My First Twilight

**warning: spoiler**

**p.s. it won't enhance the film if you don't know the ending already**

After months of hearing screaming tweenfans and mothers who live vicariously through their daughters’ lives gab on and on about this Edward Cullen and his “liquid topaz eyes,” I finally bit the cinematic bullet and lost my Twilight virginity the other night.

Rather than reading any of the surprisingly thick novels by Stephanie Meyer or pre-gaming by watching the first book-to-film adaptation , Twilight, I decided to go in full-force without any background knowledge and accompanied a few friends to the midnight premiere of what is sure to be another MTV Movie Award contender, New Moon.

I have to say, I’m not sure if I knew what I was in for. I mean, yes, I knew I wanted to write a review on New Moon beforehand, but that’s simply because I love writing reviews and hadn’t done one in some time.

And I knew it wasn’t going to necessarily be a great movie. Its target audience is mostly composed of boy-crazed schoolgirls who haven’t experienced the realities and pleasures of either a) real romance or b) quality filmmaking. 

Accordingly, I’m not here today to write a review about the inevitable failures of New Moon as far as guidelines for great movies are concerned. Let’s face it, New Moon doesn’t have much to offer, cinematically speaking: wooden dialogue, a questionable soundtrack, even more questionable full circle camera rotations, and acting that would make most porn stars realize if there’s always someone better than you in the world, there’s definitely also someone far, far worse.

No, I knew (even though I hate to say that with such snarky confidence) that New Moon would not be a great film. But I had no idea how powerfully dangerous its message to the thousands of girls (and boys) absorbing every piece of lame vampire lust really would be.

What exactly is that message? Oh, it’s quite clear: women need men.

I hate to hoist myself up on another feminist soapbox (see my Lady Gaga analysis, if interested), but then again, I don’t think I’m doing just that. New Moon isn’t bad for women because of some underlying theme involving feminist theory or symbolic castration. New Moon just tells girls it’s okay to be stupid, plain and simple.

Bella (played by Kristen Stewart , whose facial expressions suggest a serious need of some good Laxatives) is dumped by her vampire boyfriend and spends most of the movie moping around, claiming her life is empty without him.

That’s fine and dandy if she were a complex being who would develop throughout stages in life and realize the positive and negative implications of this life-changing situation. But that’s not what Bella does.

She cries. She screams. She cries and screams simultaneously (her only discernable talent). She finds herself chasing dangerous situations to catch a glimpse of her beloved Edward. You know, the usual.

True, she finds a substitute in the form of the tantalizing Jacob (Taylor Lautner ) to help forget about Mr. Cullen for a moment, but as soon as her true love tricks her stupid little mind into an impromptu trip to Europe to save him, she’s all about the blood-sucking boyfriend again. Forget the abs.

Bella isn’t a deep character. She only thinks about the men in her life, mostly referring to Edward. They all claim to be dangerous, but she doesn’t care. She needs them. They save her when in trouble, which is often, since she’s portrayed as one of the dumbest, most pathetic females to ever grace the screen (keep in mind, she’s pretty much the only leading female we and dozens upon dozens of adoring fans still forming an ability to consciously analyze media and art see throughout the unbearable and often laughable two hours of New Moon).

At one point, Bella is almost killed by a dreadlock-sporting vampire who finds her chillin’ in the massive woods of Washington State one afternoon. She seems to accept his impending attack and whispers, “I love you Edward” before what she thinks will be her death (before wolf man saves the day).

Seriously? Her last words were about Edward – her man? Her monotone knight in pale-skinned armor?

Please, someone find me an example of Bella making a self-governed decision, discovering her true self, or functioning in some positive way without one of her two men? You will search for a long time, my friends.

Bella is the epitome of the helpless damsel in distress, except she seems to be accepted by Twilight fans as a heroine, an idol. Despite her idiocy, dependency on men, and overall rejection of self-awareness and introspective capabilities, Bella is the character whose fans across the country (including their big sister and mother) perceive as the main character caught in a very difficult battle for romance, when in fact, she's battling much more than a boyfriend who glitters in the sun (Meyer's "brilliant" contribution to the realm of vampire culture).

