Unless it features racist black people, feminist hypocrites, and the Kardashians playing themselves in the role of "worst people in the universe," don't watch that OJ Simpson special

Did I get your attention with the headline? Good. Now, before you tune in for night two of The People vs. OJ Simpson, let's remember what the OJ saga was really about: domestic violence, race hustling, and how the rich and powerful are able to game the legal system in order to literally get away with murder. It also proves that the Kardashians are a plague upon human society and should be wiped off the face of the planet--but I'll save that point for last.

We all know how it started. Shortly after midnight on June 13, 1994, OJ's ex-wife Nicole, along with her friend Ron Goldman, were brutally murdered outside her condominium. That's pretty much where the facts end and the media myths begin, starting with the idea that there was an "investigation" and a hunt for suspects before the racist LAPD decided to pin it on poor, oppressed OJ Simpson. In fact, there was little doubt about who was responsible. The police had been to this address approximately a million times before, since OJ kept coming around to kick in the door and beat up Nicole. He was convicted of domestic battery while they were still married, and thanks to his celebrity status and high-powered attorneys, he got off with a slap on the wrist. Even divorcing him didn't make him go away. Any sentient person could see that he was pretty determined to kill her--to the point that family "friends" Kourtney and Kim Kardashian recall hearing about the murders that night and instinctively screaming, "Oh my God, OJ killed Nicole!"

Really? How did the Kardashians know that? (More about that later.)

Also, all sentient people knew that OJ Simpson was guilty as sin. For starters, there was literally a trail of Nicole’s blood leading from her condo to OJ’s car. A pair of socks drenched in Nicole’s blood was found in his bedroom. When the police were about to arrest him, OJ fled with a passport, a disguise, and a large amount of cash.

But who needs evidence on their side when they have the Kardashians and a smarmy black attorney willing to gin up anti-white hate and hysterically accuse the LAPD of a racist conspiracy? For OJ and Johnnie Cochran, the fact that it was a crock seemed to be part of the fun. Cochran amused himself by making up silly rhymes like "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit." (And ignore that trail of the victims' blood!) Once Cochran's theatrics turned the entire trial into a racial issue, the mostly black jury had its mind made up: OJ was getting off. Who cares about facts? It was their chance to get even. Now rich, powerful, well-connected black celebrities could game the legal system and buy their innocence, just like rich, powerful white celebrities! Personally, I don't think this was some huge milestone to celebrate. But the blacks who celebrated the verdict like they'd won the Super Bowl, rather than a grisly murder trial, made it obvious what this was all about.

There were apparently only three groups in America willing to entertain this bullshit about racist cops: the media, black activists…and feminists.

You might be asking yourself, "Wait, don't feminists have a problem with wife-beating?" In theory, yes. But they were willing to make an exception in this case. Just ask Tammy Bruce, the self-described lesbian feminist activist and former President of the LA chapter of the National Organization for Women.

“During the trial…photographs of Nicole Simpson’s bruised face and desperate 911 calls horrified the nation," Bruce wrote in her first book. "But they apparently did not horrify National NOW. The silence was deafening.”

Instead of rallying to feminist action after a gruesome domestic violence murder happened in their own backyards, NOW went to work sucking up to the NAACP. They refused to get involved publicly, and in private, they were staunchly pro-wife-beater. Tammy Bruce was accused of being a racist and "hurting young black men" with her "crusade." (Yes, her "crusade" to stop wife-beaters and killers from walking free.)

But the heroic Tammy Bruce soldiered on. While everyone else obsessed over whether Mark Fuhrman had ever used the n-word in his lifetime, Bruce insisted on talking about domestic violence. She organized a feminist picket outside NBC’s studio, where an interview with OJ was scheduled to take place.

“The new message to OJ Simpson is that you’re not welcome on our airwaves, you’re not welcome in our society, you’re not welcome in our culture. This is America’s new message about domestic violence,” Bruce told the Associated Press. She also told ABC Nightline that “what we need to teach our children…is not about racism but about violence against women.”

Feminists were aghast! NOW reacted as if Bruce had told Simpson to "Go back to Africa" and voted to censure her. They then issued a public statement accusing her of racism. The statement is worth quoting at length.

“On behalf of the National Organization for Women, I offer my most sincere apology for the racially insensitive statements attributed to or made by the president of a local NOW chapter,” NOW president Patricia Ireland said. “It pains me that these unfortunate and unwise comments have tainted NOW’s reputation and our relationships with our social justice allies.”

But the final straw came when the feminist Kathy Spillar surprised her with a conference call from a black woman at the NAACP, Constance Rice. Rice screamed at Bruce to "leave OJ alone." The fact that he was manifestly guilty meant nothing to Rice. She was on Team Black--even if the black person in question had slashed two peoples' throats in a fit of narcissistic rage over not being able to control his ex-wife with beatings. 

Tammy Bruce quit, and describes it as some of the most despicable behavior she's ever seen. Refusing to go out without some small feminist victory, she organized a final anti-domestic violence march around Nicole Simpson's neighborhood. The second victory came when the feminist lawyer Gloria Allred (pictured above) took up the civil case against OJ Simpson, distributing buttons that read, simply: "Remember Nicole." 

Yes, let's remember her--the real Nicole Brown Simpson, who was not the same woman portrayed by the media. The media downplayed the fact that Nicole was a victim of brutal, persistent abuse, and instead portrayed her as a Barbie doll with lots of boyfriends. As the kind of woman that other women envy--a pretty, slender model type with nice clothes, wealth, adorable children, and lots of potential suitors--Nicole was an unsympathetic victim. That was especially true for ugly feminists who personally dislike pretty blondes with nice clothes, as well as hateful black people who despise interracial marriage and white women who steal "their" men. Many people secretly knew OJ was guilty, but sort of liked the fact that Nicole got what was coming to her. Why? Because they're jealous and hateful. 

