WTF is with Angelina Jolie & Disney?

Angelina Jolie is complaining because there are no Disney princesses that represent her children who are African-American.

Obviously Jolie hasn’t read a newspaper or been on the internet in the last two years...Disney’s been in development of a new African-American princess “The Frog Princess” since 2006.

But besides that, Disney has covered other races in the past: Mulan is an Asian princess, Pocahontas is a Native Indian American princess, Jasmine from "Aladdin" is an Arabian princess... Additionally, their other movies have had a large variety of races and cultures explored. For petesake, the entire movie "The Lion King" is set in Africa.

But the real question is: Who the hell says that Disney has to be the United Nations of animation? Why are they made responsible for covering every race and culture? There are many other animation companies out there (Dreamworks, Warner Brothers...). And African-American actors have been in many many animated features in the past (Chris Rock in "Bee Movie," Jada Pinkett in "Madagascar" to name two). Why does Jolie think a princess is the only representation for her children to emulate?

And if it really bothers Jolie, why doesn't she put some money together and make her own damn movie?

Happy Administrative Professionals Day...I Guess

Today is Administrative Professionals Day. Back in the day I used to be a secretary/assistant/scapegoat of some sorts, so I had a very strong opinion about it. (See my previous rant here.) But no more. Now that I'm a professional pin-up girl, go-go dancer-slash-bartender, I don't have to bow down to the bourgeoisie holiday that is supposed to appreciate the professional administrative types.

But it'd still be nice to get flowers or something.

WTF is with the Media and Christmas?

You know the holidays are coming when the unsavory news articles start pouring in, jarring us out of the magic and wonderment of Christmas. In the past the news has told us about the global argument over saying "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays," drunken santas stormed the city protesting commercialism, flashers dressed as St. Nick ran around London, fire and gas leaks prevented church services, and gifts were stolen...

Well this season has started off with a bang as well. To make the point, Pixie showed me this article.

Santas in Sydney, Australia have been instructed to avoid the traditional greeting of "ho ho ho" because it may be offensive to women.

Why don't the news outlets perpetuate peace on earth and goodwill towards mankind? This is just ridiculous; the media is spreading stupidity, ignorance, and making people really despise the holidays. If anyone knows of any news articles promoting Christmas cheer, send them my way. I don't want to be depressed this holiday season.

WTF is with Disney and Sequels??

I just finished a biography of Walt Disney entitled: Walt Disney: An American Original, by Bob Thomas. Probably what stood out to me the most was Walt's philosophy in making movies.

In 1933 Walt Disney produced the cartoon Three Little Pigs. It was a hit. Though cartoon shorts usually lasted only briefly in theaters, it was shown longer than most feature films. Millions bought records of the song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" feeling that it was a sort of anthem for optimism in the wake of the Depression. When theater owners clamored for more pigs, Walt resisted. He didn't want to duplicate; he was always looking towards the future, trying to push the boundaries of animation and art itself. He didn't want to do more of the same. And so he was quoted as saying, "You can't top pigs with pigs."

Disney did his best not to duplicate; he constantly attempted new animation techniques and styles, and tried not to belabor ideas. But after his death, it looks as if the Disney company has forgotten Walt's beliefs.

Not only have they made remakes of classic live-action movies ("The Shaggy Dog," "Freaky Friday," and "That Darn Cat" to name a few) but also sequels of classic animated features. Why make "Bambi II," "Lady & the Tramp II," "Fox and the Hound 2," "Cinderella II," & "Jungle Book 2"? And even their newer movies have been sequelized: "The Lion King 2," "The Little Mermaid II," and "Kronk's New Groove." It's as if any time there's a hit, Disney sees dollar signs and churns out another. None of the sequels or remakes have done nearly as well as the original; none have surpassed the quality of the classic. (The only exception seems to be Pixar movies, with their dual hits of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" -- and now "Toy Story 3" is in the works.)

So please, for the love of God...for the love of Walt!...don't take a classic and make a sequel out of it -- even if it's just for video. No amount of money is worth butchering a classic. Just remember the wise words of Walt: "You can't top pigs with pigs."

WTF is with Disney and FastPass?

Disney is trying to patent a new innovation to their FastPass program. The technology would allow guests to buy FastPass tickets from outside the park through their PDA or text messaging. It also would give preferential treatment to people in higher-budget Disney resorts versus day visitors.

