Fourth post of the day! Woo hoo! A quickie this time around, though.
Just wanted to say that my boy, Alton Brown is getting parodied in a Burger King commercial. You know you've made it when a fast food franchise thinks you're an appropriate subject for a commercial. Its kind of annoying, since its such a stupid ad, but its pretty much the definitive proof of pop culture status, so big ups to Alton for the parody. You've made it!
(yeah, I know I just called a tv host my "boy". Just trying to mix it up a bit and bring bad use of slang from 3 years ago to the blog)
CORRECTION
Well, turns out I was seeing what I wanted to in the Burger King commercial. They had another ad which featured Food Network's Rachel Ray which made me re-examine my assumpsion that the ad was a mimic of Alton. Turns out, the chef included is a Rick Bayless, a well-known chef and author from Chicago who has a show on PBS which basically does the whole take you through a market thing. Which is hardly Alton's trademark or something unheard of for a food show.
d'oh!
So, my apologies for jumping the gun on this one. Although, am I the only one who thinks its a little unseemly for TV chefs to be endorsing a fast food restaurant?
10.06.2003
cult of jared gets more obvious
You know, I'm actually glad that Subway sandwiches suck, because otherwise I might be pissed off at their continually insulting ad campaign featuring Jared. The series has built him up as a literal cult figure with worshipers and everything. That's why I've identified them as the "Cult of Jared" ads. The obsessive adoration of Jared has just been really disturbing, but obviously with the general adoration of weight loss in our society, most people don't see that.
It'll be tough to miss it now.
The latest duel campaign from Subway makes the religous nature of their product unmistakable. For starters, there are the "It's okay, I had Subway" ads. I didn't really see this as much until I found an article at Slate that was seeing this the same way I was. I know I found the ads vaugely objectionable and stupid, but frankly Slate is right. They are treating their product as a redemption. Sure, its a joke, but how much of one? You have to wonder after seeing the ads Jared is staring.
What Would Jared Do?
You know, like Jesus.
Ugh. Yeah, its played for laughs, but after years of their Adoration of the Dieter, I have to wonder. When we start seeing stained glass windows at Subway, I think we really need to start worrying.
It'll be tough to miss it now.
The latest duel campaign from Subway makes the religous nature of their product unmistakable. For starters, there are the "It's okay, I had Subway" ads. I didn't really see this as much until I found an article at Slate that was seeing this the same way I was. I know I found the ads vaugely objectionable and stupid, but frankly Slate is right. They are treating their product as a redemption. Sure, its a joke, but how much of one? You have to wonder after seeing the ads Jared is staring.
What Would Jared Do?
You know, like Jesus.
Ugh. Yeah, its played for laughs, but after years of their Adoration of the Dieter, I have to wonder. When we start seeing stained glass windows at Subway, I think we really need to start worrying.
giant inflatable cartoon character balloon season
I have another thing to add to the list of things I don't get. These big, front yard, holiday balloons. Just started last year, didn't it? With those big ugly pumpkins on Halloween followed up by Santa's and reighndeer and snowmen for Christmas. It was cute the first time I saw one. Significantly less so the next 50 times.
But, they're back. And it seems the valuable cartoon character liscences are getting in on the action. On my way to work, I saw an 8 foot tall Winnie the Pooh dressed up as Dracula with his arms stretched out and his cape unfurled.
Yeah, I don't get that.
I mean, I have issues with Disney properties, anyway (although the REAL owners of Winnie and friends are about to put some legal smackdown on Eisner and friends) but who puts down $50 to $100 (sorry, its apparently $80. $80!) for one of these monstrocities? Its just scary, but not in a Halloween kind of scary but more Governor Terminator kind of scary. I just don't get it. I mean, other holiday fads have come and been played out before the next holiday arrives. Icicle Lights, for instance. Remember how awe-inspiring those were at first site and how fast you were sick of them? But at least I understood them. Inflatable lawn ornaments just scare me.
But, they're back. And it seems the valuable cartoon character liscences are getting in on the action. On my way to work, I saw an 8 foot tall Winnie the Pooh dressed up as Dracula with his arms stretched out and his cape unfurled.
Yeah, I don't get that.
I mean, I have issues with Disney properties, anyway (although the REAL owners of Winnie and friends are about to put some legal smackdown on Eisner and friends) but who puts down $50 to $100 (sorry, its apparently $80. $80!) for one of these monstrocities? Its just scary, but not in a Halloween kind of scary but more Governor Terminator kind of scary. I just don't get it. I mean, other holiday fads have come and been played out before the next holiday arrives. Icicle Lights, for instance. Remember how awe-inspiring those were at first site and how fast you were sick of them? But at least I understood them. Inflatable lawn ornaments just scare me.
definitely have to post. definitely.
The scum bags from the hate site are making it MUCH easier to laugh at them. Aside from their ever present hypocritical blather ("How dare you not think what I think" followed quickly upon by "How dare you not let me think what I think") their personal attacks against me are getting increasingly bizarre.
It started over at the hate site with mocking some poem I think I wrote when I was 16 which I would be the first to admit was bad. Took about a second for their arguement to devolve into spelling flames, long the last refuge of the moronic. They also started trolling this blog for "proof" of what an awful person I was. Like how I was obsessing about junk food in my first post. Well, actually, it was my second post but I'm sure it seemed much more dramatic to lie and say it was my first. Of course, I also brought up DVD's and action figures in that post and it was intentionally frivelous to begin with, but I guess it "proves" that I'm a gluttonous monster of some sort when I really present myself as eating healthy all the time. You'd think I would have known better than to betray such a lie in my own blog. Well, if I ever claimed to eat health all the time, that is. I've usually be honest to a fault about my eating. Am I perfect? By no means, but I can still see that the numbers just don't add up. By strict formula, I shouldn't be the weight that I am. And that's as someone who admittedly doesn't eat "right" all of the time and isn't really all that fat. When I see much greater challenges to the math than what I even see in my own life, I am quite rightly skeptical of that. But, that's too much to respond to, I guess, so the rewrote my position so they could respond to it in a pity manner.
Things got really funny over here, though, when one of the most obnoxious and violent of the hate mongers tried to "expose" my hypocracy. Now, strictly speaking, he was pointing out an inconsistancy of fact, which is not hypocritical by any definition. He seemed to have spent quite a lot of time digging through Usenet postings and elsewhere and was apparently quite proud of himself for exposing me. You see, he found one instance where I said I was thin, and then another instance where I said I was fat. Goodness, what a hypocrite I am!
Of course, the statements were made a good 6-7 years apart. And both were 100% accurate when they were made. Basically, his "hypocracy" was akin to saying that in 1996 I claimed to be 18 years old, yet today I claim to be 25 and then accusing me of lying.
The funniest thing, though, is the discovery, much to my surprise, that I suffer from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder likened to autism. After all, they think they read it somewhere, so that makes it an appropriate topic of discussion.
I must be quite the success story, then. Asperger's is identified by poor social skills, an extreme discomfort in social situatins, a general lack of social awareness or nuance in language, limitations in imagination and creativity, physical awkwardness, difficulty in writing and math, obsessive compulsice, etc.
Funny that being socially inept hasn't kept me from holding a job which involves public speaking 20 times a year. Funny that it didn't keep me from being elected to national office in a student organization covering the only national system of colleges and universities. Difficulty in math didn't keep me from taking two years of calculus in high school. Difficulty with creativity hasn't kept me from singing at the White House, staring in school plays, or writing a play. My problem certainly isn't that I am obsessive compulsive, but a classic "Jack of all trades, master of none". I was a chronic underachiever in college, hardly the brilliant eccentric classified by Asperger's. And though I admit that I suck at athletics, my physical akwardness hasn't kept me from holding my own in a dance number or two in my time. And my job is hardly the kind of obsessive, literal work that a person with Asperger's can excell at. My job is primarily creative in nature.
But, this guy read it somewhere, so I guess its true. Just wish someone bothered to tell me at some point in the last 25 years. You'd think that I'd have known if I was autistic, but I guess not.
It started over at the hate site with mocking some poem I think I wrote when I was 16 which I would be the first to admit was bad. Took about a second for their arguement to devolve into spelling flames, long the last refuge of the moronic. They also started trolling this blog for "proof" of what an awful person I was. Like how I was obsessing about junk food in my first post. Well, actually, it was my second post but I'm sure it seemed much more dramatic to lie and say it was my first. Of course, I also brought up DVD's and action figures in that post and it was intentionally frivelous to begin with, but I guess it "proves" that I'm a gluttonous monster of some sort when I really present myself as eating healthy all the time. You'd think I would have known better than to betray such a lie in my own blog. Well, if I ever claimed to eat health all the time, that is. I've usually be honest to a fault about my eating. Am I perfect? By no means, but I can still see that the numbers just don't add up. By strict formula, I shouldn't be the weight that I am. And that's as someone who admittedly doesn't eat "right" all of the time and isn't really all that fat. When I see much greater challenges to the math than what I even see in my own life, I am quite rightly skeptical of that. But, that's too much to respond to, I guess, so the rewrote my position so they could respond to it in a pity manner.
Things got really funny over here, though, when one of the most obnoxious and violent of the hate mongers tried to "expose" my hypocracy. Now, strictly speaking, he was pointing out an inconsistancy of fact, which is not hypocritical by any definition. He seemed to have spent quite a lot of time digging through Usenet postings and elsewhere and was apparently quite proud of himself for exposing me. You see, he found one instance where I said I was thin, and then another instance where I said I was fat. Goodness, what a hypocrite I am!
Of course, the statements were made a good 6-7 years apart. And both were 100% accurate when they were made. Basically, his "hypocracy" was akin to saying that in 1996 I claimed to be 18 years old, yet today I claim to be 25 and then accusing me of lying.
The funniest thing, though, is the discovery, much to my surprise, that I suffer from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder likened to autism. After all, they think they read it somewhere, so that makes it an appropriate topic of discussion.
I must be quite the success story, then. Asperger's is identified by poor social skills, an extreme discomfort in social situatins, a general lack of social awareness or nuance in language, limitations in imagination and creativity, physical awkwardness, difficulty in writing and math, obsessive compulsice, etc.
Funny that being socially inept hasn't kept me from holding a job which involves public speaking 20 times a year. Funny that it didn't keep me from being elected to national office in a student organization covering the only national system of colleges and universities. Difficulty in math didn't keep me from taking two years of calculus in high school. Difficulty with creativity hasn't kept me from singing at the White House, staring in school plays, or writing a play. My problem certainly isn't that I am obsessive compulsive, but a classic "Jack of all trades, master of none". I was a chronic underachiever in college, hardly the brilliant eccentric classified by Asperger's. And though I admit that I suck at athletics, my physical akwardness hasn't kept me from holding my own in a dance number or two in my time. And my job is hardly the kind of obsessive, literal work that a person with Asperger's can excell at. My job is primarily creative in nature.
But, this guy read it somewhere, so I guess its true. Just wish someone bothered to tell me at some point in the last 25 years. You'd think that I'd have known if I was autistic, but I guess not.
10.05.2003
i can watch tom jackson again!
Can't say how pleased I was to be able to leave on ESPN this morning to watch the Sunday NFL countdown. I haven't watched it all season for one very offensive reason who finally got himself into enough trouble to get himself fired. Oh, sorry, I mean offered his resignation in a way which had absolutely nothing to do with him being fired and humiliating him and going for the usual save face offered his resignation thing.
Yep, Rush is off ESPN.
I'm surprised it took him this long to stick his foot into his mouth. He said something VERY predictably racist. His defenders keep insisting its not racist, but bullshit. Oh sure, he was "really" attacking the liberal sports media. (Liberal sports media?!?) Yeah, right. He assumed that the accomplishments of a black man couldn't possibly be true and had to be the result of some big conspiracy that desires a successful black quarterback. He injected race into a situation it had NO business being brought up, for the purpose of discrediting the accomplishments of a black man. Damn right, that's racist.
The object of his attacks, Donovan McNaab, had responded with utter civility. He has handled himself remarkably well after having his ability question in such a disgusting manner. I've watched Donavan since college when he played for my alma mater's conference rival, Syracuse. The guy has the goods, and has put together more than a few MVP caliber seasons in his still young career. Might he be overrated? Maybe, but it sure as hell isn't because of his race. He's also consistantly impressed as a man of great dignity and sincerity and he's impressed us all with his actions this past week. He's a class act, unlike Rush.
The actual Football experts who shared the show with Rush were attacked several times this past week for not standing up to Rush's vile remarks. Appropriately, they opened the show with a sincere apology and explanation. Simply put, they were focused on doing their job and commenting on football. Rush's social commentary didn't really register. I can understand that. I got the impression that none of them were happy with Rush's inclusion on the show, but they were repeatedly reassured that he's keep his social agenda off ESPN. They heard him say McNaab was overrated and started thinking how to respond to that. They just didn't grasp the complete point he was making until they'd already set themselves to refuting his basic point. Afterwards, they were rightly disgusted and probably had a lot to do with ESPN asking Rush to leave.
I was skeptical from the start that Rush wouldn't keep his mouth shut, but besides that, I was deeply offended that ESPN would hire someone who expresses such contempt and hatred for people who have the same ideas and values as myself. With him on the show, I wanted no part in it. I'm glad to be able to return, but still very disgusted with ESPN. This is very much like MsNBC's past situation with hate-monger Michael Savage when they were stunned that he did all the things he did before they hired him. Rush's remarks are NO surprise, and the people at ESPN and its parent company, Disney, should be ashamed of themselves. But he's gone, and has the duel embarassment of being investigated for rather massive and serious charges of drug abuse. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
But, I'll stop talking about sports now. Its one of my quirks. In spite of being an artsy type (though not quite a metrosexual), I've always enjoyed watching some sports. Mostly baseball, as football is too obviously cheering for clothes, but its not like much else is on Sundays.
Yep, Rush is off ESPN.
I'm surprised it took him this long to stick his foot into his mouth. He said something VERY predictably racist. His defenders keep insisting its not racist, but bullshit. Oh sure, he was "really" attacking the liberal sports media. (Liberal sports media?!?) Yeah, right. He assumed that the accomplishments of a black man couldn't possibly be true and had to be the result of some big conspiracy that desires a successful black quarterback. He injected race into a situation it had NO business being brought up, for the purpose of discrediting the accomplishments of a black man. Damn right, that's racist.
The object of his attacks, Donovan McNaab, had responded with utter civility. He has handled himself remarkably well after having his ability question in such a disgusting manner. I've watched Donavan since college when he played for my alma mater's conference rival, Syracuse. The guy has the goods, and has put together more than a few MVP caliber seasons in his still young career. Might he be overrated? Maybe, but it sure as hell isn't because of his race. He's also consistantly impressed as a man of great dignity and sincerity and he's impressed us all with his actions this past week. He's a class act, unlike Rush.
The actual Football experts who shared the show with Rush were attacked several times this past week for not standing up to Rush's vile remarks. Appropriately, they opened the show with a sincere apology and explanation. Simply put, they were focused on doing their job and commenting on football. Rush's social commentary didn't really register. I can understand that. I got the impression that none of them were happy with Rush's inclusion on the show, but they were repeatedly reassured that he's keep his social agenda off ESPN. They heard him say McNaab was overrated and started thinking how to respond to that. They just didn't grasp the complete point he was making until they'd already set themselves to refuting his basic point. Afterwards, they were rightly disgusted and probably had a lot to do with ESPN asking Rush to leave.
I was skeptical from the start that Rush wouldn't keep his mouth shut, but besides that, I was deeply offended that ESPN would hire someone who expresses such contempt and hatred for people who have the same ideas and values as myself. With him on the show, I wanted no part in it. I'm glad to be able to return, but still very disgusted with ESPN. This is very much like MsNBC's past situation with hate-monger Michael Savage when they were stunned that he did all the things he did before they hired him. Rush's remarks are NO surprise, and the people at ESPN and its parent company, Disney, should be ashamed of themselves. But he's gone, and has the duel embarassment of being investigated for rather massive and serious charges of drug abuse. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
But, I'll stop talking about sports now. Its one of my quirks. In spite of being an artsy type (though not quite a metrosexual), I've always enjoyed watching some sports. Mostly baseball, as football is too obviously cheering for clothes, but its not like much else is on Sundays.
10.03.2003
you mean, they don't die at 35?!?
So I am back from a concert featuring two dynamic, extraordinary, energetic sopranos.
Oh, and they were also 70 year old fat women.
Just wanted to say that.
Oh, and they were also 70 year old fat women.
Just wanted to say that.
10.02.2003
movie review: lost in translation
On to happier subjects. And yes, I know more people urged the novel subject, but I didn't want to do it while the trolls are still bothering us. But, yes, I am considering NaNo, although I have deep concerns about my ability to write fiction. But I do want to talk it out a bit, and I'll get to that eventually.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
fat acceptance in life
Sorry, I know I promised a reader's choice, and I will get to that later (movie review of Lost in Translation, by the way, and yes I know I am creatively counting the votes) but I just wanted to discuss a little more fat acceptance before moving on.
Something that bothers me the most about the trolls who are going after NAAFA is that they make out NAAFA to be in intolerant. Why? Because we believe differently than them. That's it. That is what they twist into hatred of them. Because we believe differently. They feel we shouldn't be allowed to have our own site to discuss our beliefs. They think we have to constantly be forced to justify ourselves to the people who disagree with us, and naturally no justification will suffice. After all, we're wrong. We can't justify ourselves. We are promoting "lies".
So, what they are saying is that WE can't have our opinion. They show no respect for our beliefs. They insult them in the harshest of language, and then act like the problem is that we aren't open to different ideas. It is a sickeningly hypocritical position, and rightly earns the anger of those they are telling to shut up.
Then the respond by saying that we "hate" them. The people who call us liars, who insult our intelligence, who say we have no right to our beleifs, and we are the ones who hate them. But, every fat activist has to go through every day of their life with countless people who don't agree with us. How could we possibly get by if we were so intolerant to disagreement?
The truth is, we accept disagreement. We understand it. I mean, if their weren't people to disagree with us, their would be no us. But, most people who disagree with us at least respect that disagreement on some basic level. They may not like what we believe. No more than we like what they believe. But, they won't act like we don't have a right to our beliefs. They won't act condesending and obsessive about the fact that we disagree with them. And we don't do so in return. If someone doesn't like my beliefs, that's fine. I don't like dieting, after all. I find it really sad that some people feel they have no option but to lose weight. I think it is sad that they think this is the answer, because I know they will be disappointed and I know their is a better way. But they don't have to agree with me, any more than I should have to agree with them. All I ask is for respect for the disagreement.
Some, however, cannot offer that. And that's where the trolls come from. They cannot accept that people have different opinions than they do. They cannot tolerate this disagreement. That's really sad, but it also makes me angry. My committment to fat acceptance has been a profoundly positive force in my life and the lives of many others. How dare they say that we have no right to this. They don't have to agree. They can disagree with all the passion I show. But don't come to our sites just to condemn us for having these opinions and try to shame us for not endorsing weight loss. My problem with the trolls isn't that they believe differently from me, although they like to pretend that is the case. Its that they cannot let me believe differently from them. I've never gone to a weight loss support group to bash its participants for wanting to lose weight. I know what they are feeling. I don't like it, but I won't condemn them. But, when you come to my support forum to take cheap shots at my beliefs, that is just unacceptible and intollerant and I can't accept that.
None of us goes through life seething with rage against dieters. We are committed to fighting the culture of dieting and those who promote it and those who wish to destroy us for believing differently. But, we've all had to make our peace with dealing with such individuals. I have plenty of friends trying to lose weight. They know how I feel about it. I don't bother them about it, and they don't bother me. Its just respect. And when someone doesn't offer that, you're damn right I'll get mad. Respect our right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but respect that we get to have them. Don't act like we committ some great offense by having come to different conclusions than you. If you do act like that, you have no right to act all stunned. What you should be is ashamed of yourselves. Not for the difference of opinion, but for your hypocritical intolerance for us just having a different opinion. We all get along just fine with weight loss supporters every day of our lives. Its really just YOU who we have a problem with.
All right, I've said my peace. Now, on to Bill Murray.
Something that bothers me the most about the trolls who are going after NAAFA is that they make out NAAFA to be in intolerant. Why? Because we believe differently than them. That's it. That is what they twist into hatred of them. Because we believe differently. They feel we shouldn't be allowed to have our own site to discuss our beliefs. They think we have to constantly be forced to justify ourselves to the people who disagree with us, and naturally no justification will suffice. After all, we're wrong. We can't justify ourselves. We are promoting "lies".
So, what they are saying is that WE can't have our opinion. They show no respect for our beliefs. They insult them in the harshest of language, and then act like the problem is that we aren't open to different ideas. It is a sickeningly hypocritical position, and rightly earns the anger of those they are telling to shut up.
Then the respond by saying that we "hate" them. The people who call us liars, who insult our intelligence, who say we have no right to our beleifs, and we are the ones who hate them. But, every fat activist has to go through every day of their life with countless people who don't agree with us. How could we possibly get by if we were so intolerant to disagreement?
The truth is, we accept disagreement. We understand it. I mean, if their weren't people to disagree with us, their would be no us. But, most people who disagree with us at least respect that disagreement on some basic level. They may not like what we believe. No more than we like what they believe. But, they won't act like we don't have a right to our beliefs. They won't act condesending and obsessive about the fact that we disagree with them. And we don't do so in return. If someone doesn't like my beliefs, that's fine. I don't like dieting, after all. I find it really sad that some people feel they have no option but to lose weight. I think it is sad that they think this is the answer, because I know they will be disappointed and I know their is a better way. But they don't have to agree with me, any more than I should have to agree with them. All I ask is for respect for the disagreement.
Some, however, cannot offer that. And that's where the trolls come from. They cannot accept that people have different opinions than they do. They cannot tolerate this disagreement. That's really sad, but it also makes me angry. My committment to fat acceptance has been a profoundly positive force in my life and the lives of many others. How dare they say that we have no right to this. They don't have to agree. They can disagree with all the passion I show. But don't come to our sites just to condemn us for having these opinions and try to shame us for not endorsing weight loss. My problem with the trolls isn't that they believe differently from me, although they like to pretend that is the case. Its that they cannot let me believe differently from them. I've never gone to a weight loss support group to bash its participants for wanting to lose weight. I know what they are feeling. I don't like it, but I won't condemn them. But, when you come to my support forum to take cheap shots at my beliefs, that is just unacceptible and intollerant and I can't accept that.
None of us goes through life seething with rage against dieters. We are committed to fighting the culture of dieting and those who promote it and those who wish to destroy us for believing differently. But, we've all had to make our peace with dealing with such individuals. I have plenty of friends trying to lose weight. They know how I feel about it. I don't bother them about it, and they don't bother me. Its just respect. And when someone doesn't offer that, you're damn right I'll get mad. Respect our right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but respect that we get to have them. Don't act like we committ some great offense by having come to different conclusions than you. If you do act like that, you have no right to act all stunned. What you should be is ashamed of yourselves. Not for the difference of opinion, but for your hypocritical intolerance for us just having a different opinion. We all get along just fine with weight loss supporters every day of our lives. Its really just YOU who we have a problem with.
All right, I've said my peace. Now, on to Bill Murray.
feeling sick
I've been feeling sick pretty much all day, for all the wrong reasons. You might get an idea if you see my altered request below. The violent hatred some people feel towards people who don't agree them just stuns me. I'll agressively disagree with someone, but I generally try to keep on the ideas, or the tactics of the person. I'm not saying I've never gone personal, but usually only after being fed up with someone else's personal attacks. But I can't stand people who demand I accept their opinion, and when I don't, they accuse me of forcing my opinion on them. Its tough, because those kinds of actions just are outside any concept of logic. Hypocritical people are impossible to deal with rationally, because they've already decided their ideology overrules even basic consistancy. They bash my beliefs but then they accuse me of being "intolerant" for not appreciating them coming into a forum for something they hate to bash my beliefs. I mean, I know these people have to rationalize their actions somehow, but whatever perverted logic is employed is just beyond me. But it frustrates me that I put myself out in the line of fire for an organization that has no interest in preventing even the most violent haters from participating.
The only good thing is the I know join the select company of Jennifer Portnick and Marilyn Wann as people who've had their death's fantasized about at a certain anti-fat hate-mongering board that's been set up. It may have hurt to see such hatred directed at me, but as Marilyn is fond of pointing out, it must mean I'm doing something right.
Sorry if this didn't make sense to any of you, but it was necessarily meant to. I just wanted to ramble on a bit. Thanks for listening. Oh, and any genuinely interested new readers I get in the next few days (not that I'm expecting any) you'll have to take my apology in advance if I get trigger happy and delete your comments. Please, just try again and be patient with me. This site address was posted at the same site where someone was fantasizing about my death, so I'm inclined to think some trolls might come this way. I, for one, have no tolerance for people using my site to attack me. They want to waste their time making up stories and hating me, they can do it on their own damn site. So, if I do get any innocent folks in the crossfires, please accept my apology and I hope you can be patient with me. Hatred is a bitch, but as disenchanted as I may be right now, I'm still not about to back down to people who just cannot tolerate someone having an opinion which isn't theirs.
Okay, enough ranting. I have to get ready to watch The Daily Show anyway. Thanks to all the good people out blog-land. I love ya! Seriously, now more than ever.
Oooh, and just to go out on a positive note, I've had some posts running around my head the last through days, so everybody leave your pick for my next topic in the comment field, and I will endeavor to oblige. The choices are:
Television Review of the NBC Sitcom, "Couplings"
Movie Review of "Lost in Translation"
Why male riders on mass transit suck
My thoughts on writing a novel
So, reader's choice! Lets get this puppy back on track.
The only good thing is the I know join the select company of Jennifer Portnick and Marilyn Wann as people who've had their death's fantasized about at a certain anti-fat hate-mongering board that's been set up. It may have hurt to see such hatred directed at me, but as Marilyn is fond of pointing out, it must mean I'm doing something right.
Sorry if this didn't make sense to any of you, but it was necessarily meant to. I just wanted to ramble on a bit. Thanks for listening. Oh, and any genuinely interested new readers I get in the next few days (not that I'm expecting any) you'll have to take my apology in advance if I get trigger happy and delete your comments. Please, just try again and be patient with me. This site address was posted at the same site where someone was fantasizing about my death, so I'm inclined to think some trolls might come this way. I, for one, have no tolerance for people using my site to attack me. They want to waste their time making up stories and hating me, they can do it on their own damn site. So, if I do get any innocent folks in the crossfires, please accept my apology and I hope you can be patient with me. Hatred is a bitch, but as disenchanted as I may be right now, I'm still not about to back down to people who just cannot tolerate someone having an opinion which isn't theirs.
Okay, enough ranting. I have to get ready to watch The Daily Show anyway. Thanks to all the good people out blog-land. I love ya! Seriously, now more than ever.
Oooh, and just to go out on a positive note, I've had some posts running around my head the last through days, so everybody leave your pick for my next topic in the comment field, and I will endeavor to oblige. The choices are:
Television Review of the NBC Sitcom, "Couplings"
Movie Review of "Lost in Translation"
Why male riders on mass transit suck
My thoughts on writing a novel
So, reader's choice! Lets get this puppy back on track.
10.01.2003
making nixon look good
The Bush Administation must be loving how the absurd election in California is distracting the public. They must be worried that the election is next week. Why? Because of the continued lack of WMD in Iraq? Because of the massive debt we're piling up? Because the tax cuts aren't working? No. There is actually something far more pressing than such problems.
A scandal.
You see, scandals inevitably get more attention that failings because they are easier identify and quantify. They are generally VERY straight-forward, and thus can be very damaging. And the White House has stepped in one that could make Watergate look like kid's play. Indeed, John Dean himself has suggested this is much worse than Nixon's dirty tricks, because Nixon never called out a hit on a political opponant's wife.
The Joesph Wilson affair is starting to really boil over. About damn time. This is the scandal where top White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to punish her husband who was going public with how he had debunked the infamouse Iraq buying Uranium from Africa thing. The greatest irony is that the agent seemed to have worked in the field of WMD.
So, just to step back for a moment, the White House blew the cover of a CIA opperative as an act of political revenge. They have identified a covert agent, using her maiden name, who dealt with one of the most sensitive issues the CIA deals with. They've put her life at risk, and more significantly, the lives of countless people who worked with the CIA on this important issue. Everything she ever worked on is now shot to hell. Just because the White House was angry that someone exposed their reliance of incorrect intelligence. If this breaks open, it will be huge. If they circle the wagons, though, it could easily go away.
It shouldn't. I sure hope it doesn't, too. Not just because I don't agree with the Administration in general, but because I am so disgusted that anyone in the White House could have done something THIS wrong. Yes, its criminal, but it also extremely immoral and even traitorous. The Administration is quick to attack its critics for being treasonous for being critical, yet they go and break federal law and put US Intelligence opperations in direct risk. This isn't some convuluted, "the enemy wants us to disagree" garbage. They broke the cover a CIA agent!
I'm not the best person to talk about this. I'd strongly suggest Talking Points Memo, as well as Slate and I'm sure countless other sites to learn more about what this all is about.
A scandal.
You see, scandals inevitably get more attention that failings because they are easier identify and quantify. They are generally VERY straight-forward, and thus can be very damaging. And the White House has stepped in one that could make Watergate look like kid's play. Indeed, John Dean himself has suggested this is much worse than Nixon's dirty tricks, because Nixon never called out a hit on a political opponant's wife.
The Joesph Wilson affair is starting to really boil over. About damn time. This is the scandal where top White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to punish her husband who was going public with how he had debunked the infamouse Iraq buying Uranium from Africa thing. The greatest irony is that the agent seemed to have worked in the field of WMD.
So, just to step back for a moment, the White House blew the cover of a CIA opperative as an act of political revenge. They have identified a covert agent, using her maiden name, who dealt with one of the most sensitive issues the CIA deals with. They've put her life at risk, and more significantly, the lives of countless people who worked with the CIA on this important issue. Everything she ever worked on is now shot to hell. Just because the White House was angry that someone exposed their reliance of incorrect intelligence. If this breaks open, it will be huge. If they circle the wagons, though, it could easily go away.
It shouldn't. I sure hope it doesn't, too. Not just because I don't agree with the Administration in general, but because I am so disgusted that anyone in the White House could have done something THIS wrong. Yes, its criminal, but it also extremely immoral and even traitorous. The Administration is quick to attack its critics for being treasonous for being critical, yet they go and break federal law and put US Intelligence opperations in direct risk. This isn't some convuluted, "the enemy wants us to disagree" garbage. They broke the cover a CIA agent!
I'm not the best person to talk about this. I'd strongly suggest Talking Points Memo, as well as Slate and I'm sure countless other sites to learn more about what this all is about.
9.29.2003
buddy, can you spare $20?
Read this in the New York Times this morning. (its from Sunday's paper) The US Government is pulling out all the stops to promote the forthcoming redesign for the $20 bill. Instead of the usual PSA's, they hired William Morris and having a full-on marketing and public relations plan, including product placement.
Product placement? For money?
I want to make fun of it, but its actually not a bad idea. Just funny to contemplate officials from the Treasury in pitch meetings with show-biz producers and writers trying to snag a guest spot for the $20 on an upcoming Law & Order. Still, this is the way to build awareness and get a lot more exposure for their money. The government usually does things the old way, so it is kinda refreshing to see the real beauracratic element of the Federal Govenment really thinking outside the cliched box for once.
Its also revealing to learn that when you see Letterman crack jokes about the $20, its not just irreverant humor. Its the product of a meeting the Government had with the show's writers. They wanted the new $20 to be made fun of, and pushed for it. Makes me wonder about some other odd topics that find their way into Late Night monologues. At least I can rest assured that The Daily Show wll do a hilarious bit on it. And that's apparently just what the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants.
And if it gets me blathering on about it in my blog, all the better.
Above product placement has not been paid for. hehe
Product placement? For money?
I want to make fun of it, but its actually not a bad idea. Just funny to contemplate officials from the Treasury in pitch meetings with show-biz producers and writers trying to snag a guest spot for the $20 on an upcoming Law & Order. Still, this is the way to build awareness and get a lot more exposure for their money. The government usually does things the old way, so it is kinda refreshing to see the real beauracratic element of the Federal Govenment really thinking outside the cliched box for once.
Its also revealing to learn that when you see Letterman crack jokes about the $20, its not just irreverant humor. Its the product of a meeting the Government had with the show's writers. They wanted the new $20 to be made fun of, and pushed for it. Makes me wonder about some other odd topics that find their way into Late Night monologues. At least I can rest assured that The Daily Show wll do a hilarious bit on it. And that's apparently just what the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants.
And if it gets me blathering on about it in my blog, all the better.
Above product placement has not been paid for. hehe
9.26.2003
doesn't anyone promote tv shows anymore?
In spite of being well aware of the premieres of every god-awful sitcom on the fall line-up, I seem to have managed to be completely unaware of the impending season premiere of the one show I bother to watch, Friends. Yeah, its a bit of a guilty pleasure, but the show has its merits. And its the final season, too! Man, how'd I miss it? I'm very disappointed in NBC.
Eager to avoid such a similiar fate with the other couple of shows I watch regularly anymore (and I actually like TV) I paid a visit to the beloved TWop and the less well known TeeVee. I swear, TeeVee has got some of the funniest television writing I've ever had the pleasure to read, and I highly recommend reading their archives. Today, they mock Boston Public's effort at a "ripped from the headlines" story that actually dates back 12 years by suggesting next week, they will cover the Rubix Cube. hehe. Also, in their annual effort to put odds on what horrid show will be the first to get canceled, they come up with some predictably funny stuff. Seems this year features a proliferation of CSI rip-off's. On the NBC series, Las Vagas, they suggest that it's pitch would have been "Its CSI: Miami, only in Las Vegas!" Man, that had me laughing. I know its bad form to just repeat jokes, but seriously, give TeeVee a try. They've got great instincts for television and are damn funny.
Eager to avoid such a similiar fate with the other couple of shows I watch regularly anymore (and I actually like TV) I paid a visit to the beloved TWop and the less well known TeeVee. I swear, TeeVee has got some of the funniest television writing I've ever had the pleasure to read, and I highly recommend reading their archives. Today, they mock Boston Public's effort at a "ripped from the headlines" story that actually dates back 12 years by suggesting next week, they will cover the Rubix Cube. hehe. Also, in their annual effort to put odds on what horrid show will be the first to get canceled, they come up with some predictably funny stuff. Seems this year features a proliferation of CSI rip-off's. On the NBC series, Las Vagas, they suggest that it's pitch would have been "Its CSI: Miami, only in Las Vegas!" Man, that had me laughing. I know its bad form to just repeat jokes, but seriously, give TeeVee a try. They've got great instincts for television and are damn funny.
9.23.2003
my weekend
Just in case anyone was curious, the above is what I spent my weekend doing. (images now deleted)
Okay, not doing as in performing, but I helped it happen so I think I'm owed some credit. hehe. It got international attention, which is obviously very cool, and I really enjoyed the production. But, I'm not going to babble on about it. Just wanted to mention it.
And yes, the women were flying. I might repost the images once the troll influx ends.
Okay, not doing as in performing, but I helped it happen so I think I'm owed some credit. hehe. It got international attention, which is obviously very cool, and I really enjoyed the production. But, I'm not going to babble on about it. Just wanted to mention it.
And yes, the women were flying. I might repost the images once the troll influx ends.
9.22.2003
the democratic ten
Keeping the serious political tone of my last post, I've been wanting to write my impressions of the field for the Democratic Nomination in 2004. I'll go over each of the nominees in ascending order of how seriously I, personally, am taking their candidacy. This won't be a very in-depth study. For that, I highly recommend Slate's Ballot Box feature. Just my own feelings here.
The Hopeless
BOB GRAHAM: Who? I mean, I follow politics and even I don't have much of a clue about this guy. I mean, I know his credentials, I just don't know what he stands for. Doesn't seem to be much to run on, though. I have heard that he really led the way on these photo-op friendly day-job campaign trips. You know, where a politician does the job of an ordinary person and gets his picture taken and all that. Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts did that and ran an ad which foolishly touted this as a reason to vote for him. Of course, Massachusetts did. Ugh. But, while it usually just a craven photo-op, Graham apparently had done something with it and really means for them to be educational experiences for him. So kudos for that, Bob Graham, whoever you are.
CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN: Yeah, I think we all know she doesn't have a chance. She did well in the Senate, but not really all that well. Her partisan style seems more suited for the House than the Senate, and especially not the White House. Still, she does raise the question of who the highest elected black female Republican is.
DICK GEPHADRT: Has anyone bothered to tell him that he's not going to win? I always find it so sad when people like Gephart seem so convinced that he has a shot. Yeah, I know, he's leading in some "polls", but it doesn't take a Political Science major to see through this. He's too much a politician and too obviously ambitious. I know Labor loves him, but they don't love him enough to push him to the nomination.
DENNIS KUCINICH: In a proper year, I should have said Kucinich first, but alas he's got even more blinded aspirants behind him. In fairness, I don't think Kucinich thinks he has a chance, so that makes his campaign a bit easier to take than the preceding three hopeless candidates. Yeah, I know I'm a progressive so I should like him, but I just don't. He's uninspiring. I'd love to see a passionate and articulate promoter of the liberal cause run for the nomination. But Kucinich REALLY isn't it. His progressive credentials are very debatable, too. I'd really recommend checking out Slate's Flip/Flop feature on Kucinich, but I'm sure there are even better sites out there. But, he's just here for awareness, so I'll allow it. But he doesn't have my vote.
The Hopeful
JOE LIEBERMAN: My former Senator and the former vice-presidential nominee. I was okay with Joe as veep, but much less so in the big chair. Gore's undercredited liberal roots softened Lieberman's conservative leanings, but I don't trust Joe on his own. Still, he's got tons of recognition as a former VP candidate and that makes him a serious contender. I'd be shocked if he wins, though.
AL SHARPTON: I'm as surprised as I'm putting Sharpton so high, too, but he deserves it. He's probably the most committed progressive voice in the campaign, though Kucinich usually gets that nod. He's also done a lot to remedy his past mistakes and it talking like a politician in the good ways. He's definitely not out to hang the Democrats out to dry. He's here to raise awareness of issues, and I think he's going to do a good job of that, and hopefully shore up support for the party among Sharpton's faithful. He's no Jesse Jackson, but he's also no longer the on-time Al Sharpton.
JOHN EDWARDS: Clinton II. Honestly, its like Clinton all over again, except more-so. He's more attractive, and even better fundraiser (I could be wrong about that, but what the heck), and seemingly more liberal. I'm kinda stunned that he hasn't stepped out as one of the front-runners. He talks a very good game, has shown great personality in his appearances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and a genuine working-class background and the wherewithall to campaign to working class people. He does seem to be confidant, so I'm going to allow the he may know more than I. I think he's banking on a big win in the early South Carolina primary. I hope he's right, because there is a good chance the party will lose the Senate seat he's already given up. I still don't get that. No matter what the polls say, I do think Edwards will be just a breath away from the front-runners come primary season.
The Hope
HOWARD DEAN: Dean is actually part of the downfall in my friendship with the ex-roommate I discussed a couple days back. We were casually discussing politics and I mentioned that I thought if Dean could find an issue, he could really be a credible candidate. At the time, he was beyond a long-shot. Just one of those home-field guys who foolishly thinks that they can parlay a regional advantage in an early primary into a real campaign. Of course, it never happens like that, and Dean seems to understand that. But, back then, he just looked like he was wasting his time. My roommate was aggressively dismissive of the notion and when I challenged her reasoning (that the nation hates Vermont because of Jim Jeffords) she responded by shutting down the conversation and insulting me. ANYWAY, Dean hasn't campaigned like a regional, and found his issue. I figured it was going to be health-care reform, but it turned out to be the war. He's got some appealing points, but ultimately it all falls flat. I like the idea of a Howard Dean candidacy, but I'm concerned his support is largely knee-jerk from anti-war folks and lacks real depth.
WESLEY CLARK: I've seen a lot of people say that Kerry has the most to fear from Clark, since he matches Kerry's military background and then trumps it with those four stars. I actually thin Dean is the big loser, and Dean knows it. Clark's real strength is giving the anti-war folks a better candidate to fall behind. There is a long tradition of pro-Peace generals running for office, and there is good logic behind it. After experiencing the horror of war, especially as a commander within the military system, you gain a profound appreciation for peace. Clark is a very attractive candidate because his take on foreign policy really resonates with a lot of Americans. His stance on domestic issues? Well, its considerably less developed, but he's got time. At first glance, he seems to be campaigning for the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket and is wisely letting himself get checked out by the press up-front since he's got so little political experience. He may be much more serious than that, though.
JOHN KERRY: Kerry would be the front-runner if it weren't for all the people assuming he'd be the front running and declaring him dead-on-arrival for not being so. With Clark and Dean now firmly entrenched in the front-runner role, Kerry might have the room to grow. He's got the goods policy wise. He's definitely a strong liberal. Yeah, I know, he gets slammed for having too many nuanced positions. Well, I like nuance and I'm not convinced that will be a problem with the voters. He's also got electability all over him. I know, my state's last nominee didn't go so well. But, I do recall a certain war hero/Senator holding his own back in 1960. Kerry's mix of dedication and passion could really play well. I know his passion hasn't yet come out, but it will. Just wait for the advertising to start up. Kerry can really build momentum at that stage. He's my early vote, but its still much too early to firmly decide.
The Hopeless
BOB GRAHAM: Who? I mean, I follow politics and even I don't have much of a clue about this guy. I mean, I know his credentials, I just don't know what he stands for. Doesn't seem to be much to run on, though. I have heard that he really led the way on these photo-op friendly day-job campaign trips. You know, where a politician does the job of an ordinary person and gets his picture taken and all that. Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts did that and ran an ad which foolishly touted this as a reason to vote for him. Of course, Massachusetts did. Ugh. But, while it usually just a craven photo-op, Graham apparently had done something with it and really means for them to be educational experiences for him. So kudos for that, Bob Graham, whoever you are.
CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN: Yeah, I think we all know she doesn't have a chance. She did well in the Senate, but not really all that well. Her partisan style seems more suited for the House than the Senate, and especially not the White House. Still, she does raise the question of who the highest elected black female Republican is.
DICK GEPHADRT: Has anyone bothered to tell him that he's not going to win? I always find it so sad when people like Gephart seem so convinced that he has a shot. Yeah, I know, he's leading in some "polls", but it doesn't take a Political Science major to see through this. He's too much a politician and too obviously ambitious. I know Labor loves him, but they don't love him enough to push him to the nomination.
DENNIS KUCINICH: In a proper year, I should have said Kucinich first, but alas he's got even more blinded aspirants behind him. In fairness, I don't think Kucinich thinks he has a chance, so that makes his campaign a bit easier to take than the preceding three hopeless candidates. Yeah, I know I'm a progressive so I should like him, but I just don't. He's uninspiring. I'd love to see a passionate and articulate promoter of the liberal cause run for the nomination. But Kucinich REALLY isn't it. His progressive credentials are very debatable, too. I'd really recommend checking out Slate's Flip/Flop feature on Kucinich, but I'm sure there are even better sites out there. But, he's just here for awareness, so I'll allow it. But he doesn't have my vote.
The Hopeful
JOE LIEBERMAN: My former Senator and the former vice-presidential nominee. I was okay with Joe as veep, but much less so in the big chair. Gore's undercredited liberal roots softened Lieberman's conservative leanings, but I don't trust Joe on his own. Still, he's got tons of recognition as a former VP candidate and that makes him a serious contender. I'd be shocked if he wins, though.
AL SHARPTON: I'm as surprised as I'm putting Sharpton so high, too, but he deserves it. He's probably the most committed progressive voice in the campaign, though Kucinich usually gets that nod. He's also done a lot to remedy his past mistakes and it talking like a politician in the good ways. He's definitely not out to hang the Democrats out to dry. He's here to raise awareness of issues, and I think he's going to do a good job of that, and hopefully shore up support for the party among Sharpton's faithful. He's no Jesse Jackson, but he's also no longer the on-time Al Sharpton.
JOHN EDWARDS: Clinton II. Honestly, its like Clinton all over again, except more-so. He's more attractive, and even better fundraiser (I could be wrong about that, but what the heck), and seemingly more liberal. I'm kinda stunned that he hasn't stepped out as one of the front-runners. He talks a very good game, has shown great personality in his appearances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and a genuine working-class background and the wherewithall to campaign to working class people. He does seem to be confidant, so I'm going to allow the he may know more than I. I think he's banking on a big win in the early South Carolina primary. I hope he's right, because there is a good chance the party will lose the Senate seat he's already given up. I still don't get that. No matter what the polls say, I do think Edwards will be just a breath away from the front-runners come primary season.
The Hope
HOWARD DEAN: Dean is actually part of the downfall in my friendship with the ex-roommate I discussed a couple days back. We were casually discussing politics and I mentioned that I thought if Dean could find an issue, he could really be a credible candidate. At the time, he was beyond a long-shot. Just one of those home-field guys who foolishly thinks that they can parlay a regional advantage in an early primary into a real campaign. Of course, it never happens like that, and Dean seems to understand that. But, back then, he just looked like he was wasting his time. My roommate was aggressively dismissive of the notion and when I challenged her reasoning (that the nation hates Vermont because of Jim Jeffords) she responded by shutting down the conversation and insulting me. ANYWAY, Dean hasn't campaigned like a regional, and found his issue. I figured it was going to be health-care reform, but it turned out to be the war. He's got some appealing points, but ultimately it all falls flat. I like the idea of a Howard Dean candidacy, but I'm concerned his support is largely knee-jerk from anti-war folks and lacks real depth.
WESLEY CLARK: I've seen a lot of people say that Kerry has the most to fear from Clark, since he matches Kerry's military background and then trumps it with those four stars. I actually thin Dean is the big loser, and Dean knows it. Clark's real strength is giving the anti-war folks a better candidate to fall behind. There is a long tradition of pro-Peace generals running for office, and there is good logic behind it. After experiencing the horror of war, especially as a commander within the military system, you gain a profound appreciation for peace. Clark is a very attractive candidate because his take on foreign policy really resonates with a lot of Americans. His stance on domestic issues? Well, its considerably less developed, but he's got time. At first glance, he seems to be campaigning for the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket and is wisely letting himself get checked out by the press up-front since he's got so little political experience. He may be much more serious than that, though.
JOHN KERRY: Kerry would be the front-runner if it weren't for all the people assuming he'd be the front running and declaring him dead-on-arrival for not being so. With Clark and Dean now firmly entrenched in the front-runner role, Kerry might have the room to grow. He's got the goods policy wise. He's definitely a strong liberal. Yeah, I know, he gets slammed for having too many nuanced positions. Well, I like nuance and I'm not convinced that will be a problem with the voters. He's also got electability all over him. I know, my state's last nominee didn't go so well. But, I do recall a certain war hero/Senator holding his own back in 1960. Kerry's mix of dedication and passion could really play well. I know his passion hasn't yet come out, but it will. Just wait for the advertising to start up. Kerry can really build momentum at that stage. He's my early vote, but its still much too early to firmly decide.
why i don't invest
Just a quickie, this morning. I noticed on Yahoo that US stocks are set to open lower because of the weak Dollar. This seemed funny to me because when the Bush administration engaged its "Screw the Dollar" policies which have undone all the efforts in the Clinton administration to build a strong Dollar, I kept reading how this was good for the economy. You see, a weak Dollar is good for exports, as we can make more back selling goods in countries whose currancy is strong in comparison to the Dollar. It also discourages tourism out of the US, but encourages tourism in. So, basically, the average American who wants to visit Paris is screwed (but, really, they're a traitor anyway for wanting to visit France) but the Frenchman who wants to, say, the monument to Marquis de Lafayette in Washington, D.C. is in luck. So, weak Dollar is good for the US economy!
So why is it dragging stocks down?
Well, as you might have already guessed, its not that simple. In addition to screwing over folks planning European honeymoons and border-jumping Canadians trying to get cheap booze and cigarettes, there is a downside for the US, too. For starters, the weak dollar is bad for the rest of the world. Remember that whole global economy thing? The stock market is so knee-jerk that anything which is bad for the rest of the world will be bad, here, too. Also, a little fact that seems to have slipped past the single-minded advisors in the White House is that most of our corporate borrowing comes from international investors. A weak dollar makes for a bad investment for them, which hurts the bond market.
Obviously, there are trade-offs in both directions, but the Bush defenders repeatedly talked about the weak Dollar as if it was magical. Kinda like the tax cuts.
I guess it still is the economy, stupid.
So why is it dragging stocks down?
Well, as you might have already guessed, its not that simple. In addition to screwing over folks planning European honeymoons and border-jumping Canadians trying to get cheap booze and cigarettes, there is a downside for the US, too. For starters, the weak dollar is bad for the rest of the world. Remember that whole global economy thing? The stock market is so knee-jerk that anything which is bad for the rest of the world will be bad, here, too. Also, a little fact that seems to have slipped past the single-minded advisors in the White House is that most of our corporate borrowing comes from international investors. A weak dollar makes for a bad investment for them, which hurts the bond market.
Obviously, there are trade-offs in both directions, but the Bush defenders repeatedly talked about the weak Dollar as if it was magical. Kinda like the tax cuts.
I guess it still is the economy, stupid.
9.20.2003
in memorium
Two people I wanted to mention. First, John Ritter. That makes me very angry. Its just so sad and frustrating. He's someone we should have gotten to enjoy for so much longer. He is just such a brilliant comedian. The best physical comedian since the silent film era. Hands down. And even when just playing small roles, he made you want to watch. He had such charm, such effortless grace and flair with comedy. Its not like he was in the best shows ever made, but he was just so damn good in them. To lose him so young feels like an awful shame. I wanted to see more of him. I wanted to keep laughing. It reminds me of how I felt when Jim Henson died. More than the kind of respect and admiration I feel when more elderly performers passed on, I felt angry. I felt upset. I wanted more. I couldn't just be glad for what we had. It bothered me that there wouldn't be more. Its not like either of them lived fast. It was just stuff that happened.
The other person I wanted to talk about is Cass Elliot. Specifically the magnificant A&E biography that debuted today. It is such an incredibly show. I love it. It has none of the usual sensationalism of her story. It treats her life and her work with respect. It didn't regard her death as the inevitability of her weight and it actually agressively responds to that stupid myth about her choking to death. Indeed, it also had the guts to deal with her chronic dieting not as a failure to achieve a goal. It pointed out that it destroyed her health, which has been quietly known for a long time, but always inconvenient for many.
It acknowledges her fame as unlikely, but not as if it was some bizarre thing. They respected the fans she had, rather than treat them like freaks. It allowed that she was a sex symbol, and though it didn't examine whether this was in part *because* she was fat, it certainly didn't bog itself down obsessing over it being "inspite of" her size. Also, I guess because of John Phillips death, they felt they could dispense with some of the myths of her inclusion with the Mama's and the Papa's. Her band-mates reversed the prior story that John didn't think her voice fit with the group, and bluntly said that they felt John didn't want her because she was fat and that two never liked each other.
It didn't romantize her. It was honest about her lonliness and her long habit of getting crushes on men who weren't interested. It also had Denny Doherty admitting (as he has in other documentaries on the band) that he completely regrets not returning her affections and that he felt he had it dead wrong. It did talk about her great popularity and her many close friendships. It also honestly treated her career to a proper perspective and context. I think I've seen all the specials on Cass and the band, and I never got the understanding of her life I did from this show. Even on basic stuff, like her post Mama's career. It was very informing.
And two final things it reminded me of. She has an incredible voice. Really amazing stuff in everything she did. I'm wishing we had a good file-sharing network so I could download all her stuff right now. (I know enough to know much of her output is likely unavailable on CD)
Also, she was really, really, really hot. Great to see a bit more of her than those awful dresses she wore for the Mama's and the Papa's TV appearances. She was an incredibly beautiful woman, and it does give me some hope that she was able to make it so big. I think American would really take to another Cass Elliot, if only Hollywood would give one a chance.
The other person I wanted to talk about is Cass Elliot. Specifically the magnificant A&E biography that debuted today. It is such an incredibly show. I love it. It has none of the usual sensationalism of her story. It treats her life and her work with respect. It didn't regard her death as the inevitability of her weight and it actually agressively responds to that stupid myth about her choking to death. Indeed, it also had the guts to deal with her chronic dieting not as a failure to achieve a goal. It pointed out that it destroyed her health, which has been quietly known for a long time, but always inconvenient for many.