The media played along, often erroneously referred to her as OJ's "wife," even though she was one of multiple ex-wives. They made vague, yet salacious, accusations of sluttiness, although Ron Goldman appeared to really be just a friend who was dropping off a pair of eyeglasses she had left behind. And even if he was more than a friend, who cares? Does a woman not have a right to date several years after divorcing her abusive husband? (News flash: just because someone keeps coming over to kick in your door doesn't mean you're still together.) But the media kept it up, going on about Nicole Simpson's boyfriends, implying she was cheating, and tracking down the exact amount of money she spent on clothing. (Pull up OJ's bank account and tell me he didn't compulsively buy a bunch of stupid shit with it.)

Nicole's diaries don't line up with the "blonde bimbo sleeping around and blowing her alimony money" stereotype. A letter Nicole wrote to OJ during their divorce revealed that she was the poster girl for victims of domestic violence who suffer from "battered woman syndrome," blaming herself for his adultery, although she still didn't know what she did to deserve so many black eyes and broken bones.

“You beat the holy hell out of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a bike ... Remember?” Nicole wrote of an incident that occurred only months after their daughter, Sydney, was born. Then, after son Justin was born, there was a “mad New Years Eve beat up.”

Referring to yet another beating, Nicole wrote, “I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not.”

At the end of the letter, Nicole described herself as “terribly insecure,” a woman “with no self-esteem” who married “the superstar OJ Simpson.”

“I made up with you all the time and even took the blame many times for your cheating,” Nicole wrote in the letter. “I assumed that your recurring nasty attitude [and] mean streak was to cover up your cheating and a general disrespect for women.”

Ding ding ding! I think we've found the root of OJ's problem--and it wasn't a cop who might have used the n-word ten years earlier. As Tammy Bruce pointed out, “Simpson lived in a white area, had married a white woman, was now dating another white woman, and belonged to a country club that was mostly white…If Simpson was targeted for anything, it was for autographs and the use of his hot tub."

He also had a sleazy, Mafia hitman-type friend with a law license. This friend had no problem assisting with the cleanup of a morbid, blood-spattered murder scene straight out of a horror movie, in which one victim was slashed multiple times in the throat, heart, and lungs, and the other was nearly decapitated. (The media downplayed it as a "stabbing.") This friend probably should have been charged as an accessory, but he got around it by becoming OJ's lawyer. His name? Rob Kardashian.

Kris and Rob Kardashian knew OJ was guilty, helped him dispose of the evidence, and dropped him off at the airport that night to create an alibi. Their kids knew about the murder too: like I said, the Kardashians girls have claimed that as soon as the parents came home that night, they all ran around screaming at each other that OJ finally killed Nicole. (They repeated this story for about a year and then shut up about it, probably because someone warned them to stop telling that story in public.)

People forget how the Kardashians became famous in the first place. "Didn't it have something to do with Kim selling--er, I mean someone 'leaking' her sex tape?" (If the tape was 'leaked,' it's hard to explain why the family marketed it to porn companies. In fact, I would not be surprised if Kris Jenner was the camerawoman, directing every cheesy pose and fake moan.) Well, yes--but before that, they were criminal accomplices who helped a throat-slashing wife-beater go free.

The Kardashians have recently realized everyone is laughing about what liars they are, so now they're pretending they were friends with Nicole Simpson. Kris Jenner claims she was her best friend; Nicole's sister says Kris is a liar who has profited from her murder. Nicole's family describes her as a dedicated mother and loyal friend; she also happened to be a beautiful blonde with a gorgeous body that didn't need any surgical enhacements. Kris Kardashian, on the other hand, was a conniving, adulterous, plumped-and-implanted wannabe who was sleeping with Nicole's husband. Why do I say that? Well, Kris has admitted to cheating on Rob Kardashian during the marriage, and people have long speculated that she was playing the ol' sperm roulette when she got pregnant with Khloe. I'm here to confirm the rumors. There's something called mid-parental height that makes it genetically impossible that the 5'7" Rob Kardashian fathered the 5'10" Khloe. All of his female offspring should be about 5'2", which Kim and Kourtney are. Khloe was fathered by someone else. Judging by her bone structure and natural hair, he's probably black. I'd bet my life savings that it's OJ. As others have noticed, Khloe Kardashian and Sydney Simpson look suspiciously similar--although Sydney doesn't have plastic surgery and stage makeup on her face 24/7.

Sydney Simpson also shares the famous Kardashian trait of being, shall we say, bottom-heavy--although she's not in love with herself like they are, so the paparazzi don't constantly photograph her "nice booty." The Kardashians have America so brainwashed that gossip magazines obsess over their "booties" and "curves," instead of calling them what they usually call women who are as wide as the refrigerator: fat. (No, I'm not calling Sydney Simpson fat--in fact, I think she looks just fine the way she is. I'm just pointing out that the Kardashian-worshiping media would.)

Just like her dad, Sydney Simpson has been arrested for assault. I'm sure she grew up with an overwhelming range of "issues," especially anger and confusion. It's too bad she takes it out on the wrong people. I hope that one day, Sydney Simpson finally decides it's payback time and smashes Kris Jenner in the face.

Kris Jenner was no friend of Nicole's. She sounds more like what members of the urban community might call a "hatin' ass ho." She tried to steal her friend's husband, and when he finally killed her, Kris got her own husband to defend him out of spite.