In addition, the patent application notes that, once someone uses their cell phone or PDA to contact the system, the system could recognize the device and track the person around the park. It sounds like a real-life 'Roller Coaster Tycoon.' Have they ever heard of 'invasion of privacy'?

The initial idea of FastPass was not to alleviate lines as much as to get consumers in to the stores and food lines, increasing profit. That's why there are no longer sit-down restaurants with wait-staff (except for one, The Blue Bayou). Instead of spending money to build more rides (which would also alleviate long ride lines) they converted every sit-down restaurant to a buffet. (Remember the chicken restaurant down Main Street near the entrance to Tomorrowland? And the Polynesian Terrace in Adventureland?) They want you in and out as fast as possible. And people waiting in long ride lines are not spending money.

I hate the FastPass idea anyway because every time I go to Disneyland, there's rude people flaunting the fact that they got a FastPass -- something that any average Joe can get for free. Oddly enough, I've had parents and children alike go "nyah nyah" when they pass me in line, even though I have a FastPass in my pocket to some other ride.

So this "new innovation" is a bad idea; it will just magnify this hierarchal feeling FastPass-users get. All in all, it seems to discriminate against people who are less financially successful. Can you imagine how bad this condescending attitude is going to get when people staying at the higher-budget hotels are getting preferential treatment?

Walt Disney wanted the park to be for everyone: it was the all-American, family experience. But that's not how it is anymore. Not it's all about the almighty buck. Even the price in tickets has increased to an astounding amount. (According to Wikipedia, in 1982 the admission price was $12.00. In September 2006 it became $63.00.)

Now we have to pay to get a good place in line? Just doesn't seem right.

WTF is with Valentine's Day?

I'm not sure what my Valentine's Day is going to be like this year. But I wonder: when did this holiday become so complicated? Maybe if we look at where it came from and what it originally meant we can figure it out.

The History Channel is most proficient in history, so why not start there? Then again Wikipedia is always a good source for a thorough explanation. But the most interesting bit of information is an article posted on How To Get the Guy about what men think of the holiday.

Valentine's Day is not like other holidays. It's not about some historical event or religious celebration. Although it may have started with some historical event, it's all about being in love or having a sweetheart. And when you're in a relationship there are certain expectations -- you want even the smallest gesture from the guy. And when you're single you're reminded that you're alone; you're the one still standing when the music turns off. So why did this holiday about love and friendship turn bitter?

This holiday has become what it is today because of society, and the perceptions of women's role in it. This is why men dislike the holiday so much: they're feeling the backlash from our own hurt and anxiety. Society puts a lot of pressure on women to get married, have babies, and be with someone. Even in the year 2007, living in L.A., and with uncharacteristically supportive parents, I still feel the pressure. The minute you are single, people wonder why. "Are you dating anyone?" is the knee-jerk response when someone sees you alone. And if you get in to a relationship with someone, it becomes "When are you two getting married?" even if it's only your second date. Men don't get this pressure to be paired off -- at least, not as much as women do.

This is not a unique revelation, but maybe it can help us realize that Valentine's Day is what we make of it. If you want to do something special that day, treat yourself and keep the expectations minimal. But if you want to treat it like any other day, you have a lot to contend with from stores, co-workers, and the media. So it's better not to ignore it. Just accept it as another day in the year when Society points their finger and snickers. If you're single, you should be used to it. I know I am.

WTF Happened to F$#@ing Good Manners?

I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but there was a time -- not that long ago -- when a woman would enter a room and all the men would stand up and take off their hat. Yeah, seriously. She could be 18 years old or 78 years old, but men would be on their feet when she entered a room.

What I'm saying is Men used to have manners. They used to acknowledge the presence of a woman by refraining from skanky talk, lame innuendo, and swearing.

Well no more.

Lou and I grabbed lunch the other day at a pretty nice establishment. So I'm not talking like Taco Bell, I'm talking cloth napkins and mahogony wood-paneling. But the guys sitting near us were dropping the F-bomb like it was too much to carry. F this and F-ing that. All just inches away from me.

Now I'm not a prude, but this was really bugging me. Here I am trying to have a pleasant three-martini lunch and these strangers are cursing all over the place right in front of me. Worst part of all: I don't know who to blame, the Men for doing it, or the Women for letting it happen.

