I am swamped with work today, so I thought I would feature the website of The Cloud Appreciation Society. Apparently, this website has quite a cult following. As the name states, it is about clouds and their admirers. Some of the images on this site are stunning. And it offers a fun way to kill time when you’re supposed to be working. There’s a whole section on cloud shapes, such as this heart cloud:
I am finally getting around to writing about this story. Britain’s most famous businesswoman, Anita Roddick, sold her groundbreaking business The Body Shop to French cosmetics giant L’Oreal in mid-March. The Body Shop was a pioneer, selling eco-friendly products that were never tested on animals. Much of the news coverage of the sale has focused on the dismay of animal rights activists, who do not believe L’Oreal’s claims to be animal-testing free
Besides the disappointment of seeing a once-principled business owner succumb to an unethical, soulless mega-corporation, the sale is a bummer for women. Roddick frequently criticized the way the beauty industry manipulates women. Only a few years ago, she criticized L’Oreal for only employing “sexy” women at its cosmetics counters. The Body Shop rarely used models in their ads, shunning skeletal supermodels for feminist-friendly adverts, like this one:
Now look at a typical L’Oreal ad (this one featuring the familiar motif of the model silencing herself):
Most observers were very surprised that Roddick sold The Body Shop, a business she had nurtured for 30 years. It does not appear that the business was in trouble. Instead, good old-fashioned greed appears to have been the motive. Roddick, as quoted in the Guardian: “‘Let me tell you how the French seduce you,’ she told a press conference. ‘They are the most bloody seductive people on earth. They are charming, they are well-mannered and they praise and flatter you.’” I’m sure the £130 million she stood to gain personally didn’t hurt.
In announcing the sale, Roddick said that L’Oreal will embrace the ideals of The Body Shop. Sure, and next week, KFC will embrace the ideals of PETA. Said Roddick: “…having L’Oréal come in and say we like you, we like your ethics, we want to be part of you, we want you to teach us things, it’s a gift. I’m ecstatic about it. So I don’t see it as selling out.”
This is just sad. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who knows about the cosmetics industry knows that this is a complete load of you-know-what. A savvy businesswoman like Anita Roddick surely knows it. How do you say sell out in French?
My recent post on sperm got me to thinking. If I don’t meet Mr. Right (or Mr. Uh, I Guess So) in the next few years, I might need to cash in my gift certificate to the Celebrity Sperm Bank. I swear, you can spend hours looking through their catalogue. I have narrowed down my selection to two choices:
I’m leaning towards Donor B because I have some concerns about Donor A. If my child were a boy, I could end up with a womanizing, telephone-throwing Australian brat on my hands, and really, who has time for that? Granted, I don’t know much about Donor B, but he doesn’t seem like the type to start bar brawls or have affairs with the likes of Meg Ryan.I must admit that I did also consider Tom Cruise’s sperm (it was on clearance). I know, I know, he’s a brainwashed cult member. But I saw Top Gun about 15 times in 1986, as did most American chicas my age, and so there will always be a soft spot in my heart for Tommy. But it looks like that bitch Katie Holmes got injected with the last of his seed.So I guess I’ll have to settle for the sperm of a smouldering heterosexual instead. Life could be worse.
I was having a pretty good day today until I went out and saw this picture on the front page of the Sunday Mirror:
What is this picture, you say? Well, it’s a big strong man – beating a defenseless baby seal to death with a club while it screams in agony. Is that what real manly men do? Apparently so, in Canada at least.
The petition I wrote about a few days ago didn’t work, obviously. I’m not an idiot. I was 99.9% sure it wouldn’t work. But that’s not the point. The reason such things don’t work is because most people shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, that’ll never work, why bother?” Collective apathy is the norm nowadays. The politicians count on it.
It seems the international outcry only strengthened Canada’s resolve. As a result, they increased the quota of seals that can be killed. If you have a toddler or have ever babysat one, you are familiar with this tactic. You tell the child to eat their peas and they refuse. You threaten them and in the middle of the resulting tantrum, they throw the peas on the floor and scream “You can’t tell me what to do!” It’s simple psychology, really.
