Thursday, April 10, 2014

Reality Check...Stop Being Stupid

Everyone was quick to jump all over Gwyneth Paltrow for her idiotic statements about how difficult her life is compared to the rest of the world. At first I thought I have no right to comment because I don't have children. Then I thought I felt a little sad for her for being so "sheltered" that she can't get out of her own way. Then I reframed the problem and realized she is a bigger douche than I originally thought. You see, she has a choice to be ignorant of the rest of the world and what brought this into perspective was another idiotic move by a more "common" person, Rachel Canning. I didn't cut this girl any slack and she at least has the naivety of youth.

Rachel Canning is the spoiled teenage girl who wanted to see a boyfriend who may or may not be bad for her, but bottom line, her parents didn't like. She moved out of the house in a fit of rage and then turned around to sue her parents to continue to pay for her private school. This sense of entitlement plagues our entire population lately. The thought that you could defy your parents, move out on your own and then expect them to still pay for your existence is laughable. It is a sheer exercise in not understanding the basic facts surrounding "consequences for one's actions."

You do have rights, you do have choices and you must deal with the CONSEQUENCES of those choices. Move out, see the boy, figure out how to pay for your existence. You aren't owed anything in this world accept the right to live. Not the right to live in the glorious style you are accustomed to. Just ask anyone who has lost it all, there are no promises of future wealth or status here. How many times did Mickey Rooney go bankrupt?

Gwyneth seems to suffer from the same lack of reality. You see she grew up in a Hollywood home. She knows no other life. She has never wanted for anything so the idea of children going to bed hungry is nothing more than some sort of Sally Struthers infomercial. I understand her statement was probably meant to say her "relationship with her husband would be easier with a more consistent schedule." Problem with that or any of the statements she made, she works by CHOICE. If she really felt her life was lacking and she put her marriage above all else she could have stopped working at any time. There is enough money in those coffers to last an average person 10 lifetimes. You are not a victim of circumstance, you are a victim of poor life choices. You reap what you sew.

Neither of these situations address the sheer tiredness of parents and the amount that they have to balance. Women were further insulted as they don't often work by choice but rather out of necessity. They don't miss school events because they are making multi-million dollar paychecks, they do so because if they don't they might not be able to pay the rent, feed their kids or buy them a new pair of shoes. And please, don't blame the 140 character limit on Twitter, Gwyneth's stupid knows no character restriction.

As for Rachel Canning, she is definitely the victim of her youth coupled with access to a lawyer, a bad combination. If Gwyneth had bothered to consult with someone, probably just about ANYONE, they would have told her the comments were a really bad idea. On the other hand, Rachel got advice from an incredibly stupid lawyer who plays to the "entitlement" factor. As a country I ask that we please get back to a sense of reality. A sense of saving for what you want, not needing the new thing at every corner and understanding the value of our relationships. We are destined to fail if we keep along the path we are on, stuff doesn't fall out of the sky and a little work never hurt anyone!

For a great response from a working mother go to Crazy Days and Nights.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

HIMYM Finale, No April Fools Joke Here

***SPOILERS, DUH! I very rarely watch things when they are "on" but due to social media I knew I had no choice. I even had to shut down my phone three hours in advance to avoid any east coast people ruining it for me.
Series finales have lots of pressure. Add that to the fact that "How I Met Your Mother" took an untraditional road from the start and you have an almost impossible scenario. Social media lit up with complaints about the finale and problems but all in all the finale answered all the questions it should have, gave you a glimpse into the wonderful life the group had and ultimately made everyone cry at different moments.
Now there are some out there who are belittling the relationship he had with his wife because he ended up back with Robin. That just isn't the case. He loved his wife completely and never looked back. SHE DIED. So his life is supposed to end!? Even his kids called out that the entire story was aimed at telling them why he might want to revisit the idea of he and Robin now that they were past the child having age and now that he had lost the love of his life.
That's another thing. The finale expands on the idea of the "love of your life." At different points in your life there are changes that cannot be planned or altered. You can't just give up, you have to adapt. If Tracy had not died this wouldn't be an issue. For Ted to go back to Robin is not a statement on how perfect they were for one another but merely a statement on the inalterable change in the situation. Does everyone need to be reminded that Tracy had her "one love" prior to Ted as well? He died tragically and so Ted was kind of her second chance and she leaves him with a great second chance. They had about ten wonderful years together, only about three of them married. It gave Ted an expanded view on the world. Just because we didn't see him mourn the loss of Tracy doesn't mean he didn't.
The truth is that Robin and Ted could have never worked out in a traditional sense. He was meant to have children. He has that, he had the perfect wife for him and now he has come full circle back to his best friend. Just because the story isn't linear and perfect doesn't make it wrong. It is messy, like real life is. It also explains why the entire show seemed to be about Robin. As the kids pointed out it was never really about their mother or she would have been on the show much, much earlier, like six seasons ago. It was an explanation of the world of Robin.
As far as the Robin and Barney of it all, they careers didn't meld, they couldn't ever find a way to both be happy. Barney also needed a kid, specifically a daughter to really grow up. Their marriage was simply a stunted adolescence. They both loved each other but not in that, I would give up the world to support you kind of way. Look at the tough choices Lily and Marshall made in order to make it work. I was sad to see the divorce but it wasn't entirely unexpected.