You watch old movies from the 50's and a woman walks in the room, and all the men stand up. What does the woman say? "No no no, don't get up." And I want to scream, "Shuttup, you crazy broad! Let them stand up!" Over the years women kept saying "No no no, don't get up," or "Oh, don't mind me," when a man would swear. And progressively it's escalated to what we have now: a bunch of cursing, inconsiderate, profane people who don't recognize that the others around them do not want to hear this auditory pollution.

Well, it's time we take a stand. It's one thing to sprinkle a little French while gabbing with the gals, or even in the middle of a co-ed poker game. But doing it loud and proud in a public place amongst strangers is just rude. We should react when a stranger swears in front of us. And if a man stands up, pulls out our chair, or opens the door, we shouldn't say "Oh, that's not necessary." We should say "thank you" for crying out loud. These polite rarities don't happen often, and they should be embraced!

If only everyone in society treated each other with the same respect they did in the movies.

WTF is with the Fuzzy Brownie??

Is anyone else freaked out about the bizarre new product from Domino's Pizza? The commercial has a life-size plush brownie peddling their new dessert...but -- I'm getting disturbed just describing this -- it's a midget in a fuzzy brown box. And when the mother who answers the door pets the Fuzzy Brownie, she gets brown goo all over her. And then a little girl comes to the door and HUGS the thing and she's covered in brown goo! AAAUGGHHH!! *shudder*

There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- appetizing about this commercial. What makes the fuzzy brownie fuzzy? Was it left in the refridgerator too long? And why does it expound goo upon being hugged and petted? And why does the fuzzy brownie have legs???

The scariest, eeriest part? Apparently this freaky brown gremlin is named "Fudgems" and you can make him DANCE -- of all things -- on the Domino's website.

We'll file this under: NIGHTMARE FUEL!!!

Desperately Seeking Praise!

My *cough cough* small rant called WTF is Wrong With Barbie (parts 1 & 2) was featured in an article on BlogHer called "Desperately Seeking Barbie." I can't tell if it was used to agree or disagree with the writer (you make the call), but I'm proud to be used either way!

WTF is Wrong With Barbie? (Part 2)

Anorexic Barbie
In the year 1992, it was found that the average American girl owned 7 Barbie dolls. However, with all this popularity, this so-called icon of America has caused a lot of grief for the manufacturer, Mattel. In a book entitled, Forever Barbie, author M. G. Lord talks about the "collective subconcious of America" that has been "taken for granted." The biggest problem that people have with Barbie is that she is misproportioned. If Barbie was human-sized, she would stand at 5 foot 6 inches tall, weigh 110 pounds, have a 39 inch bust, an 18-inch waist, and 33-inch hips. Critics believe it is this outlandish scale of the human body that is detrimental to young girls' views of themselves.

Conclusion Barbie
Now that Barbie is no longer a dumb blonde or some unsuccessful airhead (because of her multi-faceted career choices), I still don't understand why everyone picks on Barbie. It just doesn't make sense to say that Barbie is causing little girls to question their self-image just because she is not realistically proportioned. Raggedy Ann dolls don't make girls want to be a redhead, just like Strawberry Shortcake doesn't make them want to smell like fruit. (Maybe the critics should look at those Bratz dolls...?)

I would think that playing with Barbie dolls would be a positive influence because they'd make girls want to own nice things, thus attempting to be more successful. After all, you have to make money to have nice things like a Barbie Dreamhouse and matching Sporty Corvette.

How can people say that a healthy self-image comes from playing with a toy, when the rest of the environment of the young girl should be held accountable. What about commercials that advertise cars and pasta but show beautiful, buxom women?

When I was younger and playing with Barbies, I just thought it was fun. I was not coveting her forever tippy-toed feet or her pencil-thin waist. I just liked to dress her up and comb her hair, and pretend that she was going out with friends or on a date. Barbie was not a figure I vicariously lived through, but a doll that did things I'd one day like to do. Besides, I had my own idol to look up to as I matured: my mother. With a beautiful, intelligent, independent, and successful woman living and breathing and interacting with me daily, when it came to looking up to someone, what did I need some plastic doll for?

