I went to the midnight showing of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince last night. It was freaking awesome!!! I am paying the price today (so sleepy) but it was worth it. The movie was dark and yet also funny. I loved the romance parts and all the main kids have grown as actors so it wasn't painful to watch them. They didn't stick exactly close to the book but close enough for me to declare this film, of all the Harry Potter films out so far, the best!! Rest assured my good friends, last night was just the first in a series of many viewings of this film - finally something worth seeing this summer, yipee!!
Tonight I am so excited because one of my favorite romance authors (romance novels are my guilty pleasure) is in Washington D.C. for some writer's conference and she sent a note out to all her fans on her email list (yes I'm that much of a romance novel geek I'm on an email distribution list), that she would be signing autographs, Wednesday, July 15th - from 5:30 to 7:30pm; simply perfect for me, right after work!! I am trying to compose something intelligent to say to her, I've been thinking of this all day, am narrowing it down to, "will you please write more books about Justin and his family?" (that is my favorite character) or "do you have any romance authors besides yourself you would recommend?" Maybe I'll get lucky and be able to ask her both!
One of my favorite magazines is Real Simple. Its like a Better Homes and Gardens or Good Housekeeping for young adults like myself (you know the 20's and 30's set). A close friend of mine let me know that Amazon.com is selling a year subscription of the magazine for $5 (she told me this while we waited for the Harry Potter movie to start). That is .42 cents per issue! If you like the magazine or maybe even need a gift idea, I'm providing the link below.
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Simple-1-year/dp/B00005R8BR/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=magazines&qid=1247691073&sr=8-1
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Upside Down World
I read this piece on commondreams.org about this poor black man who got locked up in jail for two years for a crime he did not commit (and in the end was found not guilty).
If ever there was an argument that circumstances beyond our control (where we were born, to whom, our upbringing) predispose us to our future, it is this man's story.
Here is an excerpt from the article -
But innocence and guilt are funny things in America. If you are rich and guilty, if you have defrauded banks and customers and investment firms of billions of dollars, as AIG or Citibank has, if you wear fancy suits and have degrees from elite universities that cost more per year than Brown used to make, you get taxpayer money. You get lots of it. You maintain the lavish lifestyle of jets and spas and million-dollar bonuses. You live a life of unchecked greed and have too much in a world where most have too little. If you are moral scum in America we take care of you. But if you are poor, if you are, say, Tearyan Brown and African-American and 39 years old with four kids and no job and you live in the inner city, you are in trouble. No one comes to help you. You don't get a second chance. This is what being poor means. - Chris Hedges
I maintain that poverty is not a choice, as right-wing and Republicans believe. I also continue to believe that crime and misdeed are not the domains of the poor alone and I strongly adhere to the adage that one should give a man a fish as well as teach him.
Read the full article here - http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/06
If ever there was an argument that circumstances beyond our control (where we were born, to whom, our upbringing) predispose us to our future, it is this man's story.
Here is an excerpt from the article -
But innocence and guilt are funny things in America. If you are rich and guilty, if you have defrauded banks and customers and investment firms of billions of dollars, as AIG or Citibank has, if you wear fancy suits and have degrees from elite universities that cost more per year than Brown used to make, you get taxpayer money. You get lots of it. You maintain the lavish lifestyle of jets and spas and million-dollar bonuses. You live a life of unchecked greed and have too much in a world where most have too little. If you are moral scum in America we take care of you. But if you are poor, if you are, say, Tearyan Brown and African-American and 39 years old with four kids and no job and you live in the inner city, you are in trouble. No one comes to help you. You don't get a second chance. This is what being poor means. - Chris Hedges
I maintain that poverty is not a choice, as right-wing and Republicans believe. I also continue to believe that crime and misdeed are not the domains of the poor alone and I strongly adhere to the adage that one should give a man a fish as well as teach him.
Read the full article here - http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/06
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Blog Award
I recieved this from www.mommanator.blogspot.com
My first blog award!!!!
According to Mommanator's site, "If you receive this award, you are to credit the person who bestowed it, give it to 7 other blogs (let them know) and tell your readers 7 things about yourself that they don't know. The award is supposed to go to blogs that speak honestly, from the heart" I tried to do more research on the award (being my first and all) but I linked back to seven other blogs and still could not find the origins of this award, but it seems on the up and up and that is good enough for me).
Here are seven fun facts about Virginia Gal:
1. I am a romance book addict, but I try to temper that with reading at least one edifying book every two weeks.
2. Since starting my new job I've put on at least ten pounds, aye!
3. Lately, when bored at work, I shop on Amazon, this is not good on both my work ethic and my credit card.
4. I just saw the movie "Angels and Demons" and loved it!
5. I finally got my MBA diploma from VCU - it is now at the frame shop.
6. I am going to my third New Kids on the Block concert next Saturday.
7. I continue to google gossip about my favorite ice skating dance couple, Virtue and Moir, cause it is my desperate wish that they become a real-life couple off ice!
