YumSugar

Time to come clean to my boyfriend and I want advice

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:45:35 -0700

I am preparing to come clean to my boyfriend about cheating on him twice: 2 and 3 months ago with the same man. It did not go very far (kissing and petting) and it was only physical not emotional at all but I was unfaithful nonetheless. I was not honest about my indiscretion because I felt it would be selfish to hurt him just to relieve my guilt. I have been seeing a counsellor for a few months. I now understand why I cheated and I feel that I have changed and want to tell him the truth so that he can really know me and decide how he wants our relationship to advance. I cheated because I was hurt by him and I used another person to deal with my low self-esteem and emotional pain. It was incredibly immature and I am coming to terms with this flaw and making serious efforts to become a better person and better partner. I want my boyfriend to see how committed I am to us. He knows I have been seeing a counsellor and I tell him all the time how I have improved. I am working on being a more assertive person, better communication skills, and being more in touch with my needs so I can make better decisions about what is important to me and what issues just need to be accepted & ignored.
I still see this man occassionally as we share friends and I know that he is still interested in pursuing me. I have been very assertive with him since I started seeing a counsellor. I was in a situation recently where I might have allowed this man to cross the line before I put my foot down but I used strong body language and respect for myself to make it very clear about what my boundaries were before he even approached them. I am very proud that I did this. I have been dealing with boundary issues since I was molested as a child. I am finally making big progress and it took this big mistake to get here.
The reason I was unfaithful is really complicated. It is because of my insecurities and need for affirmation of my worth. I don`t think my friends consider me an insecure person, probably just the opposite but I have really given myself to my boyfriend and I felt very vulnerable because of this. I want him to know that I have had serious relationships before him but none of them compare to him. I want to start a family with my boyfriend in the next few years. I want to be his partner in the true sense - the person who believes in him, who is always there to support him, who know how to make him happy when he is down, etc. I don`t want him to think that I desire to be with anyone else because that was not what my unfaithfulness was about at all. I have only found one other man attractive since we`ve been together (he was a professional entertainer). I have never considered being with anyone else. When I go out with girlfriends I don`t flirt with men like I did before him. It is not because I feel that I have to act a certain way like other relationships made me feel, it is just because I do not have the desire.
I want to be honest about my mistakes so that I can grow as a person. I know it will hurt him and I want to minimize this. I do not want him to lose trust in me but rather have him better understand me and trust me more. I want him to know that he is the only man I find desirable and that my unfaithfulness was not because I was seeking another man but rather trying to find a quick fix for the pain I was feeling about him, a kind of distraction I guess. He knows that he had hurt me around that time and he is also working very hard to change so that I am not hurt by him like that again.
Please tell me if you can understand what I am saying. Will he understand what I am saying. Do you have any suggestions about how I can make this the least painful for him.

i just don't understand..

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:06:44 -0700

Alright so here's the deal, I have been dating my boyfriend for a year and a half. Everything has been just fantastic until we ran into several difficult problems that put our relationship on the line many of times. We've made it through them all, there has been many, but now it's like it's only getting worse since we've gotten back together. I feel that he simply dislikes the person I am. And he agrees when I ask him. The other day, we had a huge argument that was ending in an official break up, but it didn't. He told me that he didn't love me, and that he doesn't think that he ever has. He says that I'm miserable and that I don't make him happy. He says this isn't love and I'm just blind to the fact. I feel as if I should just let him go but I can't. Is that selfish of me? He always tells me to do him and myself a favor and to just leave. He drinks occasionally and smokes all of the time. It gets to a point where I'm not even in the picture anymore and it's just him, his drugs, and his friends. I'm also sick and tired of constantly bring accused of cheating on him. I don't do anything, when he's not with me, I sit home and wait for him. I don't do anything, I never would but he's continuously saying "I know you're doing something, you're not mature enough to tell me even if you are cheating." One, I would tell him in a heart beat. Two, I wouldn't do it in the first place. And whenever I tell him that it makes me upset, he tells me that I'm being dramatic. He makes me feel like sh*t about myself and then when he asks why I feel like that, he blames it on myself. Whenever I'm upset, I'm too "dramatic." I just don't know what to do anymore. I don't know where to go from here. It's not getting any better but I can't let it go. He's so critical but makes me seem like a complete monster.

Interview: ‘The Runaways’ Stars Kristen Stewart And Dakota Fanning

sharpysunshine — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:05:58 -0700

In the new film The Runaways, Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning play Joan Jett and Cherie Currie, musical pioneers who broke down gender stereotypes as members of the eponymous band. A sex-charged rejoinder to the argument that men rock harder than women, Jett and Currie found their strength even as their producer and promoter, industry luminary Kim Fowley, took advantage of their youth and feminine appeal. Unlike the characters they play, however, Stewart and Fanning aren’t letting anyone exploit them, even if it’s in the guise of empowerment; the actresses have spent much of their careers redefining the limits of roles young actresses can play, and the women offer equally powerful turns in this film, proving that even a downbeat ending, such as the one that eventually befell The Runaways, can turn into triumph later on. At a recent press day in Los Angeles, Cinematical spoke to Stewart and Fanning about both The Runaways and the exploits, both good and bad, of the band that inspired the film. In addition to talking about the influence the real women had on the way they played their characters, Fanning and Stewart reflected on their own process for playing different roles, and offered a few insights about acting against a seemingly unstoppable wall of analysis coming both from the public, and occasionally, from within themselves. Cinematical: Cherie is trying to find herself throughout the film. I don’t know how much of the film was shot in sequence, but how much of the character did you have defined when you started shooting and how much did your development of the character take place throughout filming? Dakota Fanning: I think I was pretty prepared before the movie started. Like I spent a lot of time with Cherie and I kind of knew where she was going to end up before I started. I kind of think that’s how movies are for me – I know beforehand what it’s going to be like, and it’s like reliving it again when you’re actually filming it. [But] the only thing that was shot in sequence I think was on my first day of shooting, the first scene of the movie. That was cool, to start out fresh. Cinematical: Joan seems to just want to make music. Did that single-mindedness make it easy to know how to drive each scene forward? Kristen Stewart: Well, I mean, yeah, at her core essentially that’s one thing that you notice about Joan, that she’s on a road and she’s got a goal – she’s on a mission. She never forgets that, but it doesn’t consume her; there’s so much more – I mean, the fact that she has that goal is who she is. It’s not just obtaining, you know what I mean? It comes from somewhere, and that’s more rich than just somebody who’s determined. Cinematical: How much do you intellectualize the process of figuring out how to inject scenes with these themes or through-lines? Is it more important to be present or do you have to figure out the stakes of each scene before you act it out? Fanning: I think for this one, when you’re playing an actual person, you should probably have it figured out beforehand. That’s how I felt. Because it’s like you’re taking someone’s life in your own hands, and it’s your responsibility to do them justice, especially because this time is so important to both Joan and Cherie. It’s one of the most treasured times of their lives, so I think it was kind of important to figure out before[hand]. One thing that sticks out that I did have to figure out on the day was [when] there’s a scene with me in the corset and I’m on the phone with my sister and Johnny [Lewis], he plays Scottie, he was in the background. I’m on the phone and Marie is saying you’re dad is sick, you need to come home, blah blah blah, and I had to figure out because it’s a very find line because Cherie loved her dad so much, and her sister, and if she had actually really heard them say ‘you need to come home’, she would have come home. So you had to figure out how drugged out is she, and that was a time when I had to figure it out to not make it something that Cherie wouldn’t have done. Stewart: A number of things draw you to a script. It’s not just like wanting to live out this experience; sometimes it is thematic. But that’s not your job; people that you’re working with can keep that together, and you need to make sure that you do everything you can to do your part. And also, playing another person, I had like a constant resource, so we were never filling in blanks. We were never going, ‘oh, I think maybe at this point, she would be…’ [because] we’d already asked what they were thinking or what that may have meant. Anything that was up for deliberation wasn’t because we had them there, so it was a different experience because it wasn’t creating a new thing. But in terms of intellectualizing acting, you have to do it a little bit, but I feel way more than I think, and I think that’s good for an actor. I mean, even if you have really good ideas about things, you have to sort of think about them and digest them and turn them out so you’re more able to just be there. Cinematical: It is fair to say we think a lot more about all the tiny little choices you make that you make than you do? Stewart: I mean, I’m so obsessed with little details, but they’re not conscious. I’m obsessed with like the little things [Dakota] does, and she may not be conscious of what she’s doing, but it’s because she know this person so well. So I’ll be like, oh my God – did you notice that you just did that? And you should never tell an actor that, because they don’t know, but they’re doing it for a reason. Because she’s not Dakota when she’s doing stuff like that, so it’s not like it means nothing. It’s definitely coming from somewhere but hopefully she’s not thinking about it. Because the only reason she’s able to do it is because she’s not thinking about it. Cinematical: Does over-analysis become an obstacle for you, especially in a day where every aspect of your work and lives is constantly examined and deconstructed? Stewart: It seems like when it does, it gets in the way, that’s a problem. Because when things are going well, you don’t. Fanning: I’ve been saying this a lot, but even acting for me is something that when you just know the person [you're playing], I can be thinking about so many other things in my head and doing it because you are that person in that moment. If you think about it, that’s not good. Cinematical: Do you feel a sense of responsibility or do you need to feel a sense of responsibility to the young viewers that might be seeing this film? How do you make sure that your portrayal of a character is as authentic as possible and yet doesn’t present something that might negatively influence impressionable audiences? Fanning: I think this is a different thing because it’s a real life, a real story, and this happened. So I don’t know if you can really think about people coming to see it because they’re choosing to come to see something that’s a difficult time in their life, and that’s why there are ratings. I mean, maybe you can think about it when it’s an original screenplay or something, but it’s based on actual events, and if you’re not being authentic to that then you might as well not make the film, I feel like. Stewart: and if you’re looking at details that make these women bad examples for people, then you’re not going to ever choose the right role model. Fanning: Well, it’s not about Cherie being a bad person because she does drugs. It’s about seeing that because she did drugs, she saw that she was becoming a bad person and she made the choice to not be that bad person by leaving the band, and now she is who she is today. So if you can’t realize that then maybe you shouldn’t be seeing the movie. Stewart: Plus, actors as role models, I think a lot of girls have role models that they don’t want to emulate specifically, but just that they are who they are. I mean, I really admire Joan for being who she is and not making excuses for it, but I don’t want to wear leather all day, know what I mean? So I think just who she is essentially is something to look up to, and not everyone is completely perfect. Fanning: I also think sometimes it’s different with actors because I think you’re more of a role model in your real life as opposed to who you’re playing. Stewart: Who you play! Yeah, exactly. Cinematical: Ultimately why do you think this story is important, and why was it important for this story to be told now? Stewart: I think this would always be sort of topical just because, for one thing, I didn’t know about The Runaways, neither did Dakota, and I don’t think a lot of people our age do. Why is it relevant right now? Because, well, I was really inspired by it; we don’t face the things that they faced at that time, so to know that things are a little different now. So to know that maybe they were a help in that is an interesting thing, and just to see a different perspective on an adolescent girl’s life is probably interesting for any young girl. And, people that age then are now 50, Joan’s age, and it’s cool for them to see that too so that now people who watch movies can see their childhood or whatever on screen.

