Big Fat Deal

Here it is in all its glory:

I've heard this photo called slutty, embarrassing, racy, risque, sexualizing, mature. I've heard people claiming that sweet, wholesome little Miley Cyrus was manipulated into doing this by big, bad Annie Liebovitz. I've heard Cyrus's daddy and other entourage's avowals that it was a complete mistake and that they should never have done this and ohmygod isn't it awful what they've done to his little girl!?

And all I can think is, what's the big deal?

You say slutty, risque, sexualizing. I say innocent, vulnerable, tasteful, beautiful. I say she looks like a modern day Cosette. I say I see girls wearing less at the pool. I say I see girls wearing less at the mall. Miss Cyrus's green bra didn't get NEARLY this much publicity, nor nearly this vocal an outrage even from Miley and Co. I've seen those pics (and you can too!), and they're complaining about this??

The Cyrus Clan says they were manipulated. I say BULL! Daddy was on hand for this shoot; it's not like they handcuffed and blindfolded him in a soundproof booth outside the studio. Miley wasn't drugged or blackmailed into doing this. And before you point out that she's a minor, you can't deny that Miley's legal pitbulls wouldn't have allowed those photos to see the light of day if Billy Ray hadn't signed off that everyone thought they were fine. Miley said in the article (that's a 15-year old being interviewed by Vanity Fair, might I add) that she thought the photo was artistic (actual term used: "artsy," but that rhymes with "fartsy" and I don't like to use it), proving that she had seen the results and was - at the time - okay with it.

And everyone's coming down on Annie. This is Annie Freaking Liebovitz, people! She is a legend in portrait photography. May she ever deign to do a (free!) portrait of me. Cyrus et al can't say they weren't familiar with her work before they agreed to do this. Annie even sat down with the Cyruses and reviewed her (Annie's) style, portfolio, and plans for the session. And if they weren't put off by her treatment of Angelina Jolie a couple of years ago, then I don't want to hear a word from them about how "embarrassed" they are now.

Furthermore, do note that Miley was in fact clothed beneath that sheet. It was not a nude picture. Even if she wasn't clothed beneath the sheet, it's not a nude picture because she is draped in that cloth. But the fact is, she was wearing clothes when she sat down, and they draped the sheet on and around her to hide the clothes. But Rosie, that makes her LOOK naked! So what? As I mentioned before, you're not seeing anything indecent, and what you are seeing is graceful and beautiful. If I wear a strapless dress, and all you see of me in a photo is from my shoulders up, is that also a nude photo?

The only shame here should be on Miley - and her Crew - for complaining at all. You're only doing that because the Disney execs told you to. You were fine with it before, during, and after. Until the Christian Coalition of America (the same people who have nothing better to do than going frame-by-frame through childrens' movies looking for shapes that in any way resemble a phallus) piped up, everyone was cool. The CCA's representative, Michele Combs said, "Disney should reprimand her. Miley should say it was a mistake and that kids have to be very careful at such a young age. Kids look up to her. Something needs to be done...[Rosie's Aside to Miley: Good job reading that script they gave you!]...She was the one person out there who everyone seemed to trust. She should have been more thoughtful. If she's gonna go out there and represent wholesome values, she needs to be more accountable for her actions." To listen to all that, you'd think Miley personally went up to Michele, slapped the woman in the face, called her baby ugly, and kicked her dog. Ms. Combs goes on to say that Annie Liebovitz has "a reputation for doing racy things." Oooh! Racy! Them's fightin' words! (Credit to Mr. Perez Hilton for supplying the quote.)

Note: I have nothing against Miley Cyrus. She is cute, she is wholesome, she is good to her fans, and she can sing. I might even go so far as to say that if a person happened to trip over her song on the radio, they might possibly not be sickened and might possibly not change the station and just maybe might even admit in the deep recesses of my - I MEAN THEIR - soul that, despite its bubblegum nature, it was kind of a little bit catchy. The worst thing I can say about the girl is that she hasn't taken a razor to that stupid patch of fuzz under her daddy's lip.

So Cyrus Clan, kindly get over yourselves, do a better job of burying those green bra pictures (Miley, dear, be careful of whom you trust with a digital camera from now on), and quit railing against and apologizing for something most of us would be honored to experience.

Are You Stupid or Something?

I have something to say to the role models for and of my generation and those following me: FAIL! When you taught us to "not care what other people think," you forgot to emphasize that there are limits to that statement.

I'm reading an article today in the Washington Post, titled "When Young Teachers Go Wild on the Web." The topic is (quite obviously) teachers who have racy MySpace and Facebook pages for all the world to see.

Ms. Webster, a Prince William Co. long-term substitute teacher (i.e., for when a teacher goes on maternity leave, has surgery, etc.) for students with emotional and learning disabilities, granted an interview with the journalist. Parents, brace yourselves - this person may have unfettered access to your children's tiny minds. If stupid is as stupid does, this chicky fits the description (and she wasn't even the worst of those quoted in the story; that title goes to one Ms. Espinosa).

Among the priceless gems on her public page is a graphic of a bumper sticker that says, "You're a retard, but I love you." Her defense, ladies and gentlemen: "My best friend, she always calls me that because I say ditzy things... [but] I would never go around calling people that. All of my [students] have emotional disorders or learning disabilities. . . . I love them." So, Ms. Webster, I take that to mean that both of you are devoid of basic manners, empathy, and consideration. Saying that it's okay because it was just your friend teasing you is like the Seinfeld episode (much as I hate to credit that show) about the dentist who coverts to Judaism just to be able to make the jokes. An ordinary person calling another a retard is appalling! But because you teach people with disabilities, it's okay for you to use it.

