An open letter to Demi Moore

Dear Demi,
So, your boy-husband left you after eight years of marriage and is hooking up with a new chick who is closer to his age - which means she's younger than you.

Sucks, doesn't it? Devastating, even.

After all those years of being with you, pretend-loving you and, let's face it, cheating on you - what? you didn't think it was only one time, did you? - he moved on so fast. All you want to feel is that your time together meant something to him.

Newsflash: it didn't mean as much to him. If it did, he wouldn't have boffed a chick on your anniversary.

So, get over it already, it's been almost a year.

I feel for you, I really do, because I've been where you are right now - several times, in fact. It doesn't get easier. No, I'm not your age yet but I have a rule that my boyfriends can't be more than nine years younger than me, and guys like Asshole Kutcher come in all ages. I like to call that demographic of men douchebags. They seldom change, even with age. At some point, they either get tired of trying so hard to get laid or notice their looks are fading, girls aren't biting anymore and decide that settling down is the only way to guaranteed vagina.

But I digress ...

Take a look at yourself; what you are doing so publicly isn't classy. You're in the news for a breakdown over a boy. Rehab? For what? I doubt his semen was made of cocaine and I'm sure you convinced yourself his penis was bigger and better than any other that you've ever had even though we both know it really wasn't.

You want him to remember you as a woman who respects herself and doesn't pine over someone so undeserving. A classy woman who doesn't destroy herself over a man who is clearly not interested in her anymore.You want him to look back with a pang of regret when all his other relationships fail or he ends up in a passionless coupling with a starlet who is - well, who is not you.

Which brings me back to the main point: He poked a slutty vag on your anniversary!

He basically took a gigantic poop on you, your kids and your entire relationship with that one move. You should be getting divorced and moving on - not throwing yourself a self-pity party every day hoping he will realize how miserable he really is without you - because he won't.Right now, you are validating his reason for not sticking around.

Seriously, is this the kind of guy you want your daughters to look up to? And what kind of example are you setting for them? Do you want your girls to believe it's okay for a man to treat them like they are worthless?

The best revenge is moving on and living your life like he never existed - even if it's on the outside. You would be doing two things with that plan of action: 1) Remembering yourself and your worth and 2) showing any chick that comes after you that he's not worth pining over.

We all know that the more you throw a pissing fit over a man, every other girl will want him. If you, an American icon, don't want him, why would any other self-respecting chick? Right now, his new girl is latched on tighter than a hooker with a dollar bill because she thinks she has something amazing. There is nothing amazing about a man who cheats on his wife, family and girlfriend - no matter what the reason.

Personally, I think you should still be with Bruce Willis. He aged well. Asston isn't going to age well. He has very feminine features and a weak jaw line. You want a manly looking man, not a skinny-fat, can't sport a sexy 5 o'clock shadow because puberty skipped him, prick.

Be an inspiration to women who are rebounding from bad break-ups - or at least to your daughters. I know, it's hard to be strong sometimes, but find your strength in your family, friends and retail therapy.

God knows that if I had the cash to spend myself happy, it wouldn't have taken me as long as it did to get over some break-ups - and I wouldn't have re-dated some of my exes.

Here's hoping you find your self-respect, pride and dignity, and pull your shit together soon.

Much love,
Dawn

An open letter to Taylor Swift

"The funniest part is that she's not even 18; she's 24," ~ K.E. 

Dear Taylor Swift,

I saw your performance during the Grammy's. Cute. I'm also now looking at an article on you and your newest Brit singer-beau. Really? Does he know he's just a draft for another song for your new album? 

I’m a reluctant fan. I will admit that your post-break up tunes are rather catchy and as long as I listen to them in moderation, I won’t puke – much. I’ve even been known to belt out one or two of your tunes in a drunken fit of karaoke.

FYI: I wouldn’t encourage that in a biker bar, they don’t like that.

But I digress.

We’ve all had our fair share of break-ups. As a matter of fact, I can count mine on two hands and still have digits left. For 39 years old, I consider that having a modest dating career – with the longest being 8 years. 

