Fame

Who is more famous? Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson? I was recently asked this question by my two roommates who were asking for an opinion from someone who, as a citizen of this country, should be able to figure out the answer to such a question.

But how do you pit the King of Rock and Roll against the King of Pop? How do you honestly answer whether "Elvis the Pelvis" is more famous than the man who invented the moonwalk or vice versa?

You can't, because being famous during Elvis' day is much different than being famous during the time when Michael Jackson skyrocketed to fame. Elvis had television and Radio and records. Michael Jackson had television, radio, music videos, later on the internet, and he was adorable when he started out.

And to become famous in today all one has to do is be ridiculous or pretty or funny enough to achieve a small amount of fame, which could result in larger things. Take for example Darren Criss, who is best known among the general public as Blaine on Fox's Glee. However, Darren first became famous as Harry Potter, the boy under the stairs in his college production of A Very Potter Musical which was performed by a group known as "the Starkids" and made overnight stars of them all. Darren put covers of Disney songs on Youtube, starred in another Starkid musical and gradually became more and more famous until reaching Glee, starring on Broadway, and singing for the President.

Or Justin Beiber and Colbie Caillet, both discovered on the internet. People are getting famous for less, and staying famous for longer because of the internet. And honestly, they don't make 'em like they used to anymore.

Let's face it, Darren Criss is beautiful and has the voice of an angel but be's no Frank Sinatra or Marlon Brando. And Justin Beiber is certainly no Danny Kaye (partially because Justin can't act).

The definition of fame includes the phrase "notable achievements". If that phrase must be included why are there celebrities such as Honey Boo Boo, Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton? None of them have done anything worthy of being called "notable". A backwards little girl, a woman most famous for her sex tape and  the woman who inspired Kim Kardashian to make a sex tape have done NOTHING to be called notable and yet they are famous and me, who runs a blog who has 1,000 hits (go me!) and have won numerous academic awards am not famous yet.

Aren't my achievements notable? I need more people to recognize these things so I become famous for absolutely nothing as well.

I think what irritates me the most about the current lot of celebrities is that I meet more people in my day to day journey through life that would be better deserving of fame and fortune than a large portion of the people I see on the television. I met a man at the bus stop once who could sing classic jazz like nobodies business. Let's remove Snooki from television and replace her with a show about the man who stands at the bus stop and sings.

I don't quite remember what the original intention of this post was, but I do know this. While there are many great musicians, actors, and actresses in the spotlight today, there are so many people in everyday walks of life who dream of fame and will never achieve it, but should. If only people got famous for being talented like they did back in Elvis' day.

That would be the life.

What the Bible Has to Say About Homosexuality

After doing a lot of research and going through many debates on the topic and talking to people a lot more mature and a lot older than I am I decided one day to go through the Bible and see what actually had to say about this "hot topic". Just so it is stated up front, I personally believe that everyone should be allowed the right to marry whomever they want without being discriminated against by any group of people. If the LGBT community doesn't vote on straight (I refuse to use the word traditional) marriage, then why do we get to vote on their marriage? Inequality at its finest, folks.

Anyways, these are my humble findings.

• Jesus NEVER said anything about same-sex relations
• The Jewish prophets NEVER said anything about same-sex relations
• There are only 6 or 7 verses in the Bible that address homosexuality, and none of them address homosexuality as it is understood today.

Also, since I know eventually someone is going to bring up the man shall not lie with man thing from Leviticus, let me tell you that Leviticus (the entire book) is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. I have signed many holiness codes in my life. Ones that state not to drink, do drugs, or have sex, a holiness code not to date till 16, and even one that said not to dance.

Anyways, back to my point. This same book also has a lot of other rules, rules I’m sure we all have broken, which OBVIOUSLY makes us sinners. Wanna know some other rules from good old Leviticus?

• No round haircuts
• No tattoos (your body is a temple, my friend!)
• No working on the Sabbath (that includes killing insects)
• No wearing garments of mixed fabrics (so, uh…go naked?)
• No eating pork or shellfish

There’s even one about playing with pig skin. (Sorry, football just got outlawed by God.)
A holiness code is not law forever, it is simply a list of things people find offensive at a certain place and time. Leviticus was actually written for priests only and was mainly written so the priests of Israel would be more highly esteemed than the priests from anywhere else. Since there are not many priests around anymore, I’m assuming this code is a little archaic.

I would just like to remind the general public of some other things the Bible says about sex.

• DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
• DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
• MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
• LEVITICUS 18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
• MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
• DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Hmm…shoot. But the list continues my friends.

• The Bible clearly states that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. 
• Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king’s having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) 
• Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. 
• On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one’s parents nude. I choose to strictly abide by the no nude parents rule. 

