Ever-Changing Fame, as Fluid as It Is Fleeting

Caryn James
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Story
The Summary: Finally, we know who the father of Dannielynn, Anna Nicole Smith's 7-month-old daughter, is... but is the media circus over yet?

Yay!!! Creepy Howard K. Stern gave up and let DNA test be done... and Larry Birkhead is the real father.

Seemingly, the main event in a media circus that has been going on since Dannielynn's conception is over. Before the her death, before the death of her son, before the birth of her daughter, there was this paternity battle primarily between Birkhead and Stern.

This poor woman's whole life has been a media circus. Granted, she brought a lot of it on herself (the Anna Nicole Show). But even when you do let the public into your life, there are times you don't want them there.

She was a stereotypical "dumb blonde" who married for money. Her story is the thing of "Life Original" movies. Married young the first time, had a child, divorced shortly after. She became a stripper to make money to raise her son. The she sent photos to Playboy, and made it to the big time. Her marriage to Howard J. Marshall was highly scrutinized, and a long court battle with his adult children followed his death.

Just as her life was getting back on track, her son died, and so did she. She was in the media more than ever before.

Her life parallels that of her hero's, Marilyn Monroe. America thought they were sluts. Hollywood took, America hated, and then they died young and mysteriously.

It's the end of the story that had everything. Love, fame fortune, a buxom blonde, a dark evil type, the good guy (not as rich as the bad guy), a baby, an evil step mother (except she was the real mother) and even a prince! Too bad it's not the end of the media coverage.

Good luck in life, Dannielynn and Larry!!!!!

Size 0?

Time to get a little off track. I was watching Rachael Ray today, and the super curvey, super cute awesome cook chick was discussing being a size zero. This has been a topic that's been in the news a lot lately, ever since there have been model deaths due to extreme anorexia.

It seems like Americans are either too skinny or too fat.

Every day we see a commerical for a new weight loss pill, or a new exercise machine. We hear about hot celebrity bodies. It's hard for a normal person to have an AWESOME body.

I gained a significant amount of weight the summer after my sophomore year of college because I was working two jobs, often 12+ hours a day, and would often end up eating McDonald's. Plain and simple, that was my problem. Waaaaay too much fast food. I take full responsibility for it.

Now my goal size is 8... I'm a 10... want to lose about 10lbs and 1 size. I'm struggling. And then I hear stories about these models who are a size 0, and want to be a 00. I see pictures of Lindsey Lohan when she was super skinny, and I wanna vomit... she was HOT in her Mean Girls days. Nicole Richie, too. Who told her to get THAT thin? I liked her when she was a little chunkier. She held her own with Paris Hilton, and I think she really stole The Simple Life

Diet and exercise. Two simple things that every doctor and dietician say are the key to weight loss, yet seem like the hardest things to do. Exercise takes time. Not only the actual time spent exercising, but you have to shower after, and too many showers make my skin dry.

I know that I'm a size 8 with some extra fat that makes me a 10. I wouldn't want to get any smaller than that. I don't get it. I don't get the obsession with being so small. Ask any man, and he'll tell you that a girl who looks like five toothpicks and a ping-pong ball isn't hot. But neither is a girl who looks like the ping-pong ball alone.

America has a obsession with food. Whether it's eating it or not eating it. Food has become a part of our everday lives. It's not just like breathing. We make decisions of when, what and how much we eat. What was once a form of fuel for our bodies has now become something we do for pleasure. It's not so much a fuel as it is an enemy. It's easy to go overboard, to eat too much.

Our culture has divided itself... we're about more calories, but smaller sizes

Romantic Revulsion in the New Century: Flaw-O-Matic 2.0

John Tierney
The New York Times
Tuesday, April 10th
The Story
The Summary: Going back to a study the author originally did in 1995, he examines the pickiness of daters now and 10 years ago and how new forms of dating (speed dating and online dating services) fosters those scrupulous tastes.

I don't see pickiness in dating as a bad thing. If you have incredibly high standards, you're less likely to settle for a bad person. Not saying that being extra picky is a good thing, though. Like everything, there's a balance.

Romance is one of those things that isn't science, but we want to make it into a science. There's biology, sociology and psychology behind relationships, and still we don't have all the answers.

