After a very busy week, this is one of the last posts before Christmas.

Once again, there is some bad behavior on display

I hope you see my point in all of the cases…

I also hope that you had a great weekend, see you soon!

BY Stephanie Gaskell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, December 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

After he was severely injured on 9/11, city cop Mike Kosowski started playing online poker to escape the pain.

All those hours in front of a computer paid off – Kosowski just won $1 million on a TV poker show.

“Talk about lucky,” said Kosowski, 53, of Staten Island. “I was one of the luckiest guys in the world to survive that day. And now this.”

Kosowski was trapped with eight other people when the World Trade Center’s south tower collapsed. He suffered back and leg injuries and was forced to retire from the Police Department in 2004.

Bored and in pain, he began spending hours online playing poker.

His wife, Frances, tried to cheer him up.

“She saw that I was just sitting around,” he said. “She bought me a dog to try to get me out of the house.

“I was on a fixed income. I didn’t know what was coming next,” he said. “I was in a bad way. I wasn’t really mobile. I put on a lot of weight.”

Kosowski, a Daily News Hero of the Month in 1991 for helping collar three armed robbery suspects, had only played poker a few times before he was injured, but started playing up to six hours a day.

Kosowski heard about the show, Fox’s “PokerStars.net Million Dollar Challenge,” a five-episode series that also features celebrities, and signed up to be a contestant.

Fox flew him out to Los Angeles, and he beat model Joanna Krupa from TV’s “Dancing With the Stars” to get to Daniel Negreanu, a top player on the professional poker circuit. Kosowski defeated Negreanu to win the $1 million. The episode airs Dec. 27.

“I was shocked,” he said.

Kosowski can’t reveal the lucky hand that earned him the big paycheck.

“Let’s just say that eight is my new lucky number,” he said.

Kosowski said he plans to pay off his mortgage and set aside money for his two children, Mike, 15, and Rachele, 22.

He’s also going to give some cash to a scholarship fund that helps send the children of parents killed in the World Trade Center to college.

“The people that lost their lives down there, their children should be taken care of,” he said.

And he’s going to give to City Harvest, which helps feed the homeless.

“Being a cop, you see homeless people every day,” he said. “You wonder how they can make it.”

Kosowski said he’s still in shock over his good fortune.

“It makes you think, if you’re one of those lucky people to survive that day, life really is worth living,” he said

Today, dear reader, I write to you in anguish. I write to you in hopes that my impassioned words will not fall on deaf ears. I write to you about the evil that is PETA.

Don’t be fooled by PETA.

On the surface, they’re harmless little bunny-huggers but underneath that cutesy exterior lurks their more sinister, true purpose: world domination. Their entire plan is eliminate all the things we (and by “we” I mean heterosexual men) like – juicy steaks, leather jackets like the Al Pacino wore in “Serpico”, unnecessarily fast fossil-fuel powered cars, furry pimp coats (OK, the last one is mine. CHINCHILLA OVER HERE!!!)…

And force us to walk around naked eating vegetables and hang out with the hot women who want us to give up these things.

Dude. Wait. What?

No…must not get distracted by the hotness…focus on the message…

PETA must be stopped. We love our steaks! We love our sushi! And I love looking like Al Pacino…

Now PETA wants to take this all away. And they’re using subversive mind control tricks to fool us into thinking it’s OK…

Don’t believe me? Well, how else do you explain this?

What is that!? A nude angel-hottie with wings with an irresponsibly cute puppy!? Is nothing sacred?

And what about this? Huh? HUH?

Granted, if they were around in my teens I would have eaten more salad (probably off their thighs) but c’mon…we know what they’re up to!

And finally, this bit of propaganda:

OH. MY. DEAR. LORD.

Um…

Where was I?

Oh, right…

Save the whales! Eat more vegetables! Burn down the chicken farms! Free the cattle! Ride around naked on your bicycle and don’t wear fur! Meet hot chicks who like men who like those things and enjoy hours of wild monkey sex (with the hot chicks not the monkeys, you sick tosser)! What are you waiting for? Go. Go. GO!!

Hell, I didn’t even really like Al Pacino all that much anyway…

Just watched her kick some guys ass from staten island on a poker star tv game. He sucked but she is great eye candy…

She won best looking in a swimsuit.

Would you argue that?

Joanna Krupa has photographed in the new Peta ad.  Daniel loves Peta, while Christopher thinks they go too far.  What do you think?