Below (in blue), some excerpts from the Sunday Mirror, regarding the seal slaughter:
“The hunters are supposed to club them three times over the head, then touch their eyeball to make sure they are dead before being skinned…[the seal is] a battered heap, waiting for the skinners who follow the hunters. Blood runs from its wounds and its mouth. The force of the blows has forced its eyes from its sockets. I turn away only to catch out of the corner of my eye the sudden movement of a bloody shape. A seasoned hunter will you tell this is just a death spasm. Some vets, however, think differently. According to one report, as many as 40 per cent of seal pups could still be alive when they are skinned. This one is wriggling and writhing in agony, as it is dragged along, leaving a crimson trail. The hunters lift it, still thrashing, aboard their boat to skin out of sight of our camera.”
…
“Today, the pups’ freshly-skinned carcasses, still steaming from their body heat, litter the ice. Their mothers lie beside them, pining for their dead babies, their mournful bleating carried in the cold air.
Nothing prepares you for such a sickening spectacle.
They call it a hunt, of course, to make it sound like a noble challenge between man and beast. But a harp seal can’t run like a fox, it has nowhere to hide like a deer in a forest, it can’t fight back like a grizzly. It just lies there, helplessly waiting to be slaughtered.”
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Next year, why don’t these macho Canadian hunters beat polar bears to death with a club? Imagine that scene! Now there’s something I’d like to see on the front of the Sunday Mirror.
British Summer Time begins today. I waited for this day all winter long. Yippee!
It’s also Mother’s Day here today, but since I have a Mom, not a Mum, I’ll wait till May!
From the AP:
Headline: Bush Calls For Fair Immigration Bill
Rejected Headline: Bush Fears Mowing Own Lawn
I am appalled by the story of the 41-year-old Afghan man who is on trial for converting to Christianity and could be executed. Western leaders have been on the phone with Afghan president (and U.S. puppet) Hamid Karzai, urging him to intervene. The German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister have both said Karzai assured them the man would not be executed.
If the media is to be believed, the majority of people in Afghanistan want Christian convert Abdul Rahman dead. According to an AP report, senior Muslim clerics have stated that “if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees” Rahman, they will incite the people to kill him.
Abdul Raoulf, who stood up to the Taliban and is considered a moderate, was quoted as saying: “Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.” This so-called moderate goes on to say: “Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.”
Another senior cleric stated that if Rahman is freed, his must not be allowed to go into exile. “If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too. We must set an example. … He must be hanged.”
As you know, I’m usually never at a loss for words. But this story just leaves me speechless.
Link: Amnesty International
I saw my first daffodil of the year today, bobbing its little head in Russell Square. Spring is late this year. And I live in the city. But I finally saw a daffodil. At last.
Via Bitch Ph.D.: Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Nation in South Dakota, is planning to open her own abortion clinic in response to the recent state wide ban. Cecilia, a former nurse and healthcare provider, “was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women,” according to Indianz.com. Said Cecilia:
“I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”
This lady is awesome. While it’s sad to think that American women will have to flee U.S. territory to obtain healthcare services, I love the idea of such clinics existing beyond the reach of the U.S. government.
The Bitch Ph.D. post contains information on how to support Cecilia’s efforts. I sincerely hope she has a bullet proof vest and a bodyguard. The “pro-life” mantra extends to fetuses, not feminists.
Last month I reviewed Michael Haneke’s film Hidden (Caché). Haneke is Austrian but he works in French (he directed The Piano Teacher with Isabelle Huppert). I was intrigued by his work and wanted to see more, which led me to rent the DVD of his 2000 film Code Unknown. The film stars Juliette Binoche, who was also in Hidden, playing a character with the same exact name. Many of the actors in Hidden also appeared in Code Unknown, though the two films are only linked thematically as far as I can tell.
Code Unknown is a series of interlocking stories dealing with racial, class and cultural conflicts in modern-day Europe. After seeing the film, there is no doubt that it very obviously resembles this year’s Academy Award-winning abomination Crash. One of these filmmakers surely copied the other and given that Code Unknown was released several years before Crash, I can only come to one conclusion. Crash is a really bad L.A. version of Code Unknown.