The research behind the article found that money was a large factor in chosing a partner:

They found that a 5-foot-8 man was just as successful in getting dates as a 6-footer if he made more money — precisely $146,000 a year more. For a 5-foot-2 man, the number was $277,000.

It also stated that women are pickier than men. That doesn't make much sense to me. Why did Britney Spears marry Kevin Federline? Why do girls rush to the alter with the first thing that asks them? Women date losers all the time. I don't see many girls who are extra picky. The author does say that New Yorkers are pickier than anyone else, and I do live far, far away from New York.

I don't believe than anyone will find the perfect mate by making lists of traits they do and do not want. I'm a big believer of finding people you're attracted to, and going from there. You might be attracted to a loser... great, dump him. Move on to the next one. There isn't a science to attraction. Compatability might be a science, but attraction isn't. Just because you can live with someone doesn't mean you'll want to sleep with them.

H.P. Tries to Create Printers That Love the Web

Damon Darlin
The New York Times
Monday, April 9th, 2007
The Story
The Summary: HP sees a rising trend to a paperless society, so their trying to get people to print more.

I'm not a huge environmentalist... I like to recycle, and I try my best to shut off a light before I leave a room (doesn't always happen, but I TRY) I also do things like drive a car frequently (most of the time by myself) and drink water from pre-packaged bottles (they're convienent!)

But I'm not a big fan of randomly printing stuff out, just for the sake of randomly printing stuff out. I don't like to kill trees! Why would I want to print out a website? With CRT monitors dying out for easier to read LCD monitors, it's easy to read large blocks of text for long periods of time with out printing them out.

Granted, the use of recycled paper is on the rise, but still. When email first came out and the home computer became as common as telephones there was all this buzz of a paperless society. "We won't need paper anymore! We won't need real mail, we'll be able to correspond by email!" But printing increased.

And now, as HP foresees the use of printers going down, they're trying to increase printing of websites and blogs. (if you're reading this, please DO NOT print it out!!!)

I'm not comfortable with the idea of increased consumption. Don't we use enough in this country? Almost everything is powered by finite resources. We don't need big corporations pushing us to use more. I own a printer, but I don't use it. I haven't had it hooked up to my computer for more than a year. If I need to print something out, I do it at school.

It annoys me when we can't just email our professors assignments. Why should we print out a copy?

Grrrr... DO NOT WASTE

For Your Next Trip, Stock Up on Dental Mitts

Michelle Higgins
The New York Times
Sunday, April 1st, 2007*
The Story
The Summary: The trials and tribulations of liquid restrictions in carry-on bags on airplanes are examined.

I flew for the first time this past January. FIRST TIME EVER... at 21. I was most worried about not packing the right things, and ending up in some holding cell in an airport as a terrorist because I packed a tube of toothpaste that was too big. Because of this, I packed all of my body care in my checked luggage, with the exception of three two-ounce bottles of shower gel, lotion, and splash... back-ups just incase I wound up loosing my checked luggage. I was visiting a friend, so stopping by a Walmart or Target to pick up anything else I might need wasn't too much of an issue.

I made it to Tampa all right, and nothing got lost or majorly damaged. (I did have a shampoo bottle bust on me, but when ever I travel, I put everthing in plastic baggies... for just such an occasion.

One problem for airlines that has developed from the 3oz or less rule is that more people are checking luggage than before. Which is what I ended up doing on my way back. I packed my soft bag that had been my carry-on with dirty clothes (so there wasn't anything breakable in the bag) and checked it. It was a pain to carry two heavy bags around the airport. I was only going home... I really didn't care if my hair was perfect (it wasn't) or if my breath smelled (if you eat or drink anything, all toothbrushing/breath freshening efforts are shot, anyway.)

Trial sizes for traveling have been around forever! I don't know what the big deal is. Most people had smaller bottles of their favorites for traveling in the first place. Who wants to lug around full sized products! Where I work, all of are trial sizes are around 2oz... and come in small enough bottles where one should be able to fit a small arsenol of body care products in a 1-quart bag.

When it comes down to it, all of this is for our saftey. We can't complain too much, and just live with it.

*I found this article online, while finding the link to the previous article... and I liked it :D

Substitute Teacher Tells History Firsthand

Paul Vitello
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 4th, 2007
pgs
The Story
The Summary: A Long Island substitute teacher captivates his middle school audience by telling real tales of his past.

Every had those teacher, whether they were subs of full time. The teacher who had stories in their pockets, and would spend a whole class period way off topic, but, at the same time, you came away knowing more than you would have if class had gone on as planned.

History is a hard thing to understand. I barely remember what it was like before the days of computers and cell phones. I could only imagine how sucky it would be to have to share a phone with my roommates, and then having long distance charges on top of sharing. No thank you.

Having a person who was there who can provide a direct connection to the past which makes it easier for students to understand. You can say "The USA had ration stamps" or you can say "this is what it was like to buy food using ration stamps, and this is what my family did to adapt..."

A first-hand account of an event or time makes it more real. It takes the facts from history and turns them into people and places. Add a good story teller to the equation, and you have a history goldmine, where children enjoy listening to history. History becomes their favorite subject.

This teacher, Mr. Blume, 81, subs everything from math to spanish, and manages to bring personal experiences to every class. As a full time teacher he taught English and Social Studies. He retired in 1983, but now spends an average of 4 days a week subbing at Great Neck North Middle school.

I have a few substitute teachers that stick in my mind. One was Mrs. Oistead... she was a sub for as long as I knew her. I remember not liking her as an elementary student. She was one of those community people who, like Mr. Blume, never really retired.

Another, I can't remember his name at the moment, would bring his guitar to sub. Even if he was subbing shop. He was pretty cool.

Substitute teachers are special people who change the world, with out even knowing it. Especially the ones who retired, and still come back to teaching. (One of my high-school English teachers spent the beginning of her career subbing, as a part-time job while raising her family.)

For Girls, It’s Be Yourself, and Be Perfect, Too and Too Busy to Notice You’re Too Busy

For Girls, It’s Be Yourself, and Be Perfect, Too
Sara Rimer
The New York Times
Sunday, April 1st, 2007
The Story*
The Summary: The trials of female high school seniors at a competetive school are examined as they discuss the pressures of their everyday lives.

Too Busy to Notice You’re Too Busy
Alina Tugend
The New York Times
Saturday, March 31st, 2007
The Story*
The Summary: The author details how our everday lives have become hectic, and whether or not this is a bad thing.

These two articles caught my eye. The first is about the new generation of super-girls. They're athletes, musicians, strait-"A" students, good friends and good daughters, among other things. These girls live hectic lives for the sake of getting into a "brand name" (well known, but not neccessarily Ivy League) college.

But then what? Breaking their backs in college to get into a good grad school or professional program? And after that, course and club work to build a resume to get that awesome job? And what after that, working 80-hours per week, raising a family, being involved in a community.

Enter artcle #2... our lives are busy. Very busy.

if at some point life seems to calm down, then it is time to take on a big construction project, get a dog or have another baby.

I'm in the middle of these two stories. I work 25+ hours per week, plus I'm a full time student, plus I'm trying to eat better and exercise, which means finding time to exercise (luckily, the weather should be getting nicer, which means more bike rides) and I'm trying to find time to cook my own meals. That and I want to move in two months, and I need to pack and find a place to live for the summer, and I still haven't heard from either school I've applied to, so I don't know where I'm even going yet.

There's a "where does it end" feeling to it all. We work really hard in high school to get into college, we work really hard in college to get a good job, we work really hard at our jobs to rake in the big bucks, which we never have time to enjoy, because we're always working so hard.

And then you have the slackers, which makes you want to shoot everyone else and then yourself, because they seem to be getting by just fine, and you work your @$$ off.

I feel inadequit when I read about these girls in high school. I didn't even take the SATs... let alone worried about an external prep coach.

This life had become insane. We've become a nation of extremes. No one's healthy, we're either too fat or too skinny. No one's average, they're either smart or stupid. You either work extra hard, or not at all. What ever happened to getting a BA from the local state school and working 40 hours/week, buying a house on a thirty year morgage, and enjoying life? Even as I type it, I detest the thought. I think we've become a nation of addicts. If it's not drugs or alcohol, it's work or media.

I want a mandatory afternoon nap, or a month of vacation... I want to feel like it's okay to relax.

*I looked at today's paper, I didn't like what I saw. So I started digging online, and found not one, but two articles that I liked... enjoy!