Mark. An Obssession.

Every once in a while, I'll get addicted to something to the point where I become a virtual expert on the subject, or I'll get addicted to a person, usually a famous figure, who I could write a biography for.

My latest addiction: Mark Ruffalo. I cannot explain what it is about this actor, but it's not a juvenile crush that is the reasoning behind following his career in movies, in fact, his looks are secondary. I can't say I've seen a lot of his movies, yet, but in the last month or so, I've managed to see three of his not-so-famous films, and found that he has a trademark which brings something to the screen- something resembling innocence, but not quite. This trademark peaks through, even when he's playing a New York City detective investigating murders and donning tough-looking tattoos like in the movie, In the Cut. As Detective Giovanni Malloy, a character who originally appeared in the book of the same title by Susanna Moore as a tough no non-sense kind of guy, Mark Ruffalo was able to take a sleazy New York detective and turn him into a gentleman.

His innocence even peaks through his role as Jack Linden, a married man with two children who has an affair with his best friend's wife in We Don't Live Here Anymore. And in My Life Without Me, he fits right in as a bookworm who knowingly has an affair and falls in love with a married woman with two girls, but is unaware of a terminal illness, which finally kills her.

Ruffalo's choices in role selection have, at least in the three films I've seen recently, impressed me and helped in adding him to the list of people I feel are the best in their field.

Why just one month?

Morgan Freeman, the oscar-winning actor recently made public his feelings on the concept of Black History month on primetime Tv's '60 Minutes'. Freeman told Mike Wallace, "I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history!" and stirred a controversy with his words.

In case you live in a jar and are not aware, February is Black History month, and as long as I can remember knowing this fact, I've had a nagging question:

Why does one group of Americans get a month dedicated to their history?

I'm assuming that Black History month is an American concept, so I am writing this piece based on that assumption, and please, if I am wrong in my assumption do correct me.

It makes sense to assume that African Americans and their history are just as much a part of basic American history as any other group. Their journey to America helped shape today's America as much as the Native Americans, English, Irish, Italians and Germans among others.

Take for instance the American Civil War. Could anyone fully understand this huge turning point in American history if they left out African American history? Why is African American history considered and treated as different from general American history? If African-American history is something that ought to have a month and category all by itself, then why not Native American history month? Or Irish American history month? Or Chinese American history month? Each of these groups I've mentioned have made contributions to the make-up of today's America, and their history is America's history, to separate them into sub-categories is an injustice to them, as well as history itself.

From AOL Blackvoices http://blackvoices.aol.com/black_news/black_history_month/articlecanvas?id=20060202185809990001)

Some Minds Think Alike (Who are these people 2)

I was surfing the internet today, and came across an interesting headline on AOL Entertainment News that read: "Paris Hilton makes Redford Crazy!" Out of curiousity, which is what leads me to trouble a lot of times, I clicked on the link and got directed to the article. (http://www.cinematical.com/2006/02/13/paris-hilton-makes-redford-crazy)

It made me laugh, because Robert Redford, the creator of the Sundance Film Festival, only attended the festival for a little while, because he couldn't handle the presence of starlets at the prestigious event. Paris Hilton in particular. In the article he states, "She [Paris Hilton] doesn't have anything to do with anything. I think the festival is close to being out of control."

Well Robert, unfortunately, the Sundance Film Festival isn't the only thing out of control in that respect. Even Madame Tussauds' in London is out of control. The famous London wax museum has jumped on the band-wagon and created a creepy waxy replica of the already plastic-like Hilton, immortalizing her... fakeness???

What, or more importantly, who will they think of next?

I'm single... BUT

Valentine's Day has come and gone, and it felt just like any other day to me. I wasn't depressed, I wasn't bitter, and I didn't feel inclined to send anti-valentine's day cards to all my fellow single friends. Nor did I feel inclined to send valentine's day greetings to people who aren't single.

I have spent many-a-valentine's days single, and each year it becomes clearer and clearer to me that if the only day a year my boyfriend/husband is going to be romantic, thoughtful and a showerhead raining down love and appreciation upon me is the same day that the entire population is getting the same thing... then... well... I don't want any part of it.