What a scary, scary reality.

Don’t watch this movie for its utter lack of any real entertainment value. Avoid and criticize it for its potential ability to impact individuals – particularly women – in such a negative light. Let’s look it at it from a more holistic perspective and realize that movies aren’t always just bad or good, smart or stupid. Sometimes, they’re just an omen for continual pressures and traditional convictions of limited confidence for female individuals across the country.

Perspective: Five Ways in which “Bad Romance” is Good Feminism.

Lady Gaga is, above all else, an artist. After all, art is interpretive, representative of specific cultural contexts, and idiosyncratically constructed (at least, from my perspective – another aspect of the way in which art operates).


And because Lady Gaga, an enigmatic, fashionably conscious, and considerably intimidating performer of the most sexualized, individualized, and glamorized power known to the world of pop culture, it is no surprise that her recent video for “Bad Romance” (the first single  off her widely anticipated album of only eight new songs, The Fame Monster), was dramatically unique.

However, what I found most interesting in Gaga’s video – perhaps a conclusion inspired by my recent studies in the field of socially constructed and influenced genders, sexes, and desires – was the frequent incorporation of feminist-related concepts used to tell a compelling narrative in which females are submissive unless able to destroy the dominance of men.

As an advocate for gender equality and self-declared feminist, I rather enjoyed this potential foundation for her theatrical display of music. Here are the five ways from which I determined Lady Gaga’s own brand of feminist theory:

1.     The differentiation in colors and clothing. Throughout the video, Lady Gaga’s wardrobe – ranging from practically nothing to a full piece body suite that leaves almost everything to the imagination – provides insight to feminine traits. At the beginning, when she is the most submissive toward males (performing for them, blind to the world) she wears white, a symbolic color of weddings, marriages, and the ultimate form of historical female subservience: the adjoining of man and property. When discussing her desires or avoiding such matters, she wears black, red, or sexualized outfits that do not hide her, blind her, or color her married. 
   
2.    The narrative itself. One could argue that women (and men) are often born with this lack of true vision - an ability to see what they are really being set up to achieve (for females, typically male pleasure), as illustrated through the emergence of the blinded, white-covered women in the beginning. Then, Lady Gaga is kidnapped by two females, both of whom are wearing fairly but less so than previously conservative, white clothing, to perform for a group of highly masculinized, often shirtless men. She appears weary at first, but is forced into the performance, for which she submits to male pleasure and attempts to arouse them. 
   
3.  The song is called “Bad Romance.” Lady Gaga repeats her desires, which often contradict on an astronomical level: she needs his ugly and disease, his fire; she needs all that is bad and good from him, yet this contributes the fact that any the relationship is a “bad romance.” This could be interpreted as the pervasive types of relationships infecting mostly heterosexuals today – one in which males dominate and females accept all that is male, or forgivable, accepting a bad romance, without which, they would not be able to survive in the patriarchal society controlling relationships globally. 
4. The death scene. Lady Gaga kills the man with fire that spurts from her breasts – a symbolic representation of femininity and women. Breasts are used to make women attractive in many societies, represent one of the key difference in reproductive capacities that separate women from men, and in general, are the most desired, socially encouraged physical manifestation of chauvinistic lust. It makes sense that this ultimate metaphor for the treatment of women transforms into a weapon against the masculine regime.
5.    “I’m a free bitch, baby” This line, often repeated explicitly and subtly throughout the song, is another way to comprehend feminist-based ideas. Bitch is one of the most common terms for a woman who fails to succumb to “weak” feminine behavior and carries herself in a masculine manner.  By saying she’s a free bitch, which is originally muffled in the beginning and directly loud and clear later, allows Lady Gaga to access the language and empower herself. She is free from the world of patriarchy - she is different, eventually resistant to oppressive powers. 

