As most of you know, I rarely, if ever, blog about the Real Housewives. There are just so many more folks that do it better than I can and to be very honest, I have more fun live tweeting during the shows. Its a challenge for me in 140 characters or less to be funny, snarky and of course, cutting. So for me to sit down and write a blog about one or more of the housewives you just know my Nancy had to be tweaked, and tweaked it was.
How do I start this rant blog? Do I ease into a dialogue about Alexis and her ever not so effervescent hubbs, Jim? That this not so dynamic duo make a living at being victims? Do I just jump into stats and facts in regards to Alexis' newly learned word "Bully"? Do I, do I, do I? Naw, I will just add some 30 mg. nicotine oil to my vaporizor e-cig and try to ease into the hot mess that is Alexis and her incessant need to be viewed as a victim to remain relevant enough to warrant staying on a show that to be frank, would probably do much better with her off of it.
Alexis last season appeared to be the victim. Gay Gasp! No Lucien, it cannot be you say. Well my darlings I say she should have gotten an Oscar for her award winning performance as the most dull and very understood twit of the year. That is saying something on a channel who also showcases such extraordinary talents as Jacqueline Laurita, Caroline and her Cabbage Patch Kids, Manzo. Let us not forget, "I'm the victim Theresa, not you..." Melissa Gorga. Another fine example of why birth control needs to be readily available on every street corner. In fact, I would recommend many to develop an on going drug habit with birth control.
This season, Jesus Jugs, my pet name for Alexis, which has been hijacked and used all over the place, is once again attempting to become the victim. She is scared of the big, evil, nasty, wicked Tamra and the Axis of Evil which is comprised of Retching Gretchen, and Miss Manners, aka Heather Dubrow. So why for all that is good and sweet in the world would this bony, silicon injected, fine, upstanding Christian woman subject herself to those who she had to medicated herself to deal with?
Alexis and her uber controlling hubbs, Jesus Jim, need the cash. Lets be honest shall we. They is "sho nuff trying to live like white folks." Jim has failed at just about everything he has attempted to do. Why? Because as with most of their ilk, they are phony to the core. Jeez, Taylor Armstrong just popped into my head. You get the point. They lie, they embellish, the rent homes, cars, jewelry and etc. so they can appear to be like everyone else. So they can feel like they belong. And that insecurity is really at the heart of Alexis and her bullying bullshit.
Bullying seems to be a catch phrase now. What I have noticed of late is that not many actual victims of bullying run around exclaiming they are being bullied. Normally, they sit and suffer very silently. To be bullied is very humiliating. Take me for example. It took me well into my 30's to be able to look someone in the eye and utter the words, "I was really bullied in school." Gee whiz it still makes me feel embarrassed so say it. What I have also noticed is a lot, and I mean a lot, of very insecure people and those who get caught lying , seem to use the word bully to deflect attention away from their own negative behaviors and have the focus shift to someone else.
Ah, the 30 mgs of nicotine in my e-cig is kicking in....So when I watched Alexis and her buddy, Lydia, aka Clamydia and Icky Vicki walk into that party I just knew the proverbial shit was gonna hit the fan. Tamra is not known for her temperance and I kind of like the raw, edginess of personality. She is filter-less. I can appreciate her inappropriateness...sadly, many can't. Ho hum.
The last we knew JJ (Jesus Jugs) was threatening to sue Tamra and hadn't spoken since the ugly reunion show. So why in G-D's name would Alexis even think of showing up to a dinner hosted by Tamra? To re-enforce her role on the show as the poor, little, lamb-like victim she wants us to believe she is. Bullshit. I am throwing down the "fuck you, you're full of shit card."
JJ had to know that Tamra was gonna be on point. Why would a bullying victim subject herself to yet another attack? She was still gonna get her paycheck from Bravo. We saw the Jumps for Jesus trampoline park her and Jesus Jim were now doing. So what was the point? Relevance people, relevance and nothing more. Sorry JJ but I have been around the block far to many times to be manipulated by some insipid twit who is insecure about being on a show and tries to use the pain of others to make herself relevant. Not buying it anymore than I bought the self serving fuckery of an interview with Leann Rimes, another succubi of humanity.
Now we have JJ in the victim role, Titillating Tamra and the Axis of Evil clearly defined by JJ. No matter what happens from this point, insecure, manipulative, lying Alexis will have those who feel the need to defend her sophomoric behaviors and her role on the show is now cemented..but is it? (Bella Lugosit laugh now with some creepy organ music in the background)
For those who are actually bullied this is a travesty. Their experiences, their pain has been discounted by Alexis. Kelly Bensimone, another fine example of why electro-shock therapy doesn't work, also had no other way to be relevant other than appearing in a victim role. People really need to stop using the word Bully so much. It is becoming so common that actual, real victims of it, are not getting the help they need because when we see people who are clearly not being bullied, we tend to see all who claim to be being bullied that way, as liars. We all know that Alexis, Kelly are not bullying victims. They are talking heads on a "reality" show. They choose to be there. They choose to interact with the other women on the show. These women are not socially ostracized. They are not afraid of any form of physical violence. There is no group or persons who are harassing them to the point their lives are in a state of constant anxiety. So tell me where is the bullying? I am not seeing it.