Remember that every time you see Kris Jenner's face on TV. 

If you oppose any of this behavior--murder, wife-beating, running around beheading people--you cannot watch the Kardashians. The Kardashians portray themselves as a hip, lighthearted family now. Their past indicates they're much darker than that, which is why everyone around them keeps keeling over from hard drug addictions. They literally built their fame and fortune on Nicole Simpson's and Ron Goldman's graves, having narrowly escaped being charged as accessories to murder. That's the reason I encourage everyone reading this to immediately change the channel the second one of these wretched people pops up on the screen. (If involvement in murder isn't enough, they're also hard to look at these days. As my mom said about Kim Kardashian's latest round of plastic surgery: "I think she's getting uglier by the minute.")

And for the love of God, if the OJ miniseries plays into any ugly myths about racist cops and blonde bimbos: turn it the hell off.

Wife-beaters love the natural look: attacking makeup is an attack on women

I know it's been a while, but I've been meaning to post on this photo, which to date has about 100,000 shares on Facebook.

Ladies, show this to your boyfriends and husbands and ask how he would respond to this guy. If he would say "I'm sorry, what the hell is your problem?", keep him. (Even better if he says he'd pummel him for you.) If he laughs or tries to defend it, just walk out right now and change your phone number. No, really: the guy you're with condones violence against women, and you might as well leave before things escalate.

Few people see it that way, of course. Women have somehow been snookered into believing that the "natural look"--and men who purport to love it--is some kind of feminist ideal, one that lets women break free from the evil influence of the all-powerful cosmetics industry. But as liberal feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte explains, the women who believe this are "weak-minded" and need to wake up already, because "this is just some more bullshit oppression dressed up as liberation."

It’s not just because it’s these guys don’t get that the problem is that they embrace the paradigm that holds that a man—any random man—has the social permission to appoint himself The Judge of All Women. It’s also because these guys are committed to an even more stringent and oppressive beauty standard than the one they’re denouncing. In their fantasy, the “natural” beauty rolls out of bed, fluffs her hair and walks out the door with every hair in place, exuding a natural dewiness that accentuates her naturally bold features and naturally smooth skin and naturally hairless body. In other words, they want you to be a woman who doesn’t exist...The worst part is that this image of the so-called natural beauty isn’t just implication-free, either. The image of the dewy natural beauty is associated in our culture with virginity, innocence, youthfulness, naivete, etc. When you encounter a guy who’s insistent on it, you usually find out quickly that he’s a little afraid of bolder women, and he takes that out on women who wear bolder make-up. You get the feeling when guys rant about hating make-up that they’re kind of calling you a slut for wearing it. 

Apparently, a lot of people believe the only reason a woman squirrels away that eyeliner and mascara wand--even while pretending it's "all natural"--is to attract men. Women never want to look good just for the sake of it, of course! Makeup is never an outlet for personal and artistic expression, or even just a way to have fun and try out different identities. In some (exceptionally small) minds, women only wear makeup to attract men. Therefore, the amount and type of makeup a woman wears is similar to the length of her skirt--and some are clearly "asking for it" when they become victims of male violence.

Every woman-hating culture on Earth has a problem with makeup. The Taliban banned all cosmetics. The punishment for daring to express yourself with makeup? The Taliban cut off women's glossed lips and ripped off nails decorated with polish. In countries like Iran, women who "ask for it" by wearing heavy makeup are subject to police harassment and rape.

If you have a problem with women who wear makeup, it's guaranteed you simply have a problem with women, period. Yes, even if you're a woman yourself. Being a woman doesn't bar someone from believing in her own inferiority and natural second-class status.

The perfect example of a sexist asshole--who, based on the interviews I've read, is also a flaming idiot--who sings about the evils of makeup is John Mayer. He wrote a song in 2002 called "Comfortable," claiming he loves girls in grey sweatpants with no makeup. Weak-minded women swooned.

He then ran off to date Jessica Simpson. So it seems the man who pretended to love bare faces and grey sweatpants actually wanted a busty blonde with eyelash extensions who's forced to pretend it's "natural." After the breakup, Mayer demonstrated his respect for women by bragging to Playboy magazine, of all places, about his sex life with Jessica, spilling personal details that anyone would find degrading. What a charmer! I have no doubt that Mayer singled out Jessica Simpson for this humiliation because of her bubbly blonde, ultra-feminine persona. "Male feminist" my ass. After seeing his true colors fly in Playboy, I'm truly shocked that he didn't hit her.

Which brings us back to the subject of wife-beaters. This photo attracted over 100,000 comments, many from women trying to man-please and prove how cool they are by saying it's totally fine to smash some girl's stupid makeup kit--which they deny wearing themselves, of course, because they're so laid-back!--and that she's "full of drama" if she complains. Many ask "What's the big deal? It's just makeup."

No one should care that it's "just makeup." This still qualifies as "destroying property" for a clearly stated reason: to make the woman do what he wants. This is on every domestic violence checklist in the book. It's no surprise he doesn't want her out with her friends. If a woman's friends start seeing and hearing too much of him, they'll probably tell her to leave. Therefore, the makeup that allows her to leave the house without him must be destroyed.

I'll leave you with the music video for rapper Eve's "Love is Blind." As the video shows, many wife-beaters actually like leaving visible bruises on their victims' bodies. Therefore, the makeup that covers it up--and might even give her the confidence to leave him--is a threat to his power.

