Sweet Olivia

I am still reeling after Olivia de Havilland's speech. Though she delivered it 8 years ago, it was new to me. She has such a way with words. And her ordeal with her stepfather mirrors mine, to a certain degree. Her writing style seems to be similar in ways to mine. Oh, I just adore her.

I really hope I can one day meet her.

Yesterday, December 15th, marked the 70-year anniversary of the premiere of "Gone With the Wind." I have been a die-hard fan of GWTW since the womb; my mother saw it when she was pregnant with me. I watched it growing up, and even at an age when I could barely grasp the deeper concepts of the film, I was spellbound. I love this film with all my heart, and it's wonderful that one of my role models played such an integral part in it's production. It gives me joy to watch the legacy of "Gone With the Wind" endure decades, and it now approaches a century. I can't wait for THAT celebration.

Peace, love, and glamour!

Olivia de Havilland

Olivia de Havilland. Great actress. Beautiful leading lady. Double Oscar winner. Published author. Inspiration for tattoos?

I recently watched one of Miss de Havilland's rare interviews. Towards the end she recited the second stanza of a poem she had written as a depressed, homeless teenager. Her parents had recently banished her from the house (after she broke the "no after school activities rule"- her choics were drop out of the play or leave home for good.) and she was rightly distressed. The stanza reads as follows:


"Weary, the paths of this life we tread
on, like a march, the tired, dead.
Where does it get us, this struggle and pain?
What do we matter? What do we gain?"

Now, I don't know about you, but I find that quite beautiful. Seeing as how her writing pretty much mirrors my daily inner-monologue, I have decided that I shall immortalize her poem in my first tattoo. On my lower back I shall have the words of Olivia de Havilland forever inked onto my skin.

Delicious. Maybe I should write to her and ask her permission first. I'll let you know how that goes.

Peace, love & glamour.

East Side, Bitchez!!

So apparently Hollywood East is picking up steam. From what I've read about it, it sounds like the bygone era of studio systems and star-ownership all over again. All I can say about that is SIGN ME THE HELL UP!! What would be so terrible about a studio forcing me to be beautiful and glamorous, sticking me in the latest fashions, and placing me in front of a camera, so the rest of the world can "ooh" and "ahh" at my glorious magnificence?

Sure, I could end up like Judy Garland (RESPECT) and die before I'm 50, overrun by drugs and work and the like. But everyone who knew her always said she wasn't an unhappy person, and preferred to be remembered as joyful rather than tragic. So she obviously had her positives. She was incredibly intelligent, terribly witty, and a fabu raconteur. Don't forget that talent. That luscious, sexy, God-given talent. I'm talking about her voice, of course. I would love to be remembered as one of my century's greatest singers, and most unforgettable entertainer. Like any gay man trapped inside a girl's body (how convenient, I mean gay men and straight women DO want the same thing, after all), I would love to have met Judy and I would totally Queen out if I woke up one day and realized I was her. But we can't have everything.

I might also end up like Elizabeth Taylor. Her autobio might read something like a Marilyn Manson song. You know, the one that goes "Babble, babble, bitch, bitch, rebel, rebel, party, party. Sex, sex, sex, and don't forget the violence." I mean, she was an alcoholic, a pill-popper, and a bulimic. Not to mention the most notorious SLUT ever. Still, if someone as charitable as Jacko was friends with her, then she must have a good side. I mean what luscious, divine, steamy, sensual, sexy talent. And by talent I don't mean acting skills (get real!! Who knows how long she spent on her knees for those Oscars), I mean her boobs and her face. Oh, and her bedroom know-how. that's what she has. Thank you Dame Elizabeth, whom I follow on Twitter, for all of your efforts in support of slutty, crabfarm, husband stealin' hoes everywhere. We love you and your vagina. You know, the thing that got passed around MGM like a football.