Another criticism is the fact that Ted and Tracy had so much chemistry that the writers should have changed their course when they saw it, despite the ending having been decided. Now that is just silly. Ted and Tracy should have chemistry, they get married, they have kids they are happy. Stop trying to make one relationship be a statement on the other! You can love two people totally, in entirely different ways. Ted was true to his heart always. He made a commitment and saw it through, now it is time to make a new commitment. You can have chemistry with more than one person, you just make a choice to commit.
This was a nice hour to tie up a complicated story. There was even more pressure put on this ending than the other sitcoms (which everyone always says fail to deliver) because of the bookended end of a story. You saw a glimpse of how adorable and happy Ted and Tracy were, you saw Marshall and Lily grow even closer and happier and you saw both Robin and Barney find their groove. It isn't flawless, but it is a perfect mirror of life.


I understand that earthquakes can be somewhat scary. I understand that for those who don't live in California the thought of an earthquake is terrifying. I also understand that the drama the media makes up about earthquakes is ridiculous. My sister asked me the other day how many earthquakes I had been in. The true answer to that is 100s. Not exaggerating, not even a little.

The way the news makes it sound is that every single seismic event is one of epic proportions. That just because people feel a little shaking it is something to take the streets about and make sure everyone knows the terror that we live in. This is not a third world country and sending in photos of your fallen over picture frames is idiotic and way more than a little condescending. Let's wait for a real tragedy to start sending in photos of the "devastation."

Now I turn to my computer this morning and see the above headline. "Stars Respond to the Second Earthquake in March." First, let us dissect the statement for the sheer inaccuracy. I know we play fast and loose with the rules of grammar and meaning here in Hollywood, but there were THREE earthquakes just yesterday around the time of the ONE they are referring to.  The "first" one I am assuming they are discussing is the one of March 17th which also was a cluster of no less than two and likely more. What new math are they using?

Next, if you just pull up the USGS website you will see the entire area is lit up like a Christmas tree on any given day. Just because this particular earthquake seemed to last a little longer so more people noticed it, does not make it a reportable event. Maybe a single line item on the news, not a half-hour expose on the earthquake and what it means. My husband thought I was playing around, that is how little you actually felt in LA, which brings me to my next point.

In any other story the lead on this would be "ORANGE COUNTY." While I understand the wording is right in the article, the slug is WRONG. The geography of Southern California is not often related with any kind of accuracy, but this quake was in Orange County. That is not even the same county as LA. A county that is larger than many states and it wasn't in it. Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with calling it an LA earthquake when it is in the county but that is still a stretch. It is as ridiculous as saying Disneyland is in LA or that the LA Angels of Anaheim makes any sense. This is as ludicrous as starting to call the team the Ft. Lauderdale Dolphins of Miami and really it should be the NY Giants of East Rutherford by this new naming system.

Finally, as newscasters and reporters, please learn to listen. Stop asking the same question the person asked just before you of the poor scientists trying to explain to you that this is a non-event. It has been the quietest seismic time in all of LA's recorded history for 20 years so a few earthquakes doesn't mean the big one is coming. Rephrasing the question to say, "doesn't this point to a bigger event on the horizon" does not change the answer. There are pre-quakes, yes, but there has never been any proof of groupings of quakes that grow in intensity leading to a big quake. There are times of more activity that have led into big events, but we aren't even at NORMAL activity right now, so chill out!

I am glad that there are magazines out there that still make money. I am fine with the fact that our country is a bit star-obsessed. I am not okay with needing to get the celebrity reactions to non-events. It was a Friday night at 9pm, if you were anywhere but home, chance are you didn't know this massive apocalypse happened until you saw a Tweet about it or a lame newscaster chat about it.

Of course, the viral video of the KTLA newscaster diving under the desk was hilarious and the RIGHT thing to do. I only post this image because I love his eyes, his reaction and if I had 200 pound lights hanging over my head I would move too. Now that's worth Tweeting about.