Professor Moss and I recently upgraded our cell phones, and apparently one of the “fun” features of newer phones is the ability to download screensavers and other personal touches onto one’s phone (maybe this isn’t so new, but it’s new to us).  Since I enjoy a bit of window-shopping as much as the next fellow, I decided this morning to browse the possible screensavers available to me.

My cell provider divides screensavers into categories, and many of these are banal but predictable (sports, movies, music, etc.).  I was intrigued, however, by two categories in particular: “For Him” and “For Her.”  My blog-radar began to beep uncontrollably.  What, you may ask, is in each category?  The surprising thing isn’t so much the differences in gendered screensavers as the one glaring similarity.

Many of the differences were predictable.  Men are expected to want screensavers from the categories “skulls,” “camoflage” [sic], “gamers & geeks,” “poker,” and, of course, “Lingerie Football League.”  Women, on the other hand, prefer “Hello Kitty,” “Betty Boop,” “butterflies,” “fairies,” “fashion prints,” and “cute and clever.”  Tattoos are apparently gender-neutral.  But so is Playboy, and this gave me pause.

My first thought was: why would a woman want a Playboy screensaver on her cell phone?  I think I know why Sprint would think women might be interested in Playboy periphernalia.  A pre-feminist reading would be that men want to look at the women in Playboy and women want to be the ones looked at.  But even a feminist (or post-feminist, if such a thing exists) reading might validate Sprint’s choice.  A woman might freely choose to identify with the Playboy brand.  Why is it so hard to believe that such a choice can be willingly made?

This gets to a central question to which I’ve never found a satisfactory answer: is it possible for a woman to choose freely to objectify herself, to emulate politically/socially weak women and/or their lifestyles, in short, to assume the role that men traditionally (i.e. under patriarchy) have been said to want women to take while still empowering herself?  Or is any participation in these activities an internalization of the patriarchy?

The recent kerfuffle over Joanna Krupa’s comments about her December 2009 Playboy photoshoot brought this question back to the surface.  I’m not going to add to the thoughtful comments made by bloggers here, here, and here, but the fact that so much ink has been spilled over the subject suggests that it’s not a settled question.

Things become even more complicated when we consider that until very recently, the Playboy empire was run by a woman, Hugh Heffner’s daughter Christie.  A recent New York Times piece lauds Ms. Heffner for her liberal philanthropy and quotes Victor Navasky, chairman of the Colombia Journalism Review, who considers Ms. Heffner “certainly a liberal feminist and a liberal Democrat.”  Is it appropriate to label someone a “feminist” because she’s achieved wealth and success in business, or because of her contributions to liberal and/or feminist political causes, even if she gains her wealth and prestige by trading in retrograde gender stereotypes?

I don’t think this is an easy question to answer.  In fact, I’d like to suggest that it may even be the wrong question to ask.  Perhaps a better question is: what would it look like for a woman to freely choose to pose nude in Playboy, or eschew a career to become a housewife/mother, or pursue a career in prostitution, or take her husband’s name in marriage, or <insert traditional feminine cultural role here>?  How would we know if the choice were freely made?  The debate is often framed as one between feminists who say that no such choice can ever be freely made (or who pay lip service to the idea that free choice is possible but can’t cite a single example of such a choice) and critics of feminism who say that choices are always free and feminism won’t/can’t acknowledge that.

I think it’s much more complicated than that.  I’m not sure I believe it’s possible ever to make a free choice when dealing with matters so deeply culturally codified as gender.  As a man, I face the same sorts of questions if I decide to hold a door open for a woman, or if I believe that it probably is better for a baby to have her mother home with her during the first six months of her infancy.  Do I make these choices or hold these beliefs because I was raised in a patriarchal society or did I arrive at them independently?  What if I have scientific evidence to back my claim (evolutionary biologists love to wax poetic about gender in nature and culture)?  Can the science be separated from the culture that produced it?

Is it possible for Joanna Krupa to make feminist “art” in a magazine like Playboy?  Is it possible for Nina Hartley to make feminist porn?  Even if she herself is a feminist (which might be a matter for debate), and she sets out with the clear intent to make feminist porn, isn’t the visual language of porn always already tainted by its patriarchal roots?  Is it possible to break free from that precedent.  And, once again (and more importantly), what would that look like?  How would we know it when we saw it?

Playmate and “Dancing With the Stars” alum Joanna Krupa led a protest Tuesday at a Los Angeles pet store that she claims sells puppies irresponsibly. She also took advantage of the situation by revealing her scandalous PETA advertisement titled “Be an Angel for Animals.” For the ad, the playmate posed nude in a cathedral with wings similar to those worn by Victoria’s Secret angels. Her private parts were barely covered by a silver cross.

