It doesn’t get any easier. Download App. Click Scan. Viruses Gone. Computer Fast. <3

Dubbing itself “The Ultimate Popup Blocker” is rather insulting I think. It does so much more than that.

So, I have Spyware on my computer, and it usually detects 30 to 40 viruses weekly, which seems like rather a lot to me. Recently, however, for some stupid, long-to-get-to reason, I did, in fact, download HotBar. I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with this parasite, but it is an abomination, catastrophy, demon, or any other word you want to use for Hell-hole-pain-in-the-ass. Now, don’t get my wrong. HotBar didn’t sizzle my computer into steam and goo, but it DID continue to piss me off, incessantly poping up, if not once per page then once per second after a long time of poking around on the internet I realized that the solutions availble were to either A) do it manually, and that was for supercyper hacker extraordinares only, OR B) download a device to remove the product. Unfortunately, I didn’t really trust any of the downloads available or they didn’t work.

After a lot of hair pulling and nail biting, however I did stumble across a miracle.

STOPzilla.    …   Wow.

Now keep in mind, I have Spyware and Anti-virus and, what I thought, were pretty much all the bells and whistles. Stopzilla, however, is different. First of all, it’s NOT free, like a lot of the other downloads that seem to be availble. It DOES work though, unlike the other ones.

But here’s why it gets my Nod of the Day:

First of all, it detected, not the usual 30 or 40 threats, but 600! And it fixed them all.

Second of all, it DID rid my computer of HotBar. Rather quickly too. And anything else I never knew I didn’t want on here.

Third, it doesn’t detect like your normal Spyware or Anti-virus protect. Even if you have those, I can guarantee Stopzilla is a huge upgrade. It protects your computer with the protection of BOTH of those combined, but it let’s you keep your internet more private and safe, while protecting your computer from ADWARE (which is just as bad as Spyware).

Fourth? Well, if the first three weren’t enough, this product isn’t free but it’s cheap. Stopzilla is free to download and run, allowing you to scan your computer and see the threats for free BEFORE you choose to buy the solution. For $10, you can move on to the next step, which is cleaning out all, and I mean all, threats from your computer. And that ten bucks lasts you the duration of one whole year, unless you rather get a lifetime supply for just 40 bucks. Either way, it’s a great deal. Plus they give you a 30 day money-back guarantee, so there’s really nothing to lose.

I’m happy to say, my computer is back on track now, and running faster than it was before. That’s probably because STOPzilla got rid of, not only HotBar and Zango (yuck), but a bunch of threatening infections that I never knew my laptop had before. Who knew a complete computer miracle was available for just $9.95?!

A+ 

Check out STOPzilla’s numerous computer fix-it devices!

Roman Polanski, of late, has made numerous headlines with his sexual scandal of thirty years ago. Social class appears to be the most obvious slant that the Media is using against Polanski, while age and gender follow with slightly less aggressiveness. Race, however, has been the most subtly played angle, which I find ironic, since it may prove to have the largest personal impact.

Many are jumping on the chance to turn the Roman Polanski case into a battle between Hollywood and the middle-class, or an opportunity for social justice between the have-alls and the have-nots. Others, however, have stressed the idea that it’s more about ”American justice” than ”social justice”. Following the same direction as those believing the the cult-like amorality of Hollywood, some are stressing the general amorality of Europe, questioning it’s ethics. Many allusions have been made to European culture and they’re acceptance of more tawdry lifestyles, such as Eugene Robinson’s quote that, “even in France, it’s should be a big deal [when a 13-year-old girl is raped]“. So it’s statements like Robinson’s that make me wonder: is this more about justice for a raped girl, or more about proving the strength of American justice? Some are seeing this as the perfect opportunity, no matter how they feel about the victim, to demonstrate that American justice always succeeds: no matter your social class, no matter how long or far you run, no matter where you’re from, if you commit a crime in America we will apply our rules to you, as they apply to everyone else in our country equally (or so we’d like to believe).

