the Girls, the Sex, and the Potentially Offensive

First of all, note to all readers:  If you don't want to know too much about the movie because you have not yet seen it, then choose wisely.  Read on at your own accord!  Otherwise, join me for a Sex and the City 2 discussion!


Last night my friend and I paid our dues to our long-standing Sex and the City addiction.  It got me through college and served as my bible for sex and relationships.  And, like every other Sex and the City aficionado in the theater that night, I anxiously awaited the start of the sequel.  Of course, the glitz and glam oozed from the screen, and you were allowed a quick glance at what these characters looked like in the 80s.  However, the movie was not without story line twists and complications for the characters.  

Miranda faces a new boss who refuses to give her the time of day and must decide if her job is what defines her or if she is to take time off to find a more suitable job to fit her "I'm still a mom who wants to be there for my child and family," status.

Charlotte now has 2 children, and baby Rose won't stop crying.  She is at her whit's end, and Samantha unknowingly leads her to worry about her husbands fidelity with the bra-less Irish nanny.

Samantha is, of course, the sexual fiend of the crew.  However, she is suddenly finding herself menopausal as well as restrained by the laws and customs of the Middle East.  She also has a moment with Miley Cyrus, who cameos in the movie in the same dress as Samantha at a NYC premier. 

And, of course, Carrie - main character and new two-year wife to Big.  She finds herself in the dilemma of defining her relationship with Big and not wanting to become an "old married couple," among other things.


However, the kicker?  They fly to the Middle East, all expenses paid, as a result of one of Samantha's new business propositions.  Of course, this ultimately sets up the girls to be exploring Abu Dhabi and a new culture, one with very different rules for women, sex, male/female interactions, and culture in general.  While this initially, to me, seemed like an interesting way to bring light to some of the amazing cultural opportunities in the Middle East, I, instead, found myself cringing through most of the movie.  The girls, Miranda aside, turned into "typical American tourists," emitting an aura of ignorance and living in a constant state of "open mouth, insert foot."  And of course, Samantha has to push the sexual envelope and finds herself thrown in jail after a very public display of affection with a Danish architect, which can be seen as a warning to tourists (Americans especially) about "Be careful what you do and where you do it"....we are not the owners of the world, around whom everything revolves!  Unfortunately, every scene came across with an aftertaste of mockery and disdain.  And all I could think about was "Why did you have to go and make fun of / film in the Middle East?!  Why couldn't you have gone to Europe or China or somewhere that doesn't already completely hate America!?!"  UGH!  Good movie with some good relationship, women-friendly messages, but the messages were muddled - at least for me - because I found myself watching the movie in a constant stage of discomfort / cringing-shocked-horror.  


Anyways, again, if you have seen the movie I'd love to know your take.  If you haven't, it's good, but just be prepared.  There are, though, some wonderful messages, insights, and, of course, fashions to be taken away from the movie!!  Regardless, I still secretly want to be Carrie.  :-)

Food Inc.

Today in school I watched a movie called "Food Inc." which was aired on WTTW a number of years ago regarding the production and safety of food.  It is also a book.  I watched it with my eighth graders, and had an extremely intelligent discussion afterwards about cost of food to producers, what its effect is on consumers, how they interact with food, what they knew prior to the movie and anything they'll talk away from having watched it.

Personally, I find it extremely disturbing.  Having tried to educate myself on food warnings, problems, dangers, I have lightly touched on all these subjects at some point, but never cease to be amazed by the stories that uncover more.  I already abhor sucralose, aspertame, etc, and refuse to knowingly ingest it (of course there are times when I probably do and do not realize it or can't avoid it).  However, I read another book which really struck a chord with me called Skinny Bitch, a book about going vegan.  I absolutely LOVED the book, and did successfully turn vegan for 6 weeks, until my body went through shock and I had to stop because I was having daily debilitating migranes.  Since, I have worked on trying to revamp my system slowly instead of quickly shocking it.  However, it talks to great lengths about different food dangers, the inside look at slaughter houses, and one side of the research of food.  I loved it, and think more people need to be aware about what they're eating and how to better approach food. 

