Monday, June 27, 2005

what to talk about

I'm tired of repeating the same news over and over again to a seemingly choir-like audience. Those who read my blog tend to agree with me so I feel that I'm not saying anything new. Besides, am I supposed to report on the never-ending dread of these United States of America?

Or that it looks as if Rehnquist will be retiring fairly soon; it's only a matter of time now. Then I believe all hell is going to break loose trying to replace him. This new space definitely scares me as it is a lifetime appt and we're on shaky ground with their rulings anyway.

Or that Christian Chick Lit has been increasing in sales steadily over the past year or so?

But the AMA (American Medical Association) did agree to back the legislation pending that would make pharmacists fill a prescription for EC/BC and if not, refer the woman to someone who will right away. I can deal with that.

Upon reading this article a while back, I got to thinking. When most people speak of poverty, they aren't necessarily thinking of white people, though I'm sure we all know poor white people exist. A college friend of mine, N., is constantly repeating this refrain: "I wish people would stop thinking all white people are rich. We're just as poor as the next black/hispanic person." I used to think she was imagining it, but through my experiences over the past few years, I've noticed the pervading sense that white people aren't expected to be poor and are looked down upon if they are. When a black/hispanic woman is homeless or on welfare, society scoffs, but in a way that only holds these women in their place of poverty and subsequently are blamed for it. It's a vicious cycle that often those who are living on welfare have a hard time getting themselves off it. I'm not saying we need to stop studying black/hispanics in poverty situations because they still remain the greater population of poor folks, but it is something to think about.

Dorothy Allison writes about white poverty as does Isaac Shapiro.

When I read about this new anti-rape device invented by a woman in South Africa, I wasn't sure if I should be happy or sad for the women in the "Rape Capital of the World." Happy because they'd have a better way to protect themselves; sad because they needed a better way to protect themselves since their government/communities don't seem to be doing too much to help them out without coming to such drastic measures. Read what this device does to a male penis:

The device, which Sonette Ehlers, its inventor, has patented, is worn like a tampon but is hollow. In the event of a rape, she said that it would fold around the rapist’s penis and attach itself with microscopic hooks. It is impossible to remove the clamped device without medical intervention.

Several other womens' groups in South Africa want it banned because it's a horrible way to treat a man. At least that's what I get out of their dissenting voices throughout the article. The way I see it: they are living in the Rape Capital of the World and no one is doing anything else to ensure the safety of women and young girls, so Sonette Elhers felt she needed to take matters into her own hands (er...vagina). After a few men/boys get their penises trapped in this contraption, I'm pretty sure they'd stop trying to rape so as to keep their penises in tact. Perhaps the men/boys should consider controlling their sexual urges so that this lovely piece of metal wouldn't be needed to begin with. What a shocking thought that would be!

On a lighter note, I finished reading Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. Wonderful, beautiful read and I highly recommend it to all who have not heard of/read it before. Most of the book is set in Afghnistan/Pakistan and the narrator tells a very compelling story. I'm not going to say anything more because I don't want to ruin any of it.

Yesterday, after I woke up around 10:30am, I began to read Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and plan on reading the 2nd installment when I get home this evening, Second Summer of the Sisterhood. I have a feeling both books make up the one movie since a lot of it can be condensed but I wonder how they plan on doing the inner dialogue (there is a lot of inner dialogue in the 1st book as the girls try to find each other without them all being together which has defined them previously). I'll find out tomorrow evening since I plan to finally see the movie around 4pm or so. I'll keep everyone posted.

I saw Batman Begins last night and can I just please say that Christian Bale looks as yummy as ever, especially since he had to get muscles for his new alter ego? And there's a new guy with pretty blue eyes, too, who played the evil Dr. tormenting his patients with some gas toxin stuff. And now I really want one of these.

Christian Bale played Laurie in Little Women; in Newsies, Disney's attempt at reviving musicals; in Reign of Fire with Matthew McConaughey as well as several other B-list films but who cares? He's nice to look at. Perhaps this film will shoot him higher, who knows. He's also British and does a pretty good job of hiding it though I wish he didn't have to. Gotham is in a world all its own anyway. As for the actual movie, it really was better than at least 3 of the 4 Batman movies already out there. I wasn't sure Bale could pull off being The Batman but came away with feeling he pulled it off. IMO, Michael Keaton was the better of the 3, but now I think Bale is up there, too (now making it 4 men who have played Batman). George Clooney and Val Kilmer just weren't good at being both Bruce Wayne and Batman.

And that's my exciting news for now. Peanut comes back home to me on July 1st. yay!!