In essence, am I overanalyzing and giving Lady Gaga too much credit for which Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Andrea Dworkin would have my head? Possibly. But I see real potential here for a critique on masculinity, patriarchal society, and the absence of a feminist voice. And whether or not you believe I've reached my capacity for over-the-top-and-beyond thoughts, at least remember this:

Songs, no matter how dense, ridiculous, brilliant, or old, should never be taken only at face-value. Music, whether solely an extension of capitalism or locally charged entertainment, is an important element of culture and should always be explored, debated, and interpreted. 

Conflict of Interest.

I came to Ithaca College, essentially, for the Roy H. Park School of Communications - a prestigious institution of higher education that promised an up-to-date, pre-professional education in all forms of journalism.

And unfortunately, that's what I got. However, I never realized what I really wanted or needed as an individual, academically, socially, and personally speaking, before I came to college, so I wasn't aware of this less-than-preferable circumstance of which I am now in the midst. 

The Park School caters to modern standards of journalism which, given the current construction of economics and culture, tend to manifest as corporate-supported media - a kind of commercialized way to tell the news that hides behind the mystical concept of objectivity and dictates culture and conversations (at least to a fairly significant extent).

In fact, according to what I have interpreted from my professors, journalism seems to serve as a calculated art of business - a way to obtain, entertain, and maintain readership that goes beyond serving the public with information and analyses.

And honestly, not to rip on my peers since I love so many of them, but often in my journalism classes, most students do not exhibit any real or authentic devotion toward what goes on in the world. I've met many Park students whose dreams for life consist of big-time anchor deals or best-selling blogs (if that even makes any financially feasible sense at all). And when we do discuss news in my class, most students regurgitate headlines from The New York Times, providing no actual insight, interest, or information whatsoever.

After realizing how limited the scope of global experience and humanity seems to be for many journalism majors and processing a very influential quote from my friend, Shaun, who said quite straightforwardly, "Park teaches you how to do and not how to think," I realized how truly unsatisfying my major was.

Additionally, being the  greedy student I am, I wanted both - thinking and doing - without question. Yes, Park has provided me an outstanding opportunity to utilize new technology and multimedia in hopes of creating an impressive resume down the road. Park also brings in excellent speakers (they're completely based on Park's own preferences and bias, but hey, Huffington next week!!). In general, it's not a bad school for its all intents and purposes. 

But its natural tendency to avoid hard-hitting issues and criticism of what mainstream media really "accomplishes" in this country is alarming. 

Luckily, it's not all bad. Today, my friend and News 1 partner, Norah Sweeney and I went to Diaspora - a store that sells African art in the Commons for a story. The owner touched and enlightened us using his own discoveries and experiences surrounding the relationship and tensions between African and Western cultures, evoking unrealized emotions toward a subject Norah and I had both equally unacknowledged, for the most part, before our interactions with Eldred (the owner).

These are the types of stories that I intend to explore as a writer in the future. I do not know the forum through which my writing will exist (blog, magazine, newspaper, research institute, etc.), but all I know is, I am partially satisfied with keeping my journalism major because I recognize the true satisfaction that can come from it, even if most of the journalism courses I take are only exploited for technological skills and excellent resources.

The Park School isn't bad at what it does - not at all; it's quite good, actually. I just realized how I need to use the Park School for my own personal reasons, which do not fit Park's image of an "ideal journalist," that is, someone who yearns for "fair," "objective" pieces on "something interesting." 


Journalists should have interests and should write about those individual curiosities. They should explore their passions and inform the world what they've learned about such areas of interest, through facts, through analysis, through acknowledgment of bias, subjectivity - all of the rhetorical ingredients that make something that is not necessarily interesting to read, but is, at the very least, worthwhile, consciously self-critical, and independent of any corporate-funded mentality.

Political Prizes: Peace & Obama

Barack Obama's recently award Nobel Peace Prize has accumulated a multitude of lively debate. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, moderate or apathetic, seem very confused with the unpredictable announcement. Accordingly, most of us have been asking, what has our president done to earn this universally prestigious title?

