all good fun.

Where'd this musician go?
Now all that's seen is a flashy, word-slurring, freak.

Her music, by some people, is "cool" and "new"...no, it's not even music. It's not.
The song Paparazzi is horrible, and my question is why are we playing this on the radio when it doesn't even have a recognizeable beat.

Lady Gaga isn't a musician, she's all auto-tone, all smoke and mirrors.
Mirrors that crack, when she looks in them.

Miley Cyrus

Now, my dad isn't some super cool hillbilly post one-hit single rock star or anything special like that, but atleast he's got a daughter with talent. He's got a 16 year old girl, (that's me), with morals and a sense of atleast knowing how old i am. Billy Ray Cyrus on the other hand, does not have a daughter like this. Basically, i can't stand Miley Cyrus.

Miley has no amazing talent, no outstanding voice, and no songs that hit home like other artists of her generation. For example, her most "touching" and "ground-breaking emotional hit", argumentably by some people would be "The Climb", from her oscar worthy film, Hannah Montana. This is the most range she's ever acheived in a song, and it comes no where close to those she sang along with on MTV's Diva's, artists such as Leona Lewis, Mariah Carey, Kelly Clarkson and Jordin Sparks. It's rediculous that just because she's young and can sing "good", that she be placed on an even stage with those I mentioned earlier.

In case I haven't made my point clear about her age, Miley's 16. I'm 16. I don't pole dance on public television for my fans during award shows, and when I do it for those little girls who look up to me, I atleast have the decency to not let the entire world see.

Cyrus is not a role model.
She's not someone who can easily transition from her Hannah Montana character to full time party girl with underwear modeling boyfriends and get away with it.
She's not an artist, and until she comes out with a song that actually is worth listening to, not due to the fact it's catchy, but due to meaningful lyrics that apply to her own actual situation, I refuse to acknowledge her as one.

Oh yeah, and touch your hair/face one more time in a music video MC. I dare you.

Tweets and Feeds

I'm a Facebook creeper.

I am, the invention and unveiling of the "stalker feed" made my summer that more entertaining and I don't care who knows it, why? Because I know we all hated it at first and then we all stalked the crap out of eachother on a daily basis. It can't be denied, by anyone. To me, this is fine, friends "liking" friends' wall posts and status', being able to comment and say anything ones heart desires, is the definition of social networking. If someone is having a Facebook fight, i probably could put bits and pieces together and know the whole story, this to me is empowering and I feel like a champ knowing what's going down at my school. If someone doesn't have the math homework, you're able to see it even if they didn't direct the question to you, and probably help them out. This is why Facebook creeping is good, and Twitter (as i explain below) creeping is pointless.

I'm against Twitter as a "social networking" site.

I hate Twitter, I hate when the "common person" tweets. I tried it for a good 6 minutes and then deleted my account, why? because, you can't "socially network" if you're basically just telling people what you're doing. Most of the time, tweets by students and people my age are pointless, and no one really cares. Celebrities using Twitter? That's different, that's a way to reach the fans and keep them updated. Band's and well known Persona's? That's fine with me too, because obviously by the amount of followers these people/groups have, they matter enough to "tweet". Now, for this to be considered social networking? Nah, i don't see it that way at all, because in all honesty if some random person tweeted "just ate a sandwich" or "just got off the phone with mom" I wouldn't bother creeping that on Facebook, so why bother putting it out there for the world to see?

In my opinion, you tweet for one of two reasons.
1. You can, because you're a celebrity and people care enough to creep you, OR (you're common and...)
2. No one writes on your Facebook, and it would look bad if you updated your status every four seconds, and that was your entire page.

MJ Tributes

Over this past summer, better yet, these past few months, the world has lost many important and irreplaceable people in all sorts of industry. People like Farrah Fawcett, Ed Macmahon, Billy Mays (the man.), Ted Kennedy, Steve McNair and of course the legendary Michael Jackson.

My idea today refers to the last one mentioned, Mr. Jackson, and the amount of tributes and attention given to him. How long will this last? How long should it last? Respectively, he contributed many factors and important parts to not only the music but the entertainment world as a whole, and is known as the "King of Pop", for deserved reasons. but is this truly enough basis to have every single well known band, celebrity, child and even the unborn be affected and almost hypnotized with his tributes and his life in general? Band's like U2 performing tributes to the "legend" not only on their first night playing, but also their most recent performance last night in New Jersey, the first part is understandable, but is the second really necessary?

The tributes that really mean something, are the ones coming from a selection of people within the enterainment, better yet music buisness, such as the MTV Award's tribute to the King, which was of i think much better taste and much more effective than single band's or individuals performing bits and pieces, here and there. And i truly think that should be enough of the tributes for Michael Jackson, unleast until his birthday or anniversary of death or something along those lines.

And to Facebook (users), the poll to have a "Michael Jackson appreciation day" or whatever it was, nah.

A Response to Greenwald

In my opinion, torture against terrorists, should not be allowed at any cost, no matter the crime committed. Although this a very, set in stone, sort of view, what does it do besides satisfy our need for revenge and make us just as bad as those we punish? In Greenwald's blog, he relays the ideas of the Bush Administration, and how he feels they are complete opposite of the values stated in the War Crimes Act and other government statements seen in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Of course going through torture, some even unwarranted, will cause emotional and prolonged mental harm, chances are that said "terrorist" will already have his/her own mental issues causing them to take part in the act in the first place. Clearly, the Bush admin has been trying to prove the fact that they went against nationwide policies, but for the right reasons and that said methods were effective as seen here where Dick Cheney tries to get the CIA to release confidential files explaining how the interrogation tactics, although immoral, were effective.

Apparently, Greenwald and I have the same view on this. America today, no, the American Government today, is not only keeping secrets, but is going against the basic principles we so often take for granted. If the former VP and the CIA can't agree on what to release, that seems to be a problem, now doesn't it?