Not all of the experiences were good and one in particular was pretty emotionally damaging. But I try to find the lesson and humor in every situation before I exploit the hell out of my experiences in an emotionally charged, semi-autobiographical (if not anonymous) blog entry that isn’t meant so much for revenge as it is a release of pent up frustration and heartbreak.

After everything, though, here is what I learned: I am not always the victim.

I am also sorry to point out that neither are you and you should probably come to that realization, too, before you go down in history as the ‘crazy boy lady.’ You can't be 18 forever and at some point, you and your music have to mature. As a role model to young tweenage girls, consider it your civic duty. Besides, airing your dirty laundry in song, while garnering you platinum album fame, isn’t convincing anyone that you’re mature.

Seriously, at just 24 years old your list of former flames rivals an escort’s client list. Am I exaggerating? I don’t know, how many albums have you put out with how many songs about how many break-ups? I can’t count all of those on my fingers and toes.

Here’s something else you should consider: Maybe you think exploiting your exes by writing some catchy, pop tunes is the best revenge. Calling attention to how many guys dumped or cheated on you is kind of a warning to other guys you may want to date someday – whittling your pool of prospects to those who need the publicity to jumpstart their careers. Plus, let’s face it; none of those guys in your past heard any of your songs and thought, “wow, did I screw up.”

Look, there are only so many boy pop bands and you’re going through them rather quickly. Eventually, you won’t have a break-up to write about. I think it’s time you turned your songwriting efforts to appeal to a wider range of teenage angst drama - like partying, waking up feeling like P-Diddy, shopping and being the bad-ass chick who does the heartbreaking. There’s a whole demographic – and several more platinum album opps – you can exploit.

Remember, this biz is all about creating longevity in your career. When it comes down to it, do you really want to be known as the ‘hang-and-banger’ – the chick who hangs out with a guy only to bang out a song victimizing herself in the hopes of teaching him a lesson. Because in the end, once it’s over, he really doesn’t care  because the intent was to “never, ever get back together.”

Sincerely,

Chick Norris

Just a few things science fiction movies got wrong:

Yes, folks, I am a huge fan of science fiction – not just busting d-bags balls as Chick Norris. Just the other day, a co-worker and I were discussing one really huge inaccuracy from the movie John Carter. I won’t go into detail, as I’m sure there are a few of you who haven’t seen it, but if you’ve seen it and want to know, message me. We’ll talk. For everyone else, let’s talk sci-fi and why some of that s*&# just isn’t possible – yet.

1.Time travel: Impossible. It requires that you travel faster than light and according to Einstein, there is nothing that can travel faster than light. Not to mention the amount of energy you need to get to the speed of light is … well, you will need an infinite supply of energy. Theoretically, wormholes can make that happen, but you would need something called negative energy to keep one of those bad boys open – and as far as anyone knows, there’s no such thing.

2.In space, no one can hear you scream: correct, they can’t. See, sound needs air to travel and there’s no air – and no light - in the vacuum of space. So, all those super-cool space ship fights in the movies would actually be pretty boring to watch in real life.

3.Humanoid and half-breed aliens: probably not accurate. Here’s why: Humans have evolved according to our environment and we should assume that life on other planets would evolve the same. So, the odds of the universe being stocked with “chesty, alien princesses who crave starship captains” is slim to none. Which brings us to half-breeds (human/alien offspring). Our DNA is too different for us to interbreed with other species on our own planet, much less an alien species. So, when you are watching, “Species 4 or 5 or 10” and they are making a baby from human/alien experiment … it’s highly impossible as there’s no guarantee that an alien species could have the same DNA encoding we do.

4.Laser bolts you can dodge: you can’t. Why? Because lasers are made of light and you can’t travel faster than the speed of light. So, unless whoever is pointing a laser gun at you is a poor shot, you’re getting hit. Boom. Let’s hope it’s set on stun.