Well nothing really, quite frankly.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to galvanize fears of Communist health care or homosexual terrorists; talk to Dick Morris or Dick Cheney (or any other dicks) if you want to hear why conservative agenda is more than necessary at this time (despite its fundamental inability to promote equality).

No, the real reason Barack Obama has not earned this award stems from the very fact that he is president of the United States, one of the most aggressive, powerful, and culturally imperialistic economic machines governing "democratic capitalism" across the globe.

Obama has indeed utilized diplomatic whiteout to take care of the last administration's undoubtedly tainted actions and explicit failures in foreign policy. But cleaning up after Bush - one of the most deservedly least popular presidents in modern American history - is not representative of praiseworthy conduct.

Yes, Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, condemnation of Israel's West Bank settlements, and attempt to close torture camps for terrorists are commendable in one way or another.

But Obama has yet to fully close Guantanamo Bay. He has decided preconditions to Israeli-Palestinian talks are unnecessary and supports a "don't ask don't tell policy" regarding Israel's nuclear weapons  (while he continues to ardently criticize Iran's peaceful and unfairly ridiculed attempts at low-uranium enrichment and manages to questionably promise the LGBTQIA community that he will abolish our own DADT). He continues to struggle with the formation of an Afghanistan strategy, probably without the obvious fact that Afghanistan will never be able to develop it its own organic cultural context with the unwelcoming invasion of U.S. troops. 

Also, he lost Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. I don't know why that's a criticism but Rush Limbaugh told me it was. 

The point is, Obama continues to do what American presidents do best - promote inequalities and ethnocentric policies by assuming global responsibility for everything the mainstream media decides to cover. Obama needs to think back to his real ideological roots (roots of which I believe I have some knowledge after reading his autobiography) in order to achieve the peaceful endeavors this award symbolizes. 

Obama should know Israel's military, not just Hamas, needs to be politically admonished. Obama should know Afghanistan is not for our concern and that a public acknowledgement of past wrongdoings in concert with troop removal would probably diminish violence more than any insurgency. Obama should know that peace never arrives with assumptions, arms, ammo, and American hubris. 

Obama should not have this award. 

However, if he uses it as personal and political call to action, like he noted in his speech, we will hopefully see some sort of improvement.

Nevertheless I will never support any American politician receiving such an award as long as he or she operates under the government we know and criticize today. 

6 Very Ignorant, Very Popular Reasons Why Some People Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Today I read an article in the Huffington Post in which 92 percent of Iowans polled said their lives hadn't really changed since the midwestern state legalized same-sex marriage this year.

Well...duh. Although it is often very difficult to predict the way in which an entire population will react to certain changes or developments, it's pretty easy to say same-sex marriage won't, shouldn't, and never will directly affect your life in any forcible or federal fashion. Sure, if you're gay or have loved ones who are, you might come into contact with the concept, but that's inevitable with or without the recognition of LGBTQ individuals' Constitutional rights.

In fact, let's briefly dissect and understand the ludicrous arguments made by opponents of same-sex marriage, most of whom seem to have no viable comprehension of history, economics, sexuality, or even religion.

1. "Homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 18:22"
This is actually one of the easiest disputes to debunk for two reasons: 1 - Separation of church and state. It's as easy as that. Our Constitution guarantees that the government will not interfere with religion nor act as a religious institution. Accordingly, incorporating legislation based on a religious idea or specific religious affiliation, whether or not it's a popular one, is preposterous.  2 - Read your Bible more carefully and analytically. Those who use the Holy Bible in the first place to cite homosexuals' "immorality" do not seem to possess the ability to read literature beyond face-value. When reading the Bible, even if it is understood as sacred text for certain individuals, we must understand each passage as a product of its historical and cultural circumstances. Thus, when people in the Bible call homosexuality an "abomination," we must remember that in its own linguistic condition, "abomination" means 'against tradition,' not 'immoral' or 'innately evil.' That's why Leviticus 11: 10 -11 also state shellfish as an abomination, which doesn't explain why we aren't protesting Red Lobster. 

