i know, i know... i promised

ok, i'm so bloody over this whole thing that the only reason i am posting this at all is because i promised to in my last post (damn me and my stupid promises!!).

so, hillary's lost it. finally the battle is over (and somewhere meeg is jumping up and down over the death of the evil ice queen). i have to say, we all know that we would have voted for whomever won it. anyone but oldie mcolderson (even if bracha thinks he's sexy- shudder).

i just hope that obama has the chops to nail this one. i don't know that i could handle another defeat... i just don't know what i would do (oh wait, i DO know what i would do... i would leave the f-ing country!!! well, i'm going to regardless of what happens, so i guess that's moot).

so, the queen is dead... long live the king. let's hope he's up to the challenge of battling the evil empire!!!

next time- something i am a little more interesting. i promise that there will be more political posts when we really get into the mud-slinging of the general election!

let them eat cake...

so, meeg bought me the "marie antoinette" soundtrack for christmas (i think it was christmas), and i've been listening to it non-stop lately. it doesn't hurt that the movie has been on television constantly in the last couple of weeks.
i did see the beginning of it ages ago, when it first came out, and wasn't interested. i ended up turning it off after all of 5 minutes.
i have since watched it and i have to say that i really like it a lot. i think that our sophia has done a really good job of showing the progression of the young woman who was so vilified and who became the symbol of everything that was wrong with the french monarchy.
this is what i know of her (from school, etc). she was austrian and about 14 or 15 when she married louis, the dauphin of france (they were married by proxy). when she finally came to france she was completely lost in the decadence and ritual of the french court, versailles, and being the dauphine. it didn't help her much that her husband, louis, was kind of a freak (i'm going to go so far as to say that he was a boy who never grew up). i don't think he was gay- i think he was more scared of sex, or even a-sexual altogether. the rumor goes that they were married for seven years before their marriage was consummated (recall, though, that she was still in austria for some of that time). she was under intense pressure from her mother and the french king (and just about everyone else in the world) to produce an heir, but what is a young woman to do when her husband won't sleep with her? it's been pretty well documented that it wasn't her fault- she was attractive and wanted to please louis and produce and heir- he was the one who wasn't interested for unknown reasons.
during the years when she wasn't sleeping with her husband (the king died before a child was born by marie and thus she was queen before her husband slept with her), she fell into the debauchery of the french court. she held lavish parties, gambled, went to the opera in paris quite a bit... by this time she was around 18 years old and little older. i completely understand why she would behave this way! you are the queen of france. people think it's your fault that the king won't have sex with you, you are devastated by the fact that you have not produced an heir and you feel like there's nothing you can do to seduce your husband. imagine that you're 18 and a queen living at versailles... what would you do? you would buy the latest fashions... you would have parties... you would eat decadent food... you would do anything and everything to live frivolously enough to forget that you feel that it is your fault that you cannot fulfill your life's purpose!! she was but a young girl and she acted as such!
when she did finally have a child (a girl) she retreated to her own home, away from versailles, and spent most of her time there. she became reclusive, no longer threw the huge bashes, no longer bought the crazy clothes... she spent years with her daughter living in quiet serenity. she later bore a son (the dauphin louis, who was executed along with her and his father), and had another child who died.
she did take to the life that she was brought into when she entered into the french court, but she did not create the decadence. it was there when she arrived, she merely became a part of it.
i think that she was a very sad figure. very misunderstood and blamed for things that history now shows she did not do nor say (she never said, 'let them eat cake'). it must also be mentioned that she was blamed by the people (i think it was because it was easier to blame the foreign queen than to blame the rightful king- even though his head ended up on the block, too) for her lavish spending when it came to her parties and clothes and gambling and such. we must remember that louis was spending a FORTUNE at the time helping the US with their (our) revolution. both he and his grandfather (the previous king) were even more decadent than marie. they ate and had parties and waged war and lived at versailles... they bought insane estates, and did all of the things that the french kings of the time thought was their right. she was blamed for the overspending and decadence of the whole royal court, and in this i think she got the rawest of all possible deals. she was truly hated for things that she did not do and were not her fault. it is a small comfort that history has come to show that the things she was hated for at the time of the french revolution were not her fault or were not done or said by her at all.