Also, I would just like to add in that in the last three decades alone, 1.5 MILLION healthcare professionals have been able to state, without a single doubt, that homosexual orientation is just as natural as heterosexual orientation and is caused by a combination of pre and post natal influences.

Remember that awkward time when masturbating was considered sinful? Or how about stopping sex before ejaculation so that the woman didn't end up pregnant? Those were ridiculous and were things that people came up with after looking into the Bible. I pray that one day everyone will be able to look back and say "Remember when people said the Bible prohibited gay marriage? What a bunch of loonies."

Love is love, even God knows that.


If you would like to debate this topic with me or speak to me about it, please keep in mind that while I am open to debate or conversation or comments I refuse to accept any of those three things if they are presented without respect. My opinion may differ from yours, and that's just fine. However, don't treat me less because of it. 

Dear Sandy Hook Dissenters

Dear Sandy Hook Dissenters,

Jesus Christ people. What do you want, photos of dead children to prove to the world that this event actually happened? Do you want parents wearing sackcloth and groveling in the ashes whilst gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair on the evening news to prove that they are really grieving? Do you want minute by minute updates from the teachers who died? Seriously. Let me know what it is you need to allow me to stop hearing and seeing all the bullshit I've had to endure for the last week.

Alexis.

Today has been a low point in my faith for humanity. I thought I'd seen terrible things in my life. Let's face it, people in my generation have lived through 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, The Virginia Tech Shooting, and countless other things. I've always regarded these things as the most tragic events to occur in my life until today when I wasted thirty minutes of my life listening to a conspiracy theorist ramble about how the whole thing is a fake. While many things were addressed, one was never brought up. If the whole Sandy Hook Elementary massacre is a staged event in order to raise money for a so-called beautification project and all the people seen in interviews are actors, where are they hiding the 26 victims?

Answer me that, conspiracy theorists.

I will admit right now that my arguments are all stemming from the thirty wasted minutes that I spent watching the video I will post down at the bottom, because even though I think it's all stupid and America just needs to learn to accept the fact that terrible things happen and that yes, 26 people are dead as a result of a shooter's actions, I do believe that people should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Anyways, during the course of the video the interviews with a man named Gene Rosen are mentioned. They talk about how inconsistent is story is, how he is a member of the Screen Actor's Guild and how he's just generally wrong about everything. I do think that Gene Rosen discredits Sandy Hook because I also think that Gene Rosen is a fake. Whenever something huge happens there are people that are going to want to gain their fifteen minutes of fame from it. Especially say, a member of the S.A.G who has not amounted to any fame because answer me honestly, have YOU ever heard of him? I think that Gene Rosen saw an opportunity to get some attention and ran with it.

But what irritates me the most about this whole thing is that whenever the conspiracy theorists jump on a new disaster they completely discredit the fact that the world is a strange and terrible place and that coincidences do happen.

Apparently the day that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred both FEMA and Homeland Security were conducting classes 20 minutes South in Bridgeport, CT on how to deal with crises involved children. Oh no, let's call a red flag on the whole operation, Jim. FEMA AND Homeland Security were there, obviously the government, Newton, CT and 26 different families were all working together to play on the sympathy of Americans so that Sandy Hook Elementary could become renovated. I mean, that's the logical conclusion, correct? No. Please, go see a shrink.

Another moment during the video where I questioned the judgement of ThinkOutsideTheTV (user name of OP) was when they sat and questioned why there were no children being rushed out of the school when the entire building was on lockdown and people were just milling about the parking lot. First of all, the building is on lockdown. That means no one enters and no one leaves. HELLO. That's why there is no footage of anyone leaving, especially children, who would probably be the intended targets during an elementary school shooting.

And the whole people milling about the parking lot thing. "Where are the parents, why is everyone so calm?" The parking lot was blocked off, I doubt the parents were there, and just a guess, but I'm sure the people in the parking lot were individuals who were trained to remain calm in such situations.

I have a lot more thoughts on this video and the whole situation but it's three a.m. and I don't have the patience to type them out. What I will say is this. Fake or not, and I'm on the side of the people who say it really happened, the whole tragedy should no longer be making national news.

Why? Because the number one cause of mass murders in America is the overexposure of the public to mass murders in America. Read more on that fact here.

And now, as promised, the video that upset me so much that I decided to blog about it at 3 am instead of going to sleep and getting enough rest to do a good job at work the next day.

Kudos to conspiracy theorists everywhere for being the group of people on the face of this planet to have the audacity to question tragedy that will leave groups of people traumatized for their whole lives and a big shout out to the news channels of the world for making it possible for conspiracy theorists to draw crazy conclusions from your faulty reporting.