Sarah Palin and Bristol are not hypocrites on abstinence, get over it

Just to clear things up, this headline from Salon is lying to you. Ever since Bristol Palin announced her second out-of-wedlock pregnancy last year (daughter Sailor was born December 23rd), spiteful libs have been compulsively sneering that Bristol is an "abstinence mascot," and that she and mother Sarah Palin are hypocrites, because...well, they won't say why. They keep bringing up Bristol's past position as a spokeswoman for the Candie's foundation, subtly suggesting that this group an advocacy group for abstinence.

This is false. The Candie's foundation is a teen pregnancy nonprofit. Even people who support comprehensive sex ed and access to birth control can agree that teenage girls should avoid getting pregnant. The cards are stacked against teen mothers and their children; only about 1% go on to graduate from college. And if encouraging teens to postpone sex helps them avoid this situation, so be it.

Yes, I said "postpone." Can people learn the difference between people who think kids shouldn't be having sex and people who believe nobody should do much of anything before the wedding night? Liberals believe anyone who looks askance at the thought of 13-year-olds being handed a birth control packet and told to go ahead and have "safe sex" belongs in the second group. Actually, no. One position is a radical idea embraced by religious radicals of all stripes, including fundamentalist Christians like the Duggar family and, yes, Muslims. This group even opposes dating, believing future spouses should "court" under strict parental supervision. Fundamentalist parents will even brag about how their kids saved the first kiss for the wedding night, which is absurd. These people don't even know each other. Some end up in marriages like Josh and Anna Duggar's. (Although fundies will always insist their marriages couldn't be any more wonderful--and so much better than yours!--it appears many are just saying that, either because their beliefs are all they know, or they have to justify them somehow. Later on, many will admit their wedding nights were traumatic. I imagine it's hard for two people with zero sexual experience to go from kissing to intercourse in a matter of hours.)

The other position is a perfectly reasonable one backed up by the facts: nothing good comes from kids having sex too early. Young girls are more susceptible to STDs than mature women. They don’t include information about the cervical transformation zone (or T-Zone), a ring of cells that is vulnerable to infection. The transformation zone is dramatically larger in a teenage girl, but it shrinks as she gets older. Isn't that reason enough to wait five more years? Liberals reply that they can use condoms and be taught responsibility. But on a strictly neurological level, kids are not really able to make a mature decision to have sex. In adolescents, the areas of the brain responsible for impulse control and accurate risk assessment are not fully developed – and won’t be until their 20s. Adults acknowledge this medical fact when debating other issues affecting kids. For example, teens’ limited capacity for risk assessment is often cited as the reason not to let them drive until age 16 or drink until age 21. If we think high school seniors are too immature to have a beer, why do we think eighth-graders are able to understand the risks of sexual activity, let alone use condoms and birth control reliably?

Not to mention that even the liberal, pro-contraception Guttmacher Institute found a link between early sexual activity and sexual violence, including rape.  It seems a lot of those 14-year-olds being handed pill packs and told to have fun aren't really consenting.

In any case, the kids themselves have spoken: 78 percent of all teenage respondents believed that teens shouldn’t have sex at all. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 72 percent of girls and 55 percent of boys say they wish they had waited longer to have sex. 

Back to the Palin family. This Salon headline sneers about "Palin Family Values," as if they've ever portrayed themselves as a group of squeaky-clean Christians with well-behaved children who save it for the wedding night, much like the Duggars. (Who, as we now know, aren't as wholesome as we've been lead to believe.) When have they ever done that?

I've always admired the Palins' unapologetic attitude about the fact that they're not perfect: the Down's syndrome child, teen pregnancies, and rowdy hillbilly behavior. This is not a Stepford family. People pretending to be pure as the driven snow don't cause a ruckus at a white trash bash in Alaska. I use that term affectionately, by the way. You know the old question about which candidate you'd rather have a beer with? The Palins are a rowdy bunch of country people that I would like to party with. So would a lot of other Americans, which is exactly why so many "average Joes" and blue-collar conservatives loved Sarah Palin. If you're looking for a wholesome family with straight-laced kids and a beautiful, classy, conservatively dressed 1950s housewife type who quit her job to support her man, you'll have to look to these people.

That said, I find it annoying that Bristol jokes about "burning welfare checks" when she's a 25-year-old with two kids by two different guys, at least one of whom is a complete loser. (And the second guy isn't looking too good either.) Does she know how the Republican Party treats 99.9% of women in that situation?  The daughter of a former governor and vice presidential candidate who has sold millions of books will always have a roof over her head, food to eat, and insurance to cover her children's doctor appointments. But most 25-year-old, never-married mothers who started having babies at 18 have two options: the welfare office or the abortion clinic. If I were in office, I would only vote to ban abortion if there's an agreement that we'll just have to pay for it: Medicaid to cover the birth, housing assistance, etc, and if people whine about personal responsibility or government spending, tough shit. Abortion would be the "responsible" option if our main priority is everyone paying their own way. Abortion is most common among low-income black women who already have a child. Do Republicans ever wonder if these women agree with them, and that the stereotypical ghetto mother who keeps having babies she can't afford is exactly who they want to avoid becoming?

You can't have it both ways. I take personal offense to the idea that these women should just "pull themselves up by the bootstraps." Bristol Palin doesn't have to, so she can say that. In the future, I hope she finds a new activist position and speaks out about how hard it is for women in her position to keep and raise their babies.

As for her new legal battle with babydaddy #2, I think she can hold her own. I have a feeling that behind closed doors, Sarah and Bristol are exactly like the woman in Austin Webb's music video for "All Country on You." Why do you think Todd Palin always has that nervous look on his face?