2. "Churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages"
As aforementioned, our country enjoys (is supposed to enjoy) the political luxury of church and state separation. This means that religious institutions, acting as private entities, will not be forced to adhere to a federal law. And to be more frank and realistic, most gay couples would probably not want to be wed in a religious building by a reverend, priest, rabbi, or whomever who does not support their legal and romantic commitments. 


3. "Same-sex marriage violates traditional marriages and undermines the history of marriage."
The best way anyone can showcase true idiocy is by claiming marriage is founded on religious and traditional values that will not be transferred into the same-sex marriage sphere. Yes, we haven't seen same-sex marriage often in many cultures throughout history, but that is because marriage did not operate the same way it does today throughout most of history. Marriage has always been built on economic concepts - you give me a wife, I'll give you a goat or pig. Same-sex marriage did not need to be conceptualized or legally developed, because, despite numerous accounts and evidence of homosexual love, romance, and acceptance throughout various cultures in our past , marriage did not serve, for the most part, as an institution of monogamous, religious, and romantic commitment; it's a pretty recent idea when compared to the entire timeline of human history. As a result, there may have been no need for a licit recognition of homosexual marriages because marriages were dictated by economics, social status, or the need to procreate. 

4. "We cannot change the very basis of marriage; it will change the very core of our culture."
Oh, please. Marriage - like any other social institution - is subject to cultural evolution, which is a very natural and frequent process. Marriage itself has already adapted to substantial modifications in cultural mentality: in many cultures it developed religious connotation, which did NOT always exist before; women received rights to divorce and choose whom they marry in many cultures; interracial marriages were legally implemented only a few decades ago in the United States. The point is, whether it's between two races or two women, marriage develops on a cultural continuum. And because culture changes, we must change our federal recognition of such institutions. 


5. "Same-sex marriage invalidates my marriage/harms my children/trivializes my religion."
If you live in the United States, you live in a free country (technically speaking). You have the right to free speech, religion, and thought. Same-sex marriages are not going to invalidate any particular values you might uphold. If they do, you probably lacked a great deal of faith in those values already. You raise your children how you want and decide what makes your marriage a marriage for you. Atheists get married today, as do Jewish people, Muslim people, Christian people of all different denominations, and even people who don't have any religious belief, values, or affiliation whatsoever. Our government should view marriage - a federal system for which you must obtain a license - with a blind eye so ALL Americans can receive their Constitutional rights. It's not going to affect you, just as it doesn't today when different people who you will never meet get married and you never even know it.

6. "I want gay people to have rights, like a civil union, just not a marriage please."
This is by far the most popular notion I have come across in my discussions on the topic, and it is the most condescending, ignorant, and biased opinion of them all. How "nice" of you. You want us to have some rights.


Look, Plessy vs. Ferguson spells it out historically for us: separate but equal institutions are guaranteed to fail based on their flawed logic. If it's different by name, it's different by content. Civil unions DO NOT grant the same rights as marriages, and are also disdainful by principle. They symbolize a form of second-class citizenship that cannot meet the "standards" of heterosexuality. Forget that idea. Trust me, gay people don't just want same-sex marriage so they can infiltrate churches and demonize worshippers of specific religions; they, for the most part, just want to be able to have basic rights every other American possesses. 


Let's move forward, America. Same-sex marriage isn't difficult to digest, understand, or accept; it's all a matter of education and tolerance.

Feel free to comment/e-mail me if you have any questions; my e-mail address is czivali1@gmail.com 

New Movie, New Moon, Same Crap.

Ardent supporters of the Twilight series who stereotypically stem from the hyper-teen/infantile mother demographics are counting down the days to the series' latest book-to-film adaptation, The Twilight Saga: New Moon.

Look, I've never seen the original movie nor read any of these so-called "novels,"but here are the notes I jotted down as I watched its notably laughable trailer.

• Dakota Fanning should not ever wear that much makeup. She was already annoying; now she's creepy, too!
  
• Vampires DO have laws, Kristen! Who else runs the legality of their blood-sucking society?
  
• Vampire culture and human culture don't mix well!
  
• "This is the last time that you will ever see me" is the worst break-up line ever.
  