As the title of this blog states: I am single... BUT I don't think my indifference toward Valentine's day will diminish when stupid Cupid decides to shoot an arrow at my tushy.

I confirmed that on Monday night, when I had to stop at Walmart for something, and saw the hordes of people. I saw men and women, young and old pushing and shoving through the greeting card aisles, grabbing generic heart-shaped chocolate boxes and the pre-arranged refrigerated cliche red roses, and amusement park quality plush stuffed animals and rushing to stand in line at 9:30 PM on the eve of St. Valentine's day... at Walmart.

The first thought that popped into my head when I saw this display, was: "You're pathetic." You see, on one hand, I can see how it's sweet that men and women go out and buy cards, chocolate, flowers and stuffed animals for their significant others, but it's the lack of creativity that adds the blah factor to valentine's day. You're not only "showing your love" because a calendar tells you to, but you're also buying cliche, manufactured gifts. It's like Christmas and the ugly pair of holiday socks or Santa tie that is sure to make its way under every other person's Christmas tree each year.

I realize that there are a lot of creative people out there taking time to make valentine's day a little less artificial for their valentines. They are probably those who are romantics year-round, and that's wonderful. As for the Walmart shoppers on Monday night, I can only pray and hope that I will not end up with, or being someone who does last-minute valentine's day shopping at Walmart... or anywhere for that matter.

Freedoms that cross lines

I'm all for Freedom of Speech and the Press, but there are some things that cross the line when that ideal is practiced.

I'm talking, of course, about the latest drama with a Danish newspaper publishing a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed in a disrespectful manner, angering Muslims around the world. Being a Muslim, myself, I can see the lack of understanding from the West about the Muslim religion and its practices. I'm not an expert on the religion, but I practice it by praying five times a day and trying to live my life as a Muslim in the best way possible. I don't drink alchohol, as that's part of being Muslim. I don't eat pork, as that, also, is part of being Muslim. I don't lie, I don't cheat, or steal, I respect my elders and... well, I pretty much follow the Ten Commandments and then some. The "some" is where the lack of understanding, and even more lethal, MISunderstandings from the West come in.

In Islam, producing or even looking at images of prophets, or any other religious figures is forbidden. Muslims take this rule very seriously. Movies and television shows about the Prophet Mohammed and other religious figures are acted out without those characters depicted. The Message, the story of Islam and its beginnings is a good example of how Muslim directors eliminate the need to show images of religious figures and still make powerful statements.

When the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of 12 cartoons, one of was an image of the Prophet Mohammed raised a red flag for Muslims. Forget the fact that the Prophet was depicted as a terrorist, which is an issue all on its own. A very serious line was crossed with an image of the Prophet being produced and published by people who don't truly understand what Islam is all about. Al Jazeera, the infamous Arabic news channel which I heard this news of the images through, blurs out the images when they are shown on camera, because although they are an unbiased source they still understand that there are lines not to be crossed out of respect.

Many negative things have been thought and said of Islam and its followers, and Muslims have learned to live with the negativity surrounding them by trying their best to educate the world about their religion. Islam is a religion that teaches its followers to respect not only Islam, but also Judaism and Christianity. The stories of Moses and Jesus are both mentioned in the Holy Koran, Islam's holy book.

I have not seen any of the images published in the Danish newspaper, and I don't plan on looking at any of them because I am Muslim.

Why I don't like Oprah-- with supporting evidence

I don't usually pay attention to Oprah. In fact, I'm probably part of a minority who can't stand the woman. Her latest book club recommendation fiasco with James Frey's A Million Little Pieces, in which the author altered details of his life to fill the pages of the best-selling memoir, showed a side of Oprah that I've always suspected existed but could never prove because of her diva status. The woman knows exactly what everyone wants to hear, and she caters to that, even when she originally says the wrong thing.