5.Planetary gravity: not the same as on Earth. Different planets have different gravitational pulls. Here’s one aspect of the movie John Carter that was correct. When John Carter appeared on Mars, he had the ability to jump great distances and heights. That’s because while he weighed about 180 pounds on Earth, he would only weigh about 70 pounds there. It’s incredibly shortsighted to assume that every perceived, ‘habitable.’ planet will be just like Earth. That said:

6.What does every planet in ever science fiction movie have in common? You guess it. They all look like Earth. While that’s not impossible, just like alien species looking humanoid, it’s probably unlikely. Consider the planets in our own solar system – each has varying ecological areas depending on their atmospheric and weather patterns. Venus, considered Earth’s twin, is all desert, but we can’t live on it because the surface is hot enough to melt lead. So, we have to assume whatever life is on these other planets was born to and has evolved to be able to survive there.  So, alien life probably wouldn’t survive on Earth in the event of an actual alien invasion. They probably wouldn’t be able to survive on our planet.

Douche of the week: the Media

So, I logged into my Facebook account the other day (something I do fairly frequently) and I saw that the majority of my 2,458 ‘friends’ had replaced their status updates with something like this:

‘Charlie Sheen is all over the news because he's a celebrity drug addict while Soldier’s name, age; Soldier’s name, age; and Soldier’s name, age; were Soldiers who gave their lives this week with no media mention. Please honor them by posting this as your status for a little while.’

It’s a very real reminder that there is still a war going on overseas and moms, dads, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and people’s children are making the ultimate sacrifice for freedom: their lives, the lives of their loved ones. Clearly, with the recent psychological and emotional breakdown of current celebrities (Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen), the media has forgotten about the Soldiers who are still deployed and fighting so the rest of us at home can enjoy such frivolities as … watching a sitcom star break down on national television, the news and through social media sites. Let’s break out the popcorn and fuel the celebrity narcissists who know exactly how to capture America’s attention through publicity stunt meltdowns. It was interesting for about a hot minute, only because I quote Mean Girls and grew up watching the Sheens.

And, look, already I’ve spent too many words mentioning the selfish, overpaid people whose continued ‘fame’ is bent on the mere mention of their names.

Seriously, I’m a military brat, my dad served over 20 years in the Army. My middle brother was in the Air Force and my youngest brother … well, he decided to go to college. I considered the military until I saw how much physical activity was required for morning PT. Not my thing. But it is the ‘thing’ for all of those who decided to join, those like my boyfriend and the Soldiers I work with everyday, who believe in something other than themselves and who continue to protect our rights and freedoms. Those are the ones who should get the spotlight, whose families should be thanked and, honestly, deserve a better paycheck than any celebrity or athlete. They are our heroes, like the kind you see in the movies, only for real. That would make them celebrities, too, right?

Wrong. There’s no red carpet welcome for them when they come home – if they come home at all.

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, since Operation Iraqi Freedom started in 2003 until July 2010, over 4,000 (some Web sites claim over 6,000) American Soldier’s have lost their lives while deployed. This doesn’t include the coalition forces or civilian death toll (those numbers were pretty staggering). I know that there can’t be a story on every Soldier who has been killed in action or family member who has lost a Soldier, and I’m not even saying that the media hasn’t covered the war at all in recent months. What I am saying is that in the last few weeks that I turned on the news, all I heard about was the Sheen-ocalypse. Before that, it was Gaga-gate and even before that we had Tiger’s Woody. The only time it seems that a Soldier is in the news nowadays is if there’s an isolated incident of a bad choice that leads to fatalities.

Maybe to some, news of what’s going on in Iraqi-stan is played out. I know that the majority of the population tunes into the boob-tube for entertainment, to escape the reality of what’s going on in the world around them. They make television shows like Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, The Bachelor and American Idol: Auditions so that we can rejoice in our lives not sucking as bad as those that seem to suck more ass than a bus seat. But when I turn on the news, I expect to hear about newsworthy topics, not an entire loop of CNN coverage of celebrity drama. Don’t get me wrong, I’m genetically predisposed to being drawn to gossip about folks whose lives mean absolutely nothing in the day to day of my own life. But there’s a time and a place for that: prime time television and E! News Daily.