Sources
Inventor of the Week (profile) - inventor biography, doll history
Detrius Projects - Forever Barbie, proportions
January Magazine - Forever Barbie, M.G. Lord
Barbie's Website (Mattel)

[Barbie is a registered trademark of Mattel, Inc. This webpage in no way affiliated with or represents the opinion of Mattel, Inc. or its affiliates.]

WTF is Wrong With Barbie? (Part 1)

Worship-Me Barbie
There are several websites on the internet that parody Barbie, such as Adios, Barbie which spouts the slogan, "Love your body, through thick and thin," and The Distorted Barbie that calls Barbie the "sacred cow" of the new millenium. Critics have said she reinforces sexism, embodying a young woman with no intelligence with an impossible body type. But how can that be? How could this little angelic face harm anyone? In learning more about this toy, perhaps we will can figure out what the big deal is.

My First Barbie
When Ruth Handler invented the Barbie doll in 1959, she was not out to squash women's dreams of ever being beautiful. On the contrary, her idea was "to make a three-dimensional adult female doll that was likelife enough to serve as an inspiration for her daughter's dreams of her future." Her designs were to portray the girl-next-door, the one we grew up with, the one everyone liked. And as the years wear on, Mattel has come out with new dolls to fill in the new images of the modern woman: Barbie is seen as a doctor, astronaut, teacher, police officer, lifeguard, businesswoman, and athlete.

TO BE CONTINUED...
[Barbie is a registered trademark of Mattel, Inc. This webpage in no way affiliated with or represents the opinion of Mattel, Inc. or its affiliates.]

WTF is Administrative Professionals Day About?

April 26th (this Wednesday) is Administrative Professionals Day.

Whether it's called secretary, receptionist, or Cuddly Bildy-bop, the titles have all basically meant the same job in society: answering phones and filing. Now, realistically, the job means a lot more than that to those who work it. It means dealing with many different people at different levels with different temperaments. It means processing reports, figuring out how to streamline the office environment, and managing schedules. It means covering for the boss when he or she is out, developing ideas that the boss may sometimes take credit for, and picking up the boss' lunch at his or her favorite restaurant, even if it means sitting in traffic for an hour.

But does this multi-faceted job constitute a holiday or day of observance? The IAAP, or the International Association of Administrative Professionals, says yes: "[The day] was established as an effort to recognize secretaries [oops!] for their contributions in the workplace, and to attract people to secretarial/administrative careers." Apparently, the annual event was organized in 1952 as "National Secretaries Week" by the National Secretaries Association (the name the IAAP used to hold). The IAAP explains the name change from secretary to administrative assistant to administrative professional: "The names were changed...to keep pace with changing job titles and expanding responsiblities of today's administrative workforce."

It just doesn't make sense to me to celebrate someone's occupation on a specific day, especially because the motives behind it seem so transparent: "...to recognize secretaries for their contributions in the workplace..." Well, duh. They should be respected and treated nicely every day. "...and to attract people to secretarial/administrative careers." A-ha. That's what it boils down to. It seems that the IAAP wanted to make being a secretary fun, to show that they are not the peons of the workplace, as they are sometimes portrayed. Look - they even get their own day! But giving a subordinate position a holiday does not move them up the company ladder, unfortunately. Even if it did, there is a CEO/Boss' Day anyway, so the ladder would just be raised once again. (Boss' Day is October 16th.)

So if there isn't a holiday, then what? Well, I don't believe that appreciation for a job should be shown on one day, just because a calendar says so. My favorite boss used to buy me lunch every once in a while. He'd recognize that I was working hard and promoting the company, and he'd give me a raise. In the morning, if he came in late, he'd bring in a cup of coffee for me as a thanks for covering the heavy phones while he was gone. And most importantly, I respected him because he believed if the assistant is doing a good job, he or she should be rewarded for it.

Sources
In Observance of National Secretary's Day - conspiracy?
IAAP Website - Administrative Professionals Week, history, suggestions

WTF is Daylight Savings About?

I know I'm a bit late on this, but it's still bugging me...I've been exhausted ever since Sunday. I've always wondered why we have Daylight Savings Time. If you ask most people, they say it's "because of the farmers." But actually that's not true.