What I do see is several strong women addressing the bullshit that Alexis pulls and I see Alexis not liking that its being filmed and seen by millions. That is all I see. So Jesus Jugs shut the hell up about being a victim of bullying. Also, could you leave my comments on your blog up, you wuss. Did I hit a little to close to home? That's right folks, she deleted my comment I left on her blog...so much for Freedom of Speech that I heard so much about last year from that monkey fart hubbs of hers, Jesus Jim. I guess only they get to have an opinion or have the ability to speak freely.
This bitch will have always have the last word......Smooches darlings
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
I Am A Vaper
I have officially entered a new world. The wonderfully strange, exotic and sometimes overwhelming world of electronic smoking. Vaporizing or ECigs are the latest rage. Recently a friend of mine turned me on to this electric vaporizing contraption. See the pic....
It basically turns nicotine oil into a vapor, hence you get the nicotine without actually smoking. I was a pack a day smoker. For the last 4 years I have been rolling my own, another world that was mastered. I started rolling my own cigarettes when I moved from Virginia to Connecticut and I saw a pack of cigs go from $3.20 in VA to almost $9.00 in CT. By rolling my own cigarettes I could for the price of one carton smoke for an entire month.
I have to admit I liked smoking. I loved the ritual of smoking. What I didn't like was the smell and the mess around the house. I tried smoking outside, but lets face it I am a wuss when it comes to being too cold or too hot. I think I smoked outside for all of 2 days. Needless to say, my house smelled like cigs. No matter what I did, I could never really get rid of the smell. Then there was the annoying ashes everywhere.
So you can imagine my surprise when my friend, another ardent, long time smoker got this little contraption and had no cravings and actually enjoyed the damn thing. First my friend reported 3 days and no cigs, then a week and now its been over a month for her. I received my contraption from my friend for my birthday. That was over a week ago. I have had 6 cigs since I started "Vaping" as they call it.
I actually am enjoying the fact that the nicotine smell is leaving my house. While I collect ashtrays, I don't use one anymore. Maybe they can become candy dishes? Anyhow, there is an entire sub-culture for this product. The technical term is Vaporizor. In the above picture, the part I am holding with my hand is actually a rechargeable Lithium battery with different voltage settings. The top part where the "ejuice" is (smokey colored class section) loaded is called a "cartomizer". This is where the coil heats up a cloth wick and turns the oil into a vapor which I then inhale. My entire kit runs around $35.00 for both pieces and a bottle of "ejuice". Still cheaper than a carton of cigs or even a bag of loose tabacco to roll.
The vapor tastes very much like a menthol cig. There is no smell and can legally be inhaled just about anywhere. Just today I walked down the isle at my local supermarket "vaping" away while shopping. There are no laws regarding vaping and I love to tell folks that fact.
As always, I turned to the internet to learn more about my new toy and was overwhelmed at the sub-culture that I found. There is an entire movement out in the world. I just kept thinking to myself, "why hadn't I heard of this before?" Its cheap, effective and the health risks compared to smoking are all but nonexistent. There is a whole set of jargon and lingo that goes with my new toy. Blogs, youtube videos and internet shops galore! Imagine my amazement.
Anyone who knows me knows I embrace technology freely. I am a guy after all. I love all things electronic so it seems very logical for me to electronically smoke. Hell, everything in my life is rechargeable. I like the idea of getting my nicotine fix without any of the muss, fuss or expense. I have trolled the net and have learned much. I have yet to find a down side.
It appears I will be now smoking for only $20 a month. The cost of the "ejuice". Big difference from over $100 a month I was spending. Not to mention the fact I spent countless hours rolling those G-ddamn cigs and then had the smell and mess from them. I also like the people that I have come into contact with. They are all very helpful and share little secrets they have learned along the way. Which batteries are the best, which cartomizers work and what flavors of oils they like. No one can help me enough.
So there you have it, I am a "Vaper" to put it in their vernacular. I plan on eventually quitting. The oils come in varying strengths of nicotine so I will be able to gradually cut down my nicotine intake and eventually stop smoking. I have tried and failed far too many times with the patch, the gum, hypnosis and cold turkey to know that I have the will power of a whore on a Marine base, on pay day, trying to regain my virtue. Its good to be honest right?