No, Obama did not use an onion to cry fake tears over shooting victims, cut the bullshit already

I missed Obama's press conference on gun control yesterday, so I don't know the details of his executive orders. Still, my news ticker lit up with stories about how Obama had cried angry tears over the Newtown shooting during his speech, saying "it gets me so mad."

This shouldn't be a newsworthy statement, let alone a controversial one. I doubt Obama's strong feelings about this issue stem from his personal hatred of guns, although that's what the NRA hardliners and hysterics raving about "tyrannical government" will believe. Did you ever wonder if it has something to do with the fact that he's a dad? A lot of politicians don't like guns, but they don't get worked up enough to shed tears over school shootings. My guess is that Obama has pictured himself in the shoes of a Newtown parent. The thought of getting that awful phone call telling him there's been a shooting at his childrens' school--or worse, finding out that they're among the victims--is probably what gets him "so mad." 

That's not a radical response, it's normal. If the image of terrified first graders being mowed down with AK-47s doesn’t make you want to cry, what does? Anger and grief are normal responses to the grisly murder of small children. John Walsh titled his book about his murdered 7-year-old son "Tears of Rage" for a reason. 

But that was before American culture took a nosedive toward the futuristic America in Mike Judge's "Idiocracy." (If anyone out there has still not seen it: Great movie. One of my favorites.) So as soon as I saw the headlines, I thought, "Fox News is going to accuse him of faking it." And I knew it wouldn't stop there. Internet hacks and bush-league conservative blogs were bound to go full crackpot, making it a race to the bottom to see who could throw up the stupidest headlines. 

“He was secretly squeezing an eye dropper the whole time!”

“How do we know it wasn’t an Obama body double with Oscar-worthy acting skills?”

I’m not trying to be funny. They would say that. The audience for any conservative media outlet includes a sizeable percentage of birthers, who believe Obama was low-down enough to fake his birth certificate. So why not fake tears? The right-wing media has great trouble admitting that Obama is sincere about anything. Doing that would piss off the audience. I know, because I've worked for them. During the 2008 election cycle, I worked for a big-time conservative news site, and we had to set an official policy of hanging up on birthers. My editor tried to explain that the rumors about Obama's birth certificate had been investigated and debunked; these buffoons would just start screeching. Two days later, they'd call back to harass us again. We refused to give any support to their stupid theories, but we also had to tiptoe around birthers, since our audience had so many of them. 

This is a built-in problem for news sites and cable stations that explicitly market themselves as "conservative" or "liberal." They all face some pressure to preach to the choir; their very existence relies on backing up the audience's beliefs. 

Sometimes, this results in serious journalists engaging in outlandish buffoonery to attack "the enemy." Anyone with half a brain could read this headline and judge it to be a total crock. End of story. Really, there's no other discussion to be had: it's just a huge crock of shit.

First, onions do not make people cry. Chopping onions releases eye irritants that makes them water, similar to an allergic reaction. I’m sorry, did I miss the part about how Obama stealthily diced some red onions under the podium as he spoke? Better question: how do conservative commentators keep a straight face as they spin outlandish tall tales?  Even I tend to laugh a little when I know whatever’s coming out of my mouth is obvious bullshit.

Anyway, "fake crying" is virtually impossible. It's is an involuntary response from your parasympathetic nervous system. It’s the same system that causes you to sweat when you're anxious and blush when you’re embarrassed. Have you ever been so nervous your heart started pounding, or you felt sick to your stomach? That’s your sympathetic-parasympathetic nervous system talking—the same system that causes people to cry.

Apparently, it's caused by a rapid shift from sympathetic to parasympathetic brain activity. Crying is a sign that, emotionally, the person has given up hope or thrown in the towel--they've lost the big game, walked away from a bad relationship, or accepted that their loved one is dying. Humans have various strategies to suppress this reaction, but we're not very good at it. Crying is a primitive act, and not one controlled by the parts of the brain responsible for reason and emotional regulation.

In other words, accusing someone of generating "fake tears" is like accusing someone of producing "fake sweat." Even actors don't fake crying. The good ones are able to imagine themselves as the characters, creating emotional distress real enough to cry. The mediocre ones don’t shed any tears, they just mimic the sounds and gestures. In any case, real tears flow from real emotions.

This isn't just about Obama. Accusing someone of faking it is the hallmark of insincere (or as my mom calls them, "phony baloney") people feigning moral outrage to distract from their rancid motivations and lack of arguments. Everyone's favorite word these days is "crazy": it's evidently some men's go-to put-down to dismiss women who complain about sexism and being treated like shit. Is someone out there questioning the status quo or talking about injustice? They're crazy--and also, they're just faking it to get sympathy and attention by acting like big babies. 

The media has been at it for a while now, but this onion thing is really brazen. What happened to the Fox News we all used to know and love? 

I’ve been on Fox News as a commentator twice. I  started watching in the early 2000s, not necessarily because I was conservative, but because I was an aspiring journalist with a strong aversion to bullshit. (Or as some people call it, "spin" and "media bias." Same thing.) Fox News really did tell stories that no other network was covering. If you watched CNN between 2000 and 2004, you were basically having left-wing propaganda piped into your home, 1984-style. You had to go to Fox News to get the full story, because they really did strive to be "fair and balanced." (Now they’re just “the balance," indicating their coverage is openly biased toward the right.)

Liberal hate object Bill O’Reilly was actually my favorite host. Not only did he have a finely tuned bullshit detector common to the cranky Irishmen I grew up around, but he also tried to be fair to his guests. He cut Rosie O’Donnell a break for saying all gun owners should go to jail after the Columbine shooting. Why? Rosie explained that she erupted in outrage after seeing all those kids with “bloody, broken bodies.” Bill saw no reason to doubt her sincerity. There's no question that Rosie O'Donnell loves kids and wants to protect them. Just because you don't like the feelings someone expresses doesn't mean they’re not genuine.