• Kristen Stewart = James Dean? "...don't do anything reckless." What's she going to do? Explain her feelings with an awful simile?
  
• Yep. Well at least she isn't crying obnoxiously.
  
• Damn. Well what else could she do? It's not like she'll develop an addiction to Adrenaline rushes in order to regain the imagery of her now-gone, still-ugly vampire boyfriend?
  
• ...then again, maybe not.
  
• He'll commit suicide since he thinks she's dead? How Shakespearean.
  
• Her "don't" sounds like Joan Cusak.
  
• The wolfpack might just be the best thing about this seemingly boring piece of cinematic crap.
  
• Opera music works so well for these kinds of movies!
  
• "This may hurt just a little." No, Dakota. It's going to hurt a lot. It already has. 
  

Will I see the movie? Probably not. Will I ever test the waters of mediocre literature in the form of a vampire story with vampires who lack fangs or "bite" (no pun intended)?


No.


Probably not.

Remembering Reality

9/11

Never in the history of America has a date contained so much emotional and political baggage. On the infamous autumn day eight years ago, thousands of United States citizens were killed in the hijackings and subsequent crashes of four commercial airline jets at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, respectively. 

Unsurprisingly, a majority of Americans have spent the day remembering those who lost their lives on that fatal morning. Facebook updates, Tweets from Twitter, and other variations of modern, online social networking sites have served as the most popular mediums through which the American public has communicated its acknowledgment of 9/11 victims.

Despite my unquestionable respect for those who lost loved ones on September 11th, I have to ask quite frankly: is this the best way to remember?

Yes, we must sympathize and support our fellow citizens who mark this day as a friend or family member's final moment on earth, but shouldn't we equally devote as much time to remember why our government - through ineffective policies and a failure to cross-culturally communicate - allowed this to happen and why we, as inhabitants of our nation, decided it wasn't worth our time to pay attention to what was going on in the first place?

After all, "shocking" is not necessarily the most fitting word to describe the 9/11 attacks - not if you've done the research.

CIA officials, members of the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and other significant figures in foreign policy and American politics were all more than aware that al-Qaeda, fed up with Western intervention  since the U.S. funded the 1979 war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, dividing and tearing the nation to shreds, culturally, politically, and economically, had been planning and executing attacks on the United States since the '90s. Al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; they bombed the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; Osama bin Laden threatened us continuously for years. 

So, why were the 9/11 attacks not foreseen in our future?

And perhaps more importantly, why did our government fail to prevent them from happening?


And even MORE importantly, why did we as a country remain inattentive to our leaders' actions and fail to hold them accountable for questionable interactions overseas? 

The answer lies in the deeply flawed "logic" of America's political ideology, which includes traversing the world unsparingly with an unequivocal promotion of invulnerability and superiority. Sitting on the highest of political and economic horses, the United States seems to think such attacks could never and would never happen to the “richest” “most liberated” and “most developed” land on earth. 


Our country has collectively thought - and seems to still think today - that its corporate-based, ethnocentric interventions and reconstructions of other cultures and nations do not do any harm, but rather solely benefit both the world and Capitalist systems driving our now regrettably globalized and Westernized economies.

This pretense is completely misinformed and misguided on every level of ethically sound diplomatic relations one could imagine.   

In reality, 9/11 reminds us that the United States is fragile and cannot continue to lead the world as an international bully; we must dramatically alter our approach to foreign policy or will continue to see more widespread attacks in our future.

But let's not get too wrapped up in this convoluted thought: Please, do remember those who we lost on Sept. 11th. I cannot fathom the painful difficulties some Americans must be going through at this very moment, attempting to come to terms with the devastating departure of a close one. 

However, I can fathom why such tragedies would occur in the first place. We (meaning both our government AND the citizens who proceeded to look the other way, or not look at all) exacerbated problems in Afghanistan in an effort to eradicate its "Communist regime." We left the place a mess after we funded and trained the Mujahedeen. We let Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda threaten us and ignored it while our economic and cultural hubris expanded exponentially and without caution. And then, we witnessed one of the most horrific attacks on American soil in the history of our relatively young nation. 