And it's scary to think that so many people are unaward and how much the industries don't want us to know.  Are we becoming big-brother like?  Or are we becoming ingorant bystandards, allowing a few to make decisions for the masses.  If you look at government that follows this path, it's called Socialism, not democracy.  Is that where our food is headed?  Or, if you believe in capitalism, do you believe in social responsibility?  If we can make more money of faster / bigger / cheaper etc, do we have a responsibility to our fellow man to make sure we are producing food that is safe for them to eat?  Do we go back to the 1930s style of agriculture and have less and more expensive food for consumers?  But that food would be safer....so where do you find a happy medium? 

Tough choices.  What did you let pass through your mouth today?

Pearls are Always Right

I learned a new fashion tip today at school.  Whilst discussing how black suits can be right for literally every occasion (or at least all of their parts), pearls came up.  One of the women with whom I work said, "Black is always right, just like pearls are always right."  Of course, having never heard the pearl part I was confused and required clarification.  

Apparently, in Victorian times, diamonds were only permissible at night, as they were considered "elegant" attire.  Pearls, however, could be worn both afternoon and evenings, and were therefore "always right."  I had never really fancied pearls until lately, and now I love them.  I told her my favorites are the long strands that double and triple up and can be knotted and such.  She said, "oh, opera pearls."  Again, confusion.  But opera pearls are the long kind that women often wore to the opera.  Coco Chanel, in fact, was famous for her strands of opera pearls. 

In the same vein, matinee pearls are 20-24" strand pearls, and often considered more classic.  These can be worn all the time, and hang nicely under suits or with dresses along the collar bone.

And then, of course, as every woman knows, there are Tiffany sterling silver pearls, which are much more recent and hugely popular.  However, I must note here, that they are actually called "beads" as they are not true pearls.  However, they are usually about 18" and very classic.

Again, I love opera pearls but all three are infinitely important and truly make or break outfits based on function.  Happy pearl-ing!

Target Fashion

No, literally - fashion AT Target!  A friend of mine and I perused the aisles today, looking for a few new summery outfits to pump up our wardrobes (or, to pump up hers, my bank account and I got into a bit of an argument upon passing through said store's entrance).  However, we found some amazing new pieces!


Dresses from $19.99 to $29.99, bikinis from $10 on up, and leggings for $6!  And THEN we found the sale racks.  30-50% off clothes that are already reasonably priced!  And, Target clothes actually make sense!  They're fashionable, stylish, reflective of the latest and hottest trends, surprisingly comfortable and well-fitted, and you can buy them guilt free in 2 ways.  (1) the clothes (and shoes of course!) didn't break the bank .... although this notes comes with fine print.  It's always helpful to actually have a supportive bank account prior to shopping!  and (2) If something were to happen to the clothes (stains, spills, ripped seam, faded or shrank in the wash...or any of the plethora of ailments linked to wearing clothes) you don't actually have to freak out about it.  You didn't spend the equivalent of the worth of your first born child and Target often carries similarly styled clothes throughout the season so you could find something similar with which to replace the previous item!  It's really a win-win!


Plus, in case you haven't Target-ed lately (new word, Webster.  Please add to your dictionary.  It's the verb-form of Target, much like "Googled" for Google,) you'll be pleasantly surprised to see it's expanded grocery section.  Finally!  Wal-mart competition. Granted, now, the prices aren't completely comparable, but I'd happily spend my money at Target before I'd give it to Walmart, and now if I can do even more one-stop shopping - imagine the time and money saved on my end!  PERFECT!!!


Mmm, Target.  Enjoy your Target-ing.  I just recommend checking in with your bank account prior to your rendezvous.  

Changing Paradigms

The world you view is more than likely slightly different from the one viewed by your friends and family.  You've created your own viewpoint as a result of experiences through which you have been, thus creating your own paradigms about the world around you.  These paradigms serve as a basis for future experiences, influencing how you react, influencing your opinions, your morals, and even interactions with people.  


However, these paradigms can change as one experiences new things or new information comes to light.  (Think of the concept of the world is flat vs the world is round.  New information led to a change in understanding).  Well, tonight caused me to shift some of my own.  Yesterday I found myself upset over an issue with my father that proved to be more based off morals and principle than the actual issue-at-hand.  Past experiences and beliefs had set up a paradigm in me that made me react to our discussion poorly.  In short, I was actually really upset.  And then today, I walk into what I thought was a friend's part to discover that it was actually my surprise graduation party, which my father had been planning for the past 3 weeks.  The fact that I was surprised was a supreme understatement, especially because this party and display of love and loyalty didn't fit with my frustration from the previous day.  The person with whom I was upset and the person who threw me the party didn't fit into the one paradigm off which I was working.  


Thus the shift.  In order to understand, reflect, and mesh these two situations together, I needed to shift my paradigm - shift my approach and comprehension of the world around me in order for the two scenarios to coexist in a comprehensible manner in my own view of the world.  This specific incident had to do with understanding my own paradigms on family relationships, but these occurrences and paradigm shifts happen constantly and in every facet of life.  And they occur because a new experience doesn't fit into the paradigm of the world we have created for ourselves up to that point in our lives.


What sorts of shifts have you experienced and have you been able to rectify them for yourselves?

Local Young Singer Wows

Budget cuts.  Fired teachers.  Program money redistribution.  Education received a hard blow this year, but one school in OK, one family and one student in Oklahoma, has much about which to be proud.  


Greyson Michael Chance.


This sixth grade boy has spotlighted recently for his vocal and piano performance at his Middle School's recital.  Performing Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi", Chance wow'd the audience with an original score and a heartfelt twist on the singer's melody.  He may only be in 6th grade, but this talented young man holds quite the promising future if he continues to hone and pursue this avenue as a career.  The sad thing is, it takes something like a web sensation, a possible performance on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and a quick internet "buzz" to spark an interest in musical talent.  


In fact, this is not the only song this young boy has performed.  On his You Tube Channel you can see two of his other songs.  He wrote lyrics and score to both, and they are not any old "Top 20s" nonsense pop-song either.  They are deep, intense, lyrically-moving songs.  The sad truth of today is that we would rather our students succeed on the field than give them a chance to shine on stage . . . and yet we spend hours pouring over shows like American Idol and Glee that put emphasis and praise on musical talent.  But I guess these venues are only for students who can afford private lessons at home or can find the means to be self taught.  Why bother supporting in-school programs that foster these children's creative strength and talent when we would rather have a football or diving team to support?  Silly me, musical talent is only something to praise once you have some...not supported in the process of "until you have some" / "while you learn".  Maybe we need a few more Greyson Michael Chances to remind us of awe and power these talents bring to society.  Maybe then they'll actually be supported, because I would certainly hate to live in a music-less society.  Until then, Greyson, you have my full support.  Keep up the hard work!  You're doing an amazing job.

Lawyer Up? or Down?

Today on Yahoo News, one of the featured stories had to do with law students and jobs in the profession in today's market.  As the article illustrates, the number of law students has steadily risen over the past two decades, while the job availability has decreased considerably.  90.5% of law students in 2005 secured a job upon graduation as opposed to the 69.3% in 2009.  That doesn't bode well for those students currently in or considering entering law school, especially if the choice for going to law school was initially based upon job availability, job placement, or even worse, the need to defer undergrad loan payments for a number of years while working to secure a higher paying job.  


The reality is that being a lawyer, much like being a doctor, is a highly prestigious job, and one that is respectable, reputable, and often known for bringing in a well-paying salary.  But, when a market is saturated, as this article suggests it is, what does that say for those people looking to hire a lawyer?  Are we, as society, enabling an influx of mediocrity in this field by having it saturated?  Does this mean we are letting in too may law students? Or does this bode well for us, working on the basis of economics, suggesting that the increased supply will decrease costs for those in need of a lawyer because lawyers will just be happy to have work and will decrease their fees in order to obtain such work?  Or, is the continued steady increase in law students the result of the saturation of undergraduate degrees and people feeling that in order to be competitive in today's market they need to obtain a degree beyond that of undergrad in order to be more competitive in the job market?  If that's the case, should we be looking to make entry into college more difficult in order to compensate for this phenomenon?  


Where does it end?  Or, is this simply the result and consequences of a poor economy and it will fix itself over the next decade or so?  Either way, it's a lot of money in loan repayments for students who finish with a degree and no job.

In Time

In Time

I sat wondering if I could move

Not physically but of Mind

Of Space and of Emotion

And maybe even of Time

I knew not what I wanted

Only that I wanted to go

To escape – a run of color

Too fast for you to hold

Sometimes I feel so far away

Other times so stuck right here

Yet in my mind I can imagine

The life I wish were near

Do you see me as I see myself?

Are we two not but one?

Because at times I feel so stuck

– it seems –

My life has not yet begun

But one day I’ll be able to move

Both physically and of Mind

And you’ll see me as I see myself

I’ll accomplish it all, in time.

5/29/2009 by Stephanie Caprini
(published in the June 2009 edition of Coq and Bull magazine)

Generation Entitlement

Every generation is named by historians and marketing companies, as a means to "keep track" of people and learn about them, their tendencies, and similarities.  There were the "Baby Boomers", "Generation X", "Generation Y", and so on.  For a little more info you can check out wikipedia or this babyboomer website explanation for a brief overview. Basically, the idea here is that generations are often named.


However, what happens when these generational tendencies affect other areas of life:  drive, competition, education, goals, beliefs, even voting?  I partook in a family dinner conversation over the weekend regarding generational behaviors.  We discussed how one family member heard that baby boomers are actually negatively affecting the beliefs of the current young children and their outlook on life.  They're raising "smug" children, according to the article (see previous link) and teaching them narcissistic tendencies and to more or less "expect" things out of life.  Is there no more personal responsibility?  Everyone is just going to be given things because "they should be"?  There are already problems with parents actually attending their students' job interviews or calling bosses to yell at them for giving their children poor work reviews (yes it does happen!) . . . but what does that teach anyone?  When do kids learn to stand on their own two feet?


The next problem becomes, what happens when this starts to affect other areas of life?  Now, I don't talk about politics, people have the right to their own beliefs, but I did find this rather interesting.  A You Tube Video about young people and their outlook on politics and voting in the latest election.  It's from 2008, and Bill O'Reilly interviews 2 law students, probing into their ideals regarding why they support Obama.  Aside from the fact that it's frustrating how these two students want to be lawyers and can't come up with a solid argument, Bill O'Reilly pinpoints that the girl leans towards more of a socialist belief system, given her argument, which she finds insulting and vehemently rejects.  All politics aside, the belief system there, that the government should support people who can't support themselves isn't a new ideal, but it's interesting to see the how many young people are thinking this way.  However, given the generational upbringing, is this the result of children being brought up with a sense of entitlement?  I'm not at all saying the candidate they support isn't qualified or wouldn't make a good president, I find it disturbing how little these voters actually know about how the world works.  


However, who's fault is that?  Is that theirs or their parents'?  Does this idea of entitlement come from their upbringing or just what they've decided to believe.  Because if you suggest upbringing, then it's the parent's fault for giving too much to their kids, but the only reason the parents could give so much was because they worked so hard for what they earned.  But are they instilling that same work ethic in their children, today's students, and the future leaders of this country?  


It's a bit like the chicken and the egg argument, but one worth mauling over in your head or with a friend for a while.