Now I'm suppose to pass this along to seven other bloggers, but since I can't decide, I spread it to all, please feel free to add the award to your blog and tell us seven things about yourself!
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy Fourth of July!
Happy Fourth of July!!!
It is my absolute favorite of all the holidays!
Please go out and celebrate this great nation's birthday
I will walk in the local parade and than watch fireworks with my father at the county baseball stadium (just remember to be safe).
It is my absolute favorite of all the holidays!
Please go out and celebrate this great nation's birthday
I will walk in the local parade and than watch fireworks with my father at the county baseball stadium (just remember to be safe).
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
I hate Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court decisions for the 2009 year were handed down yesterday and as usual, Clarence Thomas goes further right than even Rush Limbaugh (a friend of Clarence Thomas), and even made the one dissenting vote on the case of the strip search at a middle school (Thomas said it was permissable for a school to do a strip search, whenever and wherever they feel).
I have hated Clarence Thomas since he came onto the national scene. I revile him. He is a hypocrite of the highest order and a hater of his own ancestry (which is one of my largest disgusts). This man used affirmative action to get ahead, he only got into Yale Law School because in 1971, when Thomas was admitted to Yale, the school was agressively pursuing affirmative action, 10% minority student body. The school also offered him financial aid because of his race. He then was appointed to positions often because of his race, including but not limited to role of Supreme Court Justice.
Thomas has been since his very start, opposed to the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965 and at ever turn tries to overturn it. This from a man who has trampled on the backs of the very people who got sprayed, beaten and lynched to enact the Civil Rights Act. The man is whiter than white. This is a man who yearns for the good ol'e days...of Hoover (yeah when there were such things as Whites-only lunch counters).
The more I read about him, the more I think he is seriously ill, how else can you explain this "House Slave" mentality? He is always wanting to please "massah," like a modern day age Stockholm Syndrome - his captors are all the white men, i.e. George H. Bush, who gave him power. Thomas has voted or made decisions against minimum wage, the Family Leave act, maximum work hours and at times frowned at certain aspects of the Bill of Rights.
When I think of Thomas I think of two things, one a man who climbed this ladder and see's others at the bottom trying to climb the same ladder and kicks the ladder away and two a man who daily wishes to scrub away the color of his skin. Pathetic.
I have hated Clarence Thomas since he came onto the national scene. I revile him. He is a hypocrite of the highest order and a hater of his own ancestry (which is one of my largest disgusts). This man used affirmative action to get ahead, he only got into Yale Law School because in 1971, when Thomas was admitted to Yale, the school was agressively pursuing affirmative action, 10% minority student body. The school also offered him financial aid because of his race. He then was appointed to positions often because of his race, including but not limited to role of Supreme Court Justice.
Thomas has been since his very start, opposed to the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965 and at ever turn tries to overturn it. This from a man who has trampled on the backs of the very people who got sprayed, beaten and lynched to enact the Civil Rights Act. The man is whiter than white. This is a man who yearns for the good ol'e days...of Hoover (yeah when there were such things as Whites-only lunch counters).
The more I read about him, the more I think he is seriously ill, how else can you explain this "House Slave" mentality? He is always wanting to please "massah," like a modern day age Stockholm Syndrome - his captors are all the white men, i.e. George H. Bush, who gave him power. Thomas has voted or made decisions against minimum wage, the Family Leave act, maximum work hours and at times frowned at certain aspects of the Bill of Rights.
When I think of Thomas I think of two things, one a man who climbed this ladder and see's others at the bottom trying to climb the same ladder and kicks the ladder away and two a man who daily wishes to scrub away the color of his skin. Pathetic.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Experience At Sak's Fifth Avenue
Sorry for the delay in posting - busy week and it is still not over - aye!
So last week I was in Los Angeles, CA for work. It was very interesting to be on a team with four ladies. Guess what we did every night....that's right, shopped! Los Angeles and really the state of California is not the best place to shop as they have high taxes but you know how it is when four ladies get together, the one thing we all have in common (as far as pastimes go) is shopping.
On the second day of our stay in Los Angeles we ended up in Beverly Hills at no less than Saks Fifth Avenue (the one Winona Ryder shoplifted from!). This was truly an adventure in how the other half lives (and by other half I mean the rich half).
Everything in the store was $1000 or more, except the sale items which were priced generally between $200 - $700. For someone who clips Michael coupons to save $.50 off a dollar, this was clearly out of my realm. I joked that I probably couldn't even afford the paper shopping bag given at this establishment.