Friends and fellow citizens, let's be respectful. But let's be angry, too. And inquisitive. And uncertain. And demanding.

Don't remember only what happened on 9/11, but also why it happened.


Let's change how our country exerts itself in the global community, before we are eventually taught again how dramatically inappropriate our impact on other cultures abroad really is.


Peace,


Chris.

Top Five Reasons to See "The Final Destination"

The Final Destination series has become one of the most fun guessing-games in the history of deliciously bad horror movies. From tanning bed coffins to decapitating elevators, death has never been so violently creative and gruesomely enjoyable. 

The latest installment, titled quite firmly The Final Destination, is undoubtedly as entertaining as its older cinematic counterparts.


Here are the top five reasons to see it:

05. Support struggling artists. 

The cast of The Final Destination consists of many newbies; they haven't had as much experience as the highly praised and well-awarded elite of Hollywood. Do them a favor by seeing their movie! After all, some stars - such as Renee Zellweger and Johnny Depp - started out by doing cheesy horror movies! 

04. Dramatic death scenes.

The Final Destination showcases as many merciless, hilariously ridiculous death scenes as its predecessors. Let's just say a car wash, escalator, movie theatre, and lawn mower are utilized at some point. Violence already permeates American culture; you might as well get used to it, but in a more amusing way.

03. It's in 3-D!

Okay, okay, so almost every movie out this year has been in 3-D. But the only movies that honestly operate well in more than two dimensions are horror flicks in which blood, body parts, guts, and dangerous inanimate objects can be thrown at you rapidly.

02. Bobby Campo. 

Death isn't the only scary part about this movie. Perhaps even more frightening is that sexy Mr. Campo himself hasn't been in more movies to tantalize and seduce us all :)

01. It's much deserved fun.

Serious movies are truly my cup of tea, but once in a while, guilty pleasures in the form of explicitly bad dialogue and intellectually lacking themes is just what the doctor ordered. Relax, scream, laugh, and roll your eyes! You deserve it.

Picture Sources:

• Girl in car wash.
  
• Bobby Campo 
• The Final Destination poster 
• Cast members 

"Glee"thal affection!

*

Glee is FOX's latest addition to the line-up of fall programming and, without question, truly reigns as the best new thing on TV.

Personally, I don't even watch television that often. I've lost hope for decent programming, as most television developers succumb to lazy standards and produce cyclical seasons of talent contests (dancing or singing - take your pick and style) or love-triangle (circle, hexagon or octagon in many cases) "reality" shows in which the most popular, insane, or memorable cast member is provided his or her own show for the next season. It's all a mess!

Glee, however, is not. Its brilliant humor, witty writing, and handsomely fit cast showcase the massive amount of thought and creativity that went into this show. 

The program revolves around several high school students and their teacher who staff the glee club - an organization whose members sing popular songs while remaining at the bottom of their high school's social hierarchy system. As Jane Lynch, playing the ardently aggressive cheerleaders' coach, puts it so hilariously, they are in the "sub-basement" of the school. 

Collaboratively, this program's dynamic cast vividly dominates the show's energy with their ability to charm and entertain. Each character resonates adolescent reality and provides audiences with a group of fictional friends to root for each new week.

Really, there is nothing more to say. I'm officially at a loss for words at the moment, most of which is a result of my exhaustive week preparing for residents and check-in, but I also cannot elucidate the right way to describe Glee because it just that darn amazing.

*Picture from http://musicmaven.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/glee1.jpg

Heaven is 30,000 feet in the air.

Often labeled as overly analytical and critical, I am never one to falsely praise our country's transportation systems.



I mean, come on. We drive way too many cars, burning way too many fuels that we just don't have. Towns that rely on fuel-efficient vehicles, bikes, bus systems, and other forms of alternative transportation are typically college towns that serve as liberal havens and do not wholly represent the entire American circumstance.



So, basically, we suck at getting from point A to point B. At least, we suck at doing it sustainably, inexpensively, and - overall - well.