Unfortunately, the fair and balanced network keeps slipping, from exposing bullshit to promoting it. This silly talk about onions suggests Fox News really is turning into the satirical Fox News from the movie "Idiocracy."

Dollar Store Pinterest projects: Cupcakes and Mason Jars. (And no, I'm not a hipster)

If you've been following my Facebook at all these days, you probably know that I've embarked on a home beautification project. But, as always, I love doing it on a serious budget. Therefore, let me introduce you to DIY projects I've done with supplies from one of my favorite stores (besides Target): Dollar Tree.

Yes, it's a good old-fashioned "dollar store" where everything really is a dollar. (Other "dollar stores," like Dollar General, are discount stores, but the products aren't necessarily $1.) It is also beyond fabulous. If you're looking for party supplies, holiday decorations, or creative inspiration, I highly recommend it! You can find all sorts of beads, mason jars, glass vases, floral supplies, and endless other craft items. (It's also a great place to buy cleaning supplies and other basics, like Aspirin and hand soap. Dollar Tree has saved me a fortune in the last few months.)

For my mom's birthday, I also made a pretty tray of cupcakes using Dollar Tree stuff, although I got the cupcake mix and frosting at Giant Eagle.

Boycott "Fifty Shades Of Grey": Christian Grey is No Dreamboat.

American girls love Bad Boys. Or at least, we think we do. And now that Fifty Shades Of Grey has hit theaters, maybe it’s time to analyze the character of Christian Grey and finally put this fantasy to rest.

My first big celebrity crush was Brad Renfro. The Tennessee native became famous for his award-winning role in The Client at the ripe old age of 11. But I first laid eyes on him in the Disney movie Tom and Huck.

Being a huge Mark Twain fan, my dad had already read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to me at home when I was in first grade. But I became interested in the movie after seeing this poster. I already knew who Jonathan Taylor Thomas was; he was on the cover of Tiger Beat every single month, and every preteen girl in America had professed her undying love for him. Well, except for me. I instead alerted my friends’ attention to the hottie on the left. Who was he and how had we overlooked him?

It was Brad Renfro in the role of Huckleberry Finn.

Huckleberry Finn was already a swoon-worthy Bad Boy in the novel. He flees his abusive home with a runaway slave named Jim, braving the frontier and the Mississippi River to find freedom in Illinois. His dangerous mission leaves little time for romance. But throughout the book, Huck still manages to drop into town secretly, visit his buddies, cause a huge ruckus that gets them all in trouble, and then steal someone’s girlfriend on his way out. Tom Sawyer had to concoct elaborate stunts to impress Becky Thatcher; Huckleberry Finn graciously charmed the ladies with his funny jokes and swashbuckling personality before disappearing again. That was how I’ve always remembered the novel, anyway, and I believe Mark Twain intended it that way. (Whatever “swag” is, Huck clearly had it.)

Brad Renfro made a great Huckleberry Finn. He stole the show. I don’t know why he was so hot--maybe it was the freckles, shaggy hair, or the authentic Southern accent. But it was the first time I gazed at a movie screen and thought, “I want to marry that guy.”

A few years later, girls across America swooned over Jack Dawson in Titanic. (Brief aside: I’m a huge fan of all things Titanic. But at age 12, I took note of Jack Dawson showing Rose his nude drawings of hookers, thought it over, and deemed this move uncool. Girls really aren’t that comfortable with having porn shoved in their faces.) Sure, he likes to spit and gets in the occasional fistfight, but he also inspired Rose to set aside her horribly sexist debutante lifestyle in order to party with him. She reluctantly tags along, only to discover that—gasp!—she likes having fun and being free. Especially with him.

Long story short, I think America will always remember the infamous backseat-of-the-car scene, as well as the line “I’ll never let go, Jack.”

 By junior high, the new man of my dreams was Heath Ledger in Ten Things I Hate About You. I briefly considered marrying this one too, but the competition was pretty fierce. Just ask my best friend from seventh grade.

Why do women love these characters? I can assure you that it’s not all about looks. I wouldn’t even call my Dream Man Heath Ledger “conventionally attractive.” (When he first came on the screen, I briefly thought, "ew, him?" That changed as soon as he started talking.) Brad Renfro was adorable, but he was always more Average Joe than male model material. He’d blend in well on a hunting trip with the guys.

It’s mainly because this type of Bad Boy is morally upright. He doesn’t give two hoots what society thinks, and he’ll disregard the rules in order to do what he wants—and in the process, he still “does the right thing.” Huckleberry Finn took the enormous risk of helping a runaway slave; Heath Ledger’s character skipped school to take care of a sick family member; Jack Dawson bravely faced down his own inevitable death on the Titanic in order to comfort Rose, who refuses to save herself. They’re often victims of oppression or abuse, which makes their actions even more heroic--they could have opted for the easy way out, and they probably deserved it. But they’re too manly for that. Have you ever heard the phrase, “When I’m good I’m good, but when I’m bad I’m even better?” It was made for these guys.

And maybe that’s why America seemed collectively traumatized when Renfro and Ledger both died from drug overdoses in 2008. It seemed like the fantasy of the Bad Boy with a Good Heart died with them—we were all forced to acknowledge that these young men were self-destructive and had been quietly suffering the whole time. At least for me, it was time to stop romanticizing characters who, in real life, probably needed rehab services, not a romantic pedestal. Some of these Bad Boys were good guys in desperate need of help. Others were just plain bad: Russell Crowe briefly caught my eye before that phone-throwing incident. Being a fan of Irish boys, I also eyed up Colin Farrell, but the sleazy sex tape and nasty demeanor ruined it for me. I hoped we would all put this fantasy to bed, and not keep trotting out “Bad Boys” with Bad Attitudes as a substitution.