To the men and women who have served and are still serving; to those who have lost their lives and to all their families, you guys are my superheroes and celebrities.

To the media: quit being douche-tubes; prioritize and realize there are too many angles to cover what’s going on with the military and actual newsworthy events. I know, I read about it every week in the military newspaper.

Gov't wants to regulate junk food ads aimed at kids ... maybe they should ban parents from buying it first

So, the government wants food companies and restaurants to cut back on advertising unhealthy foods to children. Because it’s not the parents’ fault that kids eat junk at mealtime instead of healthy food. No, with restaurants and food companies bombarding kids with ads for junk foods and sodas, it’s clearly not on a parent to know how to moderate a childs’ diet by limiting the amount of said advertised junk food a child eats. I’m assuming this is a government effort to tackle the nationwide, childhood obesity epidemic. Part of that effort is to blame the people providing those foods by targeting the adolescent demographic through advertising. That’s like saying I can eat McDonald’s every day for every meal, gain a lot of weight and then blame the restaurant for making it so enticing through advertising that I had no choice but to buy it and eat it – every day.

Bull and crap.

This is not the fault of advertising. If it wasn't working, they wouldn't do it. Parents know that sodas, gummy snacks, cookies and processed and fast foods are not the healthiest choices but are too busy or too tired to think about what they are feeding their kids. At the end of an 8-hour work-day, it’s easier to whip-up, pick-up or leave it up to the kids to dictate their meals. So, if a kid is eating it, a parent is buying it. How can you blame advertisements? Advertisements are purchase suggestions, not ultimatums. Parents clearly have a choice in whether to make that purchase or not. If children are making the food buying decisions in a household, then maybe the dynamics of that family need to be re-evaluated. Just because my daughter asks me for soda or cereal loaded with sugar, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy it for her. But I’ve been known to nuke a boxed meal for her because I was too tired after work and I've let her down a half-a-box of Oreos because it was easier than arguing with her - not because she saw an ad on TV and made me do it. I am the parent and I have the authority to say NO.

But, looking at the new proposal, companies will be urged to only market foods to children ages 2 through 17 that are low in fats, sugars and sodium, and contain specific, healthy ingredients. Under new guidelines that would be phased in over the next five years, foods that “have any trans-fat, more than one gram of saturated fat, 13 grams of added sugars and 210 mg of sodium” would not be eligible for marketing. This is to “support, rather than undermine parents’ efforts to get their children to eat more healthfully.” So, basically, we’ll be looking at ads for fuits and veggies, grains and other healthy foods that parents are already not buying their kids. And no matter how you package broccoli, kids are still probably not going to want to eat it.

This isn’t the first time that the government has intervened. Public health advocates argued that the food industry’s self regulation is not enough, and pushed for the government to set guidelines - which they did. Back in 2009, Congress directed the FTC and ADFDA to develop recommendations. The guidelines were broad, but the food industry reduced the number of TV ads aimed at children over recent years and many of those companies reformulated foods to reduce unhealthy ingredients. I’d say that’s a win.

Although these newer guidelines are voluntary, I’m sure we’ll see a slight change in what is being advertised as far as food is concerned. But, again, we can’t blame a company or restaurant for what and how much parents are feeding their children. It’s every person’s responsibility to know and understand that too much unhealthy deliciousness is going to have an adverse affect on their child’s health. Our kids are fat because we are making them that way by allowing them to eat what they want and be lazy. When parents care enough to encourage good eating habits by making healthy food choices for their kids as a lifestyle, discouraging WoW and other video game marathons by getting them involved in some form of physical activity, and inter-acting with their kids on a daily, we will see an increase in the wellness of children everywhere. Placing the blame on companies and restaurants is a cop-out. Place the blame where it belongs: with the parents. Because once you start regulating everything, you might as move to China. You can’t do anything there, not even time travel

Trending: Full frontal ‘dude-ity’

What’s up with all the gratuitous man-junk shots in movies and new cable series?

