Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair

I used to really like Miley Cyrus. I like her music, and I liked that she was a good role model for kids and dressed in stylish, cute clothes without trying to be sexy or inappropriate. But now that I've seen the "topless" picture of her in Vanity Fair, I'm not so sure. For anyone who doesn't know, Miley did a photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz, and in one of the pictures she seems to be wearing nothing but a white sheet. It's not clear if she's actually wearing clothes under the sheet or not, but either way the photo is completely inappropriate, especially considering that she's only 15 years old!

I have never been a fan of Vanity Fair or Leibovitz's photography - they seem to sexualize things way too much. That magazine has way too many nude pictures of celebrities, and a couple of years ago they did a shoot of Dakota Fanning, who was only 11, wearing very mature dresses and making adult poses and facial expressions. Apparently, photographing an 11-year-old nude was too inappropriate even for them, but I guess they think 15 is fine. The pictures of Miley are yet another sign that our society is trying to sexualize everything and everyone, at younger and younger ages. Leibovitz can call her photos art, but if they are, they are definitely not my kind of art.

The good thing is that Miley has apologized for the photo and seems to regret it. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she said. I hope Miley's apology is sincere and that she doesn't do anything like this again. Maybe there's still hope for her...

Judge says no to Entwistle jury expert

Double-murder suspect Neil Entwistle recently asked for $5,000 to hire a jury consultant for his upcoming trial, and the judge in the case turned the request down. The judge's decision was certainly a reasonable one, but what wasn't reasonable, in my opinion, were the comments made about Entwistle's request by Jane Doe, Inc., a Massachusetts coalition of groups that advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Toni Troop, a spokeswoman for Jane Doe, said "It's a slap in the face ... Where’s the balance for protection of victims? We’re backing costly cases while cutting domestic violence programs in Massachusetts."

Warning, this is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but it's true: Troop's comment does not make much sense at all. Jane Doe recently asked for a $10 million budget increase. That $10 million would come entirely from the taxpayers' pockets. I don't want to be disrespectful of the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but come on. $10 million is a LOT of money. A heck of a lot more than $5,000. The role of the government should be to maintain the roads, provide for a police force and army, try accused criminals fairly, and punish those who are found guilty. It is not the government's job to steal money from people and use it to create social programs.

What I don't understand is how someone can ask for $10 million and then call it "a slap in the face" when another person asks for $5,000. What is the problem with making sure everyone gets a fair trial? The evidence against Entwistle is pretty strong, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If the judge ruled that a jury expert is not necessary to have a fair trial, fine. But Neil Entwistle has every right to have a publicly funded legal team.

Contrary to Ms. Troop's opinion, there is a "balance for protection of victims." It's called the legal system. Domestic violence is illegal, and if there is sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime they are arrested, tried, and if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, convicted.

Jane Doe should not complain that the government plans to cut its budget by $1 million. The state budget has ballooned out of control and needs to be cut drastically. Social programs like Jane Doe are not as essential to preserving people's freedom (which is the purpose of government) as making sure the legal process is fair and just. If you want the already gargantuan state budget to increase by $10 million to fund your organization, you have no right to complain when a defendant asks for a modest $5,000 to help him get a fair trial.

By the way, isn't it a little sexist that the organization is called Jane Doe? Can't men be victims too??

Sources:
"Advocates, kin fight $1M in proposed cuts" - Boston Herald
"Entwistle $$ request infuriates advocates" - Boston Herald

Calm down, J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling is trying to stop the publication of a Harry Potter encyclopedia, arguing that it violates her intellectual property rights. The author of the book is Steve Vander Ark, the man behind the awesome site, the Harry Potter Lexicon. I think it's a shame that Rowling is suing one of her biggest fans. She calls the book "nothing more than a rearrangement" of her own writing, but I don't see how that could be true. Vander Ark's book is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is by necessity very different than a novel. Instead of being told as a story, an encyclopedia presents things in a more factual, organized manner with sections on individual people, objects, and events. Vander Ark's book seems like it would use Rowling's material in a highly transformative manner, to create something entirely different from Rowling's series of books. Additionally, there's no way Vander Ark's book would harm the market value of the Harry Potter series, since the encyclopedia is presumably geared to fans who have already read the books, not as a replacement for them. I think Vander Ark's encyclopedia is within the guidelines of fair use, and it would be a shame if it was not allowed to be published.

Obama's "bitter" comments

Probably just about everyone has heard about Barack Obama's comments about "bitter" working-class Pennsylvanians who "cling to guns and religion." I think I'm going to have to side with Hillary Clinton and the other Obama detractors on this one. Clinton said that people support the Second Amendment because they "believe it's a matter of constitutional right" and that people are religious because they "believe it's a matter of personal faith." I completely agree with her. People don't support gun-ownership rights and believe in God because they feel threatened and blindly stick to what is familiar. They believe what they believe because they think it's the right thing to do. Obama shouldn't dismiss people who disagree with him by saying that they are just "bitter" and need "a way to explain their frustrations."

Here is the excerpt in question from Obama's speech:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Source: CNN

Prosecutors seek Entwistle's gambling records

According to several news reports, it seems that Neil Entwistle was into online gambling in the month before the murders of his wife and baby. Prosecutors are seeking records from a Gibraltar-based website called Casino On Net, where Entwistle allegedly opened an account on December 15, 2005. He must have been hoping to win some money to alleviate his financial woes, but it didn't work: records say he lost hundreds of dollars in the month before the slayings.

An interesting note: the articles I've seen say that Entwistle is in the Middlesex Jail in Cambridge, which means the inmates must not have moved to Woburn with the Superior Court. I was wondering where they were going to put all the inmates, since I heard there are only a few dozen cells in the Woburn facility.

Source: The Worksop Guardian

Fun tax facts

Sorry for not blogging in a while! Today I just wanted to plug what I think is a really important cause. In Massachusetts, there is a citizen initiative to end the state income tax, and it actually has a good chance of succeeding. Abolishing the income tax will be a question on the November 2008 ballot. According to a poll by the State House News Service, 46% of Massachusetts residents oppose ending the income tax, but 45% support it. If you think government is too big but think abolishing the income tax might be going too far, here are a few facts that might persuade you otherwise:

• The income tax makes up only 39% of the state budget, so the government would still be left with over half of its current budget
• Ending the income tax would bring the state budget back to its 1995 level
• Between 1990 and 2007, the population of Massachusetts grew by 8.3%, but state and local government spending more than doubled
• If the income tax is abolished, every resident would save, on average, $3600 each year

So if you live in Massachusetts, vote to end the income tax! Here are a couple of great links if you want to learn more about the initiative:

• http://www.smallgovernmentact.org/
• http://pledge.april15moneybomb.com/ - Tax Day Money Bomb - donate to help end the income tax!