But who am I kidding? Of course we did that!

Christian Grey is supposedly our new Fantasy man, ladies. He’s our collective heartthrob, and he’s definitely no Jack Dawson or Huck Finn. Jack Dawson wore suspenders and had famously unkempt hair. Brad Renfro’s Huck Finn was dressed like a fisherman with exactly one plaid shirt. (Heath Ledger’s character tried even less: I’m pretty sure he banned conversations about his clothes and hair, probably because it made him feel gay.) Christian Grey, on the other hand, is a pretty boy in a $3,000 suit. He’s perfectly groomed, right down to the eyebrow arch. He could model for Abercrombie, and this supposedly makes him irresistible. (Personally, I beg to differ. Let’s examine this picture. Is he wearing foundation? Yeah, that looks like foundation and possibly some lip gloss.)

He’s also nasty, sullen, and arrogant. The old Bad Boys made girls laugh; Christian Grey apparently likes to inflict physical pain until they cry. The female character describes him as “really intimidating,” and she doesn’t sound too happy when she says it. (I know some guys think it’s good to be “intimidating.” I don’t know about the rest of you ladies, but when I think “intimidating,” I don’t think warm, romantic, happy thoughts.) Christian Grey pursues women far below him in career and social status, apparently because he finds them easier to push around. The female character’s reward is that she gets to work really hard to win him over. If she really puts in the effort, he might even crack a smile!

(Uh oh, this storyline is already starting to suck! Are we sure we need a movie?)

Then the trailer premiered, confirming my suspicions that this was a dreary, depressing abuse story billed as a “romance.” I think the video below was supposed to get us all worked up. As you can probably guess, my engines failed to rev as I watched this. Ugh, just listen to that sad, sad music! And that's before the douchey guy in a suit even enters the scene. 

(I couldn't post the trailer to this blog, so you'll have to follow the link. I mean, if you insist.)

Sorry, Fifty Shades of Grey fans. I've judged this movie without even seeing it, and my verdict is: Not Hot. I think I’ll skip the movie theater and go rent Tom and Huck. 

Drug Overdoses! Full-Frontal Nudity! Why I hate the Kardashian family--and why you should too

 Note: As promised, this blog will no longer be only about food. While I do have a day job as a magazine writer and blogger, some of the writing I consider my best goes unpublished or unnoticed. From now on, "The View From 206" will be home to some of these musings, which cover everything from entertainment to health trends.

Drug overdoses! Full-frontal nudity! I will grant the Kardashian clan one thing: they never run out of zany new ways to get America talking. About them. All the time. It’s as if the entire family gathers around the breakfast table in the morning and kicks around ideas about how they can become the top story of the day. (Including, but not limited to: short-lived “marriages” to NBA players, births broadcast live from the delivery room, and underage girls partying hard and working the stripper pole.)

At the end of the day, the Queen of All Publicity Stunts, Kris Jenner, browses Twitter and gossip rags to see if that day’s antics attracted sufficient attention. And that’s by her standards, not ours—most people don’t expect to be followed by crowds of eager photographers each time they hit the gym for yoga class. (Luckily, the Kardashian sisters only attend “hot” yoga, “naked” yoga, or “tantric” yoga, and they conveniently discuss it in earshot of the paparazzi, just in case they’d like to follow them there.) They also plaster themselves on highway billboards, advertisements, and magazine covers—apparently to cover their bases and make sure everyone in America is looking at them, willingly or not.

Is anyone else sick of these people?

Over the last few weeks, it looks like the answer is finally “yes.” A large segment of the population feels it has seen plenty of the Kardashians, and, in fact, they would like to see less of them. When Kim Kardashian flashed America with her nude photos, the response was more “ew” than “ooh,” as if the audience felt somewhat violated. That’s right: the Kardashians have long been stalking America, glaring back at them from every TV set and magazine stand. Now they’ve crossed the line into sexually harassing us. It was as if Americans collectively said, “Kardashians, you have gone too far. We liked your show at first, but now everyone feels uncomfortable and wants you to stop.”

But they’ve already demonstrated that they won't. In fact, they’ll just sink lower: days after Kim’s photos were released, Scott Disick was hospitalized after overdosing on drugs. With all of the 24/7 security guards, TV cameras, and assistants around them, you’d think the Kardashians would notice if someone was harboring a secret addiction. That’s why we should assume that this was no “secret,” and also no accident. It's another carefully staged subplot directed by Kris. We already know Kris Jenner will sell her daughter’s sex tapes and enter them into arranged marriages for attention. There’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t happily kill off an expendable member of the clan with a drug addiction if it meant more headlines. (By the way, Lamar Odom, Khloe’s ex-husband, also developed a “drug addiction” right before the couple split and he left the show.)

The Kardashians aren’t just an attention-seeking, fun-loving reality show family. They’re fame-obsessed and actually sort of evil. Now that they’ve gotten their 15 minutes, America needs to say “time’s up!” and drive them off the air.

Pretzel-crusted pork chops with cheddar mustard sauce

 

File this one under "easier than it sounds."

Pork is one of my favorite foods to work with these days. Not only is it a "lean red meat" (better than ground beef!), it's dirt cheap compared to chicken or beef. I actually adapted this from a Rachael Ray chicken recipe.