History
The concept was originated by Benjamin Franklin in his humorous 1784 essay "An Economical Project." The idea was taken seriously and then advocated by William Willett in a pamplet entitled "Waste of Daylight." He was inspired when visiting a town, where he noticed many people's shades were drawn although the sun was shining outside. He proposed setting clocks ahead twenty minutes on four seperate Sundays in April. His idea introduced "British Summer Time" in 1916.

Energy-saving became big in the second World War. This time, clocks would be put ahead two hours in the summer, and it would be called "Double Summer Time." In the winter, the clocks would remain only one hour ahead throughout the winter war time.

1966 saw the Uniform Time Act put in to effect in the United States, establishing uniform summer and standard time settings. In 1986, legislation enforced the rules that we have now with every first April "springing forward" and every last Sunday in October "falling back."

So, you see, the farmers had nothing to do with it really. Most farmers oppose the idea, because the roosters don't realize there's a time change. It takes a rooster an average of 10 weeks to get synchronized with the new schedule. 70 days of listening to a rooster crow an hour off can be a little disconcerting.

The Pros
Okay, so it does save electricity. We go to bed earlier and therefore don't have our lights on as long as we would. According to sources, 25% of all the electricity we use is for lighting and small appliances, things we'd predominantly use when we get home from work. Studies done in the 1970's show that we cut our energy usage 1% each day during Daylight Saving time. That can add up to a lot of saved energy.

The Cons
It's easier to find opinions against DST than for, probably because negatives are a) more fun to talk about, and b) said more vocally. There is even a petition on the web to alter DST so that there are two permanent time zones, instead of four rotational ones. Can't tell you how it's going, though...

Some people say there are fewer accidents because of DST, but anyone who lives in the L.A. area can tell you that car accidents happen all times of the day, regardless of where the sun is shining. This cannot be a positive. I would think there are more accidents because people haven't adjusted well to the new schedule, thereby affecting their sleeping patterns.

The biggest complaint is that it's annoying to change your clocks back and forth, to remember what day it is that you do it. Or how embarassing it is to show up late for something because you forgot. Yes, that can be annoying. But so are a lot of things that we do in this country. Like paying taxes.

Conclusion
No, we didn't start DST because of the farmers, it really started to conserve energy during war times. So the question is, do we need to keep saving energy? Is the war that we are in now comparable to WWII and their energy crisis? Do we have to start having rubber and tin drives soon, too?

I'm not so sure. But neither side, for or against DST, has enough weight to sway me one way or the other. Except for the rooster thing. Now that would annoy me.

Sources
www.timeanddate.com - history, facts, pros
www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving
www.timechange.com
www.standardtime.com - petition and cons
www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html - "Saving Time, Saving Energy" - pros and history

WTF is with Traffic??

I don't understand it. It's really like that Goofy cartoon "Motor Mania." People who are normally pleasant and respectable to their neighbor on the sidewalk (Mr. Walker) get behind the wheel of their car and turn into crazed animals (Mr. Wheeler).

To get onto the freeway from my apartment building you have to make a left. But not just any left. THEE most dangerous, life-threatening left turn in the world. The type where all the cars are big colorful blurs past you going whir, whir, whir, whir and your neck hurts looking right, looking left, looking right, looking left for an opening.

And then you see your spot! That little Frogger-like hole that you think your car can fit into, going 40 mph. You inch forward in anticipation and then HOOOOOONNNNKKKKKK!!!! "What the hell were you thinking, trying to get in here? This is my goddam space on the road!"

I have to do this every day. Right left right left right left - is it clear on that side? How about that side? Whir, whir, whir, whir... No one let's you in. Finally you just have to clench your teeth, take a deep breath, and put the pedal to the floor and hope that the Traffic Saint cuts you a break.

This morning I got honked at for just inching forward. Just inching. I wasn't even in the intersection - still on my street, nowhere near this man's way. But I got honked at. And then I got The Look that sometimes follows the honk. You know the one - the one that says, "There's no way in hell I'm letting you in, pal."

Reseachers have found the reason why mild-mannered joes become these motor maniacs once they get behind the wheel. Apparently once we get into vehicle we no longer see ourselves as human, but rather the machine that surrounds us. And we no longer view others as people in cars, but the cars themselves. We forget that these are people who have families, lives, and their own places to go.

I just wish people would be a little bit more forgiving when mistakes are made. Try letting three people in front of you a day and keep smiling. It's not easy, but give it a shot.

And lay off that horn for petesake!