The two films offer a marvelous opportunity to compare European and Hollywood styles of filmmaking. While Crash could have been written by an 8th-grade remedial English student, Code Unknown actually respects the intelligence of the audience. While Crash is offensive in its obviousness, Code Unknown makes the audience work. While Crash features stereotypes rather than characters and then dares you not to sympathize with them and/or despise them (nothing about Crash is subtle), Code Unknown creates real characters and puts you in their shoes so that you feel what they feel. This list could go on forever, but you get the idea.
This is not to say that Code Unknown is a perfect film. It’s not. I agree with the NYT reviewer who stated that one of Haneke’s flaws is his tendency to be cryptic. Both Hidden and Code Unknown have endings that leave the audience wondering a bit too much. But compared to Crash, Code Unknown is a masterpiece.
Rusty Yates, religious fanatic/accessory to five counts of murder, was married to his next victim this week on the eve of his ex-wife’s retrial.
I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say “You two [censored] mother[censored] deserve each other.” Mazel tov!
I received word from my friend E about the annual Canadian seal massacre, set to begin in a few days. The Humane Society is circulating a petition to send to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which you can view and sign here if you want.
During the hunt, more than 300,000 seals – the vast majority of them babies – will be clubbed to death or shot so that fishermen can sell their skins for extra cash during the off-season. Other seal body parts are also sold, such as the powdered seal penises used to make aphrodisiacs in Asian countries.
According to the Humane Society: “During a recent hunt, veterinarians who examined dead seals concluded that 42% of the seals examined had most likely been skinned while they were alive and still conscious.”
A member of the House of Lords is urging a UK supermarket boycott of all Canadian products.
I write a lot about women’s reproduction on my blog, but today I’d like to focus on male fertility. I read an article yesterday about Donald Trump’s fembot wife giving birth to a baby boy this week – which Trump announced on national television only 20 minutes after his latest press release was brought into the world. “I continue to stay young, right? I produce children, I stay young,” the 59-year-old Trump said, as reported by AFP.
There are countless examples of old rich men and their young trophy wives. Nothing could be a bigger cliché. Why, here’s a photo of a major offender, Mrs. Michael Douglas, puffing away on a cigarette while pregnant with her last investment…er, baby:
What a classy dame!
We all know that the vast majority of women usually can’t get pregnant beyond their mid-forties at the latest, while men can, in theory, father offspring until they die. But is it really as simple as that?
A report by Dr. Jason Cheng stated: “Although the lifespan of ability to produce a sperm continues unabated, men are just as vulnerable to the wear and tear of the aging process as a woman is.”
According to a report from the BBC, “the chances of a man having children dip past his 35th birthday.” Men over the age of 35 are more likely to produce damaged sperm, including sperm with broken strands of DNA. “This could mean that the risk of miscarriage is increased or, at the other end of the scale, that children have a greater chance of developing mild abnormalities such as uneven teeth, or asymmetrical limbs,” the BBC report stated. Men who smoke cigarettes or marijuana have an even higher likelihood of producing damaged sperm.
When a man gets into his 40s, 50s and beyond, he is more likely to father a child with birth defects than a younger man. Studies have also shown that the offspring of older men have an increased risk of suffering from schizophrenia, mental retardation, Alzheimer’s and autism.
As I have written before on this blog, career women in their thirties are the targets of a bullying and misogynistic media campaign that seeks to terrify them about the possibility that they’ll never have a baby if they delay, or that any child they do have will suffer from birth defects – all as a result of their selfishness. Not surprisingly, we rarely hear about the real and credible risks of sperm that’s past its sell-by date. Fertility specialists urge men to plan their families according to a realistic timetable, just as women should.
Also, older, over-35 women tend to reproduce with men in the same age group, yet when a woman cannot carry a pregnancy to term or when a child is born with birth defects, it is always the woman and her advanced age that are blamed. But it is just as likely that the problem was caused by aging sperm. If a 38-year-old woman had a baby with a 22-year-old man, would the risks decrease? Perhaps.
Meanwhile, men like Trump are lauded by the media as studs. His ability to produce healthy offspring is not questioned (nor is the issue of selfishness raised when an almost 60-year-old man fathers a child). Most people will continue to believe that the sperm of a 25-year-old is the same as a senior citizen’s – and that’s a shame.
The religious crazies have reached a new level of craziness. Who knew this was possible?
Salon has published an in-depth report on the battle to ban contraception. Certain right-wing nutters are feeling emboldened given the presidency of Ayatollah W. Bushmeini and the country’s slow catastrophic shift to the right. The article focuses in large part on Mary Worthington, who is emblematic of anti-contraception campaigners. Worthington has a knack for couching her ridiculous arguments in “faux feminist rhetoric.” Check out her website and blog.
As the Salon article states, these loonies know they aren’t going to get the pill or condoms banned, but they can do plenty of other damage. “The anti-birth-control movement’s efforts are making a significant political impact: Supporters have pressured insurance companies to refuse coverage of contraception, lobbied for ‘conscience clause’ laws to protect pharmacists from having to dispense birth control, and are redefining the very meaning of pregnancy to classify certain contraceptive methods as abortion.”
The anti-contraception movement is actually quite fascinating because it reveals the true intentions of the anti-choice movement as a whole (not that this was ever in doubt, but it’s always nice to see it confirmed). Catholics for a Free Choice’s Frances Kissling sums it up quite nicely in the article: “Mommy should stay home and take care of the kiddies. This is bound up in this notion of men at the head of a family, of women’s identity as linked to their biological capacity, that men and women are complementary and different, that a woman’s primary function is motherhood.” The article quotes some disturbing statistics that show how anti-choice members of Congress are also anti-childcare.
Contraception is a major threat to the lifestyle religious fundamentalists want to impose on the rest of America. As Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, states in the piece: “If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men.”
From Salon: “According to [author Cristina] Page, there’s no way to distinguish the anti-choice and religious arguments anymore. ‘The anti-choice movement has become a religious movement, and because of that, their interest isn’t in reducing abortion. In fact, reducing abortion has become problematic for them, because they want to strip Americans of using birth control, in effect to change the entire family structure.’”
The governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has just signed a bill that “would require physicians who take ultrasound images before performing an abortion to give his or her patient the opportunity to view an active ultrasound of the fetus, and to offer the patient a still image taken from the ultrasound.” Read the Detroit Free Press article here.
This bill is an amended version of the original, which forced women to look at such images, presumably at the point of a gun if necessary. I mean, if a woman closed her eyes and refused to look, what would they do, pry her lids open?
This bill is clearly intended to emotionally bully pregnant women and to make having an abortion even more difficult. Granholm, a Democrat, has generally been opposed to anti-abortion legistlation. But she’s a Catholic up for re-election this year, so I guess it was time to sell out. People have often spoken of her as a possible presidential candidate in the future, though she is Canadian and therefore not eligible unless the law is changed. ‘Tis a pity. I would have enjoyed voting against her.
I have been excited to see V for Vendetta for months. It was supposed to open last November, but was postponed because of the London bombings. (Smart idea.) When it opened on Friday, the critics in the UK savaged it. Stateside, the NYT and the New Yorker trashed it as well, though other papers were more charitable. I must admit I was expecting the worst.
Just briefly, the film takes place in Britain 20 years hence. It has become a fascist state. The people are kept in line through fear – fear of terrorism, Muslims, gays, etc. Across the pond, the US is engaged in a civil war, though we never get many details about this. The hero of the movie, V, wears a Guy Fawkes mask. At the start of the film, he blows up the Old Bailey and ultimately, his goal is to complete the job his hero didn’t finish – blowing up the Houses of Parliament. The movie’s hero is a terrorist, there can be no doubt about that.
From the NYT: “…inevitable questions and objections have been raised about whether ‘V for Vendetta’ turns a terrorist into a hero, which is precisely what it does do. Predictably, the filmmakers, actors and media savants have floated the familiar formulation that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, as if this actually explained anything about how terror and power (never mind movies) work.”
After seeing the film, I understand many of the criticisms. Still, I thought it was entertaining and worth seeing. I think the problem is that people expected this film to make a profound political statement, but this is Hollywood. Get real! This is a popcorn movie that aspires to be something more. The film version was written and produced by the Wachowski brothers of Matrix fame, and from what I’ve read, they wanted this film to be a scathing takedown of George W. Bush and his administration. If that was their intent, they failed. Bush isn’t the first power-hungry fearmonger running a country and he certainly won’t be the last. Instead, the film is a retread of 1984 and other dystopian tales. It adds nothing new to the genre. It’s too vague and unfocused to pack much political punch.
The main faults with V are its meandering and muddled plot, which is very confusing and often doesn’t make sense. Natalie Portman’s performance is absolutely dreadful. It’s painful to witness her mangling the English accent. (The other actors, including Stephen Rea, are quite good. And I found the character of V, with his creepy mask, to be mesmerizing.) Another flaw is that the film is an American/Hollywood tale about English politics and as a result, England is really a caricature in the film. Outside of the main characters, the only English people we see are clichéd pub goers and a few bland families. The film was shot on a soundstage in Berlin and it shows. While the comic book upon which the film is based was unmistakably English (and set during the Thatcher years), the new film uses London as a backdrop, but it could have taken place anywhere.
Roger Ebert, who enjoyed V, wrote that he “found an audacious confusion of ideas in “V for Vendetta” and enjoyed their manic disorganization. To attempt a parable about terrorism and totalitarianism that would be relevant and readable might be impossible, could be dangerous and would probably not be box office.”
**spoiler**
**spoiler**
As I watched the film, I wondered if the Houses of Parliament would actually blow up at the end. The story required that they would, but I didn’t know if the filmmakers had the chutzpah to follow through. So I was surprised when the iconic buildings, including my beloved Big Ben, exploded in a lavish fashion. It was unsettling to watch (especially given that Parliament was only about a mile away from the cinema) – but worth the price of admission.
I went to this exhibit at the National Gallery yesterday with a friend who was over from New York on business. (Hi David!) This amazing collection of paintings celebrates the American artists who ventured to Paris in the 19th-century to soak up the creative atmosphere. The remarkable thing about the exhibit is its abundance of women, from the well-known artist Mary Cassatt to virtual unknowns like Cecilia Beaux and Elizabeth Nourse. What a treat!
As for the blokes, there’s plenty of John Singer Sargent, Childe Hassam and James McNeill Whistler on display, including the famous painting of Whistler’s mother.
The symbol of the exhibit is Sargent’s scandalous Portrait of Madame X (pictured), which is absolutely huge. It’s difficult to imagine the dust-up that occurred when this portrait of American Virginie Gautreau was displayed at the Paris Salon in 1884. The striking Madame X, who left Paris in the aftermath, favoured lavender face powder and rouge for her ears. In the original painting, one of the straps of her gown was slipping off her shoulder, implying that she had just emerged from bed. Sargent later altered this part of the painting. There is at least one novel and one work of non-fiction about the painting and the scandal.
The good news for my friends in the northeast US is that ‘Americans in Paris’ will be travelling to New York and Boston when it leaves London in May!
Pretty boy George has recently blogged on The Huffington Post. His entry is called I am a liberal. There, I said it!
Hmmm, is this really a news flash? If looney Clooney wants to help the liberal cause, keeping his mouth shut should be a top priority.
Sadly, George isn’t a very good writer. He should stick to looking pretty and secretly dating soft-core porn stars. But he does have over 1300 comments so far. My readers are slackers!
**UPDATE**
Pretty boy claims he didn’t write the blog. Scandal has erupted. Click here if you give a damn.
I’m no fan of Michael Douglas, but even he hates Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. From the AP:
“‘I don’t know about Brad Pitt, leaving that beautiful wife to go hold orphans for Angelina,’ Douglas snipes in GQ’s April issue, hitting newsstands March 21. ‘I mean, how long is that going to last?’”
Ha, ha, ha!
Perhaps Douglas shouldn’t throw stones, given his ridiculous marriage to Catherine Zeta-Jones. But on the other hand, he knows a thing or two about Hollywood’s sham marriages. Brangelina is just evil. They are evil, I tell you!
www.flickr.com
|