It’s like Hollywood ran out of ‘wow factor’ ideas and turned to the male appendage for shock value, comic relief and an attempt to hook female viewers with sex-appeal. Because, let’s face it, nothing says ‘sex appeal’ more, to chicks, than a full-on shot of a penis. Honestly, to me, that’s probably the least attractive part of the male anatomy to see on-screen, even if my new guilty pleasure is the Showtime reality series, Gigolos, which documents the sex-ploits of four (or five) male prostitutes in Vegas.

The last two movies I saw, Hall Pass and Your Highness, featured an element of surprise in the form of two schlong shots I didn’t see coming. Two of my favorite new cable series, Spartacus and Game of Thrones, throw around the full monty when it has nothing to do with what’s going on in the story; it’s as if the junk shot was a standard wardrobe change. I’m not sure if actors are stunting their rise to fame through a creative risk – the risk that their choice in roles in a particular movie or series could make or break their career. If the series is a success, it’s considered edgy; if it’s a flop, well, it’s the only thing people will remember. Look what happened to actor Simon Rex – oh, wait, that was gay porn – my bad. But his choices did affect the roles available to him in future, forgettable films, like … well, I forgot. But I digress …

It’s like when Tinsel-town discovered naked chicks drew box office bucks and actresses saw a way to jumpstart a stagnant career. As a matter of fact, nowadays, it’s easier to keep track of the actresses that don’t do nude scenes than the ones that do. But a penis is kind of like a fart joke, it gets old after a while. Boobs never get old - ever. Because, unlike the penis, you can be assured that every set of tits that shows up in a movie or on cable, that’s not featured on a health documentary, will look great. You can’t really guarantee that about a man’s junk. It just hangs there … until it’s moved. That is truly an appendage that’s for functionality only. You can’t even dress it up.

So, being the curious gal that I am, I decided to take to the Internet and learn more about this new … element … in movie-making. What I found out was that that first, this wasn’t an all female idea as a way to stick it to the dudes for objectifying the female form and two, men have been getting naked in film for a while now – although not as often as women until more recently. Why?

According to the executive producer of a reality series on cable television, more male nudity can be viewed as less repressed and more balanced to what is shown of women. In the movie Your Highness, the director said the shot of the Minotaur’s weenis (which comes out of nowhere) was the subject of much planning and internal debate from within and outside of the studio. Lighting, size and the state of arousal were all discussed at length to produce the final filmed scene. I imagine the same can be said of all the featured and cameo appearances of a man’s junk in television or film.

In the past, the scenes were so fast and so small, it was almost as if Hollywood was testing the waters of what would be acceptable by quick flashes and faraway, you-can-almost-make-out-a-no-no-part shot. It was shocking to see a man’s jigglies flash before your eyes on-screen, and sometimes it was so fast you wondered if that really happened. But actors have been known to take it off for a movie. Richard Gere did it in American Gigolo. Bruce Willis bared a close up of his itty bitties in The Colour of Night and although Wild Things was popular for other reasons, Kevin Bacon gives the full frontal in the cult classic. In Alexander, Colin Farrell bares it all for a wedding-night sex scene. Then there’s the unnecessary, bleach your eyes, nude wrestling scene between Sasha Baron-Cohen and his rather large sidekick, in Borat. Funny, but ever so gross, the image of the fat guy’s bits bouncing on Baron-Cohen’s face is forever imprinted into my brain.

What I came to conclude after much research and a lot of thinking is that man-junk is Hollywood’s new trump card. It’s the surprise, new element to making comedies even more funny and sex scenes more realistic. In other words, the creative geniuses that make movie magic happen have run out of ideas and pulled this out of their asses. Even though I don’t really care to see a man’s no-no parts, I can’t really complain. Those gratuitous scenes are part of some of my favorite new shows on cable.

Oh. My. Gosh. Look at his junk. I mean, it's so GROSS. It looks like one of those slim jims you get at the store. I mean, it's ... so ... WEIRD looking ...

Spanking: is it child abuse or a parent’s right?