PETA is known for shocking, in your face advertisements, and they obviously don’t mind being controversial, but my question is this: Where should the line be drawn? I understand that they are fighting for what they believe in, but do these people have any ethical standards? (other than their obvious stance on animal rights) I looked for their code of ethics on their Web site, but they were nowhere to be found.

It’s been such a busy weekend, I had no time to post my usual Sunday post! I’ve managed to do it today though

November has been a superb month regarding pictures, there have been so many events, so many brilliant photos! The aspects I took into consideration have been the usual points: photographic value and beauty. I narrowed it down to my 30 favorites, plus a selection of pictures from the event of the photographers, the highlight of the year, the Victoria’s Secret Show.

Adriana Karembeu

—

Alexandra Burke

—

Alicia Keys

—

Angelina Jolie

—

Ashley Tisdale

—

Beyonce

—

Daryl Hannah

—

Elle MacPherson

—

Gina-Lisa Lohfink

—

Heidi Klum

—

Heike Makatsch

—

Éva Horváth

—

Joanna Krupa

—

Julie Benz

—

Katy Perry

—

Lady Gaga

—

Laura Dundovic

—

Leona Lewis

—

Lily Donaldson

—

Lucie Jones

—

Maggie Grace

—

Marisa Miller

—

Michelle Trachtenberg

—

Miley Cyrus

—

Queensberry

—

Rihanna (the photographer at this event is a genius!)

—

—

—

Fergie

—

The Saturdays

—

Victoria’s Secret 2009

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

All pictures can be downloaded in high resolution from here (Rapidshare) or here (Mediafire).

Credit to the photographers.

—

Speaking of fantastic photos, today I share another interview with you. Despite missing out on the first round (where I have interviewed Sam from Daily Fashion Boost and Celine from/aka The Shoe Girl) she was still kind enough to send me her answers and pictures.

Who am I talking about, you ask. I said, fantastic photos – does this ring any bells? Okay, it’s Hanh from Life in travel!

D: At what age did you start to show interest for fashion in general? How did it start?

H: I was actually interested in fashion at an early age. When I was about 10 years old I started making clothes by myself just using my imagination. It was not well made but I had fun. Being a girl, I just wanted to look pretty.

D: What do you think about the importance of the shoes in an outfit?

H: The shoes are a very important element for an outfit. Pairs of fabulous shoes make a boring outfit become an exciting, stylish one.

D: What is your opinion of fashion trends? How do you decide, what to follow and what is not worth it?

H: Fashion trends are fun as long as we are not going crazy and taking it too seriously. You have to understand your body and your taste to apply it for yourself. To me, fashion is all about fun.

D: Who is/are your favorite shoe designer(s)?

H: Gosh..I really don’t have one. Whatever they look fabulous I love. Although, I have many Givenchy, Ysl, Giuseppe, etc… shoes in my closet.

D: Show me your favorite shoe of your own wardrobe!

H: For now, I love Proenza boots.

D: Sketch/draw your dream shoe!

H: This is my drawing for my dream shoes for spring/summer 2010.
Sorry for not good at drawing a portion of the shoes, but it’s a idea how the shoes would look like.

Thank you for the interview, I really appreciate it! Thanks for your time!

—

I wish everyone a pleasant week!

Joanna Krupa and Catholic League are at wars about her latest pictorial for PETA.

Bill Donohue, Catholic League President | “The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of PETA employees. Moreover, pet stores don’t rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims. PETA is a fraud.”

“Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101.”

Joanna Krupa | “It’s understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal, but the sex we’re talking about pertains to dogs and cats. As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of.”

“I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation.”

It’s Rule 5 Sunday again!

Polish born Joanna Krupa is one of the world’s top models with good reason… the woman is simply stunning.

She’s been featured in Maxim and Playboy, and appeared on Dancing With The Stars

And she’s also working with Peta.

That’s right… Peta has found yet another star with more boobs than brains to get nekkid in their never-ending campaign to help the critters. As always, Peta has to go above and beyond alienating normal folks trying to get their point across. This time, it’s the Catholics they’re pissing off. The Catholic League has come out against her “Angels For Animals” ad. But WHY? Surely the Catholics can’t be against humane treatment of animals?!

Oh. That explains the outrage.

For the record, I’m not a Catholic. I don’t happen to believe in god. Nevertheless, I can see exactly why this ad is considered offensive and inappropriate. But apparently, the reasons are lost on the latest brainiac to bare all. Ms. Krupa’s take on it?