I urge you to always keep an open mind and to think logically about every piece of information that is ever presented to you. But at the same time, remember that there are loonies living among us. 

Peace and Love. 

New Years Resolutions I'll Actually Keep.

To write

To learn

To achieve 

To conquer. 

Four two letter statements. Four goals for the new year. Write more, because I know that its something I’m good at, and should be doing more because when I sit down and write, suddenly the world is at peace and even though my mind is a tumultuous sea of paradoxes, confusion, and bad decision making, it all stops for a few moments and I feel whole again.

Learn things, because life is a never ending education that we as humans would be fools to ignore. Even the flowers that come back year after year have something to teach us. That sometimes we have to go underground for a while before we’re able to bloom once more. One of those “even the darkest night will end and the sun will shine” sentiments that I’m so fond of. There’s so much to be learned while we’re here, from a stranger’s smile to the way the sun reflects off of the snow, so why be a fool and be ignorant of that?

Achieve something. Maybe I’ll start with being able to spell achieve correctly on the first try. And then I’ll move on to something grand. Maybe the achievement will be in my finally understanding that not all achievements will be noticed by the world, some will only be seen by a few people and others still will only be noticeable to me. Maybe I’ll finish a book, or lose five pounds, or go back to school, or change someone’s life. I don’t know yet, but I plan to find out. 

Veni vidi vici (or something like that). I will conquer this year. I will emerge from 2013 a better person who has done something worthwhile with their life. Last year I fell off the wagon, this year I’m getting back on it. 

Look out world, Alexis is on her way to a new existence. 

That One Time "Fresh Prince" Made Me Cry

It is no secret that I grew up living with my grandmother, who I love and who loves me more than anything. For most of my life my grandma has been my best friend. But at the same time, growing up with her meant I had to grow up without my parents, and very recently it hit me that this fact that I had kind of brushed off for a very long time really hurt. It hurts that people talk about what jobs their parents have and I can't do that. That most girls I know will be given away by their fathers at their weddings and I won't, little things that shouldn't matter, really do, and it is way more painful than I thought it would be, coming to terms with this fact.

What does Fresh Prince have to do with this? There is an episode where Will's dad comes back and then leaves him again at the end of the episode. Which prompts this:

"You know what, Uncle Phil? I'm gonna get through college without him, I'm gonna great job without him, Ima marry me a beautiful hunny and have me a whole bunch of kids. Ima be a better father than he ever was, and I sure as hell don't need him for that. Cause there ain't a damn thing he could ever teach me about how to love my kids! How come he don't want me, man?"

Every single time I watch that scene I cry because I know that feeling. I've given myself that same speech so many times in my life that it's become a constant, running thought, especially when I'm around other people and their parents. And I always ALWAYS ask myself what I did to make them leave. It always ends with asking myself why am I not good enough? Could I be better? Will they love me and come back for me if I do things differently? 

And that's terrible. Those are such toxic thoughts to have. Because underneath those questions is the truth. That nothing that I could have done or can do will bring them back and wouldn't have made them stay. Yes, I still wonder why they gave me up, especially on lonely nights like tonight, but I've also learned that without them leaving I probably wouldn't have lived the life I've lived and I wouldn't be where I am today. 

Yes, it still hurts. Yes, I'm always going to wonder. But at the same time, would them staying make life any better? I know that there are many more people on this planet who find worth in my being, so I need to focus on that more than I focus on the one person who should have cared and didn't. 

Why The Media Should Keep Their Sticky Little Fingers Off of Mass Murders

In the wake of one of the most shocking mass murders of my life, and the second one in just a few short months, the new stations all over the country are running non stop coverage of Newton, CT and releasing news about Adam Lanza, the killer, every time a minuscule amount of anything is revealed about him. Just some facts I learned about him this morning: he was home schooled after 10th grade and before that he was in the Tech Club. Now I know that this a tragedy, especially where the families of the victims are concerned, but this constant and undiluted coverage of the Sandy Hook tragedy is actually hurting more than its helping.

As it turns out, giving a murderer weeks of publicity on television, in papers, and in popular magazines - let's not even kid ourselves Time is bound to do an article on this - is actually a bad thing, because then he turns into this person of infamy, a celebrity for all the wrong reasons, and someone out there will want to be just like that. According to Forensic Psychologist Dr. Park Dietz mass coverage of murders is exactly what's propagating them. "Because every time we have intense, saturated coverage of a murder, we expect to see on or two more within a week."

For proof of Dr. Dietz's statement look to the case of Joseph Wesbecker and Patrick Purdy. In 1989 Purdy received prolonged attention after he firebombed his car, killed five elementary school children, wounded 29 more along with a teacher with an AKS and then killed himself with a 9 mm gun. Originally the story didn't get much coverage. But as time went on, the story got bigger and bigger, and pointed out the similarities between this murder and several others.