Welcome to my newest obsession and possibly my salvation from smoking cigs. I wonder how many of you know of this or are doing this too? I am off to "Vape" and have some coffee! :)
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Freedom of Speech & Twitter
These days social media seems to come with its own set of very mercurial set of morals and rules. The one sure thing I have discovered about social media is there will always be someone who is angry, unbalanced, ranting, and/or being negative.
Recently, we have seen many celebs charge they are being bullied, threatened, harassed or worse. Leann Rimes not to long ago reportedly checked herself into a rehab for "emotional distress" caused by Twitter users constantly tweeting very negative remarks to her. Kate Gosselin, as recently reported by Radar On-Line, has been considering joining a class action suit because of her struggles with Twitter users.
The first thing that comes to mind for me FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Its the foundation of our Bill of Rights and the cornerstone to our entire way of thinking in this country. The free flow of ideas cannot and should never be impeded by the restriction of speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I consider myself to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I support a person's right to free, uninhibited speech even if it offends me. "The speech you should most ardently protect is the speech you find the most objectionable." People love to throw around the free speech defense when it defends their words but most find it hard to defend another individuals remarks they find offensive. You cannot have it two ways.
I have been watching certain cases with special interest, such as United States of America vs. William Cassidy. Here is a basic overview of the case:
Mr. Cassidy is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A).8 The government
alleges that he:
"with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state, used an interactive computer service and a facility of interstate commerce, to engage in a course of conduct that caused substantial emotional distress to that person, to wit: the posting of messages on www.twitter.com and other Internet websites concerning a person whose initials are A.Z."
Basically, the government alleged that in publishing a message to the public at large constitutes a crime if a public figure, in his/her own subjective way, feels "substantial emotional distress" when he/she views it. This interpretation of the law not only criminalizes the content of speech in violation of the First Amendment but renders portions of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) unconstitutionally vague. The two major elements of the crime for which Mr. Cassidy has been indicted and which render § 2261A(2)(A) constitutionally problematic - are the use of an "interactive computer service" and causing another "substantial emotional distress.
This was, I believe never the intent of this law and legislatively speaking, according to the history of this law, the expansion of the anti-stalking section of the statute to explicitly prohibit harassment by means of an "interactive computer service" was understood to "incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS." In other words, Congress intended to prohibit harassment by use of "stalking surveillance" such as location tracking devices and not of people with words via social networking platforms.
The case was eventually found to be "unconstitutional as applied" and the case was thrown out and no further arguments were heard by the court.
This case, in my humble opinion, demonstrates what happens every day on Twitter. Mr. Cassidy's words, void of any concrete action on his part, are just that, words, an opinion, however offensive or distressing AZ (the injured party) might have felt them to be. As such, Mr, Cassidy's tweets, comments or blog postings would be protected under the first amendment.
Twitter is by its very nature, a platform of choice. One can choose to view, interact or even have an account on Twitter. Parties offended by what is written about them have the choice to look away, block or ignore what they find offensive. Simply put, a higher burden applies before a person is liable for inflicting emotional distress on a public figure (Hustler, 485 U.S. at 55).
In US v Cassidy, the government hinged its entire case on what was perceived by the victim If it was left up to interpretation by the offended party, all of the KKK would now be in federal prisons. I do not know a single person of color who is not offended, threaten and/or intimidated by the ugly things white supremacists say, distribute and I am sure, Tweet. In not defining harm clearly, the government would leave all people in an untenable position of self censuring. Hence the free flow of thoughts and ideas would be stopped and as a result would render our first amendment right to free speech violated.
While I may not agree with the tactics of some, I do support their right to say what they will, whether to me, a celebrity or about an organization. There is a very clear line that must be crossed before someones speech can be taken and viewed as criminal. A person must do some concrete, physical action to cause another to be distressed.
I think what bothers me the most, as a past victim of bullying is when celebrities miss use the words, bully, stalked, and harassed. I feel, at times, say when Leann Rimes claims to feel so bullied by negative tweets, it devalues my experiences as a victim of intense bullying as a child. In reality Leann is choosing to view those tweets. True victims of bullying do not have a choice. They are subjected to cruelty constantly and don't have the luxury of being able to simply ignore a negative comment. Bullying victims are usually in close physical and social settings where their attackers leave no possibility of ignoring or blocking damaging behaviors of others. In over using, or miss using the words bully, stalker, harassed, we become desensitized to the real problems faced by many who are actually bullying, stalked, harassed.
I prefer to take the higher road most of the time. I have my thoughts and opinions on Leann and others on Twitter and Facebook. For the most part I have learned to keep my comments to myself or I share them with friends. I have mistakenly shared my thoughts publicly and have had to deal with the backlash of those who my comments angered or offended. In the end, its words on a page. Social networking is not for everyone. I have learned to grow a much thicker skin from interacting on social networking platforms.