I don’t spank my daughter anymore. Actually, I stopped spanking her when she was still a toddler because, as a form of discipline, it wasn’t working. Nothing made that fact more clear than when her father gave her a choice between getting a spanking or having her television privileges revoked and she weighed-in on which would be worse by asking how many spankings she would get. She was 4-years old. From that point on, we realized the more effective disciplinary action would be to start restricting her fun stuff.

But for some parents, spankings work and who are we to tell them they may not discipline their kids as they see fit? I ask this because I recently came across an article written by a woman who was abused as a child and considered calling the police on a parent who spanked her child in a public place because she felt it was child abuse. She went on to ask, “how can we work to eradicate child abuse when it’s legal to spank?” She continued to state her case by saying spanking is assault and battery, noting that there are even a few states that have passed anti-spanking laws.

Whoa. That’s a little dramatic.

Child abuse and neglect are defined by federal and state laws. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, child abuse is any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm, or the rape, and in cases of caretaker or interfamilial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. Whew. That was a mouthful.

Let’s go ahead and break that down:

Physical Abuse
Physical abuse is generally defined as "any non-accidental, physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning or biting, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 38 states, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.

Neglect:
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm. Approximately 24 states include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect. Seven states specifically define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child. In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation
All States include sexual abuse in their definitions of child abuse. Some States refer in general terms to sexual abuse, while others specify various acts as sexual abuse. Sexual exploitation is an element of the definition of sexual abuse in most jurisdictions. Sexual exploitation includes allowing the child to engage in prostitution or in the production of child pornography.

Emotional Abuse
Almost all States include emotional maltreatment as part of their definitions of abuse or neglect. Approximately 32 States provide specific definitions of emotional abuse or mental injury to a child. Typical language used in these definitions is "injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response or cognition," or as evidenced by "anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior."

Parental Substance Abuse
* Parental substance abuse is an element of the definition of child abuse or neglect in some States. Circumstances that are considered abuse or neglect in some States include:
* Prenatal exposure of a child to harm due to the mother's use of an illegal drug or other substance (14 states and the District of Columbia).
* Manufacture of a controlled substance in the presence of a child or on the premises occupied by a child (10 states).
* Allowing a child to be present where the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of controlled substances are used or stored (three states).
* Selling, distributing, or giving drugs or alcohol to a child (seven states).
* Use of a controlled substance by a caregiver that impairs the caregiver's ability to adequately care for the child (seven states).

Abandonment
In general, it is considered abandonment of the child when the parent's identity or whereabouts are unknown, the child has been left by the parent in circumstances in which the child suffers serious harm or the parent has failed to maintain contact with the child or to provide reasonable support for a specified period of time.

As for anti-spanking laws, I couldn’t find one state law that prohibits a parent from spanking their children. What I did find was that some states defined what is considered abuse by whether a mark is left and how long the child sports the mark – even if it’s just a spanking. So, if you spank your child on the leg and your hand print is left longer than the state definition allows, you will be looking at a visit from child protective services if you are reported.

Most of us who are over a certain age, and even some who aren’t as old, remember getting spanked growing up. I know I do, and I can tell you that I never did the same thing twice if I got spanked for it the first time. My parents totally believed in the power of the hand on my ass to get their point across. When that didn’t work, they moved on to more effective means of discipline like taking away privileges and manual labor. It worked, I didn’t turn out too bad.

Going back to the article about the woman who wanted to report a parent for spanking a child, people should mind their own business unless they witness someone beating or mistreating a child as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the law. Let me just emphasize that spanking is not considered a beating – a beating will leave a bruise. Some might argue that corporal punishment leaves an emotional scar or mark on a child that they carry into adulthood. Well, so does name-calling on the playground. Everyone has a different parenting technique which includes how they choose to discipline their children. Some believe in spankings, while others choose to try alternative methods of discipline. Some might even start with spanking and move onto something different when that doesn’t work anymore, like me and my daughter’s dad. But whatever the method, it’s a parent’s right, not anyone else’s, to decide what works for them.

EXTRA: a study conducted last year resulted in finding that children spanked up to the age of six, are likely to perform better at school as a teenager, were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.