That's why when Frey's fabrications came to light and critics attacked the author, Oprah came to his rescue with a phonecall on Larry King Live, only to turn on him a few days later by bringing him onto her show and attacking him as if he had written the book solely to "dupe" and embarrass her personally. She knew it was what people wanted to hear: that it's not OK to lie in a memoir, no matter what point you're trying to make... a different tune than her defense of the author and his book a few days before:

"But the underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates with me, and I know it resonates with millions of other people who have read this book."

I find Oprah to be a phoney in general, but the latest issue with James Frey is one thing I can use to prove that my view of this diva who can do no wrong is justifiable: that she is simply rich enough to dupe us into thinking she is an angel. Well, I'm not buying it.

The Rude Group

In my so far fruitless job search I've signed up with a number of websites to post my resume. Job boards, employment agency websites, individual company websites... you name it, I've signed up for it. I haven't had any luck, yet, and so far, I've only been completely ignored. Having seen this pattern, I decided to take matters into my own hands today and called one of the agencies (I won't mention any names) I had signed up with online. I hoped that perhaps dealing with a representative of theirs, I might increase my chances of being acknowledged.

The woman who answered the phone sounded nice and was helpful in directing me to "Derek". "Derek" was not at his desk, so I was directed to his voicemail. I professionally stated my name, purpose of calling him and left my number so that he could contact me at his own convenience. I hung up the telephone with a smile on my face and a feeling of satisfaction about being proactive and going the extra mile with my ambitious job search for a promising position... I'd mostly sent resumes online where they went into the great abyss where ignored resumes go, so it was exciting for me to be able to contact someone directly. I was proud.

My job searching for the day wasn't over yet, so I came online and found that I had a new email from "Derek". "Derek" had politely replied to my voicemail through email with this personalized letter:

Unfortunately, we will not be able to assist you in your job search at this time. Your background does not fall within the required skill set of the positions for which you applied. We wish you the best of luck in your job search.

Sincerely,

The ******** Group

PLEASE NOTE: Replies to this email address will be deleted. Please send all inquiries to denver@********group.com

Though there is nothing wrong with this response, I am a little vexed by the fact that the reply to my professional voicemail was unprofessional in the way it was carried out. In the hopes of having my thoughts distributed to as many people as possible, I hope that this thought reaches all the "Derek's" out there, who are unfortunately selecting and sending the workforce into the job market.

Who are these people???

Celebrities are multiplying at a frightening speed, and their status is more and more prominent as the years pass. Suddenly, teeny boppers are "it" people whom we're supposed to watch for fashion tips and assurance that being human and committing the crime of yawning is OK, because hey, even celebrities get sleepy!

What kind of a society are we living in when our role models are Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan (Lohan being the better of the 3, and that's not saying much)? I doubt there was this kind of questioning back when Audrey Hepburn was the "it" girl. Maybe because Audrey Hepburn actually worked for her fame until the day she died... I mean, the woman starred in some legendary films like Breakfast At Tiffany's, and saved lives around the world. She was the Angelina Jolie of her time, and though Angelina Jolie's steps are recounted in a slew of magazines and entertainment news shows, she has more right to be in the spotlight than Ms. Hilton because of her good deeds alone.

What exactly has made Paris Hilton a celebrity? Is it just because she has money? Lots of people have money, their shopping sprees aren't documented the way Paris Hilton's are. And what about Nicole Richie? She appeared out of nowhere and to my knowledge did nothing worth remembering other than emaciate herself and wearing designer clothing to cover her protruding bones. Was it that show The Simple Life that made Paris and Nicole celebrities? Did that many people really watch that garbage to elevate these two lumps into trend-setting divas? Lindsay Lohan makes a little more sense, I guess. At least the girl has done some real work, but she's 19 and has mostly starred in Disney movies.

I suppose the celebrities that are the subject of every magazine cover and piece of entertainment news nowadays are nothing but fluff. Perhaps that's why they need all the media attention-- because their work lacks staying power, while their shopping sprees and personal problems make them household names. Hmm... I guess I answered my own puzzlement.