Our ability to speak freely must be protected. I am hopeful the courts will catch up with the technology that we all take for granted. Remember to protect not only the speech you find yourself in agreement with, but rather protect the right of speech of those who you find hurtful or offensive.
Recently, we have seen many celebs charge they are being bullied, threatened, harassed or worse. Leann Rimes not to long ago reportedly checked herself into a rehab for "emotional distress" caused by Twitter users constantly tweeting very negative remarks to her. Kate Gosselin, as recently reported by Radar On-Line, has been considering joining a class action suit because of her struggles with Twitter users.
The first thing that comes to mind for me FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Its the foundation of our Bill of Rights and the cornerstone to our entire way of thinking in this country. The free flow of ideas cannot and should never be impeded by the restriction of speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I consider myself to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I support a person's right to free, uninhibited speech even if it offends me. "The speech you should most ardently protect is the speech you find the most objectionable." People love to throw around the free speech defense when it defends their words but most find it hard to defend another individuals remarks they find offensive. You cannot have it two ways.
I have been watching certain cases with special interest, such as United States of America vs. William Cassidy. Here is a basic overview of the case:
Mr. Cassidy is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A).8 The government
alleges that he:
"with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state, used an interactive computer service and a facility of interstate commerce, to engage in a course of conduct that caused substantial emotional distress to that person, to wit: the posting of messages on www.twitter.com and other Internet websites concerning a person whose initials are A.Z."
Basically, the government alleged that in publishing a message to the public at large constitutes a crime if a public figure, in his/her own subjective way, feels "substantial emotional distress" when he/she views it. This interpretation of the law not only criminalizes the content of speech in violation of the First Amendment but renders portions of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) unconstitutionally vague. The two major elements of the crime for which Mr. Cassidy has been indicted and which render § 2261A(2)(A) constitutionally problematic - are the use of an "interactive computer service" and causing another "substantial emotional distress.
This was, I believe never the intent of this law and legislatively speaking, according to the history of this law, the expansion of the anti-stalking section of the statute to explicitly prohibit harassment by means of an "interactive computer service" was understood to "incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS." In other words, Congress intended to prohibit harassment by use of "stalking surveillance" such as location tracking devices and not of people with words via social networking platforms.
The case was eventually found to be "unconstitutional as applied" and the case was thrown out and no further arguments were heard by the court.
This case, in my humble opinion, demonstrates what happens every day on Twitter. Mr. Cassidy's words, void of any concrete action on his part, are just that, words, an opinion, however offensive or distressing AZ (the injured party) might have felt them to be. As such, Mr, Cassidy's tweets, comments or blog postings would be protected under the first amendment.
Twitter is by its very nature, a platform of choice. One can choose to view, interact or even have an account on Twitter. Parties offended by what is written about them have the choice to look away, block or ignore what they find offensive. Simply put, a higher burden applies before a person is liable for inflicting emotional distress on a public figure (Hustler, 485 U.S. at 55).
In US v Cassidy, the government hinged its entire case on what was perceived by the victim If it was left up to interpretation by the offended party, all of the KKK would now be in federal prisons. I do not know a single person of color who is not offended, threaten and/or intimidated by the ugly things white supremacists say, distribute and I am sure, Tweet. In not defining harm clearly, the government would leave all people in an untenable position of self censuring. Hence the free flow of thoughts and ideas would be stopped and as a result would render our first amendment right to free speech violated.
While I may not agree with the tactics of some, I do support their right to say what they will, whether to me, a celebrity or about an organization. There is a very clear line that must be crossed before someones speech can be taken and viewed as criminal. A person must do some concrete, physical action to cause another to be distressed.
I think what bothers me the most, as a past victim of bullying is when celebrities miss use the words, bully, stalked, and harassed. I feel, at times, say when Leann Rimes claims to feel so bullied by negative tweets, it devalues my experiences as a victim of intense bullying as a child. In reality Leann is choosing to view those tweets. True victims of bullying do not have a choice. They are subjected to cruelty constantly and don't have the luxury of being able to simply ignore a negative comment. Bullying victims are usually in close physical and social settings where their attackers leave no possibility of ignoring or blocking damaging behaviors of others. In over using, or miss using the words bully, stalker, harassed, we become desensitized to the real problems faced by many who are actually bullying, stalked, harassed.
I prefer to take the higher road most of the time. I have my thoughts and opinions on Leann and others on Twitter and Facebook. For the most part I have learned to keep my comments to myself or I share them with friends. I have mistakenly shared my thoughts publicly and have had to deal with the backlash of those who my comments angered or offended. In the end, its words on a page. Social networking is not for everyone. I have learned to grow a much thicker skin from interacting on social networking platforms.
Our ability to speak freely must be protected. I am hopeful the courts will catch up with the technology that we all take for granted. Remember to protect not only the speech you find yourself in agreement with, but rather protect the right of speech of those who you find hurtful or offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)