In September of the same year Wesbecker, a recently released mental patient, armed with the same weapons as Purdy walked into Standard Gravure Co., killed eight people and wounded 13. Upon investigation of Wesbecker's belongings clippings of the articles about Purdy were found, along with other articles about mass murders. Wesbecker's entire plan that day was based off of the crime that Purdy had committed 8 months beforehand. The media's coverage of Purdy had created a copy-cat killer.

The media can actually be credited with creating copycat killers all the way back in the early 1900's. Jack the Ripper was running around killing people and becoming infamous for it. During that time, all the media coverage of his crimes created a string of people who imitated Jack - only they usually got caught. There was a more recent copycat of Jack the Ripper, also. Fortunately he was caught.

The same thing happened during the time when the Zodiac Killer was in his/her heyday. So much attention was given the case that 20 years later Eddie Seda decided to use him/her as inspiration and was arrested after being found guilty of Zodiac style murders.

And then in the 90's a string of school shootings all eerily similar to each other spanned the country. In fact, between 1983 and 2008 50 shootings have occurred inside schools, all with similarities to each other, including the Columbine Massacre, an incident that was mostly played out on television which raised the question: would a televised mass murder contribute to copy cat killings? I think we have our answer.

After the Virginia Tech shootings and the weeks long coverage of the event and specials on the killer, Northern Illinois University canceled classes after a threat referencing Virginia Tech was found in a bathroom stall, BU and University of Cincinnati students were arrested for threatening to wreak such havoc that VT would be "pale in comparison." Why? Because the killer, and the event (which is currently ranked as the deadliest shooting in the United States) went down in infamy. And infamy still warrants mass amounts of attention. If the event had been localized and not given hours of coverage by the News, it is likely that this wouldn't have happened. In fact, associate professor of psychology Danny Axsom noted that the greater the amount of publicity a particularly criminal act receives, the greater the potential is for copycat versions of the same event to occur.

Even Adam Lanza's crime has signs of a copycat murder. In my mind, Lanza, Purdy, and every other school shooter have pretty similar crimes, all happening in schools with assault weapons, and ending in their eventual suicides. And why? Why? Because the news can't find anything better to talk on. Useless footage of killers doing sports or menial day to day activities suddenly hold the marks of a murderer. But then their every move is plastered across the news screens for everyone to see, those who can watch it and feel sorry for the people involved and those who want the same amount of infamy and decide to recreate the crime somehow.

Eventually the names of the victims are forgotten. But the killers, who go down in infamy, become immortal. Lizzie Bordon, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, The Zodiac Killer, The Green River Killer, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, those are names people remember. Because the media made a huge deal out of them, and while the victims names were once mentioned, more is made of the killer than the victims because how could someone do something so terrible?

Well they probably got their ideas watching the news.

Labels.

Our world is full of labels. There are labels that come from the lifestyles one leads, relationship statuses,  the hobbies one partakes in, and some unfortunate people are labeled only by the opinion the general populous has of them.

But lets take a moment and examine why these labels are necessary. I mean honestly, I already have a name. It's Alexis Olmstead and I would prefer it if that was my identifier. Not "that geeky cheerleader" or "theatre nerd" or "Wanda's granddaughter" or "Russell's daughter" or "Drew's girlfriend". Because while I'm all of those things and more, I feel like they simplify me down to one thing. I'm not only a cheerleader, or theatre brat or family member of more recognizable people or girlfriend of a very fortunate Mac Man, but I'm also bookish, eccentric (or just plain weird), outgoing, easily amused, moody, loud, quiet, the list of my qualities goes on and on. But too often people's qualities and hobbies become the box they are stuck in. This is also true of one's religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic class, and IQ. What once started out as part of a person become that whole being.

What happened to the whole sum of our parts thing? Sum, not exclusive choice of the most obvious one.

But what really irritates me the most about labels or identifiers, is that a lot of times they come from a negative direction and they are unwanted by the person they are thrust upon, like the nickname Lex Luther that some random guy plastered on me one day during study period. I mean, yeah, being labeled as a cheerleader sucks when the only connotation of it is a negative one with airhead being a synonym, but I can't imagine what being called a queer or something worse on a daily basis feels like.

Believe it or not, the labels we thrust upon people are very often the labels that make them decide to hate themselves. The girl you decide is a slut today could be the suicide case on page 5 tomorrow. Obviously I'm dealing in extremes here, but even the extreme has a possibility to happen.

So let's not label people, okay? Put the label gun down and see people for their qualities and not their identifiers.