“I am a proud Catholic and I am sure God is looking down shaking His head in
disagreement with the Catholic League’s comments.”

Oh. Alrighty then. Any other bits of wisdom from on high you’d like to share?

“In my heart I know that Jesus would never condone the suffering that results
when dogs and cats are allowed to breed.”

Now, you see… statements like that are exactly what I had in mind when I titled this blog. I feel stupider just for having read it.

I’m officially convinced. To become a Petapeople, your IQ must be inversely proportional to your bra size.

—————————

Thanks again to The Other McCain for the R5S link!

If you’ve come from there, Welcome! Please check out the rest of the blog! And enjoy your Rule 5 Sunday!

Glossed Over: Where we take a closer look at what advertisements are really selling.

Dear Environmental Movement,

A naked Playboy centerfold being ogled by dogs as an obvious rip-off on Victoria Secret Angels does not make me more responsive to the countless “give us money” emails, calendars and address labels you keep sending me this time of year.

It does make me wonder why I bother to keep on recycling for you, if we’re just saving the planet so guys can get porn. We vote on your issues, volunteer more time, and give you more money than men do. Please stop hating on women to make your point.

Thanks,

Virginia

[Via: Sirens.]

Seriously, I’ve searched far and wide for this cat.  Its posterity has torn up the sweets circuit for some time, but surely it’s in the genes, right?  Griffey got his talent from somewhere.  John Quincy Adams didn’t become America’s top dog because he came from a family of sherpas.  Notice the avoidance of a more modern father-son presidential duo, all done in the name of “come one, come all”, for if ye be a redblood from Topeka or a blueblood from Montpelier, your acquaintance is my privilege, and I shall not have it thwarted by, “DAMN THAT GEORGE W. [SHRUB]!”  We.Are.Fa-mi-ly.

I face more pressing issues than to scour the candy rack for Big Papa Mint, but damn it, I’m going to find that thing, and I’m going to eat it.

Or …

Drink it?

(courtesy of Hulkster at BarMeister)

See, this is what Jeff and I do.  We find new ways to blather tangential hullabaloo and work our way to a drink recipe ALL DAY, EVERY DAY.  (OK, sans lunes, martes, miercoles y domingo, in my case.  Well, usually.)  We lead mindless, morally questionable, minutiae-filled lives of goodness in an economically dump-worthy era that’ll leave us telling those, “When I was your age, I plowed through 18 inches of snow … in a Prius!” stories by the time we’re bitter, washed-up grandaddies.

Do I mind?  Damn straight I do.  I was looking forward to the days of a chauvanistic Wall Street executive paid nine-times his worth, but Bear Stearns had to ruin it like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, et al ruined the homerun — by artificially inflating the numbers with some seriously seedy juice.  BS, man.  BS, and I don’t mean Simmons.

In fact, though, I would’ve never made it past … Actually, let me rephrase this — in fact, I never made it past the GMAT.  I was halfway through, staring at the computer screen, and I asked a profound, “What in the name of Xenu am I doing here?”  I got a 6-something, I think; one in a long line of standardized measurements of test-taking ability that have eluded me since the PSAT.  I wanna study for the Stanford-Binet, kick the thing’s bovine ass to the curb and crash a Mensa party (yes, they exist, apparently) just to prove a point: Even an idiot can infiltrate your organization of top-flight testees.

—

I’m a journalist — one of those people with a swell-sounding job title who doesn’t, you know, have a job.  If I had to put an image to it, the industry would resemble a post-Apocalyptic Buenos Aries, once saturated with unqualified beauty and now laid waste, the consequence of something about a calendar and Roland Emmerich.

(By the way, I have to link this — a grammatically jank press release about “December 21 2012 – What Happen In 2012 End of The World”.  Incoherence, sentences ending with “??” and an artist’s rendering of Earth’s moon, Gouda, precipitating a tidal wave that somehow escapes the atmosphere … Yes, hilarity ensues.)

As such, it humors me that Jeff is, allegedly (no sources), a media critic at-large.  “The It Isn’t News, It’s CNN headline of the day/week/month/whatever”?  Really?  How dare you come one step short of likening the home of the BEST … political team … on … television to a cesspool of irrelevant journalism!

Not that I care.  Chances of one day working at CNN < chances of one day courting Ellen Page — who, by the way, officially owns the title of Hollywood’s “girl next door” for the remainder of everything.  Seriously, she’s a spokesladyperson for Cisco, a display of utter normalcy:

Joanna Krupa, on the other hand, is still incalcuably good-looking, pushing the envelope on behalf of PETA as much as ever, and silly.  “I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation …” by posing nude in what looks like a screengrab from Dogma or something.  Right.  Go get ‘em, Popette.