However, I will admit, despite the inefficiencies clogging our transportation systems today, not every component of each individual transpiration system is in bad shape; there's always the exceptions.






This time it's Continental Airlines.



Last Wednesday, on my 7:25 a.m., four-hour-long flight from Denver to Newark, they provided me with not just a complimentary beverage, not just a sack of peanuts, but an ENTIRE breakfast. I'm talking the works: a muffin, cereal (milk was made available), raisins, and another drink by our choice (remember, they already gave us the milk?!).

I have to admit, I was in culinary heaven. Airlines refuse to budge and provide any other form of sustinence than a small glass of pop, but a full breakfast? I couldn't believe my own eyes.

Sure, about five minutes into the glorious feast, we experienced turbulence, spilling my coffee evenly across my entire lap.

But honestly, it was worth it. I am flying Continental as often as possible. That's right - advertising on my blog! I oppose it normally and morally, but in this case, it just fits.

If you're going to choke the earth with toxic fuels and unsustainable choices, why not do it in style and edible comfort?

That's all for now.

RA training has been an exhaustive process, but more on that later, I'm sure.

Karaoke - it's more than just guaranteed humility.

Sporting a drink in one hand and an overused microphone in the other, the average bar patron who participates in karaoke nights never really embodies what I would call glamour. But as I’ve always believed, the best entertainers are not always the most glamorous (or sober).

 

 

Truly, karaoke is a quintessential component of bar culture, and no matter how many notes I sing out of tune, I’ll never grow tired of the one social activity that allows me to reconnect with my favorite teen pop songs from the ‘90s, one color-changing line of lyrics at a time.

 

 

I recently familiarized myself with how much I adore karaoke all over again when I went to The Shack this past Friday with a couple of friends from high school, including my former German teacher, Frau.

 

 

Frau has always been an important person in my life since I met her my freshman year. The first day of class, she confessed a scandalous history in which she provided the details regarding her ex-husband who ran off with an Italian woman half her age. From that moment on, I knew Frau would be one of my favorite people in the world.

 

 

To this day, she has maintained her title and when she invited me to this so-called Shack before I headed back to Ithaca, I couldn’t refuse. After all, I had not been able to attend her retirement party and would be leaving for school in less than a week. It was only fair.

 

 

While at the restaurant, I, along with a clan of blonde-haired women and a rather large man whose singing was comparable to that of Sinatra, carried the night away with karaoke favorites like “Rehab,” “Hit Me With Your Best Shot,” and “Landslide.” A few of the other bar inhabitants that night decided to take the more sexually explicit route and charmed us with such memorable hits as “Your Sex is On Fire” and the very straightforward, “Something In Your Mouth.”

 

 

All in all, it was a delightful evening, full of appetizer sampler platters, inebriated laughter, and third-rate dancing.

 

 

 

New item for Christmas wish-list: karaoke machine!

A New World, A New Voice

Greetings, readers!

In a growing world of technological innovations, 24-hour news coverage, and Lady Gaga, who has time to sit down for a few hours and reap the benefits of a good, ol' fashioned conversation?

Not many.

Perhaps our current environment of fast Internet, busy schedules, and any kind of food you can imagine "on the go" is responsible for this lack of genuine human interaction, but the sad truth is, there's really not too much we can do it about now. This is our current culture, our current behavior, and we must adhere to it and get over the fact that traditional social activites are behind us.

And so, with the world of Facebook reigning as the nexus of all friendship developments, I decided a blog would be a harmless addition to my life - a way to confess, condemn, commend, and create.

I'm not necessarily the most reputable or interesting person in the world. I'm 19 years old. I attend Ithaca College in central New York, but hail from Arvada, Colorado. I love learning and living life and hope that I can share with you all that I observe and experience in this short time we have on earth.

So what's there to gain from this blog? Who knows? But it's a way to make up for all those conversations you and I aren't having!

Accordingly, please read on, my friends. I hope you enjoy. As my title most appropriately notes, all things in this blog have a purpose, in one way or another!