In essence, much of the Polanski case boils down to national pride. If in Rome, we are expected to do as the Romans do, doesn’t that mean when in America, the Romans should do as the Americans? Or has Polanski decided that “do as the Romans do” means the Romans set the rules? Whatever the case may be, there’s definitely greater than a hint that this case is about much more than the tragedy or a young girl.

What do you think?

                  

It seems that once the entertainment industry has found some kind of highly marketable theme, they beat it until it’s not just dead, but so mangled that it’s hardly recognizeable as what it orginally was. Dracula, the original master of bloodsucking, would be proud of the phenomenon he never knew he would head, nearly 75 years later. Proud at first, and then so, so… embarassed.

Although vamps orignally started out as the big screen enemy, they’ve actually developed into super hotties, becoming centers of lust rather than hatred. Kicking off the new theme in entertainment, Buffy the Vampire Slayer gave us the orginal undead babe, David Boreanaz, as Angel. To follow there was Brad Pitt in Interview With A Vampire, the super sultry Salma Hayek in From Dusk Til Dawn (starring the ever sexy George Clooney), and of course, everyone’s favorite Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen in The Twilight Saga.

I am just as big a Twilight Fan as the next person (and if the next person is my dad, than I’m a 10,000 times bigger fan), but I finally have to ask – “Are we done yet?”. The Hollywood overkill is astounding. With the amazing success of Twilight, any theme not involving vampires has suddenly slipped everyone’s mind. Even TV is following the trend with series like True Blood on HBO and The Vampire Diaries on The CW, though it’s not necessary with movies in the works Cirque de Freak, The Informers, and of course, New Moon.

So now that we’ve exhausted our traditional vampire stereotype and are now exploring (almost redundantly so) the idea of friendly vampires, what’s next? True Blood itself is based on the idea of some vampires that decide to “mainstream”, choosing to not drink blood anymore, but rather a synthetic substitute.

So from foe, to friend, to what – hero? I have no clue what’s next for vampires in Hollywood’s world. What I can tell you, though, is that vampires seemed to have hit their peak already, and redudancy seems all too abundant these days, which is beginning to make this theme truly sucky.

So you tell me: Do you think we’ve already passed our apex with this vampiric cinema phenomenon, as I do? Or do you think the bite has yet to wear out?

              Although we like to consider ourselves largely a colorblind society, many of us know that is not truly the case. Not to say we haven’t come a long way since slavery, or even Jim Crow Laws for that matter, but to deny that racism still lives, breathes, and dare I say thrives in our society is simply naïve. There’s no denying, therefore, that at least some of the political heat President Obama has been receiving of late is due to his race, or even more specifically what it may mean, in terms of race, to have someone of color is such a significant position of influence.

            First and foremost, before any good racial debate can ever begin, the definition one is using to describe racism must be laid out. Because race is an ambiguous, socially created categorization (e.g. black, white, asian), as opposed to ethnicity (e.g. Egyptian, El Savadoran), it’s clear it must have been created for social purposes – those purposes being success, power, and ultimately money. Given that this is the case, I find the best definition of racism comes from Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum, which states that racism is “a system of advantage based on race”. With this definition in mind, there’s no arguing that having a president of color in the White House has huge racial implications, which many who are on top of the racial ladder, may not like, policies aside.

            No president has ever been unanimously loved by the population in the past, so it’s no surprise that the current president isn’t either. It has, though, been quite a surprise to see some of our social lines recess while we coincidientally have our first black president. Nothing to the likes of the “You lie!” outburst by Republican Representative Joe Wilson or the “We Want Our Country Back” marches has ever been seen during any previous presidency, even with controversial leaders such as Bill Clinton and George Bush preceding him. So why now? It’s easy for us to say it’s all about politics, and it has nothing to do with race. It makes many feel better about themselves to state that their feelings are purely because they don’t agree with his healthcare reform or are not on board with tax changes. What it really boils down to though is power. If black people are going up, where are white people going?

            For the longest time, our social norm has been the White, Christian male – an easy backdrop for us to tint in order to get the “others”. When a black man entered a position of power, though, it was apparent to all a shift in society had begun – especially when he followed up his inauguration by appointing numerous people of color to help him in his success. With such dramatic changes, it’s clear that minorities are clearly not as “on the bottom” as once believed. So what’s the fear? If racism is defined as a system of power based on advantage, white people feel as though they are losing the advantage, or the edge they get, just by being white.

            A lot of people don’t even think of the natural systemic advantage they receive based on things they can’t control as long as it doesn’t hinder them (like their gender, or the color of their skin). For the longest time, white people didn’t have to ever worry about their personal views being upheld in politics because the person in charge was always like them and therefore always worked in their benefit. Of late, though, it’s obvious that politics is no longer for the white man, but instead every man. The fact that our current president is half black and half white should give him some leeway in the white community, given that he’s just as white as black, but it doesn’t. Why is that? It’s because he’s simply not fighting for their cause. He’s not fighting to keep the poor, systemically disadvantaged minorities poor and the rich, systemically advantaged whites rich. Instead, he’s looking to help raise up those without opportunities, which just so happens to more often than not be people of color.

            In essence, the Joe Wilson outburst, or the “We Want Our Country Back” protests are just fearful grasps. No president has even been so openly disrespected or torn apart and it’s easy to see it is fear – fear of losing position and advantage, fear of change, and fear of not being able to keep the wealth to themselves.

            Much has changed: slavery has been outlawed, segregation no longer exists in our country, and we’ve even allowed ourselves to put a black president in office. In truth though, much is just now changing. White people before slaves and after them have always maintained the advantage, the privilege associated just with being light-skinned. It’s clear, though, that the advantage is beginning to dissipate, colors aren’t becoming so clear, and changes are nigh, which work in favor of those who need it most.

            Obama may not be for everyone, but his opposition isn’t just simply based on politics. Presidents have been opposed or disagreed with before, but never has one been so disrespected or such a catalyst for racial change. Healthcare reform, no healthcare reform, tax change, or no tax change, opinions about Obama will not be changing any day soon. Race, which was aptly named, was socially created for a reason. Whites created the game and put themselves in the lead, holding their position until now by leaving hurdles in the way of minority groups. It’s easy to see, though, that people of color are quickly coming up the rear – and with Obama encouraging and removing the hurdles before them, white people are truly in fear for the first time of losing the race.

Alien invaders is the idea that people are most familiar with, but what about aliens as the victims? District 9 is a unique sci-fi flick about just that, posing the humans as the oppressors and the aliens as innocent victims forced to live in ghettos. Wikus, an MNU member trying to help humans “deal” with the “prawns” (as they were insultingly dubbed) stranded in Johanessburg, understands their language and habits (surprisingly), but nothing about their lives or feelings. It only takes one small and arrogant mistake, though, for Wikus to spin things horribly out of control for himself and one alien family, forcing himself to see things their way and ending up on a race for his life. But when time starts to become limited, what takes precidence to Wikus: His human life, or the salvation of an alien race after a long 28 years of tyranny?

Since I have been wanting to see this movie for some time, I suppose my expectation for it was rather high – especially since the buzz was pretty good. I was, to be honest, slightly disappointed. First of all, this movie was filmed similarly to Cloverfield (aka the movie that tried to pose a WHALE as a threat to humanity), so it looks less like a movie and more like a home video. It wasn’t until around halfway through that they decided to film it more like a movie and add a bit more action. And when I say action, I mean mostly gore. There is not much suspense, but there is also no lack of shooting, stabbing, killing, vaporizing, or explosions whatsoever – it’s definitely a guy’s movie. I can’t say I got nothing out of it though. After a slow start, it did end up to be an okay watch, and I have to admit that the plot was, for once, very original. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Twilight as much as the next gal, but can’t the entertainment idustry drop the vampire theme by now? Every movie now, he’s a vampire, she’s a vampire, or they both are vampires. Either way, it’s played out. At least District 9 presented a new line or thinking. Never before have I seen an alien film set in Africa, or a film based on (rather dolice) aliens being victimized, experimented on, and abused. It’s actually rather relatable, because it’s basically about two ideas that we’re all familiar with: oppression, which every culture has faced at one time or another, and relentless moneygrubbing corporations that will do anything when it comes to a profit of billions. My question, though, is if there will be a sequel or not. The ending said what was to come, not leaving anything hanging except a few issues we were meant to believe would be resolved in a given amount of time. In my opinion, a second movie would not be a wise move, but they definitely did leave space to create one if they decided they wanted to. I suppose we just have to wait and see if there will be a District 10. But hopefully producer Peter Jackson won’t ruin the idea of District 9 by dragging it out as some cheese series..

Originality: A, Cast: C, Rewatchability: D+

OVERALL: C

When you’re a female, it seems as though relationship status and name changes are rather synchronous. When you’re single you’re a miss, and when you’re married you’re a missus. It’s as if everyone has altogether forgotten the deliciously vague and gender-equalizing mizz.

Why, exactly, is that? We’re living in a day and age when women have more say and power than ever. Even though women fall into the minority group (sociologically speaking) at a whopping 52% of the population, it is only because we, as women, tend to perpetuate the cycle which allow men their dominance – even if we don’t know we’re doing it. When I refer to women as being in the minority, I obviously am not referring to the numbers (because in that case, we would be the majority). I am, however, referring to the  balance of power in our society. It can’t be denied that, though women have come far, men still generally have the upper hand – they have more power allotted to them based on the the simple fact that their chromosomes read XY. Names and labels in society are good examples, like mailman, policeman, fireman, etc., which all end in man (as opposed to gender neutral titles like clerk or judge). But I digress.

My bone to pick is not with the names of jobs in society, but rather to the names that we give ourselves as women. Too many women choose to be Mrs. or Miss without thinking of what that truly means. Men, regardless of marital status always remain mister - from diapers to cane the title never changes and the last name never waivers. Women, though, change something as simple and as basic, something that is so utterly themselves, as their names, purely based on relationship status.

Despite that most women are intelligent and strong, successful in their own right, many choose the defining factor of how they refer to themselves to be whether they’re married or not. All Mrs. means is married woman, and all Miss means is single woman. Why do we give these titles to ourselves? Men don’t have titles meaning married man or single man, because they don’t find the need for them. Instead they have the generic title, mister, giving no more information about that person save for the fact that he is a man. It doesn’t seem right to me, therefore, that people (both men and women alike) feel the need to classify women as such. Society has made it so commonplace, however, that referring to ourselves in such a way seems normal, making it seem as though being simply a woman in itself isn’t good enough. As far as I’m concerned, though, there really doesn’t really seem to be any relevance in making a statement with our marital status in something that is so individual and personal as our own name.

I know that many women look forward to the day when they take on their husband’s name, becoming the little missus, and to you and say that’s fine, to each their own. The problem, though, is that I feel we’ve brought things that are purely personal into societal applicability, and most of us don’t even give it a second thought, no one truly analyzes what it is their name says about them. In truth, though, whether a woman is married or not has no true bearing on her position in society, making her no better or worse of a person. As far as I’m concerned, only education can do that.

That is why I suggest we bring back the rarely heard, but ever perfect term, mizz. The reciprocal of mister, mizz simply means woman – leaving out marital status altogether. By choosing to go by Ms. we tell society that we are simply women, who don’t value ourselves solely on whether we have locked down a man or not, but as individuals who only have our accumulated knowledge and abilities to bring to the table, whatever those may be.

To make a note, I am not a radical, ball-busting feminist. I’m not saying that women need to be in control of men, put them down, or even push them to take their last names in marriage. I’m simply saying they shouldn’t be afraid. They shouldn’t fear being or not being in a relationship because of how people will think of them. They shouldn’t be afraid that men, or women even more unfortunately, may call them man-hating, hairy-legged feminists. They simply should not let fear consume them, because, in truth, they would only taking back what rightfully belongs to them – the most essential part of  their being: their names. And I’ve gotta say, it’s about time.

A side note: I highly recommend The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, which has remained a strong source for women’s empowerment since 1963. A book that promotes a woman’s individual worth rather than the worth she holds within family context, it’s a wonderful read and great to pass off to girlfriends. The Feminine Mistake, however, by Leslie Bennetts is an atrocity and a detriment to women everywhere. Although I am strong proponent of free speech, this book only does women a disservice, telling them the way to be a strong woman is to nag, complain and punish your man into subservience (which certainly does not help society’s view of feminists at all). I am highly against book  burning, but I would have no problem throwing this piece of junk on top of a flaming pile.

I have to admit that when my sister presented the idea of seeing ”Julie & Julia” I wasn’t super keen to go. I did, however, relent and end up going since my grandmother apparently was the one who was just itching to see it. So, we went. What I had expected was an overacted drama about an older, rather obscure symbol not applicable to my generation – in short, a waste of two hours when I would rather see “The Time Traveler’s Wife” two doors down (Eric Bana, you’re wonderful).

I was wrong, though. “Julie & Julia” was a hilarious and emotional comedy that I thoroughly enjoyed (even with the terrible seats that we got four rows back from the screen). Meryl Streep happens to be a favorite of mine anyway, being an incredible actress with ability to change roles that a chameleon would envy, but it was obvious that it was the combination of characters that really sucked the audience in. The idea that both Julia Child (Streep) and Julie Powell (Adams) used food to discover who they were and created huge followings of dreamers makes for an inspiring, heart-warming, hysterical dramedy that everyone can appreciate. Better for laid back date or family nights.

Originality: B+, Cast: A, Rewatchability: B

OVERALL: B+

‘The Hangover’ is a perfect example of your typical “man’s film” that can be enjoyed by anyone - except maybe grandma. Focusing on crude humor, this film proves there are no cheap shots, just sad truths. Not laughing is virtually impossible, especially when you see the stunned expressions in the uptight crowd. Centering around Vegas and a bachelor party, nothing is off limits. When Doug (Justin Bartha) decides to go to Vegas for one last crazy night out with the guys before the big day - only three days away – the group ends up spending a lot more time there than they originally planned. After a night of, apparently forgettable, debauchery, the groomsmen realize they don’t know where they left the groom. Trying to retrace their steps of an utterly random night, the boys (Ed Helms, Zach Gilfianakas, and Bradley Cooper, left to right in the photo above) work hard to piece together the random clues about what it is they got into and where the main man might be. A perfect comedy to watch with your friends, it’s definitely worth more than the five bucks it’ll cost to rent it.

Originality: A Cast: A, Rewatchability: A

OVERALL: A

Let’s face it – toker’s hardly ever clean their gear. It’s not as though we don’t change the water in our bong daily or scrape for a bit of resin now and again, but when it comes to actual cleaning (as in making that old piece look new again), we hardly ever take the time. It’s a shame though. Truth is, a cleaner piece doesn’t only mean a more delicious hit, but a more powerful hit – just like the day you got it.

I, for one, had not cleaned my pieces in roughly three years. (I know, I know – but I hate to clean those things.) So I decided to take the opportunity to look for a toker’s top cleaning formula. I set out with a list of criteria: cheap, effective, didn’t smell vomitous.

My conlusion? I give 420 Glass Cleaner my Nod Of The Day for being a must-have in any smoker’s arsenal.

At about $8 for 12 oz. I got a cleaner that wasn’t super harsh on my nose (it even smelled kind of orangy), and cleaned my pieces in about 5 minutes. I did end up using half the bottle, but it was compeletely worth it. I cleaned one bong and one pipe, both with places I would never be able to reach, even with a Buddy. The blue goo visibly broke down the resin, and some vigorous shaking helped the salts scrub off the rest. My pieces taste and burn like new again. It’s simple and affordable indulgence I feel all smokers deserve.

A+ 

Fergie, demonstrating a fabulous fishtail.

For instructions about how to create this look, click on the photo above or search “fishtail braids”.

eHow.com offers an easy to follow video for creating this style if you need the visual. : )

And don’t forget – practice is key! Don’t get discouraged if you aren’t able to accomplish this hairstyle right away – this is one that definitely takes a few tries. You’re not looking for a perfectly arranged ‘do though, so don’t sweat it if it doesn’t look 100% neat and in place.