Show Your Manliness With Your Dollars

Being a vegetarian, I unfortunately have to deal with "chick food". By chick food I mean the plates that revolve more around pasta and veggies, rather than beef and pork. I am effeminate also, in the way that I don't use a macho brand of deodorant, or drink the beer that is assigned to my gender. Overall, I am not really a man. At least, not according to the latest slew of ads and literature focusing on the Manliness of Men. For too long have men been subjected to lean to the feminine side, becoming metrosexuals, watching homosexual movies, or buying pansy products.
The likes of Carl's Jr., Irish Spring, Budweiser, among other companies, have laid claim to what makes a man "manly". Chick food, as is sung about in the latest Carl's Jr. commercials, is everything that is not meat. Deodorants must be musky, soaps must peel the dirt off your skin, even if it takes some skin with it, and beer is not supposed to be light or foreign, but American and calorie-laden. Men, stop worrying about your pretty boy face and start focusing on your batting average or why you are running low on Old Spice. There is this new revolution in our culture that is up in arms when seeing, what they call, the emasculation of the American man. Books like, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell", or, "The Alphabet of Manliness", have become bestsellers. Esquire, in their current issue, asks what the "State of the American Man" is? It appears to be in contestation.
While the gay movement has changed little in regard to gay rights, it has molded our current society in the most subtlest ways. A man is now called a metrosexual when he pays attention to his appearance, instead of being blatantly labeled a "fag" or a "woman" (although those lovely macho figures still roam the nation). Style has been considered an essential part of a man's "importance". Rugged outdoorsman is no longer the quintessential American homme; it is Angelina's boo, Mr. Pitt. "Prettiness" is accepted as a quality when it comes to men. Our perception of the American cowboy is outdated...now he wears Kenneth Cole shirts and a driver's cap.
So what is all this fuss about the emasculation of the boys, then? It has to do with what many have called "Frat boy machismo". Showing off your good looks is still in style, but so long as you maintain control over other things, i.e. your women, your preferences, your gender. Is it truly that important to have control in order to be a man?

Newt Agrees With Me...Look at that pig fly!

Reading the latest event in what I like to call "My best reason to crap my pants", i.e. the formation of an all-out global war, I saw that Newt already touched the subject on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Check out the link here, and look on your right side for Newt's shiny face and two-cents to boot. Let the History Professor shed some more light on these dark happenings.

World War III? Israel & Co. vs. Lebanon & Co.

The history books might have to make some room for the next "great" war. This time, it might be the East vs. the West. As the escalation in attacks between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah continue, the possibility of an all-out war solidifies among the rest of the world. Hezbollah, a politically and military powerful organization in Lebanon (condemned as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, including the United States), begun the exchange by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in a border raid. Now, Lebanon is dealing with the fallout of this incident, or, as Saudi Arabia has called it, this "uncalculated adventure".
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised that this will no longer will be a tit-for-blown up tat, but that Israel will see this in us vs. them terms. Syria has been included in the "them" category, as Israel accuses them of supplying Hezbollah with newer, better rockets, the which they never possessed before recent attacks. Syria, then, has responded by saying that they will support Hezbollah to the fullest extent. The war is gradually surpassing local turmoil. Syria, along with a reluctant Saudi Arabia, is on Hezbollah's side, and, since there is no other choice for Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, so is his country. Who, then, is on Israel's side? The Bush administration has not only failed to condemn the attacks by Israel, which range from destroying power plants to blowing up the Syria-Lebanon highway (both violations of international laws of war), but has tacitly endorsed furthering the attacks. Thereby, making the United States a possibly ally, or at the very least, not an obstacle to further escalation. The possibility that Saudi Arabia would join the Hezbollah-bloc, if only through finacial means, makes the conflict of the upmost importance.
Israel must now deal with the ultimate question: how many Israelis must be in danger until this becomes a World War? Alliances are being made, threats are materialized, consequences continue to increase. Who will stop their calls for war, Hezbollah or Israel? Someone needs to focus on reason rather than retribution.

Which Actor Brings the Most Bank?

Tom Cruise? Nope. Tom Hanks? Nein. Johnny Depp? Non. It is probably the last person you expect...a mad black woman. Business Week calculated that Tyler Perry is Hollywood's best investment. Sorry, Branjelina.

Gitmo Gets Mo' Rights

After begrudgingly accepting the 5-3 ruling Supreme Court ruling against his makeshift military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bush's administration has proposed a new, kinder, approach. Acknowledging what the rest of the world already knew ever since prisoner right's existed, Bush will (supposedly) give the prisoners of Gitmo all the Geneva Convention rights.

From the people that brought you "Fahrenheit 9/11": John Lennon

I saw this trailer on the movie trailer section of www.apple.com

It looks like the political movie of the summer, hopefully living up to the subject matter's importance. Lets hope for the best, be ready for the worst (i.e. Syriana).

Here is the official website, check out the trailer in the first heading after the title.

Rumsfeld Sold Nukes to North Korea in 2000

According to the Guardian, Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, was the director of ABB when they sold North Korea nuclear reactors. This occurred in 2000, only to be met in 2002 by the same man's claim that North Korea is a part of the axis of evil. How many times has this administration shot itself in the foot? I have lost count.

A Warranted Conspiracy Theory: Ken Lay's Convenient Death

Flirting with the possibility of creating a conspiracy theory, I can't help myself but indulge and call the death of Ken Lay a convenient event. At 64, Ken Lay, the founder and CEO of Enron (yeah, remember that company), died yesterday from a heart attack. Although the usual suspects have made Lay's death a result of stress and nothing more, it is hard to believe that only after his conviction and before being sentenced in October did Ken Lay die of an ailment he might have never suffered of before. I will not be surprised if only vague details, if any, are shared with the public about his autopsy. Unlike Gore's movie, this is a convenient lie for Mr. Lay.

What does this do now for the trial against him and Enron? Halt it. According to the New York Times, Ken and Co. are off the hook for now. A "dead" man cannot be sentenced, and seeing that his counterparts are in the same boat as he is, they have found a martyr savior in Lay. The assets that the government was going to take away from Ken Lay's hands are no longer attainable, and only the civil trial might take some of the riches away from the Lay family. As for the other big fish that needs to be fried, Skilling, he is hoping that his wealth stays untouched:

Mr. Skilling has more assets open to federal seizure than Mr. Lay had, including more than $50 million in cash and securities in a Charles Schwab account, $4.6 million in value at his 9,000-square-foot home in Houston and a condominium worth nearly $580,000 in Dallas, according to the government's forfeiture documents.

Lay, the king of few (rich).