For the meat:

4 pork chops

1 5-ounce bag of salted pretzels, any shape

Dried parsley (optional)

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

2 eggs

Vegetable oil, for frying 

For the sauce:

2 tablespoons butter

2 tablespoons flour

2 cups milk

2 1/2 cups, sharp cheddar cheese, shredded

2  tablespoons spicy brown mustard

Instructions:

1. Chop up pretzels in a food processor, or place in a Ziplock bag and crush.

2. Pound the pork thin, if desired. (You don't have to; however, it will change the cooking time.)

3. Beat the eggs in a shallow dish, and place pretzel crumbs, salt, pepper, and parsley in another dish. Coat the pork chops in egg, then in the pretzel.

4. Fry with vegetable oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cooking time will vary--for regular pork chops, it's usually 5 minutes on each side. I've found that the pretzel crust burns easily, so be careful.

5. To make the sauce, melt butter, then add in flour. Stir in milk, cheese, and mustard and stir continuously until it's a good consistency.

I served mine with lima beans and a brown rice-quinoa blend, which are both healthy sides.

And one more extreme close-up, brought to you by my husband:

 

The world's best homemade, whole wheat lasagna recipe

Previously on this blog, I promoted recipes with low-fat or reduced-calorie ingredients. Why? I'd never really researched it. I just assumed that less fat=healthier.

It might seem like common sense that fat is bad, but it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm better-educated on nutrition now than when I started this blog. I read The Happiness Diet, which stresses over and over again that "fat is not the enemy." Sugar--including the kind in refined carbohydrates like white bread--is the enemy. If anything, most Americans eat too little fat and way, way too much sugar. Fat is critical for healthy brain functioning, and it keeps you full and satisfied. (Sugar does pretty much the opposite to your brain and body.) Full-fat dairy is a source of Conjugated Linoleic Acid, a fat so important it's sold in pill form as a supplement. (The book's advice: skip the supplements and eat real food.) CLA is critical for brain development and function, and it's a "body fat modulator"--meaning it prevents your body from forming weird fat rolls, especially on your stomach.

With that said, I made one of my favorite fat-laden recipes tonight: lasagna.I actually adapted this from a recipe titled "The world's best lasagna recipe."

Ingredients:

1 pound Italian sausage (I used Bob Evans brand, which comes in a one-pound package)
3/4 pound of ground beef
1/2 cup minced onion
1 tablespoon of minced, bottled garlic (is there a bigger pain in life than mincing garlic by hand? Get the bottled stuff)
28-ounce can of crushed tomatoes
2 6-ounce cans of tomato paste
1 15-ounce can of tomato sauce
1/2 cup of water
1 tablespoon white sugar (optional. I avoid adding sugar whenever possible, but 1 tablespoon in the entire batch will equal a minute amount per serving)
1 1/2 teaspoons dried basil
1 teaspoon Italian seasoning blend
2 teaspoons salt
1/2 teaspoon black pepper
4 tablespoons dried parsley
12 whole wheat lasagna noodles
32 ounces of whole milk Ricotta cheese
1 egg
1/2 teaspoon salt
12 slices of Mozzarella cheese
1 cup grated Parmesan cheese

Directions:
1. Sautee the garlic and onion in a Dutch oven or other large skillet. Add ground beef and sausage and cook until brown.
2. After the meat cooks, stir in the tomatoes, tomato paste, tomato sauce, water, sugar, basil, Italian seasoning, 2 teaspoons salt, pepper, and 2 tablespoons of the parsley.
3. Cook lasagna noodles according to package directions. (I choose not to boil my noodles; they get too mushy. I just soften them in hot water. You can Google other methods of dealing with lasagna noodles without boiling them.)
4. In a bowl, combine Ricotta cheese, egg, 1/2 teaspoon salt, and 2 tablespoons parsley.
5. After all of that's done, it's time to layer. First, coat the bottom of a baking dish with the meat sauce. Then form a layer of 6 lasagna noodles. Spread half the Ricotta over the noodles, then 6 slices of Mozzarella. Top with a layer of meat sauce and 1/3 cup Parmesan cheese. Repeat layers again.
6. Cover the baking dish with foil and bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour.

I usually save this recipe for special occasions--the photo below is from my 2-year wedding anniversary. But it's Sunday and lasagna is fun to make, so why not?

More Crockpot fun! Creamy Italian chicken.

So good, it required an extreme close-up.

I'm all for setting aside time to enjoy cooking, but let's face it: some nights, it feels like more trouble than it's worth. If you're trying to resist the call of the drive-thru, you've come to the right place: this recipe is cheap and requires basically no work.

Ingredients:

2-4 boneless, skinless chicken breasts

1 cup of Italian dressing (your choice on brand and flavor; I think the bold or "robusto" flavors work best)

1 1/2 cups of mayonnaise

1/3 cup cream cheese

Some people will recoil from this recipe because the mayo and cream cheese are heavy on fat. There's a myth that eating fat makes you fat. It seems like common sense, but it's not true: a calorie from fat is a calorie. And as nutritionists will tell you, eating fat doesn't make you fat--eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates makes you fat. (I'm not a fan of no-carb diets. Carbs are necessary for basic functioning, but most people eat way too many of them.) This is a healthy recipe, I promise.

Directions:

1. Place chicken breasts in Crockpot. (You can even use frozen breasts, making it even easier.)

2. Stir mayonnaise and Italian dressing together in a bowl and pour into the Crockpot.

3. Cook on low for 5-6 hours. Then add cream cheese and cook another hour.

4. Serve with healthy sides. My pick was Brussels sprouts.

The finished product: