Beer Can Hill

Choose Privacy Week Video from 20K Films on Vimeo.

I’m receiving some questionable comments and emails from people who are interested in the Michelle McGee media circus.

Beer Can Hill is not a celebrity gossip site. I do not interview people for profit and it’s important to me that the people I interact with trust me and my site. I believe that consenting adults are free to live their lives as they see fit, and hopefully learn from their errors when they make them.

I also do not involve myself in the feuds between well-known tattooed women, and I don’t participate in them myself. That kind of crap hurts the tattooed community, and it’s childish. I have no hatred or animosity towards any tattooed public figure, and this is simply because I do not believe everything that I hear or read.

Tattoos and body modification should have nothing to do with negative social politics. Michelle McGee’s tattoos have nothing to do with her alleged personal choices and decisions. Tattoos do not cause women to become sexually aggressive husband poachers. Also? This is 2010. Men are responsible for their own behavior.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="460" caption="photo from ShockMansion.com interview."][/caption]

I hope that the people who are involved in this mess learn from their mistakes and get help for their problems, because I believe that this type of chaos and misery is unnecessary.

For more information, see this site.

“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

source.

Warner Brothers is releasing a movie called The Orphan this coming Friday. From what I understand, it’s about a family that adopts a foreign orphan who is, in some form or another, possessed or otherwise the spawn of Satan.

The film’s existence has caused an uproar within pro-adoption groups such as the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, The Christian Alliance For Orphans, The Dave Thomas Foundation For Adoption, The National Council For Adoption, and The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. These groups are demanding that the film be boycotted and have sent complaints to Warner Brothers. One of their petitions states that “[the film] may impede recruitment efforts by feeding into the unconscious fears of potential foster and adoptive families that orphaned children are psychotic and unable to heal from the wounds of abuse, neglect, and abandonment.”

The Christian Alliance For Orphans has even made a website dedicated to doing away with the film.

I have no inherent prejudice against adoption, foster families, or orphans. I do think that adopting a child is a good thing under the right circumstances. But I also think that this boycott is ridiculous.

For one thing, these groups are assuming that people will watch the film and automatically become convinced that adoption is dangerous and other people’s children are evil. I’m inclined to argue that if a person is so lacking in common sense that he or she comes to this conclusion after watching a fictional horror movie, they probably are not a good candidate for parenthood to be begin with. Surely common sense, reasoning, and maturity should come in to play if you’re going to become a parent and/or adopt a child (hold the celebrity jokes please).

For another thing, I don’t think it’s right for adoption advocates to insist that adoption and fostering is all sunshine and roses for everyone involved. I don’t see how it could possibly be easy or even always enjoyable to adopt a child that’s been removed from an abusive situation. It would take a special person to help a child through something like that and let’s face it, not everyone is special. Horror movies aside, it’s still unrealistic and misleading to project this idea that adoption is always a happy ending and will “complete” any family.

I’m wondering if the film would actually help orphans by weeding out the incompetent idiots who would only make their lives worse. Shouldn’t people be thinking about whether or not they can deal with a child with psychological issues before they have one? Shouldn’t they also be thinking about how this could affect the children that they already have? I say yes.

I think it’s ridiculous to scapegoat Warner Brothers for projected “recruitment loss”. Indeed, adoption is typically a more favorable solution to unwanted children than orphanages or foster homes. But we’re still failing to address why there are so many unwanted children.

I’ve noticed a trend in North American families that I don’t like. People in our culture seem to have very unrealistic expectations about what parenthood entails, and, as a result, we have a whole lot of dysfunctional families and overall unhappiness. Just because you can have a child – and by “have” I mean either bear OR adopt – doesn’t always mean you should. I don’t personally believe that parenthood is for everyone, and I also don’t believe that every adult should adopt a child. There are certainly other issues about parenthood that need to be taken seriously more so than censoring what I choose to view at the movie theater.

If something doesn’t make sense, then I know I’m not being presented with all of the facts. I can’t figure out what’s going on with Kimberley Vlaeminc and her claim that Rouslan Toumaniantz tattooed her face against her will.

I’ve noticed that Toumaniantz blames Vlaeminc’s father for her sudden change of heart. Some sources say that her father was waiting outside of the shop while she was tattooed, others state he was at home. In my experience, a parent or significant other’s negative reaction to a tattoo can affect a young person’s feelings about their decision. I have to wonder if Vlaeminc was trying to emulate Kat Von D and didn’t fully consider how having a tattooed face can affect her life.

I don’t see a total of 56 stars on Vlaeminc’s face. I’ve also noticed that different media photos and footage of her show the tattoos on different sides of her face. Is it all some kind of hoax?

Notice her lack of eye contact and passive posture when she talks about what transpired. I don’t know about you, but if somebody tattooed my face against my will I’d be looking pretty pissed off when speaking about it.

I don’t believe that she slept through having her face tattooed, unless if she was under the influence. I haven’t read anything about Vlaeminc signing a waiver to be tattooed either.

It also doesn’t make sense for somebody in Toumaniantz’s profession to go “above & beyond” on a piece that involves somebody’s face. I don’t know very much about European tattoo etiquette or customs, but a reputable tattoo artist in the USA wouldn’t have agreed to tattoo an 18 year old’s face (or her neck or hands either for that matter). I think Toumaniantz knows he messed up too, because now the media is reporting that he’s offered to help pay for laser removal.

I continue to be amazed at people who don’t comprehend that tattoos are permanent and then don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions. I was panhandled with this crap via MySpace the other day and I told the woman in question exactly what I thought about her campaign: I think it’s ridiculous and she should pay for her own tattoo removal. I generally don’t think other people should pay for someone else’s tattoo removal. If you paid for a tattoo, you can pay to fix it.

I believe that if I get a tattoo and I hate it, then it’s my responsibility to either communicate with that artist about fixing it, go to another artist for a cover-up, or pay for the removal myself. Otherwise, I perpetuate the stereotypes and make myself look like an irresponsible jack ass.

There is no intelligence or maturity test to be passed before going under the needle, and I am not implying that there should be. But I implore tattoo artists and other people in the industry to be ethical and responsible with their customers, particularly the ‘barely legal’ crowd.