But, maybe if I'm lucky I can end up like Debbie Reynolds. She's still just as beautiful as she was 50 years ago, and she's maintained a career both on and off the screen long after her contemporaries have bowed out (most likely against their will). She's adorable, classy, and funny as ever. She has a great deal of talent, and I wish she would share it. Her only fault lies in her lack of husband-huntin' skills. But, like I said, you can't have everything (though I think Eddie Fisher tried that, and look how he ended up). Debbie, you talent-hogging bitch, I love you, and I would totally make sweet, sweet love to you (oh no she didn't; oh YES I did). Don't die before I meet you.

My celebretardation aside, whatever rainbow Hollywood East blows the film industry over, I hope it's shitty farm house lands on me, cuz my ass wants to be in a movie, GODDAMMIT!!

Peace, Love, and Glamour!!

No H8!!

“In the final analysis of everything, nothing is any good unless you can look up just before dinner, or turn around in bed, and there they are. Without love, you’re not a person. You’re something with a French provincial office, or a book full of clippings. But you’re not a person.”

Bette Davis had it right when she said that. Everyone needs love, and we are all born with the right to fulfill that need. Yet, somehow, certain people feel as though they have the right to stand in the way of another’s happiness. On November 4th, 2008, Proposition 8 was passed, once again ranking California among other states that have made same-sex marriage illegal.

But why should it be illegal to marry someone of your same sex? After all, don’t they say love is blind? And what ever happened to our constitutional right to pursue happiness? Does that right pertain only to men and women in heterosexual relationships? I think not. What some people don’t understand is that the issue of gay marriage isn’t about “hurting the feelings” of sexual minorities; it’s about the laws and beliefs upon which this nation was built.

In the eyes of the government, it is sufficient enough to give to homosexuals the right to a “Commitment Ceremony.” While it is not a legal marriage, it allows for the recognition of an established relationship. It is suggested that establishing the institution of the commitment ceremony keeps from giving in to either side of the debate. However, if you think for a moment, you will see that this establishment gives in to the opposition. The only goal of the opposition is to keep gay marriage from being legalized. With all this “commitment ceremony” mishigas the government is, in fact, appeasing one side of the issue.

The side of the issue that the government is appeasing does more than just keep gays from marital happiness; it keeps some from receiving proper Health Care. Take Daniel and Jose, for instance. Daniel and Jose are a happily “committed” gay couple. They live together, have a stable, healthy relationship, and are both working steady jobs. Jose has a degenerative nerve condition making it more and more difficult for him to walk. His health insurance does not cover the medication needed to stop the degeneration of his nerves, but Daniel’s does. However, health insurance does not allow coverage for one’s committed partner. Because Daniel and Jose can’t get married, Jose is unable to receive proper medical coverage and it is only a matter of time before he can no longer walk.

I believe that there is no logical argument against gay marriage. You can’t argue that there will be no reproduction, because it is still possible. While lesbians can’t necessarily “do it themselves,” they can seek a sperm donor. And just like with a heterosexual couple, the result is OFFSPRING. Gay men can always adopt a child, which is just as well.

And who is gay marriage hurting anyway? I don’t recall the last time I read about a gay couple’s marriage resulting in the deaths of puppies or kittens. Or even people for that matter. It is no one’s concern who someone chooses to marry. Unless someone or something is harmed in any way as the direct result of gay marriage, I don’t see what harm it does.

The only other argument I can think of would be a religious one. And that is beyond invalid. It has been stated time and time again that Church and State shall be separate. If that is so, then why are so many religious groups having such a strong pull in this debate? Why are secular views and beliefs constantly brought up when discussing this topic? When it comes to same-sex issues, and if it is a legal matter, not a personal one, religion should be altogether disregarded.

This nation was built on the value of Freedom. We have the freedom to choose our religion, bear arms, and speak our minds. So why shouldn’t we have the right to love and marry who we choose? For decades, homosexuals have joined the Armed Forces and fought for those freedoms we hold so dear. They shouldn’t have to fight for freedom at home, too. It is time that this world stops being ignorant and intolerant, and just let people live life how they choose. Do you want to be the one that stands in the way of someone’s happiness, health, or freedom? Don’t hate, and don’t discriminate. Unite and help obliterate Proposition 8.

Peace, Loce and Glamour!!