The store itself is lovely, four floors of women's clothing, each designer has their own section (I loved Oscar De La Renta's pieces, beautiful!). The ground level was purses, shoes and cosmetics. Everyone who worked there was very nice, nothing like Pretty Woman, no patronizing or looking down their nose.
When I first entered I sincerely believed I couldn't afford anything in there but the more we went exploring (the team alloted an hour for the store), the more I realized it wasn't about that I couldn't afford it, as much as I could not justify wasting money in that manner. There was this beautiful dress that I really liked, pretty and perfect for summer, on sale for $369. I could definitely afford that, but is that a good use of my money? My student loan for graduate school is a monthly payment of $313 - less than the dress! For $369 I could educate a child in India for two years in an English speaking private school, two years of education that could significantly improve their lives vs. a dress that I would wear maybe a few times, than either I would get tired of it or grow out of it, or in my case, spill some food on it.
This whole Saks Fifth Avenue experience has brought to my mind many questions - who are these people who shop there? Isn't there a better use of money than wasting so much of it on clothes, particularly clothes that will go out of style? There are starving people around the world, who live on $2 a day, how does one who spends $4000 for a pair of Gucci pants, look someone poor in the face? Isn't this just a massive example of excessive opulance? Why are these clothes so high priced? Why are people shopping here? What do the people who work there make? Why don't the people who shop here make better use of their money?? Does anyone care?
So last week I was in Los Angeles, CA for work. It was very interesting to be on a team with four ladies. Guess what we did every night....that's right, shopped! Los Angeles and really the state of California is not the best place to shop as they have high taxes but you know how it is when four ladies get together, the one thing we all have in common (as far as pastimes go) is shopping.
On the second day of our stay in Los Angeles we ended up in Beverly Hills at no less than Saks Fifth Avenue (the one Winona Ryder shoplifted from!). This was truly an adventure in how the other half lives (and by other half I mean the rich half).
Everything in the store was $1000 or more, except the sale items which were priced generally between $200 - $700. For someone who clips Michael coupons to save $.50 off a dollar, this was clearly out of my realm. I joked that I probably couldn't even afford the paper shopping bag given at this establishment.
The store itself is lovely, four floors of women's clothing, each designer has their own section (I loved Oscar De La Renta's pieces, beautiful!). The ground level was purses, shoes and cosmetics. Everyone who worked there was very nice, nothing like Pretty Woman, no patronizing or looking down their nose.
When I first entered I sincerely believed I couldn't afford anything in there but the more we went exploring (the team alloted an hour for the store), the more I realized it wasn't about that I couldn't afford it, as much as I could not justify wasting money in that manner. There was this beautiful dress that I really liked, pretty and perfect for summer, on sale for $369. I could definitely afford that, but is that a good use of my money? My student loan for graduate school is a monthly payment of $313 - less than the dress! For $369 I could educate a child in India for two years in an English speaking private school, two years of education that could significantly improve their lives vs. a dress that I would wear maybe a few times, than either I would get tired of it or grow out of it, or in my case, spill some food on it.
This whole Saks Fifth Avenue experience has brought to my mind many questions - who are these people who shop there? Isn't there a better use of money than wasting so much of it on clothes, particularly clothes that will go out of style? There are starving people around the world, who live on $2 a day, how does one who spends $4000 for a pair of Gucci pants, look someone poor in the face? Isn't this just a massive example of excessive opulance? Why are these clothes so high priced? Why are people shopping here? What do the people who work there make? Why don't the people who shop here make better use of their money?? Does anyone care?
Friday, June 19, 2009
John Kerry's Letter About Iranian Elections
Love him or hate him, I think John Kerry wrote a thoroughly intelligent and mindful letter about the recent elections in Iran to the New York Times, and to which I agree with, hence I am copying it here.
The grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America's attention and captured headlines -- unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran's unrest.
No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama's response as "tepid." He has also claimed that "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail."
Mr. McCain's rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.
There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for "interventionist" statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.
We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran -- not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.
To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington -- instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout "Allahu Akbar" from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah -- a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American "fifth column."
Iran's internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same -- preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran's domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a "dialogue among civilizations" and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran's influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.
The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.
Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region's extremists on the defensive.
We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.
We're seeing signs that it's having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.
- Senator John Kerry (D)
The grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America's attention and captured headlines -- unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran's unrest.
No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama's response as "tepid." He has also claimed that "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail."
Mr. McCain's rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.
There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for "interventionist" statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.
We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran -- not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.
To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington -- instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout "Allahu Akbar" from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah -- a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American "fifth column."
Iran's internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same -- preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran's domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a "dialogue among civilizations" and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran's influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.
The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.
Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region's extremists on the defensive.
We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.
We're seeing signs that it's having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.
- Senator John Kerry (D)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