'The Runaways': Almost Perfect, By Kurt Loder Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart, queens of noise.

sharpysunshine — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:08:20 -0700

"The Runaways" is a rock movie that gets so many things right, you want to forgive its awkward structure. The picture tells the wild-ride story of the all-girl band whose music, over the course of a three-year recording career in the mid-1970s, met with radio incomprehension in this country, but won fans abroad and set a template for the female rock groups that would follow. The film is based on "Neon Angel," a quick-read memoir by Runaways singer Cherie Currie. This is the awkward part. Currie's evolution from a 15-year-old Bowie fan with a screwed-up family to a jailbait icon with a screwed-up head (drugs, booze, the usual) provides the movie's emotional center; but the story's natural focus should logically be Joan Jett, the band's darkly compelling guitarist and most productive songwriter. Turning her into a supporting character throws the film off. Still, more than any movie since "Almost Famous," "The Runaways" captures the intoxicating power of rock-and-roll music to transform young lives - to lift teenage nobodies up into the clouds of stardom (and then, more often than not, dump them back down into the real world they had dreamed of escaping). The director, Floria Sigismondi, a music-video veteran making her first feature, has admirably refrained from shooting the picture like a music video; and she doesn't exploit the story's lesbian motif for cheap thrills. She's also been fortunate in casting her lead actors - it's hard to imagine how Dakota Fanning (as Currie), Kristen Stewart (as Jett) and Michael Shannon (as the band's raving, madman manager, Kim Fowley) could be any better in their roles. The Runaways weren't the first all-girl band - Goldie and the Gingerbreads had major-label singles in the '60s (and opened for the Rolling Stones), and Fanny released well-regarded major-label albums in the early '70s (big fan: David Bowie). But the Runaways had the times on their side, coming together in late 1975, just as punk rock was welling up in New York City. They were never exactly punk-rockers themselves (their sturdy guitar riffs derived from an earlier hard-rock style); but in their pugnacious attitude, they happily affiliated with the new loud-and-fast musical movement. The picture begins with a startling sequence involving Cherie and her twin sister, Marie (Riley Keough), and a drop of blood on a patch of gravel. The girls' dead-end lives are quickly sketched in - absent mom, alcoholic dad - and we see Cherie's disastrous lip-synching performance at a high-school talent show. Joan Jett, meanwhile, is shopping in the men's section of a clothing store, where she picks up a vintage black-leather jacket. Joan is only beginning to learn guitar, but she wants to start an all-girl band. One night, outside an under-21 club, she spots Kim Fowley, a thirty-something creep wearing a dog collar and proclaiming, "I am the king of hysteria himself!" (Shannon leaps into this character as if it were the title role in an old-time monster movie.) Joan broaches her band idea and Fowley immediately sees its possibilities. In the movie's version of the story, Fowley - a legendary producer, songwriter and music-biz hustler whose career dates back to the early '60s - introduces Joan to a drummer named Sandy West (Stella Maeve). Then, on the prowl for a singer one night, Joan and Fowley spot Cherie at the same club, Joan giving her an appreciative once-over and Fowley telling the new kid, "We love your look, and we are choosing you to be a part of rock-and-roll history." He doesn't much care if she can actually sing. By now a hot guitarist named Lita Ford (Scout Taylor-Compton) and the first of several Runaways bassists have been recruited, and the harshly abrasive Fowley begins putting the band through rock-and-roll boot camp. (He even brings in a group of guys to one of their rehearsals to hurl bottles at them - a warm-up for the hostility he promises they'll encounter as an all-girl group setting sail on a sea of hard-rock testosterone.) Joan lives for the music, but Fowley is all about titillation: "This isn't women's lib, kiddies - this is women's libido!" He keeps their stagewear tight and skimpy; puts them out on the road, where they struggle and starve; then gets them signed to Mercury Records - the big time. However, despite such memorable tracks as "Dead End Justice" and the classic "Cherry Bomb," their first album fails to sell (as does its follow-up, Queens of Noise). But overseas - and especially in Japan - the Runaways are stars. Flying to Tokyo, they're met by herds of screaming fans - Runaways mania. Unfortunately, the group is already starting to fall apart. Fanning and Stewart do their own singing here (Stewart took guitar lessons, too), and they're really good - songs like "I Love Playin' With Fire" and "I Wanna Be Where the Boys Are" are as rousing as the original Runaways tracks. Fanning has nailed down the perfect lost-angel presence for her portrayal of Cherie (compare it with old Runaways concert footage and you can see how close she's come to the original model); and while Stewart spends a lot of time slightly off to the side, she makes herself felt in every sequence in which she figures. Her ambiguity - as a friend, as a lover - is fascinating, especially in a scene in which Joan is lying on top of Cherie, breathing pot smoke into her mouth, and the camera looks up into her dark, otherworldly eyes, wondering what she's wondering, and what she sees coming. The picture's conclusion is unusually moving. Very few words are said, but in showing us a woman who won't stop following her dream and another woman who can't come along, it says everything.

Rob on the cover of Vanity Fair Italy + new interview

sharpysunshine — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:16:12 -0700

If humanity is divided between the party of “I wish but I can’t” and the party of “I could but I don’t want”, I propose Robert Pattinson as candidate of the second faction. 23 years old, vampire in spite of himself, unwillingly sexy icon, the boy with the case ( he has three of them, really, like the years that he spent among hotels ), he looks at the world from a porthole and thinks: “Boh?!”. But then he plays a DO, drinks a beer, crunches a Twix and goes on. He admits that he never has had the sacred fire of art, but he was a cute guy, and the acting school of Barnes Theatre Company was the right place to meet girls. One thing leads to another, and so it happens that you find yourself on the set of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Then it happens that you hears they are doing a screen test for Twilight, and then you shoots a video with one of your friends, but this is so disgusting that you not even send it. But since lucky is even more stubborn of you not looking at her, they call you the same, and you gets the protagonist role. If Pattinson had read attentively Twilight before answering yes – or he had made his sister read it – he would have perceive that Edward Cullen ( the intellectual and torn hunk that all women dream ), would have bled him dry first. But he didn’t read it, and the rest is history, if not of the cinema, at least his history: daily chronicle of the prisoner of luxury suites, forced of room service, incredulous witness of collective hysteria phenomenon by fans. Trying to separate Edward Cullen’s canines from his neck, between one episode and another of the saga by Stephenie Meyer, he shoot Remember Me, a romantic drama movie directed by Allen Coulter and place in New York, where he plays Tyler, student from a rich and devastated family, who despises icy dad’s money ( Pierce Brosnan ) and lives in a revolting apartment with a idiotic roommate. But Ally ( Emilie De Ravin ), even her with a baggage of troubles, comes putting in order his heart and his kitchen. The two of them fall in love, save each others, loose each others and then who knows: the ending leaves the audience still and silent, so we can’t tell it. But since movies go faster than life, when I met him, in London, he has already the features of his new character Georges Duroy ( “one which hates everybody. He was needed after all this romantic stuff. Being always good is annoying” he tells me ), the Bel Amy of Maupassant: polished moustaches and beard, under them his t-shirt with shapeless neck makes a strange effect. Just a warning about the interview for all those people who can’t sleep at night asking if Robert is still ( still? Has he ever been? ) or not with Bella / Kristen Stewart: yes, I wanted to ask him about this, no, I couldn’t. “No pics, autographs and questions about private life, or the interview will end”, they threatened us. We have to stick to the official statement: “ we are just friends”. It is certain that there is ( or there was?) feeling between the two of them, “many and complex feelings” said Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke. In their private life they are such as in the movie: between them there is an intense attraction that you can’t realize. In fact, during the shooting, Kristen was ( officially) with her historic boyfriend, actor Michael Angarano. So, I wish but I can’t. Perhaps. Biographic notes that accompanies every movie of yours, describes you like a good and humble person, but it is really possible not getting big –headed when you are perpetually surrounded by screaming girls? “Yes, even because the effect of all of this is more terrifying. Success is a thing in which I literally fall into. Probably, if I have worked hard to achieve it, I would see things in a different way, but since I didn’t do anything, I am, how can I say, perpetually surprised.” Интервюто и останалите сканове след прочетете повече… It doesn’t seem such a great sensation. Did you ever think: give my previous life back? “No, thinking like this would be absurd. I regret some things: meeting people who don’t know who I am, being able to go in a shop, do not asking to myself if people is acting in a certain way with me because I’m famous. While I was shooting Remember Me, it happened that there were 40 people around the corner, ready to take a picture of me, or asking me an autograph. Well, this all is weird.” Where and how are you able to find a little peace? “There are a couple of friends who are close to me. And the presence of my sister Lizzie also ( a singer of discreet success ), helps me to maintain things the most normal as I can. Having some targets give me peace, I must always know what I’m doing, otherwise I get stressed.” Tyler, your character in Remember Me, is so different from Edward. How has it been returning human? “Even Tyler is not such a normal person. It’s strange, but I never performed an ordinary person. Also because the roles of ordinary people are rather boring. Tyler is simple, but not too much simple. I liked the idea of being not a vampire, but at the same time non a banal one.” Was it difficult? “Yes, from a certain point of view, but also not, because I could follow my instinct more. With Edward you can’t improvise. But I allowed myself to give Tyler little things of mine: I thought about how I was at 21, totally at the mercy of my emotions.” Were you one person willing to beat life, too? “Of course, and I’m still so. I know well that anger without any specific object” And how do you get over this? “Splitting everything.” When you go out with a woman for the first time, what do you tell about you first, to make splash? “I don’t talk about me, at the beginning. I think that it is always better listening than talking.” Now that you are famous, is it easier or more difficult to seduce a woman? “I think it’s more difficult, for different reasons. First, I can’t go where I want without someone being able to recognize me, and many of the women approaching me are doing this for exhibitionism. People don’t understand, but I’m not interested in this kind of conquests. So, at the end, all becomes really stressful: distinguishing who is authentic and who is not, fearing to hurt who is really kind. It’s all different from before, when nobody noticed me.” How do you distinguish the good ones from the bad ones? “The good ones call the day after…” Remember Me tells us that love can save a life. Do you believe in this, or is it a romantic thing? “I believe that is a really beautiful and important idea. I think that even seriously ill people can heal, literally, thanks to love all around them. Love gives you purposes. Tyler hadn’t any of them, but he met Ally and his perspective changes. She is like a pair of glasses, and you can see things through them. All begins easier when she arrives.” The movie also tells the things can end in an instant. There are people who spent all their life agonizing over this. And you: would you be ready to loose everything, happy about what you have received? “All movie turns around happiness and being able to see it. Having, here and there in life, moments of consciousness about our happiness makes life deign of being lived.” Do you recognize those moments? Yes, I think so. They last a little, e and I am always ready to ask myself: and now how much time will pass before I will regret or worry about something else? But between a trouble and another, there is peace.” Could you tell me one of those moments? “Little odd things: seeing how my little dog behaved in her last two days of life, how she was proud. I realize that it is a such a depressing thing to be told as happy moment.” What do you do to make the many hotel rooms you attend like home? The presence of my guitar makes much home, to me. And even going to Skype. Last year I practically didn’t talk to anyone and only when I returned to London, I realized that my social life has been completely collapsed. Now I put it again on its feet, and I cultivate it in the distance. Then, luckily, there are people in flesh and bones, the colleagues. Emilie De Ravin, beside that fragile aspect, is a tough person. One evening she drunk 25 beers in succession without feeling the blow. I need two weeks to recover myself and I stopped before her.” Sorry, but what do they mean the words SB on your hat? “I believe Santa Barbara. But I bought it in Tokyo. At least it seems to me….”

Trying to get a social circle

Monique Marie — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:37:48 -0700

I posted an ad online talking about how I would like to meet people in my area for a possible friendship because most of my so called friends decided to leave and a bunch of different BS here and there. I got a few responses which seem promising, but man let me tell you about all those people who post stuff online and they are full of s&*t. I read this one posting on there about how this woman was depressed because she didn't have a lot of friends due to the fact that she just moved her with her boyfriend and he works long hours and when he does have free time he likes to spend it with his friends instead of her and blah blah blah. I felt really bad for her so I sent her an email. I knew that it was either spam or someone who just likes to hear people feel sorry for her when she emailed back asking if I had Yahoo Messenger. I responded no because I really feel that if someone wants to make the effort into getting to know someone then they would do the email thing and then maybe exchange phone numbers or meet in a public place and so on. She just wrote back that's cool and that was it. I was thinking, WTF? I really do not like posting ads online because you get those people who are all about hooking up and wanting to come over there or you go over there to get your groove on and so forth. I am not into that at all. I mean, seriously, why would I want to post something online telling people I just want to get down and funky for no reason at all? I guess I am just not that type of person. Then I started talking to a girl I went to high school with, she always seemed like a good person to hang out with and I met up with her through another friend. Of course I am always the one to make the first move, so I texted her. I hung out with her yesterday and it was pretty much a waste of my time. The whole time I was over there, she barely talked unless I started the conversation and then if she didn't have anything to say on the subject she just turned back to what was on TV. Nothing drives me up the wall faster when you are visiting someone and they indulge themselves in TV, or the Internet or call someone and talk to someone else on the phone for hours. It is like why bother even showing up? I feel that I am a great hostess. I don't watch TV unless if I am interacting with that person meaning they want to watch to, I also ask them if they would like something to eat or drink, talk nonstop about whatever and if someone calls I answer and tell them I have company and will try to call them back later. I even notice this when I go out ot eat with some of these people. They will spend most of their time texting other people on the phone and I am just sitting there like a bump on a pickle waiting for them to get done. I guess I just don't understand or I have a way different view on friendship. I had two so called friends call me the last few days. The one wanted me to take her somewhere because she decided to just get rid of her car because she has no money to fix it, so she has no way of getting anywhere and she thought that if she called me I would take her. Well, I didn't take her and she got mad. I chose not to take her because she is the type of person who just calls when she wants something and now she wants to hang out but she has no money and I would have to do all the driving now, I would have to go over to her house and pick her up and then go do something with my money. The other person wanted to come over today and visit because she has never been to my house but then didn't call me back and didn't answer when I called her and then an hour later when she was suppose to call me to get directions she texts me and tells me that she worked out to much and is now puking. No why I know she is lying? Because she kept trying to be all nicey nice over her texts and stuff and sadly to say this has happen to me before. I think this happens because I am an extremely nice person and if I feel that I have a friend I will go out of my way to do things for him or her. Then the only guy friend I have left is not exactly someone who I want to hang out with a lot either. He had to move back home with his parents again, which I can understand but he wants to hang out at my house all the time or go do something and he isn't really looking for a job. So you can already guess that if we go do something I wind up paying for it and even though he has a vehicle, he doesn't have money for gas so if I want him to drive I have to give him gas money, which means I am still paying. So I told him that until he finds a way to get money I do not want to go out and do stuff. So you think he can just come over to my house right? No because eventually I get hungry during the day, you know lunchtime. How can I make something and then eat in front of him without offering any? I think that is rude, so if I make something to eat I have to feed him too and it gets to the point where it is not even worth it. He says he feels bad and all about mooching off of me but apparently not bad enough.

I was just wondering where are the people that are like me and want to be friends and not have to mooch off of other people? I am beginning to wonder if there are any people left in the surrounding towns of where I live that are like that, so I had to go to the Internet to try and find people. But the problem is all those other people who just want to hook up or they sound really good on their postings or emails and then you start to talk to them and then they decide that it isn't worth it. I am getting tired of being the one who does all the work in relationships. Does anyone else have this problem?

‘New Moon’ director gets away from frenzy

sharpysunshine — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:18:23 -0700

Chris Weitz was determined to get the moon right. And when you have a movie about vampires and werewolves whose fans pay attention to every detail, it’s important to get the moon right. For the director of „The Twilight Saga: New Moon,“ though, the impetus for showing the moon phase properly in the shot that opens the film was an astrophysicist, not a Twihard. „I went to a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson where he’s complaining that they’d gotten the stars in ‘Titanic’ wrong,“ Weitz said. „So his voice was in the back of my head, that we had to get the phase of the moon properly.“ „New Moon,“ which comes out on DVD Saturday, did a lot of things properly, indicated by the fans’ support. Though „Twilight,“ the first film in the series, received respectful reviews and good box office, „New Moon“ - which continues the story of lovestruck human Bella and vampire Edward - was the bigger blockbuster, outgrossing the first film by more than $100 million domestically and earning more than $700 million worldwide. Weitz, who directed „American Pie“ and „About a Boy,“ also had something to show besides moon phases. Coming off the disappointing „The Golden Compass,“ an experience that left a bitter taste in the director’s mouth, he wanted to demonstrate he could take a popular book and make an equally popular film by being faithful to the source material. Weitz talked to CNN about the „New Moon“ frenzy, an embarrassing shot and those ungrateful actors. The following is an edited version of the interview. CNN: For the DVD, what do you think the fans will appreciate the most? Chris Weitz: What they’ll appreciate most is certain scenes that didn’t make it into the film. … There’s basically more Bella [Kristen Stewart], there’s more Edward [Robert Pattinson], there’s more Jacob [Taylor Lautner], and it’s often sort of more extended versions of scenes where things are discussed at greater length rather than entirely new scenes. I think there’s a lot of good stuff in the movie for fans, and at the same time we didn’t want to get rid of any of their favorite scenes. CNN: At the time the movie came out, you said you were hoping to do the commentary with Pattinson and Stewart. What happened? Weitz: They blew me off! (laughs) CNN: Those young actors. Weitz: I have to say, they had a lot on their plates … and there came a day when it was just me in a room, and I said, „I don’t want to do this alone,“ so we managed to get my editor [Peter Lambert] on a satellite linkup, and we watched the movie together. And I think that it’s frankly rather amusing, because we have a joshing relationship, whereas it may have been a bit more stilted had it been the kids and me, because they’d have to say nice things about me all the time. CNN: When you watch the movie again, is it the kind of thing that you say, „Why did I make that decision?“ perhaps because there was a deadline you had to hit. Weitz: Well, there is that old saying, „A film is never finished; it’s abandoned.“ But there’s only one shot in the movie that embarrasses me, because every time I saw it in the movie, everybody laughed, even the most Twihard of them all. It’s when you first see Bella has become a vampire, and she’s running through the woods in this very diaphanous dress, and I guess my corny-meter was off that day. Everyone seems to find that terribly amusing. CNN: How did a Cambridge-educated, nice, half-Jewish boy get involved with „New Moon“ to start with? Weitz: (laughs) Well, they asked. I think the first reason that I got involved was that I liked the actors very much. I think they’re very good. Then I went to see the [first] movie in a little theater, and the response of the fans around me was amazing - their degree of devotion, the delight they took in it. And you don’t always get that as a director. You don’t always know that there are going to be people watching and taking pleasure from what you’re doing, so that’s kind of a wonderful opportunity. CNN: In the DVD commentary, you said you let the opening shot of the moon go on and on because you figured there would be 30 seconds of screaming when the titles came up. Was that true? Weitz: The first time I saw it, there was quite a lot of screaming, just because of the buildup and anticipation were so great. People had been waiting so long to see it that it was good that they had a bit of time to calm down before you first saw Bella. CNN: Were you reluctant to get involved in this, having come off „The Golden Compass“ - another big studio project, best-selling book series, where you had both fans who knew the books backwards and forwards and a studio that wanted a big hit? Weitz: Well, no. I had something to prove, which was that if you really made a movie that was faithful to the book that it was going to succeed, and I felt that hadn’t been the case on „Golden Compass.“ … I knew I could do it properly if given the right kind of support. So there was a bit of redemption that I was looking for in that regard. CNN: I don’t want to get too much into „The Golden Compass,“ but do you think the studio was reluctant because of the atheistic themes in the original books? Weitz: I think they were reluctant because there were any religious themes at all, actually. I still to this day really don’t consider it an atheistic series of books, and in a funny way, I’ve bounced from a movie which, if anything, would be considered irreligious to a movie that some people consider to be a hidden advertisement for religion and chastity and all those things. But I think New Line was frightened of the source material. But that’s crazy, of course, because if you’re going to make a movie of a book, you should be familiar with the book’s content. CNN: Are you surprised by the Beatles-level frenzy that has surrounded the „Twilight“ actors and the making of the film? Weitz: I wasn’t prepared for it, honestly. I knew it was a big deal, but it’s one thing to deal with that conceptually and another to fear for their lives in the presence of thousands of teenagers. I was really astonished … to encounter that level of devotion, and I’m very happy, I must say, to be able to lapse into complete obscurity again and never be recognized for the rest of my life.

Call your state legislaturs

Grandpa — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:42:31 -0700

For health-care opponents getting a busy signal when calling the capitol, Rep. Pete Hoekstra has a message for you: All politics is local, so swamp the phone lines of the state legislators too. “If the people in Washington aren’t willing to listen, if the Democrats aren’t willing to listen, then call your local state elected officials and tell them that you’ll hold them personally accountable to what Nancy Pelosi is going to do the American people in Washington this week,” Hoekstra told The Daily Caller of his “Make it Local” idea. Hoekstra has taken to Twitter with a number of Make it Local messages, claiming that lines are jammed in part because some Democrats have taken their phones off the hook. The busy signals have also been attributed to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who earlier this week gave out the capitol switchboard phone number over the airwaves, encouraging listeners to call in. In one tweet, Hoekstra wrote, “Switchboards clogged or turned off in DC. Problem? NO Opportunity! Call every state elected D and tell them how furious you are!” In another, he tweets, “MAKE IT LOCAL. Call D state reps and state senators. Hold them accountable for what Pelosi is doing. People loving this idea! Make it work!” Hoekstra said he and other Washington lawmakers devised the idea. “I was talking to all the other members, we’re taking a look at everything we can do to try to influence this debate and we thought we had kinda run out of ideas,” he explained. “And we started hearing that Democrats were starting to take their phones off the hook and no longer taking constituent phone calls and we said ‘you know, where else can they call?’” A number of Tea Party groups are encouraging their activists to go the local route too. In an e-mail to supporters last night, Tea Party Patriots encouraged those who oppose the bill to call and visit the local district offices of the targeted members of Congress. They also pushed activists to call state elected officials to “remind them that they have political influence and you want them to exercise it.” It’s something Hoekstra said is an effective means of putting pressure on Democrats. “There’s no doubt that if my state reps’ phones started ringing off the hook on a federal issue they would call me and want me to know, and say, ‘Hey Pete, you know the people in Michigan are really feeling passionate about this.’” Hoekstra, who is running for governor, flew into West Michigan for a campaign swing on Thursday and plans to be in Detroit on Friday, though said he’s prepared to fly back to Washington for the vote if called this weekend. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/18/hoekstra-tells-health-care-opponents-to-swamp-the-state-legislatures/#ixzz0iYSWurQ1

Call your state legislaturs

Grandpa — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:39:16 -0700

For health-care opponents getting a busy signal when calling the capitol, Rep. Pete Hoekstra has a message for you:
All politics is local, so swamp the phone lines of the state legislators too.
“If the people in Washington aren’t willing to listen, if the Democrats aren’t willing to listen, then call your local state elected officials and tell them that you’ll hold them personally accountable to what Nancy Pelosi is going to do the American people in Washington this week,” Hoekstra told The Daily Caller of his “Make it Local” idea.
Hoekstra has taken to Twitter with a number of Make it Local messages, claiming that lines are jammed in part because some Democrats have taken their phones off the hook. The busy signals have also been attributed to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who earlier this week gave out the capitol switchboard phone number over the airwaves, encouraging listeners to call in.
In one tweet, Hoekstra wrote, “Switchboards clogged or turned off in DC. Problem? NO Opportunity! Call every state elected D and tell them how furious you are!” In another, he tweets, “MAKE IT LOCAL. Call D state reps and state senators. Hold them accountable for what Pelosi is doing. People loving this idea! Make it work!”
Hoekstra said he and other Washington lawmakers devised the idea. “I was talking to all the other members, we’re taking a look at everything we can do to try to influence this debate and we thought we had kinda run out of ideas,” he explained. “And we started hearing that Democrats were starting to take their phones off the hook and no longer taking constituent phone calls and we said ‘you know, where else can they call?’”
A number of Tea Party groups are encouraging their activists to go the local route too. In an e-mail to supporters last night, Tea Party Patriots encouraged those who oppose the bill to call and visit the local district offices of the targeted members of Congress. They also pushed activists to call state elected officials to “remind them that they have political influence and you want them to exercise it.”
It’s something Hoekstra said is an effective means of putting pressure on Democrats. “There’s no doubt that if my state reps’ phones started ringing off the hook on a federal issue they would call me and want me to know, and say, ‘Hey Pete, you know the people in Michigan are really feeling passionate about this.’”
Hoekstra, who is running for governor, flew into West Michigan for a campaign swing on Thursday and plans to be in Detroit on Friday, though said he’s prepared to fly back to Washington for the vote if called this weekend.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/18/hoekstra-tells-health-care-opponents-to-swamp-the-state-legislatures/#ixzz0iYSWurQ1

A Postmodern Christian perspective on social justice: Part 1 - What is social justice?

UnDave35 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:06:52 -0700

In light of Glenn Beck's recent comments regarding social justice and the Church, there has been a lot of controversy, and speculation for that matter, regarding what a truly biblical view of social and economic justice should look like. Some, like Beck, would argue that God isn't the least bit interested in American or global political matters and politics, therefore, they should have no part of our religion. There are others, however, who believe that not only are Christians called to care for the poor, but that social and economic justice for the poor is fundamentally central to the heart of the Christian faith.
Although Beck incorrectly attributes the term "social justice" to Father Charles Coughlin, the phrase was actually used almost a hundred years earlier in the 1840s by the Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli (and found even earlier than that) and was based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Father Coughlin (1891-1979) was a quite controversial Roman Catholic priest, who reached the zenith of his radio-broadcasting career in the 1930s, "preaching" about political and economic issues rather than religious ones. Although an early proponent of Roosevelt and the New Deal, Coughlin quickly became one of FDR's harshest critics (because he and the New Deal weren't liberal enough) and eventually used his radio program to espouse his extremely controversial anti-Semitic and extreme Socialist beliefs, as well as to empathize with and justify the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. The slogan for Coughlin's campaign and radio program was unfortunately, "Social Justice." And for some unknown reason, this is the specific context and skewed definition of social justice that Beck has chosen to focus upon. While there may be a small number of politicians and "progressives" (as Beck refers to liberal Christians), who dishonestly use the term "social justice" in an attempt to corrupt America with Socialist ideology (as Beck fears), it should be overtly obvious that to the vast majority of Christians today what Father Coughlin espoused is not a true biblical perspective on social justice.
Ok, so let's go straight to the source…what does God have to say on the subject then?

Psalm 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor.

Psalm 31:8-9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Jeremiah 22:3 Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

Proverb 29:7 The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

And that's just five of literally hundreds of verses regarding God's concern for the poor! It should be obvious, even to the casual reader, that God's heart for poor is one of the most essential and fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. As John Wheaton puts it in his article, A Biblical View of Social Justice, "In matters of social concern, the biblical Christian should know God's heart well. God has a special interest in the welfare of those at the lowest end of the social ladder: widows, orphans, legal aliens, and others who are oppressed or disadvantaged in society." Now that being said, my guess is that you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who didn't believe that we are called to care for the poor. So, if that is the case, then why all of the controversy over social justice?
The biggest dispute regarding social justice between more traditional Christians and more Postmodern (progressive) Christians seems to stem not from the fact of whether or not we are called to care for the poor, but rather how that "care" should look and what form should it take. Before we get into that, however, a good definition of biblical social justice is necessary. Interestingly, I have found that when you ask people to define "social justice," they usually talk about providing food for the hungry, clothes to the naked, homes for the homeless, etc. I would counter, though, that these acts are acts of charity and not social justice. Charity, by definition, is generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. Social justice, on the other hand, put into the simplest terms is this: people getting what they are due (what is right and proper) in the context of their own people and community. It does not mean that everyone in world will or should have the exact same. It does mean, though, that everyone in the world should have the same basic human rights of clean water, food, shelter, medical care, security, and dignity - if for no other reason than they too were wonderfully made in the image of God. Allow me to state this as unambiguously as possible - social justice is not Socialism, Communism, Nazism or any other -ism. It is not a call for the "redistribution of wealth" that Beck, and others like him, assume it to be and are so fearful of. The term "social justice," when used today by the body of believers, untainted, in its purest, biblical sense simply means setting out to right the systems of this world that are wrong - to make just that which is unjust. It is simply the phrase that we Postmodern "progressives" use to describe the unique mandate given to us by God to care not just for the physical needs of the "weakest of these," our brothers and sisters here in American and throughout the world, but "to do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed."
The next three articles in this series will cover these three social justice questions: 1) What are the systems of this world that are unjust? 2) How should we go about fixing them? 3)Why should it matter to us?

http://www.examiner.com/x-38182-Indianapolis-Postmodern-Christianity-Examiner~y2010m3d18-A-Postmodern-Christian-perspective-on-social-justice-Part-1--What-is-social-justice