i think that the film does a good job of showing a young girl trying to adapt to a new life, trying to cope with pressures that are too great for her, being the child that she was, being a loving wife and mother, and just trying her best to find her place in what could only have been the most difficult and bizarre of situations. i recommend watching it (even though i don't like kirsten dunst).

and of course, all of this is set to a pretty damn fantastic soundtrack (thanks, meeg!).



next time...
the election, hillary, obama, the old guy, and what the next few months have in store for us.

for all of you who are new to the blog or who have just started reading it again...

don't forget that there's a whole host of good entries further down. scroll down and decide if you think that madonna's on steroids, watch some david bowie videos or some clips from great british sitcoms, read my clinton/obama rants, read about how to pretend you've read some literary classics that you probably haven't actually read!
go to past months!! read about religions you never knew existed and celeb gossip and all sorts of other fabulous things!! there are months of reading that you can catch up on!! need to brush up on your english history and all of the exciting events from 1066 to (i forget where i stopped)... it's all there!! read, learn, laugh, enjoy, comment!! love to you all!!

and here's a little something extra just for today!

we've got his royal hotness james mcavoy (and his glorious accent), a funny story about the wretched paparazzi, a reference to the uber fabulous clive owen, and good scottish slang!! how can you beat it? (and it's only a little over a minute).

enjoy!



and for those of you who aren't so much into james or the celeb thing there's this...

LLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYY
JJJJJJJJJJJEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!

the lost photography by nicole (AND DID I MENTION THAT I FINIISHED WRITING MY SECOND BOOK?)

so, in my attempt to consolidate all of my belongings before i move in 10 months (i know, i'm getting ahead of myself, but it's a compulsion), i went through the steamer trunk full of negatives, contact sheets, and prints that i had from the 15 some-odd years that i spent taking photographs (yes, i did exhibit. yes, people did buy my work. yes, i was paid to do portraits. yes, i was paid to do ad work). i have not done any photography since the storm, but i intend on picking it back up (actually, i've already started just a bit). writing is still my primary focus (OH, DID I FORGET TO MENTION THAT I FINISHED MY SECOND BOOK? IT'S A CHILDREN'S BOOK CALLED, "THE TALE TELLER". MY ILLUSTRATOR IS WORKING ON IT AND IT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN TOTO SOON!!), but i will always have a keep interest in photography. having said that, i thought that i would put a few of my old shots up so that you all (all two of you who read my blog) could have a look and tell me what you think (although i have a feeling i will only get a comment from meeg- maybe i'm down to one reader!! it would certainly seem that way!).

enjoy!!

steroids...do they or don't they?

as some of you may know, gavs is a total work-out freak. he has all of these meal plans and protein shakes and goes to the gym at least 4 times a week. problem for my poor little hubby is that he's one of those guys that you want to kick in the shin because he has a super fast metabolism, making it that much harder for him to put on weight.
the other day we were looking around the interweb and found this site that had all of these photos of celebs who had done super-fast bulk ups and the writers of this blog (i'm guessing that's what it was) were questioning if steroid use was involved.

so, i did a little research on my own. i found out that other than an initial surge in muscle-mass gain that will last few weeks, it is only possible for the human body to put on 6-8 pounds of muscle a month. that's A MONTH, people! now, for those celebs who don't want their new muscle hiding under bulky fat they then have to go on another sort of work out regime that involves continued weight training, loads of cardio, and good old-fashioned dieting. the only way to get those ripped bodies is to bulk up and then drop body fat so that all you can see is the underlying muscle. this is why body builders have such low body fat. the less you have, the more muscle you can see. in fact, i found out that all of us have six packs hiding under our bellies, regardless of how many sit ups some of may (not) have done in the last 10 some-odd years. that is simply the shape of the muscle that we all have and the only way to make them pop out is to lose that body fat (which, of course, is easier said that done).

so, knowing that putting on something like 30+ pounds of muscle and trimming the body fat to make your body look cut is an impossible feat without the use of steroids (which we all know are very bad), let's see if we think these celebs did or did not use steroids to get into their fighting fit shape...

let's start with christian bale. this man went from THIS in 'The Machinist'
to THIS in 'Batman Begins'

this transformation took place over a mere 6 month period. in that time he gained 100 pounds (not of pure muscle, just 100 pounds) i am going to vote no on steroid use here, and this is why. Bale's super thin frame in "The Machinist" would have put on fat in an absurdly quick period of time. his body was literally starving to death. he could have easily gained half of that weight in pure fat in a month alone. so, in the 6 months that it took him to transform he put on 100 pounds of body weight and (so my sources tell me) could not have put on more than around 50 pounds of muscle-mass. in "Batman Begins" he's obviously very muscular, but really look at him and you'll see that when he's not flexing, he's not all that cut. this means that he probably only did the body fat cutting routine for a short period of time. i think that it's reasonable that he could have done this without the use of steroids (for what it's worth, the guy on that blog agrees with me). what do you think? steroids or no steroids? (it must be noted here that the guy on that blog pointed out that bale is an extreme method actor and would probably not have done steroids if his character wouldn't have done them- making it less likely that he did use them. i think that this is a sort of moronic explanation for why bale couldn't have used steroids, but whatever).

let's move on to a more clear-cut (no pun intended) case... Edward Norton. this is what he looked like in that whatever it was called richard gere movie. ONE MONTH LATER he began filming "American History X"



...and showed up looking like this. the man put on 40 pounds of sheer muscle (not to mention did the whole fat-burning, make you look cut thing) in a mere 30 DAYS!

now, according to my research, this is not physically possible without the use of steroids. it just can't happen. he claims that he worked out every single day and ate... blah blah blah... it's bullshit. the man was on the juice. there's no doubt about it. we've already established that you can't gain more that 6-8 pounds of muscle in a month (again, there's a surge at the beginning, so we'll give him an extra 5 pound of muscle in that time period- which is being generous) and say that it was possible for him to have gained around 13 pounds of muscle in that period of time. this does not include the time that it would have taken him to de-bulk and lose the fat that would have been required to put on the muscle in the first place so that he could look all cut up. so, what do you think? juice or no juice? i say that there's no argument. somebody was sticking needles in eddie's ass (and not in a good way).

ok, let's move on to someone who that blogger guy SWEARS is juiced out, but i think he's full of crap... the Madge herself. first of all, i want everyone to recall that for the last 20 some-odd years madonna has been a work out freak!! she's totally all yogaed out (not to mention she does pillates and strength training and cycling and god only knows what else). let's also recall that even in the 80s when she was softer, she was never THAT soft. the woman's a dancer. she's always had a good bit of muscle mass and has always been thin. now, this blogger guy swears she's on the juice. this is the 'before photo' that he says clinches his argument. for one, i would like to say that if he honestly thinks that this magazine cover hasn't been airbrushed to hell, he's on something (and it ain't juice). i would also like to point out that it's been well over 20 years that took madonna from her 'like a virgin' body to...

this hard body. we all remember that movie she made with rupert 'angry queen' everett (sp?). she looked totally toned in that movie. i think a lot of people underestimate the muscle building power of yoga (and on an already slim frame, well...)
i don't think madge is on the juice at all. i think she's hyper-skinny. i think she dances and works out for hours upon hours a day and that she eats a ridiculous macrobiotic diet that keeps her very thin and keeps her body fat super low so that her muscles really show. again, let's recall that it's been over 20 years since her not at all out of shape (soft, but still muscular body) went from 'lucky star' to what you see above. that's plenty of time to put on tons of muscle (and to lose tons of body fat). i think we all know that this would-be brit is totally ocd and works out like a maniac. yeah, she's muscular, but it's not like she's body builder muscular. she's just lean muscle. that's not juice, that's money and lots of time on your hands. so, what do you think here? juice or no juice?

ultimately, i think it's up to everyone (other than athletes, that i think is not cool) to decided if they should take steroids or not. i think it's a stupid choice, but i've stood by and watch people make worse ones. BUT, if celebrities are now using steroids to bulk for films or whatever i think it's a slippery slope. do we really need one more thing to look at them about and ask ourselves, 'why do i not look like that?'. i think that if they're juicing, they should come out and say it, so that at least we know why we can't put on 40 pounds of muscle in a month (then again, that might be dangerous and lead to a whole bunch of kids going out and following suit!). oi, what a dilemma! what do you think? should they tell the truth? are they on it or aren't they? you be the judge...