It acknowledges her fame as unlikely, but not as if it was some bizarre thing. They respected the fans she had, rather than treat them like freaks. It allowed that she was a sex symbol, and though it didn't examine whether this was in part *because* she was fat, it certainly didn't bog itself down obsessing over it being "inspite of" her size. Also, I guess because of John Phillips death, they felt they could dispense with some of the myths of her inclusion with the Mama's and the Papa's. Her band-mates reversed the prior story that John didn't think her voice fit with the group, and bluntly said that they felt John didn't want her because she was fat and that two never liked each other.
It didn't romantize her. It was honest about her lonliness and her long habit of getting crushes on men who weren't interested. It also had Denny Doherty admitting (as he has in other documentaries on the band) that he completely regrets not returning her affections and that he felt he had it dead wrong. It did talk about her great popularity and her many close friendships. It also honestly treated her career to a proper perspective and context. I think I've seen all the specials on Cass and the band, and I never got the understanding of her life I did from this show. Even on basic stuff, like her post Mama's career. It was very informing.
And two final things it reminded me of. She has an incredible voice. Really amazing stuff in everything she did. I'm wishing we had a good file-sharing network so I could download all her stuff right now. (I know enough to know much of her output is likely unavailable on CD)
Also, she was really, really, really hot. Great to see a bit more of her than those awful dresses she wore for the Mama's and the Papa's TV appearances. She was an incredibly beautiful woman, and it does give me some hope that she was able to make it so big. I think American would really take to another Cass Elliot, if only Hollywood would give one a chance.
blast from my past
I guess its "blast from the past" week for me. Had two quick encounters to people who used to be a major part of my life, which was weird. Saw my former roommate on Wednesday. I was in a car with my girlfriend and she pointed out a woman crossing an intersection ahead and said she thought it was my former roommate. I looked and thought it didn't look quite right. But the time we started moving again, though, I realized it was her. I was very glad I was in the car.
My roommate was a really rotten person in a lot of ways. She was a pathological liar and used her lies to really exploit people's emotions. She was also wildly irresponsible. I'm not sure she ever paid a bill while I lived with her. She also treated me like dirt. It boiled over in a big fight that was clearly not going anywhere so I just walked away from it. Man, did that get her. She yelled at my closed door for 30 minutes. The flipside, though, is that I really needed her. We moved in after I broke up with my ex-girlfriend and I really needed her help and support. For that, I do appreciate her, but all the same, I'd rather not have to deal with her ever again. I'm not going to waste time and effort hating her. I just want her behind me.
Speaking of my ex-girlfriend, I just saw her for the first time in about a year and a half. Just an odd running into each other thing while neither of us had the time to talk. Its not that I hate her, but I'm still very angry. I loved her and I left our relationship feeling very betrayed, very hurt, and very changed. I was honest with her, and she took advantage of my honest in order to lie to me for two years about something very important to me. It made me feel so worthless, like a loser. I eventually got sick of feeling like that and I knew I had to get out. But, It has made me less trusting and less open and I hate that. I'm afraid now, and I hate it. But I don't hate her. You just have to let that go. I'm hurt, but its not worth it. I just want to get away from those feelings and get back to where I once belonged.
Oh, well.
My roommate was a really rotten person in a lot of ways. She was a pathological liar and used her lies to really exploit people's emotions. She was also wildly irresponsible. I'm not sure she ever paid a bill while I lived with her. She also treated me like dirt. It boiled over in a big fight that was clearly not going anywhere so I just walked away from it. Man, did that get her. She yelled at my closed door for 30 minutes. The flipside, though, is that I really needed her. We moved in after I broke up with my ex-girlfriend and I really needed her help and support. For that, I do appreciate her, but all the same, I'd rather not have to deal with her ever again. I'm not going to waste time and effort hating her. I just want her behind me.
Speaking of my ex-girlfriend, I just saw her for the first time in about a year and a half. Just an odd running into each other thing while neither of us had the time to talk. Its not that I hate her, but I'm still very angry. I loved her and I left our relationship feeling very betrayed, very hurt, and very changed. I was honest with her, and she took advantage of my honest in order to lie to me for two years about something very important to me. It made me feel so worthless, like a loser. I eventually got sick of feeling like that and I knew I had to get out. But, It has made me less trusting and less open and I hate that. I'm afraid now, and I hate it. But I don't hate her. You just have to let that go. I'm hurt, but its not worth it. I just want to get away from those feelings and get back to where I once belonged.
Oh, well.
9.19.2003
seriously now
Since there was some confusion about my post from yesturday, let me make it perfectly clear that it was a joke. No, I don't get mullets, but I obviously don't care that much about it. I'm sure plenty of folks with mullets don't get my long hair. Its their right. I made a little joke out of my bemusement with mullet aficianados, and that's all it was meant. Some jokes are made with malice. If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize, but joking of this fashion has a long history and is intentionally of little consequence. It was meant as a pointless and acknowledgedly petty joke. That's all. For more about the rich tradition of mullets, you are welcome to visit Mullet Junky. (be warned, some gratutitous anti-fat jokes are contained within)
Update: That being said, I might as well get it out right now. Somethings just bother me. Somethings I just don't get. Does mean I have a problem with people who are different? Nope. Just means I don't get it. I don't get mullets. I don't get golf. I don't get tacky plaid clothing ebelished with images of Disney characters. I don't get those sickeningly cute Mary Englewhatever illustrations. I don't get Lifetime. There, I've said it. Some things, I just don't get. Doesn't mean I hate them. I'm sure plenty of people don't get classical music, cartoons, action figures, DVDs, and long sideburns. Good on them!
That being said, the comparison drawn by a comment-leaver between hairstyles and fatness is an inappropriate one. Even if I was passing judgement on mullet-wearers, their hair-style is a choice. Being fat isn't. It is assumed to be a choice by those who wish to pass judgement, but a basic element of Size Acceptance to correct that myth. I do not believe anyone is suggesting that mullets, for instance, are something you are born with. It is a choice you make. For instance, though I am unqualifiedly opposed to appearance based discrimination with regards to one's natural make-up, I am not opposed to businesses basing staffing, in part, on a person's chosen dress, hair style, facial hair, etc. that a person has either changed from their natural make-up (such as hair-dye) or has chosen to adopt. I may generally disagree with such decisions, but I don't think they are wrong. Except in public school, where unless you are portraying an explicitly hateful message with your experience, students should be free to express themselves as they please.
That being said, part of my confused tone may have come from the fact that I am less bemused and more seriously disturbed by comb-overs. Aside from the visual aspect, I don't like comb-overs because they are an effort to disguise something perfectly normal. I am not happy when a fat person bases their clothing or hairstyle on trying to disguise their fat. Such approaches assume a negative about something which is inheriantly nuetral, and that is a major cause for concern. Do not mistake me, I do not condemn these individuals, but I cannot support such actions, either. They go against the core of my beliefs in Size-Acceptance that we should accept our bodies as we are. As an additional arguement, I pointed out that comb-overs (much like most "slimming" clothing) just doesn't work at disgusing what you are ashamed of. The best way, and the most productive way, to deal with such issues of shame is work on not being ashamed. Not to hide behind a thin whisp of hair in a desperate bid to pretend you are something you aren't. There isn't anything wrong with being bald and more than there is anything wrong with being fat. I'm not going to condone any efforts to express shame of either.
That being said, that's all I have to say for now.
Update: That being said, I might as well get it out right now. Somethings just bother me. Somethings I just don't get. Does mean I have a problem with people who are different? Nope. Just means I don't get it. I don't get mullets. I don't get golf. I don't get tacky plaid clothing ebelished with images of Disney characters. I don't get those sickeningly cute Mary Englewhatever illustrations. I don't get Lifetime. There, I've said it. Some things, I just don't get. Doesn't mean I hate them. I'm sure plenty of people don't get classical music, cartoons, action figures, DVDs, and long sideburns. Good on them!
That being said, the comparison drawn by a comment-leaver between hairstyles and fatness is an inappropriate one. Even if I was passing judgement on mullet-wearers, their hair-style is a choice. Being fat isn't. It is assumed to be a choice by those who wish to pass judgement, but a basic element of Size Acceptance to correct that myth. I do not believe anyone is suggesting that mullets, for instance, are something you are born with. It is a choice you make. For instance, though I am unqualifiedly opposed to appearance based discrimination with regards to one's natural make-up, I am not opposed to businesses basing staffing, in part, on a person's chosen dress, hair style, facial hair, etc. that a person has either changed from their natural make-up (such as hair-dye) or has chosen to adopt. I may generally disagree with such decisions, but I don't think they are wrong. Except in public school, where unless you are portraying an explicitly hateful message with your experience, students should be free to express themselves as they please.
That being said, part of my confused tone may have come from the fact that I am less bemused and more seriously disturbed by comb-overs. Aside from the visual aspect, I don't like comb-overs because they are an effort to disguise something perfectly normal. I am not happy when a fat person bases their clothing or hairstyle on trying to disguise their fat. Such approaches assume a negative about something which is inheriantly nuetral, and that is a major cause for concern. Do not mistake me, I do not condemn these individuals, but I cannot support such actions, either. They go against the core of my beliefs in Size-Acceptance that we should accept our bodies as we are. As an additional arguement, I pointed out that comb-overs (much like most "slimming" clothing) just doesn't work at disgusing what you are ashamed of. The best way, and the most productive way, to deal with such issues of shame is work on not being ashamed. Not to hide behind a thin whisp of hair in a desperate bid to pretend you are something you aren't. There isn't anything wrong with being bald and more than there is anything wrong with being fat. I'm not going to condone any efforts to express shame of either.
That being said, that's all I have to say for now.
9.18.2003
hair, hair, long beautiful hair
Admitedly, I have a bit of an ecentric history with my hair. At somepoint in my freshman year of High School, I got it into my head that I wanted to grow my hair out. I think I saw Jim Carrey on the Tonight Show wearing his hair moderately long over his ears and I wanted to try it. But, I just kind kept growing it out, and eventually had some decently long hair and was occassionally wearing it in a ponytail. I cut it off after doing a play that summer where it needed to be long, but then just grew it out again. Didn't cut it for well over a year, I think and had some very long locks. I usually wore it down, too, because you can get away with that while in school. This long/short cycling continued through college and I eventually just let it grow out for about three years. My hair is never quite what I wish when its long. It gets a bit of a flip in it that is tough to manage, but it generally looks very nice all the same. But, after college and getting into the workforce, I was wearing it in a ponytail every day. I wasn't crazy about it in a ponytail, its just what was needed. I should have just cut it then, but I didn't. Just stuck with it out of a lack of inertia. I occassionally had my ex-girlfriend braid it, which I loved but which was not something I could pull off on my own. So, I cut it. Its been moderately long every since. My current girlfriend did something to it recently that I loved, but didn't want to admit I loved since she seemed to want me to be humorously annoyed with her fiddling with my hair, but I should get her to show me what she did. It pulled off the over the ears look I really like as well as a neat swept over the forehead. Its a bit retro, but I'm generally a fan of retro hair-styles.
Basically, this is all to say that I am a man who cares about hair. Which is why I really don't get two hairstyles some men don. They are so universally and properly reviled, that I just don't know why some people keep up with them. I mean, I don't want to be judgemental, but some of this just looks silly. I'm very open-minded with hair, in general. Its just these two that set me off.
The first is the mullet. I don't get that. Its universal short-hand for horribly low-class. Its like you're advertising how out-of-touch you are when you have a hairstyle which is so widely seen as a joke. It just looks silly, too. I mean, either grow it long, or don't. Don't make it look like you couldn't make up your mind. I just find it a bizarre hairstyle. But, I guess some people think its cool. Not so with my second hated hair style. That's just something people where to try to lie to the world, and it REALLY doesn't work.
I'm talking, of course, about the combover. Honestly, how do men convince themselves that it looks okay to do that? Its always horribly obvious and slimey and disturbing. Its a hairstyle of deception and its doing a bad job of it. Instead of making someone not look bald, it just makes them look bald and dealing VERY badly with it. Its not covering up something you are insecure about. You want to do that, you buy a hat like Ron Howard. Instead, it just draws attention to the insecurity as well as what they are insecure about. Please, men, if you are bald, just deal with it. Comb-overs aren't fooling anyway and they make you look like an idiot. Especially the guys who have the combovers of the single strand across the top. As if the rest of the world will encounter them exactly as the carefully positioned themselves in the mirror. Just stop it, already. All men with combovers will look better without them. Really. Just look at Rudy Guilliani who implausabily stuck with his combover even after it was a national joke. He finally gives it up and it makes him look considerably more distinguished and attractive.
Sorry, I know this is a very uselessly snarky post, but if I have to see another embarassingly bad comb-over or mullet, I'm afraid I might scream.
Basically, this is all to say that I am a man who cares about hair. Which is why I really don't get two hairstyles some men don. They are so universally and properly reviled, that I just don't know why some people keep up with them. I mean, I don't want to be judgemental, but some of this just looks silly. I'm very open-minded with hair, in general. Its just these two that set me off.
The first is the mullet. I don't get that. Its universal short-hand for horribly low-class. Its like you're advertising how out-of-touch you are when you have a hairstyle which is so widely seen as a joke. It just looks silly, too. I mean, either grow it long, or don't. Don't make it look like you couldn't make up your mind. I just find it a bizarre hairstyle. But, I guess some people think its cool. Not so with my second hated hair style. That's just something people where to try to lie to the world, and it REALLY doesn't work.
I'm talking, of course, about the combover. Honestly, how do men convince themselves that it looks okay to do that? Its always horribly obvious and slimey and disturbing. Its a hairstyle of deception and its doing a bad job of it. Instead of making someone not look bald, it just makes them look bald and dealing VERY badly with it. Its not covering up something you are insecure about. You want to do that, you buy a hat like Ron Howard. Instead, it just draws attention to the insecurity as well as what they are insecure about. Please, men, if you are bald, just deal with it. Comb-overs aren't fooling anyway and they make you look like an idiot. Especially the guys who have the combovers of the single strand across the top. As if the rest of the world will encounter them exactly as the carefully positioned themselves in the mirror. Just stop it, already. All men with combovers will look better without them. Really. Just look at Rudy Guilliani who implausabily stuck with his combover even after it was a national joke. He finally gives it up and it makes him look considerably more distinguished and attractive.
Sorry, I know this is a very uselessly snarky post, but if I have to see another embarassingly bad comb-over or mullet, I'm afraid I might scream.
9.15.2003
fat on eve this eve
Just saw the new UPN series, Eve. It had a fat character (just for one episode) and some pros and cons, which is kinda the nature of any fat character on television these days.
The Cons: A few fat jokes were made at her expense. Not wildly malicious jokes, but annoying jokes all the same. Also, it opened with her not fitting in a wedding dress being designed for her by the show's lead character, which is a pretty loaded visual.
Middle-of-the-road: I'm reading a lot into this, but one of the jokes at her expense intimated that her husband to be was an FA as another character remarked that he had a pattern of dating larger women. I'd be reading way too much to find that to be a positive, but it was a background remark that wasn't wholly negative.
Positive: As you may have gathered from my prior remarks, she was a bride. You mean fat girls get married? I thought that only happened on the WB. Any time a fat character is presented as a real and happy person, its a good thing. Not to mention that she was marrying a perfectly attractive gentlemen. (with a Latino name, probably some subtext here) Not that I'm too big on weighing a fat woman's worth on her ability to get a conventionally attractive mate, but its still an important departure form the limited image we're currently allowed of the prospects for BBWs in the dating world. More importantly, one of the times a joke was made at her expense, she was allowed a nicely snarking response. While she took the crack on her with relative grace, the object of her swipe was enraged, with heavy context to assume she was actually jealous of the fat bride. Finally, and most covertly, the solution to a wedding dress which has proven too small was not a crash diet, as we'd often see in a sitcom. Instread of "fixing" herself, she had the dress fixed. I know, I'm reading a lot into this, too, but the subversion of expectations is a lot more plain here.
Now, in fairness, she wasn't really that fat. But, clearly her weight was meant to be a function of her character so I'm not going to complain too much. Its not like they were trying to make her out to be hugely fat, or anything. She was what she was.
Mixed messages, but what else is new. I'm not surprised with the negatives, but I am pleased with the good side of the portrayal.
The Cons: A few fat jokes were made at her expense. Not wildly malicious jokes, but annoying jokes all the same. Also, it opened with her not fitting in a wedding dress being designed for her by the show's lead character, which is a pretty loaded visual.
Middle-of-the-road: I'm reading a lot into this, but one of the jokes at her expense intimated that her husband to be was an FA as another character remarked that he had a pattern of dating larger women. I'd be reading way too much to find that to be a positive, but it was a background remark that wasn't wholly negative.
Positive: As you may have gathered from my prior remarks, she was a bride. You mean fat girls get married? I thought that only happened on the WB. Any time a fat character is presented as a real and happy person, its a good thing. Not to mention that she was marrying a perfectly attractive gentlemen. (with a Latino name, probably some subtext here) Not that I'm too big on weighing a fat woman's worth on her ability to get a conventionally attractive mate, but its still an important departure form the limited image we're currently allowed of the prospects for BBWs in the dating world. More importantly, one of the times a joke was made at her expense, she was allowed a nicely snarking response. While she took the crack on her with relative grace, the object of her swipe was enraged, with heavy context to assume she was actually jealous of the fat bride. Finally, and most covertly, the solution to a wedding dress which has proven too small was not a crash diet, as we'd often see in a sitcom. Instread of "fixing" herself, she had the dress fixed. I know, I'm reading a lot into this, too, but the subversion of expectations is a lot more plain here.
Now, in fairness, she wasn't really that fat. But, clearly her weight was meant to be a function of her character so I'm not going to complain too much. Its not like they were trying to make her out to be hugely fat, or anything. She was what she was.
Mixed messages, but what else is new. I'm not surprised with the negatives, but I am pleased with the good side of the portrayal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)