In the photos section of her page, she includes a shot of a couple of guys flipping the bird and one of herself apparently passed out drunk and holding a bottle of Cuervo. Great message to send to your impressionable students. She says she didn't realize that people could see her page regardless of whether she approved them as "friends." STUPID STUPID STUPID! It's a basic user functionality to make private or password-protected certain parts of your page, or the whole thing. Clue: can you see pages of people who didn't add YOU as a friend? Then they can probably see yours, dingus! And if you, an educator, are not bright enough to think of that, someone really needs to consider whether you should be at the blackboard at all.

In defense of her page as a whole (quoting directly from the article): "I know that employers will look at that page, and I need to be more careful," said Webster, adding that other Prince William teachers have warned her about her page. "At the same time, my work and social lives are completely separate. I just feel they shouldn't take it seriously. I am young. I just turned 22." Brilliant. So when you're looking to get hired as a sub, and the principal checks your page (nota bene, folks: employers are googling you and are looking at your webpages, blogs, and MySpace crap, if you have it), s/he'll see a drunk with poor social skills... but then they'll see your age and say, "Oh but she's only 22! We'll give her a pass!" Right. Besides employers, what parent who sees that page is going to overlook it just because it's a page regarding your social life, which you say is separate from your professional life. You may think they're separate, honey, but you lost the right to claim so once you posted that you were employed as a teacher at thusandsuch school. As soon as you did that, you became a representative of your school, and anyone looking at the page was free to make an association between your deportment and the standards at your place of employment.

See, that's the tricky word, isn't it? "Professional." To be sure, this lack of basic decorum and self-awareness reaches far beyond the boundaries of education. Here's the nuance to not caring what others think, and it's one of the first things I was taught when I got my first job at age 16 in a food service joint: Anytime you are identifiable as a representative of a professional organization, you must be aware that your appearance and behavior is equally representative of that organization. While my aphorism is particularly targeted toward employment, it pertains to anyone in a position of evaluation as a professional or as an individual: teachers, managers, leaders, job-seekers, college applicants, romantic interests, etc.

Quick and easy check: Google yourself periodically to see what turns up. Log out of your social networking site and check out your page as a stranger would see it. If there's anything you wouldn't want your boss, colleagues, boy/girlfriend, AND parents to see, take down the picture or make it private. Would you vote for a candidate who you saw on MySpace posing in nothing but lingerie against a fire truck? Would you be comfortable if your son's Boy Scout leader posted a picture of himself in mid-moon? Could you take seriously the teacher who posted shots of herself making out with her boyfriend? How about hiring that engineer who posted a video of himself stumbling drunk out of a bar and letting loose with a string of curse words? Would you let your teenage son date the girl photographed dragging on a joint? Do you want to waste time seeing the guy who posted a shot of himself proudly grabbing some girl's butt at Spring Break? (All but the first are completely hypothetical situations, so far as I know.)

This is especially important if you take a position that is clearly in the public eye and seen as a social influence, but it applies across the board. If you go to a company function and your boss is there, you mind your Ps and Qs of course. But if you're wearing a shirt (or carrying a tote, etc.) with the company logo to Happy Hour, you make sure you limit it to a drink or two. All it takes to lose out on a contract is for a potential client to see your company logo dancing on the bar.

It's neither my place nor my intent to regulate what you do in your private life. I'm not suggesting that we should all become Puritans because we never know who might see us. I'm just advocating a little common sense and propriety, and putting out fair warning that you're making an ass of yourself.

My Personality at 35,000 Feet

Not to say what it is on the ground, of course...

Your Personality at 35,000 Feet...

Deep down, you prefer spending time alone to spending time with others. You enjoy thinking more than talking. You are good with your place in the world. You are confident and comfortable with who you are. Your gift is having a way with words. You know how to express yourself well. You are inspired by what is possible. Real life is often too ordinary for you. You are happy as long as you are given some personal space. It's important for you to have your own private life.

The Personality Test at 35,000 Feet

Changing My Mind

I'm so going to get burned for this.

Pope Benedict LXXXIX or something is in town lately. Up till now I've only seen snippets of him via the ever-sage news outlets available to me. And you have to admit a distinct and disturbing resemblance to someone of pop culture significance:

But with the increased coverage and having read transcripts of his speeches, I find myself softening toward Emperor Papaltine. Maybe his unnerving appearance gave him a bad rap. Maybe he does have the good of humanity at the base of his intentions, whether you agree with his opinions and methods or not. Maybe he's just been misunderstood in the wake of the all-around nice guy that Pope John Paul II seemed. Maybe he in fact doesn't eat babies.

But the jury's still out on whether he shoots laser beams from his eyes.

Smells Like...

Any guesses as to why the Ladies' Room in my office smells vaguely of hamster shavings?

TXT is the new SPM

I got text-spammed today. I flipped open my phone to see how the battery was doing when I noticed I had missed a text message. Not surprising, as I have incoming texts set to silent mode. Figuring it was from one of my friends, I checked it, only to find that someone called McDermott was inviting me to online chat. I erased it, but I almost wish I'd saved it so I could quote it here for you. Ah well.

Be forewarned, my little chickadees, and welcome to the new phase as we whirl about in our Technological Sprial of Doom.