Warmest regards,

The 1-18 New Jersey Nets

A new PETA ad featuring Playboy cover girl and a “Dancing With the Stars” regular Joanna Krupa in nothing but a crucifix has got the Catholic church all up in arms. Fox 411 says

Krupa is seen topless and bottomless in the latest spot by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, her private parts covered — barely — by a large, well-placed metallic crucifix.

“It’s totally inappropriate,” the Catholic League President said in a statement. “The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of PETA employees. Moreover, pet stores don’t rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims.”

I guess that’s one way to make people not want to wear fear or kill animals: Give them raging boners…? In any case, Joanna Krupa is an angel in my book. I heard the Catholic Church is pissed, haha. Maybe because all of the angels in their books are fugly. And dudes.

[Source WhatWouldTylerDurdenDo?]

This week’s Hot or Not: Some risqué fashion ads that somehow made their way into the media…

Joanna Krupa poses nude with a crucifex for PETA ad.

D&G’s new commercial is either about a menage-en-trois or watches.

Two model’s strip down (literally) while people watch in XOXO’s store display in NYC…

My verdict: NOT

Maybe I’m becoming a prude, but this is too much sexiness going on in just one week. Are these companies in these desperate times? There is a way to be sexy, while being classy.

What do you think?

Many feminists hate PETA because of its sexist advertising campaigns.  However, as I have written before, I don’t think there is much quarrel with its goal of eliminating abuse of animals.

Well, PETA has done it again.  See the two ads below with Joanna Krupa (recently of Dancing with the Stars and on the cover of Playboy).  The message is admirable: “Be an Angel for Animals.  Always Adopt.  Never Buy.” and “Save a life by adopting from an animal shelter, and always give your animal companions the love and care they deserve.”  As usual, PETA offends some while getting publicity for an admirable cause.

Of course, the Catholic Church is offended–but not because Krupa is semi and mostly naked.  No, all the church (or at least the Catholic League) cares about are the images of the crucifix and rosary.  Here is what the Catholic League president said about the ads:

The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of PETA employees.  Moreover, pet stores don’t rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims. PETA is a fraud.  Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101.

Krupa, who is a Catholic, had a sensible response:

It’s understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal, but the sex we’re talking about pertains to dogs and cats.  As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of.  I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation.

Sooooo, here we go again.  What do you think?

Recentemente a modelo polaca Joanna Krupa, mais uma Barbie e isto não é uma critica (de certa forma), mais uma vez deu o seu corpo ao manifesto por uma campanha em defesa dos animais. É um anúncio da PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) que apela à adopção de animais abandonados em vez de os comprar.

Até aqui tudo bem, a modelo que gosta dos animais, não usa casacos de pele, adopta-os e tal. O que é que se passa de errado? Ao utilizar uma cruz estrategicamente colocada e e uma aureola de anjo irritou a igreja. Eles dizem que é por causa da cruz ser utilizada inapropriadamente e que se fosse com outra religião qualquer, as reacções seriam piores. Eu estou fazer de conta que a pessoa que disse isto não representa a Igreja Católica oficialmente, porque para mim, isto foi a coisa mais grave que nos últimos tempos ouvi dizer de alguém ligado à Igreja.

Ela respondeu que “A verdade é que o Papa João Paulo disse que, dado como nascemos nus, é arte, e trata-se apenas de mostrar um bonito corpo que Deus criou”, algo com que eu concordo profundamente e repugno mas hipocrisias a esse respeito, que nesta altura são patéticas.

Uma das pessoas que  criticou a Joanna foi o líder da conservadora “Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights”, Bill Donohue, a mesma pessoa que a propósito dos escândalos de abusos de crianças por parte de padres na Irlanda:

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. . . . The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape. By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

Também vou assumir que este é apenas mais um fanático conservador e que não representa a Igreja. Uma coisa é certa, a Igreja insiste em ter politicas reaccionárias em vez de se preocupar com os graves problemas do mundo. Isto não é demagogia. É uma questão de ética por parte dos membros desta instituição preocuparem-se com os animais mais do que com os símbolos.

O que a PETA quer dizer é que a Igreja não faz o suficiente em prol desta causa. Faz todo o sentido, não vejo a fazer nada, nem pelos animais, nem por outras causas que bem dela precisam. Perderam mais uma oportunidade de estarem calados.

P.S. Esta moça é pródiga neste tipo de campanhas, reparem nesta: