First rule about the Family is that you don’t talk about the Family….
They prefer to keep things underground. But Jeff Sharlet, Vanity Fair columnist, actually lived among the group for several months, and he’s talking. His book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power is an expose on the group that has perked the ears of Christians in both political parties.
The Family is a group of Jesus ‘Followers.” They dislike the name “Christian,” as it’s a loaded word that alienates themselves from Muslims and Jews who, they say, can also follow Jesus. After all, Jesus wasn’t a Christian.
The group lives in a house on C. Street, in Washington DC. It is a bipartisan group that has been described by prominent evangelical Christians as the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organization in the US. Many high profile names have had some connection to the group. Mark Sanford and John Ensign are a few members of note lately.
This group, which is so covert that it sometimes denies whether it is even a group, is just now receiving media attention, after having been in existence since the 30s. Their underground power is a tad disconcerting, to say the least. Their secrecy has caused all sorts of allegations to be laid upon them; Communists, crusaders for a new world order, elitists, to name a few.
It would be an extreme generalization to dismiss the whole organization as “evil,” for the actions of a few of their members. They do a lot of good. For instance, in 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with unlikely pair, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. A peace treaty soon followed.
In 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a similar meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord.
This interdenominational [and interfaith] group is responsible for organizing the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which every sitting president since 1953 has been a part of, as has many dignitaries from other nations.
Founded in 1935, The Family is a group of mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats, which is currently led by Doug Coe. It’s a forum for public officials to hold Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship services, and just a general support system.
Hillary Clinton, though not a member, has said, the group "is a unique presence in Washington,” and Coe is “a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
The group refers to themselves ‘the new chosen,” believing that all leadership is chosen by God. Most Christians believe this. However, The Family seems to have a strange twist on a works-based salvation that they, the “chosen,” are exempt from.
I quickly found out that The Family incorporates a lot of good things that would seem agreeable with most churches, takes them a little too far.
For instance, they are so focused on the “person of Christ.” Saying they worship a person, not an ideology. But how do they define this Christ? They meet in groups, or “cells,” believing that “Christ speaks directly to his anointed,” all but eliminating the need for scripture or church. Focusing on “the person of Christ” is appropriate. The thing is, different people have different notions of Christ. So it is curious where they are gaining their knowledge of their respective “persons of Christ.” There must be a standard by which to measure.
Sharlet writes extensively about the “secrecy” of the group. Indeed, confidentiality is appropriate in support systems. But as, Rev. Rob Schenck who leads a Bible study on the Hill inspired by C Street, wrote on his blog, “all ministries in Washington need to protect the confidence of those we minister to, and I'm sure that’s a primary motive for C Street's low profile.” But he added, “I think The Fellowship has been just a tad bit too clandestine.” Schenck has himself sent a letter to Sanford calling for his resignation.
•Origins
They are affiliated with the Oxford Group, an organization that strives to reach out to the elites, the rich, the powerful; the “Up and Out,” if you will.
He calls attention to Coe’s references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Coe claims he was merely using their model of influence to further the Christ’s message.
The Oxford Group seems to have a strange fetish with Communism. They eschew Communism, while deifying dictators, because getting their message out is all about subversion.
Sharlet tells us, “There was bad subversion, like that of the Vietcong, and good subversion, also like that of the Vietcong, only in the name of Jesus. A subtle practice of persuasion.” They were obsessed with obtaining strength, and gaining a stronghold.
They seem to have a somewhat fascist mentality; strength through numbers. Though when I asked Sharlet how they were different, he was quick to point out three distinctions, “The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.”
They believe the best way to preserve this strength is to be as “underground” as possible.
Frank Buchman founded the Oxford Group. His ideas to transform the government into "a new social order under the dictatorship of the spirit of God,” Vereide took absolutely literally.
After a little more digging on The Oxford Group, and their shadowy past, I realized that though they invoke Christian morality, and may even have the audacity to call themselves “Christian,’ a source tells me they are more about right and wrong, than embracing the entire Christian ideology. He noted that while The Oxford group was bad, that some of the offshoots of the group were positive and good. One of which is Up With People.
He tells us of founder, Abraham Vereide’s vision for The Family. He wanted to be missionaries that focused on the powerful, figuring that if the more powerful lives in leadership were changed, it would ultimately change many others. Sharlet calls this “trickle-down evangelism”
This is not a bad idea in itself. There are groups and Bible studies for all sorts of groups. It would seem a fantastic idea to narrow in on the most powerful. The Bible tells Christians to pray for their leaders because of their huge position of responsibility.
But it was so much more than this. The group takes shady dealings to a whole new level, with the twisting of economics and theology to promote their agenda. Sharlet calls it “the theology of the dollar,” In which, “First comes capitalism then comes Christ.”
Doug Coe and The Family played an integral part in Watergate felon, Chuck Colson‘s conversion. He has since reformed and been a prominent and respected Christian leader. But Colson told WORLD magazine that he now has concerns about politicians using the C Street group, for example, as a replacement for church. "It's a mistake," he said. "A leading figure ought to belong to a church." He is referring to the accountability that a church would provide, instead of an elite group, which might be inclined to interpret scripture very loosely.
Interview with Jeff Sharlet
• How is their idea of government different from Fascism?
There are three important reasons why I argue that the Family isn't and never has been a fascist organization, even as it has involved a number of traditional fascists (American fascist sympathizer Merwin K. Hart, "Hitler's banker" Hermann Abs) and de facto fascists (Siad Barre, the Somali dictator; Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova): The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.
There are some qualifiers to those points, though: Although the Family doesn't admire violence, it has historically tended to support violent regimes, such as Barre's, Suharto's genocidal regime, the junta of generals that ran Brazil for years, Park in South Korea, etc., etc. These have been for the most part regimes that one faction or the other of the American foreign policy establishment thought worth supporting, which points to a flaw in the Family's internationalist logic: They want to be friends with everybody, so long as "everybody" is defined as those who are useful to an aggressively expansionist view of American power. During the Cold War, that meant they often functioned as sort of para-state religious front for what former Family leader Senator Frank Carlson termed "worldwide spiritual offensive."
There are other distinctions: Fascism generally begins in the working class, while the Family has never been anything but upper crust. Fascism has a vaguely socialist element; the Family has never been anything but laissez-faire. "Free market" isn't a really accurate description, though, since members tend to favor strong state support for big business, a corporatist stand that has some overlap with fascism.
There's one last, very important distinction: There have always been a number of people who work with the Family because they genuinely want to help the poor. Their methods leave much to be desired -- helping a dictator win military aid is not helping the poor -- but their intentions are in keeping with Christian tradition.
• How far do you think they will succeed at achieving their goal? Will exposure stop them, or are they too far gone? What is the next step for the Family?
Depends on how you define the goal, which is tricky with an organization that likes to insist it doesn't exist, tax records be damned. But the clearest statement of their goals is the idea of 200 world leaders bound together through the Family, a "new world order," as founder Abraham Vereide liked to call it, that will lead to peace because we'll all be on the same team -- their team. Call me a cynic, but I don't see this happening any time soon. I think Christian Right leader Rev. Rob Schenck is closer to the mark when he calls their theology a "religion of the status quo." The Family, he says, is into things as they are. They're not some kind of theocratic conspiracy -- they're the religion of power as it is. Which is to say, in the hands of an elite. In that sense, they've been remarkably successful.
Will exposure stop them? Sometimes. A story I didn't get to tell in the book is that of Norway, where a reporter for the national daily Dagbladet noticed that the prime minister was jetting off to private prayer breakfasts on the public dime and decided to investigate. Here in the U.S., he discovered Norway's ambassador taking his policy cues from then Attorney General John Ashcroft at the Family's Arlington mansion, The Cedars. Digging deeper, he discovered a deep linkage between the Family and the faction that briefly ran Norway in the middle of the past decade. He and his colleagues put it on the front page for weeks, a sort of Norwegian Watergate. That government was voted out of power, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Here in the U.S. the Family is currently facing the fiercest scrutiny it's had to endure in 70 years, as local reporters all over the country -- in Michigan, Pennslylvania, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and elsewhere -- have begun to ask tough questions of their representatives. The point being that if, say, Rep. Joe Pitts wants to work with this group, as documents show he has since the last 1970s, he should be open with the public about it. Pitts has chosen to deny any links. So now it's not a left/right issue, but a simple transparency issue. (Important to emphasize this isn't just a Republican thing; Democratic Senator Mark Pryor's staff denied that I'd ever spoken to their boss until I offered to make transcripts public.)
•Do you think that this exposure will stop them?
I think it'll change them. For instance, World, a Christian conservative magazine, has been investigating the hell out of them for all the same reasons I do. The difference is that World, as a Christian conservative magazine, will be persuasive to people who won't listen to me. There are a lot of traditionalist Christian conservatives who are as deeply committed to open democracy as anybody else. What I like about them is that they tend to act on their convictions. They're starting to hold the Family accountable.
I've also been impressed with the work of Christian Post writer Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a conservative evangelical in the Roger Williams tradition -- a real man of conscience. Dr. Throckmorton has been very involved with exposing the involvement of some American Christian conservatives with a vicious movement in Uganda -- a major beneficiary of American foreign aid and an increasingly important country on the continent -- to not just criminalize homosexuality but to make it punishable by death. Many of the Ugandans behind this movement are linked to the Family, which has really put the heat on the group. As a result of all this, one Family member, from the "liberal" side of the movement, has decided to be open with me about debates going on within the Family right now. There's a faction that thinks the time has come to go public, to be open about their work.
That faction isn't winning yet, but they might, in the future. Longtime leader Doug Coe is in his early 80s, and his health isn't great. Most Family insiders I've spoken to assume leadership will pass to two of his sons, David and Tim. The problem is that they lack Coe's powerful charisma and his unusual blend of mysticism and golfer's bonhomie. David, in particular, seems like a potential weak link; one person associated with the Family compares David to the emperor's son in "Gladiator." If you haven't seen the movie, trust me: it's scary. So if the Coe family -- there are 11 Coes on the payroll -- loses control, the Family could change pretty dramatically.
• What is the main danger with a group like this? Are they too secretive?
Secrecy. I happen to disagree with a lot of what they try to do -- I think Suharto, for instance, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his fellow Indonesians, was a monster we should have opposed -- but, then, I disagree with most Christian Right groups. The difference is that it's easy to disagree with, say, the Family Research Council, because they're open about their positions. They're playing the rules of democracy, making their case in the public square. The Family doesn't believe in the public square. Not only do they not want to be accountable to it; they want politics to work outside of it.
• Do you think the people in the Family are evil?
There have been evil men associated with the Family, that's for sure, but no, in general people in the Family aren't evil. In fact, that's the tragedy of this movement: most people get involved with the best of intentions. Too often, they're blinded by their good intentions, unable or unwilling to recognize the consequences to which their actions contribute. Those consequences -- I'm thinking not just of their subversion of open democracy but of their crucial support for lunatic regimes such as those of Siad Barre or Papa Doc Duvalier -- often are evil, by anyone's standards. The lesson we learn from the Family isn't so much about the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt put it, as about the evil of banality.
• What do you think their level of influence on the Obama administration is? How do you think the Obama administration will affect The Family?
That's a tough question. The only cabinet member with serious ties that I'm aware of is Ray LaHood, and transportation isn't exactly a make or break position. As I write in the book, Hillary Clinton has long been considered a "friend" of the Family; she calls leader Doug Coe a "genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide," strange words for a man who routinely invokes the leadership lessons to be learned from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. (When I teamed up with NBC Nightly News to do a segment on her connection, her people told NBC that she'd never given money to the group.) But for her those ties are more about building bridges to conservatives than about the "Jesus plus nothing" agenda of the Family, and I don't think that influence is deep. I'm curious about General James Jones -- he seems to have popped up on the Family's Prayer Breakfast circuit a lot -- but I haven't investigated. That's for some other reporter. My instinct was to say that the level of influence was: Not much. But Family associates have since told me that they have "a lot of friends" in the administration. Bluff? I don't know.
Regardless, I don't think the Obama administration is much of a threat to any powers that be in America. It's a business-as-usual administration. That's the Family's style.
• How do you think the present economy will affect the Family’s efforts ?
Not much. They began in the Depression, as a response to the Depression, and have weathered all the ups and downs -- and political swings -- since. They've endured because they prize power over purity, access over accountability, flexibility over orthodoxy.
That said, if the economy were to get much worse -- or a real populist movement were to develop -- I think a lot of Family politicians would be out of work.
• Why are the foreign policy efforts limited to nations like Uganda, which are under the radar, so to speak? Why not the president of Iraq?
Who says they're not talking to Iraq? The bulk of my book is based on archival records, so it's hard for me to know what's going on right now. Uganda was easy to verify. Maybe Iraq would be too, if someone cared to investigate. But based on their history, they're involved pretty much everywhere. For instance, they're strong in Australia, hardly a country dependent on US aid, like Uganda. But they do tend to look for weaker countries, where it's easier to have an outsized influence. If Senator Jim Inhofe goes to France, he's no big deal. In Uganda, he's a big man. A lot of Family politicians seem to enjoy that. One Family associate spoke of visiting small Pacific nations as being like a "white god," parachuting out of the sky.
• What is the usual response you get from Christians? I would imagine that it kind of transitions between a dubious reluctance to judge them at first, and then a horror of the realization. Have many been reluctant to hear and/or accept your account?
It's been interesting. I've always said that if I'd had my druthers, I would have published my first report on the Family in Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine. But there really has been a "see-no-evil" attitude in some corners. Not all, though. Populist and traditionalist Christian conservatives, including a lot of self-described fundamentalists, were the first to get it. The first organization to buy my book in bulk was a hard right Christian group that is serious about democratic and theological transparency. They sent out copies to their supporters with a note saying that the author is a heathen, but the book is valuable. Leftist Christians and a lot of African American Christians had no problem grasping the facts, either. The biggest resistance has come from the mushy middle, the center-right and center-left folks who are quick to condemn fundamentalism so long as it's poor, tacky, and Southern. They don't like having their cliches overturned. These are folks who like things are they are, people who are constitutionally uncomfortable with democracy, with the idea that neither education nor wealth entitle anyone to "more" citizenship than another.
That changed a bit this summer and fall. First, there were the C Street sex scandals. A lot of folks who tune out when you talk about real abuses of democracy perk right up when you speak of sexual hypocrisy. As my friend JoAnn Wypijewski, a radical journalist put it, "Christians thunder, liberals sneer, but it amounts to the same counting of sins." Be that as it may, that counting of sins led to an accounting for the Family. So now we're starting to see a great Christian response, from the left, right, and middle. Christianity Today still hasn't come around, though.
c. 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Hammer-Time
Tom Delay’s third career as a dancer was short-lived. After a career in pest control, he turned to politics. After 2 years as Republican House Majority Leader, “the Hammer” decided to try a foray into something a little more glitzy.
Decked out in a red outfit with a prominent Republican elephant on his back, he strutted his stuff, showing that conservative politics and the arts do mix. He wanted to show that he is more than just a stuffed suit by being a contestant on Dancing With the Stars. I think he surprised everyone with his moves. He’s actually very light on his feet, even in his high heels.
DeLay said that while it may have surprised many that he was a contestant, it wouldn’t have surprised the people who knew him well. “They know that I like to have fun. I like to push the envelope.”
DeLay was partnered with two-time Dancing with the Stars professional champ Cheryl Burke, who apparently had to Google him to find out who he was.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel asked her if their pairing was a result of her being “punished by the producers.”
“Tom’s a great guy and I learned a lot from him. We had a lot of fun together,” she said.
Tom got along famously with everyone, despite their differences.
“The thing that surprised me the most were the people on the show … I didn’t know what to expect coming to this show and Los Angeles and being amongst the more creative people. I found that even as liberal as some are, they were very open and very warm. The professional dancers were just amazing. The kind of people they are, their work ethic, how smart they are, how talented they are — I was blown away. I made some very good friends,” DeLay said.
While not the most polished dancer, Tom held his own. It was fun and impressive just to see him in this context. At one point, DeLay admits he panicked when he almost dropped Cheryl – but it was either grab onto her or let her fall “on her rear end.” They say recovery is the most important aspect of talent.
Tom, who had been diagnosed with a pre-stress fracture in his right foot, decided to ignore doctor’s advice not to perform.
“What’s a little pain when we can party?”
He eventually was forced to withdraw due to stress fractures on both of his feet.
“Does that embarrass you at all?” asked Jimmy Kimmel.
“Frankly, a little bit,” answered DeLay. “A boy from Texas breaking his feet dancing?”
DeLay reportedly asked Kimmel, “can you could shake your booty like I can?”
“I want to dance no matter what,” the 62-year-old former House Republican Whip said Monday, but he reconsidered on Tuesday.
His partner, Cheryl said, “I told him over a million times not to dance. I told him you’ve already gone out there and shocked America, showed them what you can do already. But he’s a stubborn man, and he’s very determined!” she added.
A polarizing figure, some just can’t separate politics from entertainment. His elimination sparked some venom from the Left on the Huffington Post’s site. His opponents were celebrating his injuries.
c.2009
Decked out in a red outfit with a prominent Republican elephant on his back, he strutted his stuff, showing that conservative politics and the arts do mix. He wanted to show that he is more than just a stuffed suit by being a contestant on Dancing With the Stars. I think he surprised everyone with his moves. He’s actually very light on his feet, even in his high heels.
DeLay said that while it may have surprised many that he was a contestant, it wouldn’t have surprised the people who knew him well. “They know that I like to have fun. I like to push the envelope.”
DeLay was partnered with two-time Dancing with the Stars professional champ Cheryl Burke, who apparently had to Google him to find out who he was.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel asked her if their pairing was a result of her being “punished by the producers.”
“Tom’s a great guy and I learned a lot from him. We had a lot of fun together,” she said.
Tom got along famously with everyone, despite their differences.
“The thing that surprised me the most were the people on the show … I didn’t know what to expect coming to this show and Los Angeles and being amongst the more creative people. I found that even as liberal as some are, they were very open and very warm. The professional dancers were just amazing. The kind of people they are, their work ethic, how smart they are, how talented they are — I was blown away. I made some very good friends,” DeLay said.
While not the most polished dancer, Tom held his own. It was fun and impressive just to see him in this context. At one point, DeLay admits he panicked when he almost dropped Cheryl – but it was either grab onto her or let her fall “on her rear end.” They say recovery is the most important aspect of talent.
Tom, who had been diagnosed with a pre-stress fracture in his right foot, decided to ignore doctor’s advice not to perform.
“What’s a little pain when we can party?”
He eventually was forced to withdraw due to stress fractures on both of his feet.
“Does that embarrass you at all?” asked Jimmy Kimmel.
“Frankly, a little bit,” answered DeLay. “A boy from Texas breaking his feet dancing?”
DeLay reportedly asked Kimmel, “can you could shake your booty like I can?”
“I want to dance no matter what,” the 62-year-old former House Republican Whip said Monday, but he reconsidered on Tuesday.
His partner, Cheryl said, “I told him over a million times not to dance. I told him you’ve already gone out there and shocked America, showed them what you can do already. But he’s a stubborn man, and he’s very determined!” she added.
A polarizing figure, some just can’t separate politics from entertainment. His elimination sparked some venom from the Left on the Huffington Post’s site. His opponents were celebrating his injuries.
c.2009
Like a Virgin
Here’s one to be filed under the “absurd,” except for it’s frighteningly real. There is now a “solution” for Muslim women that are raped (losing their virginity before their wedding night) and can face death because of it.
For Americans, in our more modern, not to mention, sexually-charged society, this will be hard to fathom. In Egypt, and many Muslim countries, women are expected to stay pure for their wedding night…under threat of death. In fact they are still required to show their blood-stained sheet as proof of their purity.
While Egypt tends to be a little more liberal (though still a constitutional theocracy), a 2005 UN report estimated that 52 out of a total 819 murders in the country in 1995 were, so called, “honour killings.”
These folks take keeping the marriage bed pure to the extreme. While there are many good reasons to stay pure, theirs are for the express purposes of control, which is not love. The fact that this is a huge double standard is notwithstanding. (Men don’t have to do any such thing). But this isn’t even an accurate portrayal of virginity.
Well you don’t even have to be a particularly randy female to have a problem with this. Women have been forced to turn to surgery to repair damage, in many cases, caused by rapes. The surgical procedure is called hymenorraphy. A doctor will recreate the hymen by piecing together its remnants. It can also include inserting a gelatin capsule filled with a blood-like substance that will burst during intercourse, simulating bleeding. If there is not enough hymen left, or if the woman was born without one, part of the vaginal wall is used to recreate this thin tissue.
The operation, which is considered relatively simple and performed on an outpatient basis in western countries, is illegal in Muslim countries. The surgeries tend to be “back alley” procedures in terms of cleanliness and credentials. Though pricey at 1000 Egyptian pounds, the cost of not having it is often far worse.
But finally, now there is an alternative. Muslim women everywhere are breathing a collective sigh of relief. The Chinese company, Gigimo, (a company known for their sex toys.), has invented an artificial virginity hymen kit. For much less money and trouble, the device leaks out a red substance when inserted and broken. So on your wedding night, your husband will think you are a virgin still.
Conservative Egyptian lawmakers, with laws on many female bodies, have banned the product, calling it a “mark of shame.”
Now, I’m the farthest thing from a feminist, but I have a huge problem with the incredible double standard this presents. I’m surprised that more women, and especially the feminists haven’t spoken out about this. I find it so sad to see women abused and reduced to objects. The fact that they don’t know any other way, because, “that’s the way it is” just makes it even worse.
Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood political party, said: “This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage.”
[Somehow I get the impression that it is more permissible if you happen to be a male.]
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a prominent Islamic scholar, agrees. He said: “I think this should absolutely not be allowed to be exported because it brings more harm than benefits. Whoever (imports it) should be punished.”
But I ask you, which is more shameful: making a mistake, or the negligent punishment of the mistake. Declaring only one of the two parties involved as guilty, and deserving of death.
Support for the product, includes, Marwa Rakha, an Egyptian blogger and activist for women’s rights, said “the Artificial Virginity Hymen ‘sticks it in the face of every male hypocrite’ in an Arab culture that condemns women’s sexuality but turns a blind eye to male promiscuity.”
I think that about sums it up. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
c.2009
For Americans, in our more modern, not to mention, sexually-charged society, this will be hard to fathom. In Egypt, and many Muslim countries, women are expected to stay pure for their wedding night…under threat of death. In fact they are still required to show their blood-stained sheet as proof of their purity.
While Egypt tends to be a little more liberal (though still a constitutional theocracy), a 2005 UN report estimated that 52 out of a total 819 murders in the country in 1995 were, so called, “honour killings.”
These folks take keeping the marriage bed pure to the extreme. While there are many good reasons to stay pure, theirs are for the express purposes of control, which is not love. The fact that this is a huge double standard is notwithstanding. (Men don’t have to do any such thing). But this isn’t even an accurate portrayal of virginity.
Well you don’t even have to be a particularly randy female to have a problem with this. Women have been forced to turn to surgery to repair damage, in many cases, caused by rapes. The surgical procedure is called hymenorraphy. A doctor will recreate the hymen by piecing together its remnants. It can also include inserting a gelatin capsule filled with a blood-like substance that will burst during intercourse, simulating bleeding. If there is not enough hymen left, or if the woman was born without one, part of the vaginal wall is used to recreate this thin tissue.
The operation, which is considered relatively simple and performed on an outpatient basis in western countries, is illegal in Muslim countries. The surgeries tend to be “back alley” procedures in terms of cleanliness and credentials. Though pricey at 1000 Egyptian pounds, the cost of not having it is often far worse.
But finally, now there is an alternative. Muslim women everywhere are breathing a collective sigh of relief. The Chinese company, Gigimo, (a company known for their sex toys.), has invented an artificial virginity hymen kit. For much less money and trouble, the device leaks out a red substance when inserted and broken. So on your wedding night, your husband will think you are a virgin still.
Conservative Egyptian lawmakers, with laws on many female bodies, have banned the product, calling it a “mark of shame.”
Now, I’m the farthest thing from a feminist, but I have a huge problem with the incredible double standard this presents. I’m surprised that more women, and especially the feminists haven’t spoken out about this. I find it so sad to see women abused and reduced to objects. The fact that they don’t know any other way, because, “that’s the way it is” just makes it even worse.
Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood political party, said: “This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage.”
[Somehow I get the impression that it is more permissible if you happen to be a male.]
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a prominent Islamic scholar, agrees. He said: “I think this should absolutely not be allowed to be exported because it brings more harm than benefits. Whoever (imports it) should be punished.”
But I ask you, which is more shameful: making a mistake, or the negligent punishment of the mistake. Declaring only one of the two parties involved as guilty, and deserving of death.
Support for the product, includes, Marwa Rakha, an Egyptian blogger and activist for women’s rights, said “the Artificial Virginity Hymen ‘sticks it in the face of every male hypocrite’ in an Arab culture that condemns women’s sexuality but turns a blind eye to male promiscuity.”
I think that about sums it up. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
c.2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Girl With Kaleidoscope Eyes
Lucy in the Sky with diamonds has died from an infection stemming from her bout with Lupus.
Lucy began her legacy, unwittingly, when John Lennon’s son, Julian brought home a painting he had done in school in 1966. “That’s Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” he told his dad. The rest is history.
She only recently admitted to being the inspiration for the legendary song, telling BBC radio,
“When I told a couple of friends that Lucy in the sky with diamonds was about me, they said, ‘No, it can’t be, it’s to do with LSD.’ I was too embarrassed to tell them that I didn’t know what LSD was.”
“I remember Julian and I both doing pictures on a double-sided easel, throwing paint at each other, much to the horror of the classroom attendant… Julian had painted a picture and on that particular day his father turned up with the chauffeur to pick him up from school.”
Julian has said, “I don’t know why I called it that or why it stood out from all my other drawings, but I obviously had an affection for Lucy at that age.
“I used to show dad everything I’d built or painted at school, and this one sparked off the idea for a song about Lucy in the sky with diamonds.”
She and Julian had lost touch, as most elementary school friends do, but upon hearing of her illness, Julian was quick to respond. He sent her flowers with a personally written card. He later learned that she enjoyed gardening. So he sent her gift vouchers for a garden centre.
“I wasn’t sure at first how to approach her. I wanted at least to get a note to her,” Julian Lennon told The Associated Press. “Then I heard she had a great love of gardening, and I thought I’d help with something she’s passionate about, and I love gardening too. I wanted to do something to put a smile on her face.”
Vodden developed an infection while on vacation with her husband of eight years. She was rushed to a hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk where she died on September 22, 2009, with her husband, father, sister and brother at her bedside. She was 46, Julian Lennon and his mother, Cynthia, released a statement saying they were “shocked and saddened” by Vodden’s death.
She was in such pain when she was sick, that she found it difficult to go out. Though one time when she did, she heard her song playing in a shop.
“That made me giggle,” she said.
The St Thomas Lupus Trust campaign director Angie Davidson paid tribute to Vodden.
“Everyone at the Louise Coote Lupus Unit was dreadfully shocked by the death of Lucy,” Davidson said. “She was a great supporter of ours and a real fighter. It’s so sad that she has finally lost the battle she fought so bravely for so long.”
c.2009
Lucy began her legacy, unwittingly, when John Lennon’s son, Julian brought home a painting he had done in school in 1966. “That’s Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” he told his dad. The rest is history.
She only recently admitted to being the inspiration for the legendary song, telling BBC radio,
“When I told a couple of friends that Lucy in the sky with diamonds was about me, they said, ‘No, it can’t be, it’s to do with LSD.’ I was too embarrassed to tell them that I didn’t know what LSD was.”
“I remember Julian and I both doing pictures on a double-sided easel, throwing paint at each other, much to the horror of the classroom attendant… Julian had painted a picture and on that particular day his father turned up with the chauffeur to pick him up from school.”
Julian has said, “I don’t know why I called it that or why it stood out from all my other drawings, but I obviously had an affection for Lucy at that age.
“I used to show dad everything I’d built or painted at school, and this one sparked off the idea for a song about Lucy in the sky with diamonds.”
She and Julian had lost touch, as most elementary school friends do, but upon hearing of her illness, Julian was quick to respond. He sent her flowers with a personally written card. He later learned that she enjoyed gardening. So he sent her gift vouchers for a garden centre.
“I wasn’t sure at first how to approach her. I wanted at least to get a note to her,” Julian Lennon told The Associated Press. “Then I heard she had a great love of gardening, and I thought I’d help with something she’s passionate about, and I love gardening too. I wanted to do something to put a smile on her face.”
Vodden developed an infection while on vacation with her husband of eight years. She was rushed to a hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk where she died on September 22, 2009, with her husband, father, sister and brother at her bedside. She was 46, Julian Lennon and his mother, Cynthia, released a statement saying they were “shocked and saddened” by Vodden’s death.
She was in such pain when she was sick, that she found it difficult to go out. Though one time when she did, she heard her song playing in a shop.
“That made me giggle,” she said.
The St Thomas Lupus Trust campaign director Angie Davidson paid tribute to Vodden.
“Everyone at the Louise Coote Lupus Unit was dreadfully shocked by the death of Lucy,” Davidson said. “She was a great supporter of ours and a real fighter. It’s so sad that she has finally lost the battle she fought so bravely for so long.”
c.2009
Singing Obama's Praises
Students in a New Jersey elementary school celebrated this year’ Black History month in an unprecedented way. Elvira James’ second grade class had the internet and news stations abuzz with their rendition of a praise chorus to the great Obama.
A YouTube video was released showing students of the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey singing and cheering, in essence, hymns of praise to our president to the tune of church choruses. Even going as far as referring to him as the Alpha and Omega, which is one of the names of Christ.
Another is reminiscent of the familiar Sunday School tune “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”
“Red and yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama”
And the other to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”
Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!
Is it just me, or is this really weird? I mean no other presidents had songs written about them, even the well-liked ones. I have said before, sort of half-joking, that his supporters have projected a God complex on him, I guess this just shows the frightening reality of that impression.
It gets even worse. The children go on to sing, “He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay.”
I don’t remember such indoctrination going on in my elementary school when Reagan was president, much less even knowing what saving the economy even meant at that age.
You can imagine the response from the parents, well, the Conservative ones anyway. “I’m stunned — I can’t believe it’s our school,” said Jim Pronchik, who told FOXNews.com his 8-year-old son Jimmy was one of the 18 students in the video. “We don’t want to praise this guy like he’s a god or an idol or a king or anything like that. That’s the wrong message to be sending.”
Now there are people like my dear liberal-ish boyfriend who say what’s the big deal? So they sang a little song about him?
The big deal is that these children are being fed propaganda before they have the means to filter through it. This is the reason that people were so against Obama speaking to the kids in the first place. That was the trick of many dictators. Indoctrinate your followers while they are young.
Robert Bowen, father of two children at Bernice Young Elementary said,
“I felt this was reminiscent of 1930’s Germany, and the indoctrination of children to worship their leader.”
Glenn Beck says in his column that this is a lot like the way North Korean children are taught to sing the praises of their “Dear Leader.” Any child who refuses to join in is punished. It is not that bad now, the kids are just frowned upon by teachers and classmates. He says that they are called into the principal’s office to say why it is that they aren’t singing. After which, it is “explained” to them why they should. This is just a hop, skip and a jump towards dictatorship. He also compares the similarities between the steps that Obama is taking to the baby steps Hitler took towards dictatorship.
I don’t want to be an alarmist, or a conspiracy theorist. I really do think this says more about Obama’s followers than it does about him. It just shows how loony they are, and how they blindly follow him. How they want so much to believe in him. That is what is so scary about it.
c. 2009
A YouTube video was released showing students of the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey singing and cheering, in essence, hymns of praise to our president to the tune of church choruses. Even going as far as referring to him as the Alpha and Omega, which is one of the names of Christ.
Another is reminiscent of the familiar Sunday School tune “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”
“Red and yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama”
And the other to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”
Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!
Is it just me, or is this really weird? I mean no other presidents had songs written about them, even the well-liked ones. I have said before, sort of half-joking, that his supporters have projected a God complex on him, I guess this just shows the frightening reality of that impression.
It gets even worse. The children go on to sing, “He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay.”
I don’t remember such indoctrination going on in my elementary school when Reagan was president, much less even knowing what saving the economy even meant at that age.
You can imagine the response from the parents, well, the Conservative ones anyway. “I’m stunned — I can’t believe it’s our school,” said Jim Pronchik, who told FOXNews.com his 8-year-old son Jimmy was one of the 18 students in the video. “We don’t want to praise this guy like he’s a god or an idol or a king or anything like that. That’s the wrong message to be sending.”
Now there are people like my dear liberal-ish boyfriend who say what’s the big deal? So they sang a little song about him?
The big deal is that these children are being fed propaganda before they have the means to filter through it. This is the reason that people were so against Obama speaking to the kids in the first place. That was the trick of many dictators. Indoctrinate your followers while they are young.
Robert Bowen, father of two children at Bernice Young Elementary said,
“I felt this was reminiscent of 1930’s Germany, and the indoctrination of children to worship their leader.”
Glenn Beck says in his column that this is a lot like the way North Korean children are taught to sing the praises of their “Dear Leader.” Any child who refuses to join in is punished. It is not that bad now, the kids are just frowned upon by teachers and classmates. He says that they are called into the principal’s office to say why it is that they aren’t singing. After which, it is “explained” to them why they should. This is just a hop, skip and a jump towards dictatorship. He also compares the similarities between the steps that Obama is taking to the baby steps Hitler took towards dictatorship.
I don’t want to be an alarmist, or a conspiracy theorist. I really do think this says more about Obama’s followers than it does about him. It just shows how loony they are, and how they blindly follow him. How they want so much to believe in him. That is what is so scary about it.
c. 2009
Joe Perry is a Selfish Bastard
According to an AP story, Aerosmith rocker, Joe Perry is pissed off at Steven Tyler for sidelining their tour.
Tyler, 61, is normally quite agile despite his age. Though he apparently fell backwards off the stage onto a couple of fans on Wednesday night during the band’s show in Rapid City, South Dakota. Apparently the sound system malfunctioned during Love in an Elevator performance, and Tyler was amusing the crowd with his dancing when the fall happened.
“He does a lot of dancing on the stage and he does a lot of stuff with his mic stand. He put his stand down and twirled around and stepped backwards off the stage,” said Mike Sanborn, spokesman for the Buffalo Chip Campground, which hosted the outdoor concert.
He was airlifted to the hospital, but was said to be in good spirits, even with a broken left shoulder 20 stitches in his head. He was joking around with the doctors. He was ordered by doctors to take some time off to recover.
After the incident, Perry Tweeted to ticket holders, “Sincere apologies out 2 all Aero Fans regarding the canceled shows. It really bums me out too- you have no idea. Pray 4 Stevens speedy return,”
However, Perry responded to the media a little more candidly, “I was pretty (upset), because right before that, he had pulled a muscle in his leg. And we had to take two weeks off and we missed probably seven dates.”
I’m not sure why Steve Perry is so upset. He has been busy promoting his upcoming , album, “Have Guitar, Will Travel.”
It would seem that he would show a little more concern for his injured co-worker. I can understand being frustrated that the tour is cancelled, but why do you have to being an ass about the whole thing? It’s not like Tyler asked for the injury. I would hope that if Perry were to get injured, Tyler wouldn’t respond in like manner.
It would also not seem uncommon for health issues to be interfering with Aerosmith’s plans. They are in their 60s, after all.
“All I know is he’s got to get his act together. I mean, he and I haven’t written a song together alone in the same room in over ten years, so there’s been some changes in paradigm of what Aerosmith is,” he said.
Perry said that he hasn’t spoken to Tyler recently.
c. 2009
Tyler, 61, is normally quite agile despite his age. Though he apparently fell backwards off the stage onto a couple of fans on Wednesday night during the band’s show in Rapid City, South Dakota. Apparently the sound system malfunctioned during Love in an Elevator performance, and Tyler was amusing the crowd with his dancing when the fall happened.
“He does a lot of dancing on the stage and he does a lot of stuff with his mic stand. He put his stand down and twirled around and stepped backwards off the stage,” said Mike Sanborn, spokesman for the Buffalo Chip Campground, which hosted the outdoor concert.
He was airlifted to the hospital, but was said to be in good spirits, even with a broken left shoulder 20 stitches in his head. He was joking around with the doctors. He was ordered by doctors to take some time off to recover.
After the incident, Perry Tweeted to ticket holders, “Sincere apologies out 2 all Aero Fans regarding the canceled shows. It really bums me out too- you have no idea. Pray 4 Stevens speedy return,”
However, Perry responded to the media a little more candidly, “I was pretty (upset), because right before that, he had pulled a muscle in his leg. And we had to take two weeks off and we missed probably seven dates.”
I’m not sure why Steve Perry is so upset. He has been busy promoting his upcoming , album, “Have Guitar, Will Travel.”
It would seem that he would show a little more concern for his injured co-worker. I can understand being frustrated that the tour is cancelled, but why do you have to being an ass about the whole thing? It’s not like Tyler asked for the injury. I would hope that if Perry were to get injured, Tyler wouldn’t respond in like manner.
It would also not seem uncommon for health issues to be interfering with Aerosmith’s plans. They are in their 60s, after all.
“All I know is he’s got to get his act together. I mean, he and I haven’t written a song together alone in the same room in over ten years, so there’s been some changes in paradigm of what Aerosmith is,” he said.
Perry said that he hasn’t spoken to Tyler recently.
c. 2009
Eddie Izzard Runs Around Britain
Transvestite stand-up comic, Eddie Izzard, 47 ran 1,100 miles around Britain. This is an especially unlikely challenge for someone who has never run more than 5 miles. It is, as you can imagine, quite the feather in his cap. He had been entertaining the thought for 10 years
It was a charity run for Sport Relief, a fundraising organization that raises and donates money to impoverished people in the UK and abroad. “I wanted to try to run around the whole of the UK. London to Cardiff to Belfast to Edinburgh and back to London, running through as many parts of the UK that lie in between our 4 capitals,” he said, of his “Eddie Iz Running challenge.” He carried flags and ice cream through the capitals. Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland. The ice cream truck followed him along, giving free ice creams, in hopes for donations.
He Twittered and blogged throughout the whole adventure to keep the public informed and supportive.
Izzard admitted his charity run from London to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, in aid of Sports Relief, had become “science fiction” and he was beyond exhaustion. Asked about preparation, Izzard said: “Well, I was told I was supposed to do five months of training, but I don’t like training so I did five weeks of training.”
After the run, by he announced the possibility of running for parliament in either Westminster or Brussels, because he liked to make long announcements.
When asked why he had decided to take on the Eddie Iz Running adventure, Izzard, said, “I think running is very primal. We used to hunt in this way.”
All kidding aside, his reasons for running are purely noble, which he did share on his blog,
The thinking behind his mission was;
WE ARE DIFFERENT
WE ARE THE SAME
WE ARE UNITED KINGDOM
WE ARE AFRICA
WE ARE HUMANITY
The 47-year-old finished his 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) odyssey across Britain, telling journalists: “I feel dead.” He is determined not to give up on the running and would like to do at least a couple of long runs every week.
Izzard, sustained a few minor injuries, including one to his hamstring during training, as well as shin problems. When asked how he managed to keep going, with the strenuous schedule of thirty-one miles for 6 days a week, he said that it was all about mind over matter. He compared it to the Second World War, where people had to do extraordinary things. He said, “If you imagine that you are going to do something that is rather extreme you just go ahead and do it.”
c. 2009
It was a charity run for Sport Relief, a fundraising organization that raises and donates money to impoverished people in the UK and abroad. “I wanted to try to run around the whole of the UK. London to Cardiff to Belfast to Edinburgh and back to London, running through as many parts of the UK that lie in between our 4 capitals,” he said, of his “Eddie Iz Running challenge.” He carried flags and ice cream through the capitals. Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland. The ice cream truck followed him along, giving free ice creams, in hopes for donations.
He Twittered and blogged throughout the whole adventure to keep the public informed and supportive.
Izzard admitted his charity run from London to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, in aid of Sports Relief, had become “science fiction” and he was beyond exhaustion. Asked about preparation, Izzard said: “Well, I was told I was supposed to do five months of training, but I don’t like training so I did five weeks of training.”
After the run, by he announced the possibility of running for parliament in either Westminster or Brussels, because he liked to make long announcements.
When asked why he had decided to take on the Eddie Iz Running adventure, Izzard, said, “I think running is very primal. We used to hunt in this way.”
All kidding aside, his reasons for running are purely noble, which he did share on his blog,
The thinking behind his mission was;
WE ARE DIFFERENT
WE ARE THE SAME
WE ARE UNITED KINGDOM
WE ARE AFRICA
WE ARE HUMANITY
The 47-year-old finished his 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) odyssey across Britain, telling journalists: “I feel dead.” He is determined not to give up on the running and would like to do at least a couple of long runs every week.
Izzard, sustained a few minor injuries, including one to his hamstring during training, as well as shin problems. When asked how he managed to keep going, with the strenuous schedule of thirty-one miles for 6 days a week, he said that it was all about mind over matter. He compared it to the Second World War, where people had to do extraordinary things. He said, “If you imagine that you are going to do something that is rather extreme you just go ahead and do it.”
c. 2009
All Oprah, All the Time
Imagine, if you will, a world without the Oprah show. The all-pervasive Oprah brand has been with us since 1986. But her contract ends in 2011. Now who will greet us when when we get home from work or school, Steve Wilkos?
Lord help us.
I was in the 6th grade when The Oprah Winfrey show made its debut. Little did I know what an enterprise it would become. Talk shows of that sort were just starting. What started as a sprinkling of followers in the 80s led to a huge BOOM in the 1990s, all following Oprah’s model. Even with the so-called “competition,” she was able to rise above.
Oprah is more than just a talk show; it’s an entity. She is responsible not only for her success, but the successes of many others, be it philanthropy, branding, even a passing comment. A mere mention from Oprah is worth more than gold.
So what is a world without Oprah like? Will she fade away into a new world of inactivity? Will her entrepreneurial spirit retire as well? Not quite.
One blogger says, that Oprah might want to consider replacing Joe Biden in the 2012 re-election, claiming that the 2011 date for her retirement is no coincidence.
According to the Tribune, Winfrey has been back and forth on the possibility of ending her world famous show for a while. Now with her Oprah Winfrey Network vision, the possibility seems more likely.
After all, why should she be satisfied with only ONE show when she can have an ENTIRE CHANNEL? The most powerful woman in the world is taking on a new cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network, with Discovery Communications. The company’s CEO said in a conference call Friday that Winfrey will not renew her syndicated talk show contract when it expires in September 2011.
“The expectation is that after that, her show will go off of ABC in syndication and she will come to OWN,” Discovery CEO David Zaslav said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “We’re talking now about what the presence will be and what kind of programming she would be involved in directly. But this is her Chapter 2, and building the OWN brand online and on-air is . . . a core mission for her.”
“This network isn’t just about me,” Oprah says. “It’s using the voice and the brand and the vision, but it really is about creating possibilities for any number of people … to extend the vision….”
Liberty Media’s Discovery Communications paid Ms. Winfrey $420 million to take control of Discovery Health Channel which will become OWN. OWN would be a 50-50 venture between Winfrey’s Harpo Productions and Discovery Communications.
This is a huge win for Discovery, and since the Oprah brand has few losses, score one for her as well.
“This is an evolution of what I’ve been able to do every day. I will now have the opportunity to do that 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever.” She says.
Lord help us.
I was in the 6th grade when The Oprah Winfrey show made its debut. Little did I know what an enterprise it would become. Talk shows of that sort were just starting. What started as a sprinkling of followers in the 80s led to a huge BOOM in the 1990s, all following Oprah’s model. Even with the so-called “competition,” she was able to rise above.
Oprah is more than just a talk show; it’s an entity. She is responsible not only for her success, but the successes of many others, be it philanthropy, branding, even a passing comment. A mere mention from Oprah is worth more than gold.
So what is a world without Oprah like? Will she fade away into a new world of inactivity? Will her entrepreneurial spirit retire as well? Not quite.
One blogger says, that Oprah might want to consider replacing Joe Biden in the 2012 re-election, claiming that the 2011 date for her retirement is no coincidence.
According to the Tribune, Winfrey has been back and forth on the possibility of ending her world famous show for a while. Now with her Oprah Winfrey Network vision, the possibility seems more likely.
After all, why should she be satisfied with only ONE show when she can have an ENTIRE CHANNEL? The most powerful woman in the world is taking on a new cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network, with Discovery Communications. The company’s CEO said in a conference call Friday that Winfrey will not renew her syndicated talk show contract when it expires in September 2011.
“The expectation is that after that, her show will go off of ABC in syndication and she will come to OWN,” Discovery CEO David Zaslav said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “We’re talking now about what the presence will be and what kind of programming she would be involved in directly. But this is her Chapter 2, and building the OWN brand online and on-air is . . . a core mission for her.”
“This network isn’t just about me,” Oprah says. “It’s using the voice and the brand and the vision, but it really is about creating possibilities for any number of people … to extend the vision….”
Liberty Media’s Discovery Communications paid Ms. Winfrey $420 million to take control of Discovery Health Channel which will become OWN. OWN would be a 50-50 venture between Winfrey’s Harpo Productions and Discovery Communications.
This is a huge win for Discovery, and since the Oprah brand has few losses, score one for her as well.
“This is an evolution of what I’ve been able to do every day. I will now have the opportunity to do that 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever.” She says.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Don't Count on "Super-Poking" Maureen Dowd Anytime Soon
Maureen Dowd has written a vitriolic op-ed about Sarah Palin. (Yawn). Who hasn’t?
The unexpected thing is that she blatantly has her facts wrong. The main focus of the op-ed is Sarah’s stance on the universal healthcare plan, which she has outlined on her Facebook page, a forum Ms. Dowd finds most offensive.
Amidst rampant accusations of ineptness, Dowd says in her piece, “[Palin] took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.”
View Palin’s statement here.
What?! Kids hooking up and cyberstalking? I fear Ms. Dowd is showing herself to be so horribly out of touch with the cyber-times, by making such an over-generalization. Likening Facebook with stalkers and kids “hooking up” is like likening the airport with terrorists. While those types are definitely there, they don’t make up the major clientele.
More accurately, Dowd’s out-of-touch-ness shows a fear of Palin’s views because they are dead on. Otherwise what beef would she have with her views, posted on a site that is frequented by teenagers and stalkers?
“Death Panels” are a distinctly accurate portrayal of what will go on. So proponents must mock it and call it stupid, “death panels,” don’t be ridiculous,” so that when they eventually do foist this healthcare plan on us, the hoi polloi won’t know what hit them.
Her piece is obviously meant to discredit Palin; to lessen the threat she represents. Using language like “the dizzy Palin has to be ‘clear in her own head what she wants to do’” only perpetuates the media stereotype of Sarah Palin. This is not journalistic integrity. Though not necessary for an op-ed, it would show her to be a force to be reckoned with, rather than just another Palin-hating lib.
Maureen Dowd, who not surprisingly, does not have a personal Facebook page, has several pages, groups, and clubs dedicated to her. By the cyberstalkers, no doubt, or maybe just teenagers wanting to “hook up.”
Maybe I’ll invite her to join. I wonder if Sarah Palin would friend her if she did.
c. 2009
The unexpected thing is that she blatantly has her facts wrong. The main focus of the op-ed is Sarah’s stance on the universal healthcare plan, which she has outlined on her Facebook page, a forum Ms. Dowd finds most offensive.
Amidst rampant accusations of ineptness, Dowd says in her piece, “[Palin] took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.”
View Palin’s statement here.
What?! Kids hooking up and cyberstalking? I fear Ms. Dowd is showing herself to be so horribly out of touch with the cyber-times, by making such an over-generalization. Likening Facebook with stalkers and kids “hooking up” is like likening the airport with terrorists. While those types are definitely there, they don’t make up the major clientele.
More accurately, Dowd’s out-of-touch-ness shows a fear of Palin’s views because they are dead on. Otherwise what beef would she have with her views, posted on a site that is frequented by teenagers and stalkers?
“Death Panels” are a distinctly accurate portrayal of what will go on. So proponents must mock it and call it stupid, “death panels,” don’t be ridiculous,” so that when they eventually do foist this healthcare plan on us, the hoi polloi won’t know what hit them.
Her piece is obviously meant to discredit Palin; to lessen the threat she represents. Using language like “the dizzy Palin has to be ‘clear in her own head what she wants to do’” only perpetuates the media stereotype of Sarah Palin. This is not journalistic integrity. Though not necessary for an op-ed, it would show her to be a force to be reckoned with, rather than just another Palin-hating lib.
Maureen Dowd, who not surprisingly, does not have a personal Facebook page, has several pages, groups, and clubs dedicated to her. By the cyberstalkers, no doubt, or maybe just teenagers wanting to “hook up.”
Maybe I’ll invite her to join. I wonder if Sarah Palin would friend her if she did.
c. 2009
The Politically Correct Bible
So the Bible is getting an update. A politically correct version? A more hip version? One that is more with the times? (OK, God really doesn’t mind coveting now). One where hypocrisy is allowed? Not yet.
This is a more insidious way of misinterpreting the Bible. Going under the guise of modernizing the ancient texts, the “translators” are actually rewriting them.
The New International Version, or NIV, was first published in 1978. It was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English. Though it is already outdated say many translators.
An article on the Christian Post quotes the scholars as saying that they are looking for a translation that is accurate as well as understandable. So what’s wrong with that, you might ask. The problem is that, whether they realize it or not, along with modernizing the text, they are stealthily changing it.
Past attempts at “modernizing” the Bible were frowned upon in Christian circles, as it was seen as not being true to the original words of God. An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after Christians denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would eliminate the male pronouns in the Bible.
Just changing the gender specific nouns in the bible may sound innocent enough, but according to biblical scholar and my pastor, Dr. Mike Kruger, “in the ancient world the concept of “son” was packed with all kinds of meaning, including the understanding that the son has certain privileges and is heir to the father’s estate, etc. That is all lost if we tamper with the words.”
Biblical scholar, Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible, is all for gender neutral language when the original language permits. He said “[it] is an improvement: the word “men” isn’t specified by the Greek text, and “all people” is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun “pas.” Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation.”
But the problem is when they change words that have a clear intent. It changes all nuances of meaning.
He gives examples of many of the verses that have been changed. For instance:
Genesis 1:26-27
Current NIV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image. . . .” So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
TNIV: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image. . . .” So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
Change in meaning: The change from singular “man” to plural “human beings” obscures the unity of the race as “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew noun “adam”). The word “man” in English can mean either “a male human being” or “the human race,” and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew “adam,” which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the meaning of “adam” as it could in English today. Why is the male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?
Inappropriate gender inclusive changes may seem harmless enough, but what’s next? If we change a few pronouns, what’s to stop us from changing a few verbs and proper nouns? It is not a stretch to say that soon we’ll have created God in our own image. Scholars of the Bible realize that every word holds a weight of meaning. It would seem strange for any Christian who believes that all scripture is God breathed to be on board with this.
c. 2009
This is a more insidious way of misinterpreting the Bible. Going under the guise of modernizing the ancient texts, the “translators” are actually rewriting them.
The New International Version, or NIV, was first published in 1978. It was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English. Though it is already outdated say many translators.
An article on the Christian Post quotes the scholars as saying that they are looking for a translation that is accurate as well as understandable. So what’s wrong with that, you might ask. The problem is that, whether they realize it or not, along with modernizing the text, they are stealthily changing it.
Past attempts at “modernizing” the Bible were frowned upon in Christian circles, as it was seen as not being true to the original words of God. An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after Christians denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would eliminate the male pronouns in the Bible.
Just changing the gender specific nouns in the bible may sound innocent enough, but according to biblical scholar and my pastor, Dr. Mike Kruger, “in the ancient world the concept of “son” was packed with all kinds of meaning, including the understanding that the son has certain privileges and is heir to the father’s estate, etc. That is all lost if we tamper with the words.”
Biblical scholar, Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible, is all for gender neutral language when the original language permits. He said “[it] is an improvement: the word “men” isn’t specified by the Greek text, and “all people” is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun “pas.” Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation.”
But the problem is when they change words that have a clear intent. It changes all nuances of meaning.
He gives examples of many of the verses that have been changed. For instance:
Genesis 1:26-27
Current NIV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image. . . .” So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
TNIV: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image. . . .” So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
Change in meaning: The change from singular “man” to plural “human beings” obscures the unity of the race as “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew noun “adam”). The word “man” in English can mean either “a male human being” or “the human race,” and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew “adam,” which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the meaning of “adam” as it could in English today. Why is the male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?
Inappropriate gender inclusive changes may seem harmless enough, but what’s next? If we change a few pronouns, what’s to stop us from changing a few verbs and proper nouns? It is not a stretch to say that soon we’ll have created God in our own image. Scholars of the Bible realize that every word holds a weight of meaning. It would seem strange for any Christian who believes that all scripture is God breathed to be on board with this.
c. 2009
Did You Hear the One About the Mother-in-Law Who Couldn't Take a Joke
Everyone loves Sundra Croonquist’s mother-in-law jokes. Everyone, that is except her mother-in-law, who is suing for defamation and slander. But heck, even VH1 which has her on as a commentator on those “Top 50 Celebrity Breakdowns” shows, enjoys the jokes.
Sundra, whose life is a comic’s dream, is half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. The jokes basically write themselves.
As you can imagine, her family makes up most of her material. Her mother-in-law jokes are her trademark, akin to Jeff Foxworthy’s “redneck jokes.” Mother-in-law, Ruth Zafrin isn’t laughing, though. She is suing Croonquist for spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with her in-law jokes.
“I walk in, I say, ‘Thank you so much for having me here …..’ She says, ‘The pleasure’s all mine, have a seat.’” Then, in a loud aside, ‘Harriet, put my pocketbook away.’” (This joke is also in the video below)
Mom says, “OK, now that we know you’re having a little girl I want to know what you’re naming that little tchotchke. Now we don’t want a name that’s difficult to pronounce like Shaniqua. We’re thinking a name short but delicious. Like Hadassah or Goldie.”
OK, the relatives didn’t really say that. These are just some examples of the racist lies Croonquist tells in her routine as jokes.
The comedienne remembers a time when the family played her tape at Passover one year, and they loved it. The in-laws laughed along with everyone else until the New Jersey gigs were promoted on her website. They said that Croonquist posted information that would make it obvious that they were the butt of her jokes. Now they are claiming that she is telling racist lies.
But her jokes aren’t racist. “They’re nice jokes. There’s nothing bad, nothing defamatory,” says Croonquist. It should be obvious to her in-laws, she says, that she’s not anti-Jewish. She converted to Judaism before she met her husband and keeps a kosher house.
Her husband’s law firm is representing her. She says she would drop any language her family finds offensive, but refuses to pay any settlement. Her lawyer has filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, and a judge is scheduled to hear it on Sept. 8.
Most attorneys will tell you that suing a comedian is difficult because it should be fairly obvious that they are joking instead of slandering.
Sunda says she was “shocked and sickened” by the suit, “This could have broken up my marriage,” she says bitterly.
But she is taking all the conflict in stride, keeping her anger in perspective with humor. “Maybe they don’t like Swedes,’ she muses to NBC’s Today Show host Al Roker, telling how she had been asked to step out of family photographs.
She has since changed her material to focus on herself, her husband, and Jennifer Lopez.
“My father is Swedish, my mother is African-American. You know what that made me growing up?” she asks the audience. “A Puerto Rican! That works for me, honey. … After having two babies in two years, I look like J-Lo.”
Let’s hope the judge has some common sense and throws this suit out the window.
Sundra, whose life is a comic’s dream, is half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. The jokes basically write themselves.
As you can imagine, her family makes up most of her material. Her mother-in-law jokes are her trademark, akin to Jeff Foxworthy’s “redneck jokes.” Mother-in-law, Ruth Zafrin isn’t laughing, though. She is suing Croonquist for spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with her in-law jokes.
“I walk in, I say, ‘Thank you so much for having me here …..’ She says, ‘The pleasure’s all mine, have a seat.’” Then, in a loud aside, ‘Harriet, put my pocketbook away.’” (This joke is also in the video below)
Mom says, “OK, now that we know you’re having a little girl I want to know what you’re naming that little tchotchke. Now we don’t want a name that’s difficult to pronounce like Shaniqua. We’re thinking a name short but delicious. Like Hadassah or Goldie.”
OK, the relatives didn’t really say that. These are just some examples of the racist lies Croonquist tells in her routine as jokes.
The comedienne remembers a time when the family played her tape at Passover one year, and they loved it. The in-laws laughed along with everyone else until the New Jersey gigs were promoted on her website. They said that Croonquist posted information that would make it obvious that they were the butt of her jokes. Now they are claiming that she is telling racist lies.
But her jokes aren’t racist. “They’re nice jokes. There’s nothing bad, nothing defamatory,” says Croonquist. It should be obvious to her in-laws, she says, that she’s not anti-Jewish. She converted to Judaism before she met her husband and keeps a kosher house.
Her husband’s law firm is representing her. She says she would drop any language her family finds offensive, but refuses to pay any settlement. Her lawyer has filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, and a judge is scheduled to hear it on Sept. 8.
Most attorneys will tell you that suing a comedian is difficult because it should be fairly obvious that they are joking instead of slandering.
Sunda says she was “shocked and sickened” by the suit, “This could have broken up my marriage,” she says bitterly.
But she is taking all the conflict in stride, keeping her anger in perspective with humor. “Maybe they don’t like Swedes,’ she muses to NBC’s Today Show host Al Roker, telling how she had been asked to step out of family photographs.
She has since changed her material to focus on herself, her husband, and Jennifer Lopez.
“My father is Swedish, my mother is African-American. You know what that made me growing up?” she asks the audience. “A Puerto Rican! That works for me, honey. … After having two babies in two years, I look like J-Lo.”
Let’s hope the judge has some common sense and throws this suit out the window.
Is Microsoft Racist?
Microsoft was forced to apologize last Wednesday after word of an editing choice of an online ad leaked to the public. Apparently, the head of a black model was “photo-swapped” with the head of a white model.
The ad drew widespread criticism on the Internet after Engadget, an influential tech blog, published news of the gaffe Tuesday.
The ad showed three business people, one Asian, one white and one black. It was altered on Microsoft’s web site in Poland, presumably with the “racially homogeneous” Polish market in mind.
On an amusing note that could put this all into perspective, upon closer inspection, it seems that the middle person is using an Apple MacBook MB062LL/A.
“While saying that Microsoft’s Polish operation was not commenting at all on the issue, Gazeta Wyborcza made much of the suggestion that the laptop in the shot may actually be a barely anonymized Apple model and that the monitor on the table doesn’t seem to be connected to anything. The paper even quoted Vijay, a commenter from the PhotoshopDisasters blog, who wrote: ‘The white head and black hand actually symbolise (sic) interracial harmony.’”
The article goes on to say that the Poles seem to be regarding this as a non-issue,
probably because they don’t have many blacks there. However, the more racially sensitive America will no doubt see this as an attack.
“Apart from the racial undertones it is surprising because the black man looks quite charming while the white guy looks like one of those cheesy, sycophantic employees who laughs the loudest at the bosses jokes, then gets slaughtered at the Christmas party and tries to shag his secretary” an Australian blog says.
On Microsoft’s official page on the social network site Twitter, a posting calls the swap “a marketing mistake” and offers “sincere apologies.”
“We apologized, fixed the error and we are looking into how it happened,” said Lou Gellos, a Microsoft spokesman. He said that because the company was still reviewing how the swap occurred he could not comment further.
So is this a racial slam, a “marketing mistake,” or just an editing job gone awry? My money is on the latter ones.
c. 2009
The ad drew widespread criticism on the Internet after Engadget, an influential tech blog, published news of the gaffe Tuesday.
The ad showed three business people, one Asian, one white and one black. It was altered on Microsoft’s web site in Poland, presumably with the “racially homogeneous” Polish market in mind.
On an amusing note that could put this all into perspective, upon closer inspection, it seems that the middle person is using an Apple MacBook MB062LL/A.
“While saying that Microsoft’s Polish operation was not commenting at all on the issue, Gazeta Wyborcza made much of the suggestion that the laptop in the shot may actually be a barely anonymized Apple model and that the monitor on the table doesn’t seem to be connected to anything. The paper even quoted Vijay, a commenter from the PhotoshopDisasters blog, who wrote: ‘The white head and black hand actually symbolise (sic) interracial harmony.’”
The article goes on to say that the Poles seem to be regarding this as a non-issue,
probably because they don’t have many blacks there. However, the more racially sensitive America will no doubt see this as an attack.
“Apart from the racial undertones it is surprising because the black man looks quite charming while the white guy looks like one of those cheesy, sycophantic employees who laughs the loudest at the bosses jokes, then gets slaughtered at the Christmas party and tries to shag his secretary” an Australian blog says.
On Microsoft’s official page on the social network site Twitter, a posting calls the swap “a marketing mistake” and offers “sincere apologies.”
“We apologized, fixed the error and we are looking into how it happened,” said Lou Gellos, a Microsoft spokesman. He said that because the company was still reviewing how the swap occurred he could not comment further.
So is this a racial slam, a “marketing mistake,” or just an editing job gone awry? My money is on the latter ones.
c. 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
"Quality Journlism isn't Cheap."... Rupert Murdoch
What if you had to pay for all the resources that you now enjoy for free on the internet, all the articles that used to be yours for a few clicks? It is no secret how cyberspace has transformed research in just a matter of years.
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
The Dark Side of William Golding
Upon reading Lord of the Flies, I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t leave any children with the author. But upon reading his memoir, I’m fairly certain that I myself wouldn’t be left alone with him.
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
Jealous, Whoopi?
Whoopi Goldberg really doesn't like Sarah Palin. Though, I think Sarah Palin needn’t worry. Even after she lost the vice-presidency, Palin remains the most-googled public figure 9 months after the election.
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Beauty in the Eye of the Employer?
Would you be willing to undergo the knife to get or keep your job?
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"And That's the Way it Was"
Walter Cronkite was born in a normal household in Missouri to a Dentist and a homemaker. He became so iconic, it’s hard to imagine that he had humble beginnings just like anyone else.
While he was very young, he read an article in “Boy’s Life” about the life of a reporter. He was instantly enamored, and just knew that was what he wanted to spend his life doing. He started gathering experience by working on his high school newspaper and yearbook.
He later went to the University of Texas at Austin to study political science, economics and journalism, but he never graduated. The call of the press was too loud to ignore. Instead, he chose to fulfill his childhood dream by working at the Houston Post.
In 1939 he started working for the United Press. Then the world started to change, and he jumped at the chance to report on it. He went to Europe to cover World War 2. He was part of the “Writing 69th,” which was a group of reporters who were instantly thrust into some of the most important developments in the war, including the D-Day invasion, bombing missions over Germany, and later, the Nuremburg war trials. He delivered his front line written commentary.
Television emerged, forever changing the way the world was reported on; not with written words, but spoken ones. At first resistant to a job at CBS, he finally took the TV job in 1950. Television was not considered to be a “serious” journalistic job. Radio and print were taken much more seriously. His first job was pretending to interview historical figures such as Joan of Arc or Sigmund Freud, for a show called, You are there. His famous last line for these programs was: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
Throughout his tenured career at CBS, he reported on a lifetime of events, indeed the stories that changed our lives including JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam war, The Apollo 11 mission, which left him speechless, The Cuban Missal crisis, and Watergate to name a few.
He recognized the limitations of TV, and it’s inability to give the whole story. He said, in 1952, “I wanted to end every broadcast saying, “For more details, see your local newspaper.” Even after his many broadcast successes, he never lost his true love for the written word. In 1994 he told the American Journalism Review, “We’ve got a great percentage of our population that, to our great shame, either cannot or, equally unfortunate, will not read. And that portion of our public is growing. Those people are suckers for the demagogue.” Ironically it is television he blames for the current impression our modern society has that reading isn’t necessary.
In a day when the news was all that was reported, not the corresponding feelings that the media thought you should have as well, Cronkite became such a trusted and influential authority. He truly had his finger on the pulse of American society. In fact, when President Lyndon B. Johnston learned that he opposed the Vietnam War, he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
Do you think the legacies of any of the current politicians will be this strong? Their level of competence or talent is irrelevant. Can you truly imagine feeling a void this big for any of the more abrasive, acidic commentators? Cronkite made his way into everyone’s family. He was like a trusted uncle. He didn’t tell you what to believe. He didn’t judge you for what you believed. He just reported the news. And that’s the way it was.
c. 2009
While he was very young, he read an article in “Boy’s Life” about the life of a reporter. He was instantly enamored, and just knew that was what he wanted to spend his life doing. He started gathering experience by working on his high school newspaper and yearbook.
He later went to the University of Texas at Austin to study political science, economics and journalism, but he never graduated. The call of the press was too loud to ignore. Instead, he chose to fulfill his childhood dream by working at the Houston Post.
In 1939 he started working for the United Press. Then the world started to change, and he jumped at the chance to report on it. He went to Europe to cover World War 2. He was part of the “Writing 69th,” which was a group of reporters who were instantly thrust into some of the most important developments in the war, including the D-Day invasion, bombing missions over Germany, and later, the Nuremburg war trials. He delivered his front line written commentary.
Television emerged, forever changing the way the world was reported on; not with written words, but spoken ones. At first resistant to a job at CBS, he finally took the TV job in 1950. Television was not considered to be a “serious” journalistic job. Radio and print were taken much more seriously. His first job was pretending to interview historical figures such as Joan of Arc or Sigmund Freud, for a show called, You are there. His famous last line for these programs was: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
Throughout his tenured career at CBS, he reported on a lifetime of events, indeed the stories that changed our lives including JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam war, The Apollo 11 mission, which left him speechless, The Cuban Missal crisis, and Watergate to name a few.
He recognized the limitations of TV, and it’s inability to give the whole story. He said, in 1952, “I wanted to end every broadcast saying, “For more details, see your local newspaper.” Even after his many broadcast successes, he never lost his true love for the written word. In 1994 he told the American Journalism Review, “We’ve got a great percentage of our population that, to our great shame, either cannot or, equally unfortunate, will not read. And that portion of our public is growing. Those people are suckers for the demagogue.” Ironically it is television he blames for the current impression our modern society has that reading isn’t necessary.
In a day when the news was all that was reported, not the corresponding feelings that the media thought you should have as well, Cronkite became such a trusted and influential authority. He truly had his finger on the pulse of American society. In fact, when President Lyndon B. Johnston learned that he opposed the Vietnam War, he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
Do you think the legacies of any of the current politicians will be this strong? Their level of competence or talent is irrelevant. Can you truly imagine feeling a void this big for any of the more abrasive, acidic commentators? Cronkite made his way into everyone’s family. He was like a trusted uncle. He didn’t tell you what to believe. He didn’t judge you for what you believed. He just reported the news. And that’s the way it was.
c. 2009
Partisan Punchlines
Everyone knows in times of conflict and stress, people often turn to humor as a way to cope. It is interesting the various ways people do this. Some can definitely dish it but have a hard time taking it. Others are very good-natured and don’t take themselves too seriously.
George Bush had a great sense of humor, so did Sarah Palin. It was a good thing, too. They were insulted mercilessly. I seriously doubt any one of their opponents could have handled it with such class. The ability to laugh at oneself shows a true strength.
It is especially interesting in such a stressful and public field as politics.
Humor can be a great tool to connect with the people. It can lighten the moment and endear you to the audience. When microphone problems interrupted Rudy Giuliani’s answer to a question in a CNN debate with Catholic bishops, he was told that it was because of the lightning. He laughed and said, “For someone who went to parochial schools his whole life, this is a very frightening thing.”
Palin’s spokesperson Tracey Schmitt told CBS that [Palin] thought that Tina Fey’s impersonation of her on SNL was funny. “The governor and the press corps watched the sketch in the back of her plane, laughing at Tina and Amy’s satirical take on the two politicians. She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.”
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, known for his wit, jokingly said he was going to ask satirist Stephen Colbert to be his running mate if he won. The Vulture blog reports in, Mike Huckabee Gives Stephen Colbert His Funniest Interview So Far, “Yes, he was funnier than Leno last Wednesday and got more laughs than Letterman on Monday… Which other candidate will protect us from the terrorists and make us laugh? Mike Huckabee for President of Earth!”
In the Democrat debate, people sent questions via video submissions from YouTube users. The atmosphere was a little edgier than usual. John Edwards, when asked to name something he doesn’t like about Clinton, stared at the brightly colored jacket she was wearing: “I’m not sure about that coat.”
Of course, no one likes being the butt of jokes, but I’ve found that often some of the more comedic sorts are the ones who can’t stand being laughed at.
The more overtly left leaning humorists all seem to have something in common. They are all obnoxious blowhards. Think Michael Moore, and Al Franken. The guys from Southpark show a lot more class than them. Oh yeah, they’re not flaming liberals.
Liberals tend to dominate the entertainment industry, and as such, they are dubious, if not combative of any Conservative influence. There are mixed reviews about Mike Judges’, The Goode Family, which pokes fun at Liberals. Liberals, not surprisingly, hate it because they can’t stand to be the butt of any jokes. They can dish it, but they can’t take it. Contrast Chevy Chase’s “moral problem” with SNL’s parody of Hilary Clinton, with his opinion that Fey should “go even harder on” and “decimate” Sarah Palin (video here).
Liberal humor tends to be more insulting and backbiting (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is just one example), whereas Conservative humor doesn’t feel it has to stoop that low. Not that Conservatives are completely innocent and not that Liberals are completely devoid of humor.
Take the confirmation hearings for Sonya Sotemayor, for instance. Al Franken lightened a, perhaps, tense situation with a humorous comparison of, well, something completely irrelevant, their shared love for Perry Mason. He likened the preparation for a job such as a Supreme Court Justice to watching Perry Mason day in and day out. Well, maybe he is kind of funny!
c. 2009
George Bush had a great sense of humor, so did Sarah Palin. It was a good thing, too. They were insulted mercilessly. I seriously doubt any one of their opponents could have handled it with such class. The ability to laugh at oneself shows a true strength.
It is especially interesting in such a stressful and public field as politics.
Humor can be a great tool to connect with the people. It can lighten the moment and endear you to the audience. When microphone problems interrupted Rudy Giuliani’s answer to a question in a CNN debate with Catholic bishops, he was told that it was because of the lightning. He laughed and said, “For someone who went to parochial schools his whole life, this is a very frightening thing.”
Palin’s spokesperson Tracey Schmitt told CBS that [Palin] thought that Tina Fey’s impersonation of her on SNL was funny. “The governor and the press corps watched the sketch in the back of her plane, laughing at Tina and Amy’s satirical take on the two politicians. She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.”
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, known for his wit, jokingly said he was going to ask satirist Stephen Colbert to be his running mate if he won. The Vulture blog reports in, Mike Huckabee Gives Stephen Colbert His Funniest Interview So Far, “Yes, he was funnier than Leno last Wednesday and got more laughs than Letterman on Monday… Which other candidate will protect us from the terrorists and make us laugh? Mike Huckabee for President of Earth!”
In the Democrat debate, people sent questions via video submissions from YouTube users. The atmosphere was a little edgier than usual. John Edwards, when asked to name something he doesn’t like about Clinton, stared at the brightly colored jacket she was wearing: “I’m not sure about that coat.”
Of course, no one likes being the butt of jokes, but I’ve found that often some of the more comedic sorts are the ones who can’t stand being laughed at.
The more overtly left leaning humorists all seem to have something in common. They are all obnoxious blowhards. Think Michael Moore, and Al Franken. The guys from Southpark show a lot more class than them. Oh yeah, they’re not flaming liberals.
Liberals tend to dominate the entertainment industry, and as such, they are dubious, if not combative of any Conservative influence. There are mixed reviews about Mike Judges’, The Goode Family, which pokes fun at Liberals. Liberals, not surprisingly, hate it because they can’t stand to be the butt of any jokes. They can dish it, but they can’t take it. Contrast Chevy Chase’s “moral problem” with SNL’s parody of Hilary Clinton, with his opinion that Fey should “go even harder on” and “decimate” Sarah Palin (video here).
Liberal humor tends to be more insulting and backbiting (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is just one example), whereas Conservative humor doesn’t feel it has to stoop that low. Not that Conservatives are completely innocent and not that Liberals are completely devoid of humor.
Take the confirmation hearings for Sonya Sotemayor, for instance. Al Franken lightened a, perhaps, tense situation with a humorous comparison of, well, something completely irrelevant, their shared love for Perry Mason. He likened the preparation for a job such as a Supreme Court Justice to watching Perry Mason day in and day out. Well, maybe he is kind of funny!
c. 2009
Bravo: Queer TV
One thing that struck me as I was watching the Bravo network the other day was the overabundance of estrogen; both real and fabricated. According to Reuters, Bravo is one of the leading gay-friendly stations. Bravo, part of the NBC/Universal family, is known for it's both female and gay appeal. Fashion shows, and reality shows such as Top Chef, America's Top Model, Kathy Griffin's My Life on the D List, Inside the Actor's Studio, Make Me a Supermodel, Miami Social, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, all seem to have a gay element to them. If Lifetime is called “TV for women,” I think we can safely call Bravo, “TV for gays.”
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salon staffs. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c. 2009
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salon staffs. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c. 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Betcha Didn't Know Ed McMahon's Story
Given all the untimely deaths happening at once, poor Ed was being upstaged by Michael, Farrah, and Billy. We would have been very remiss not to still give him his props.
Ed McMahon has passed away at 86. While that is a reasonable age to die, I suppose, there was something so timeless about him. It’s so hard to imagine that such an icon will no longer be with us; that we’ll no longer hear his familiar voice. Indeed, it was a voice that resonated in everyone’s lives. A voice that as Dave Letterman has said, “was a signal that something great was about to happen.”
A legendary talent, in his own rite, he was famous for being a supporting character, for making others look good. He is probably best known as Johnny Carson’s co-host on The Tonight Show, but even those who are too young to remember that are, no doubt, familiar with his voice. “Heeeeeeeeere’s Johnny!” is a recognizable tag line in most societies.
He died at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in California on June 23, 2009 in his sleep. Ed was obviously very old and was fighting many health problems, including cancer, but what ultimately got him was pneumonia.
His stellar career started when he was 15 years old. He was a “caller” at a bingo game in Maine. He spent the next three years performing as a clown in the state fair and carnival circuit. The second World War interrupted his clowning antics, and he became a Marine fighter pilot. He studied architecture at a Catholic University in Washington DC. He supplemented his education by selling vegetable slicers on Atlantic City’s boardwalk. He actually had no aspirations of stardom at this age. He was a natural at math and engineering, so a career as an architect seemed ideal.
However, the lure of the microphone won out over stability.
In the 50s, along with the 13 television shows he had consistent roles on, he hosted his own 3 hour daily interview show, not unlike The Tonight Show, in Philadelphia. Televisions were such a rarity then, he joked that it didn’t matter if he made mistakes.
However, after dusting his clown shoes off for the show Big Top (1950), his next assignment was flying planes in the Korean War. He came back from the war to cancelled shows. He scraped together bit parts. When he landed one on Who Do You Trust? with Johnny Carson, he finally found his niche.
Their chemistry was so good that when Johnny landed The Tonight Show in 1962, he took Ed with him.
McMahon has said, “You can’t imagine hooking up with a guy like Carson. There’s the old phrase, hook your wagon to a star. I hitched my wagon to a great star.” In fact, the two used to joke that their partnership outlasted their multiple marriages.
He has added so much to all sorts of shows, including Hee Haw, Celebrity Family Feud, Just Shoot Me, and The Simpsons. His reoccurring role? Himself. It was an easy role to play. He remained the same down to earth, likable guy in real life too.
Weatherman, Gene Crane recalls, “Ed sometimes filled in for me as emcee on Fame and Fortune Talent Show, which included doing commercials for the sponsor, Erlanger Beer. They made him do the commercial over and over, each time drinking a beer. He was a little bombed when he returned to the show, but was a pro. Ed was fun and worked harder than any of us.”
Jerry Lewis of The Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon, which he co-hosted with Ed said, “On the telethon, he was my right-hand man. It’s hard to imagine doing the show without him.”
And then we can’t forget TV Bloopers and Practical Jokes, co-hosted with Dick Clark. Most also remember him hosting the primitive American Idol, Star Search, where stars such as Britney Spears, Drew Carey and Arsenio Hall got their first breaks. Both Bloopers and Star Search were favorites at my house. In fact, my friends and I used to do was pretend we were contestants on Star Search.
McMahon suffered a broken neck in March 07, as well as financial problems. He filed lawsuits related to the injury as well as the faulty medical care he received, which included two botched spine operations, and a misdiagnosis. His not being able to work due to injuries only exacerbated the problem.
He lived a full life that most can envy. I think a lesson we can all take away from his example, would be to always strive to make the other person look good. In a world where everyone is trying to make themselves look good, we definitely could use a lot more Ed McMahons. I know I’m going to try to be one. And Ed would concur with a resounding, “YES!”
Ed McMahon has passed away at 86. While that is a reasonable age to die, I suppose, there was something so timeless about him. It’s so hard to imagine that such an icon will no longer be with us; that we’ll no longer hear his familiar voice. Indeed, it was a voice that resonated in everyone’s lives. A voice that as Dave Letterman has said, “was a signal that something great was about to happen.”
A legendary talent, in his own rite, he was famous for being a supporting character, for making others look good. He is probably best known as Johnny Carson’s co-host on The Tonight Show, but even those who are too young to remember that are, no doubt, familiar with his voice. “Heeeeeeeeere’s Johnny!” is a recognizable tag line in most societies.
He died at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in California on June 23, 2009 in his sleep. Ed was obviously very old and was fighting many health problems, including cancer, but what ultimately got him was pneumonia.
His stellar career started when he was 15 years old. He was a “caller” at a bingo game in Maine. He spent the next three years performing as a clown in the state fair and carnival circuit. The second World War interrupted his clowning antics, and he became a Marine fighter pilot. He studied architecture at a Catholic University in Washington DC. He supplemented his education by selling vegetable slicers on Atlantic City’s boardwalk. He actually had no aspirations of stardom at this age. He was a natural at math and engineering, so a career as an architect seemed ideal.
However, the lure of the microphone won out over stability.
In the 50s, along with the 13 television shows he had consistent roles on, he hosted his own 3 hour daily interview show, not unlike The Tonight Show, in Philadelphia. Televisions were such a rarity then, he joked that it didn’t matter if he made mistakes.
However, after dusting his clown shoes off for the show Big Top (1950), his next assignment was flying planes in the Korean War. He came back from the war to cancelled shows. He scraped together bit parts. When he landed one on Who Do You Trust? with Johnny Carson, he finally found his niche.
Their chemistry was so good that when Johnny landed The Tonight Show in 1962, he took Ed with him.
McMahon has said, “You can’t imagine hooking up with a guy like Carson. There’s the old phrase, hook your wagon to a star. I hitched my wagon to a great star.” In fact, the two used to joke that their partnership outlasted their multiple marriages.
He has added so much to all sorts of shows, including Hee Haw, Celebrity Family Feud, Just Shoot Me, and The Simpsons. His reoccurring role? Himself. It was an easy role to play. He remained the same down to earth, likable guy in real life too.
Weatherman, Gene Crane recalls, “Ed sometimes filled in for me as emcee on Fame and Fortune Talent Show, which included doing commercials for the sponsor, Erlanger Beer. They made him do the commercial over and over, each time drinking a beer. He was a little bombed when he returned to the show, but was a pro. Ed was fun and worked harder than any of us.”
Jerry Lewis of The Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon, which he co-hosted with Ed said, “On the telethon, he was my right-hand man. It’s hard to imagine doing the show without him.”
And then we can’t forget TV Bloopers and Practical Jokes, co-hosted with Dick Clark. Most also remember him hosting the primitive American Idol, Star Search, where stars such as Britney Spears, Drew Carey and Arsenio Hall got their first breaks. Both Bloopers and Star Search were favorites at my house. In fact, my friends and I used to do was pretend we were contestants on Star Search.
McMahon suffered a broken neck in March 07, as well as financial problems. He filed lawsuits related to the injury as well as the faulty medical care he received, which included two botched spine operations, and a misdiagnosis. His not being able to work due to injuries only exacerbated the problem.
He lived a full life that most can envy. I think a lesson we can all take away from his example, would be to always strive to make the other person look good. In a world where everyone is trying to make themselves look good, we definitely could use a lot more Ed McMahons. I know I’m going to try to be one. And Ed would concur with a resounding, “YES!”
Do You Remember Rock and Roll Video?
I have often wondered what I used to spend my days doing before the internet and social networking sites emerged. It just hit me; I watched MTV, of course! Times have changed so much that I can barely remember. While it's true that I still see videos thanks to the internet, it's just not the same. It's almost as if internet killed the video star.
MTV was the epitome of cool, back in the day. Antics of Veejays such as Kennedy, Adam Curry, Downtown Julie Brown, Martha Quinn, and (the other) Julie Brown were a part of the whole MTV experience. They personified cool. I could only hope and pray to someday reach their level of coolness. They each presented the videos to us in their own unique ways.
The new era of social networking is probably a little more productive than just vegging out, watching videos (not much, though). I remember when MTV was music television, when they actually played music, instead of asinine reality shows.
I was dubious when they started airing The Real World in 1993. Otherwise, though, they were true to their name as an all music station. Little did we know that this programming ploy would be the catalyst for a whole new future MTV generation. It would forever change music television as we knew it. Soon, Real World shows were sprouting up in every major city, slyly edging out music television. It was gone before we knew what hit us.
According to NPR, MTV's modus operandi is to completely change formats every 4 years, or every high school term. This allows it to keep current, allowing for a new generation of cool, thus pissing off a previous generation. (This would seem to be a smashing success. I can testify that I, as well all of the other Gen X-ers I know are sufficiently pissed off).
They were always cutting edge, but always seemed true to themselves as Music Television; even with shows like Remote Control. And, we do tend to forget that MTV has always embraced pop culture, which is not just limited to music. Image is just as important, if not more, than music is. In 1992, they held their first Town Hall meeting where, then presidential candidate, Bill Clinton campaigned on MTV, and then as president, in 1994 he came on, answering the infamous question “boxers or briefs?” I didn't particularly feel that this was out of line with their format, but I'm sure some did.
Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times says that there is nothing in America more influential than MTV.
The station shapes trends in the three most important areas of the average teenager's life; music, movies, and fashion. He reiterates the importance of staying current. But reality shows are neither current nor are they music.
Is this really what the Gen. Nexters groove on? Apparently not, say the ratings, which seem to be steadily declining. It is cheaper, though. MTV's response to last year's low ratings, was to foist a different lineup of the same sort of reality shows upon us. It seems this is more a case of the wallet speaking the louder than the ratings, which means that the station has lost much of it's coolness. Or perhaps they are too cool to pay attention to ratings.
c.2009
MTV was the epitome of cool, back in the day. Antics of Veejays such as Kennedy, Adam Curry, Downtown Julie Brown, Martha Quinn, and (the other) Julie Brown were a part of the whole MTV experience. They personified cool. I could only hope and pray to someday reach their level of coolness. They each presented the videos to us in their own unique ways.
The new era of social networking is probably a little more productive than just vegging out, watching videos (not much, though). I remember when MTV was music television, when they actually played music, instead of asinine reality shows.
I was dubious when they started airing The Real World in 1993. Otherwise, though, they were true to their name as an all music station. Little did we know that this programming ploy would be the catalyst for a whole new future MTV generation. It would forever change music television as we knew it. Soon, Real World shows were sprouting up in every major city, slyly edging out music television. It was gone before we knew what hit us.
According to NPR, MTV's modus operandi is to completely change formats every 4 years, or every high school term. This allows it to keep current, allowing for a new generation of cool, thus pissing off a previous generation. (This would seem to be a smashing success. I can testify that I, as well all of the other Gen X-ers I know are sufficiently pissed off).
They were always cutting edge, but always seemed true to themselves as Music Television; even with shows like Remote Control. And, we do tend to forget that MTV has always embraced pop culture, which is not just limited to music. Image is just as important, if not more, than music is. In 1992, they held their first Town Hall meeting where, then presidential candidate, Bill Clinton campaigned on MTV, and then as president, in 1994 he came on, answering the infamous question “boxers or briefs?” I didn't particularly feel that this was out of line with their format, but I'm sure some did.
Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times says that there is nothing in America more influential than MTV.
The station shapes trends in the three most important areas of the average teenager's life; music, movies, and fashion. He reiterates the importance of staying current. But reality shows are neither current nor are they music.
Is this really what the Gen. Nexters groove on? Apparently not, say the ratings, which seem to be steadily declining. It is cheaper, though. MTV's response to last year's low ratings, was to foist a different lineup of the same sort of reality shows upon us. It seems this is more a case of the wallet speaking the louder than the ratings, which means that the station has lost much of it's coolness. Or perhaps they are too cool to pay attention to ratings.
c.2009
Palin Power
Palin Power
I was really depressed when I found out that Republicans had selected John McCain to run in the '08 elections. I was definitely not a fan to begin with, but I knew there was no way he could possibly compete with Obama fever. But my outlook brightened considerably when I got word that Sarah Palin would be his running mate. The RINO would be forced to reckon with a true elephant. It was now a dream ticket. She is such a powerhouse, with a contagious excitement that easily tops Obama's “Yes we can” platform. The more liberal McCain might be more attractive to democrats and disillusioned republicans, and any socialist deeds he might be inclined to would be kept in check by the ever- conservative Palin. It was now a ticket I could definitely get on board with.
Palin was a breath of fresh air to the Republican party. She incited a fresh enthusiasm that we truly could have change without sacrificing our principles. Liberals saw this, and it scared the hell out of them. Here was a woman who truly had everything, family, career, looks, charisma, and a run for the highest office in the country. (And she did this on her own. She didn't have to ride on anyone's coattails). You really can't hope to get much better than that. You'd think that the feminists would love her. The only problem is, she didn't do it their way. She didn't count on government handouts. She sent her son off to war. She didn't believe in “choice,” and acted out those beliefs in her everyday life.
Liberals certainly weren't going to have any of this. Because they recognized what a threat they were, they made sure that McCain was painted in the same hues as Bush, although the two couldn't be more different. And the popular Alaskan governor had to be quickly cut down to size.
They constantly pummeled her with inexperience allegations, which is simply ludicrous given her opponent's level. Her experience as Governor gave her more executive experience than Obama. She has experience running both City and State, as Governor and Mayor. She has experience lowering taxes as well as building an oil pipeline, which helped meet the energy needs of Alaska. She did all this while raising a family and giving birth to a newborn baby, herself. She didn't even let having her water break stop her speech at a conference in Texas. Is she Superwoman or what?
In 1992, when she was just 28, she began her two three-year terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska. This was prompted by a concern that the revenue from new sales tax would be spent recklessly.
Although she labeled herself as a conservative Christian, and the particular church she went to disapproved of alcohol. She surprised her opponent, and probably everyone else, by voting against a bill that would force bars to close 2 hours early,
It's understandable that Hilary had to be feeling a bit one-upped by Palin. In fact, according to the NY Daily News, In September '08, Hilary Clinton angrily backed out of a pro-Israel, anti-Iran rally when she learned that Sarah Palin would be there as well. She was so threatened that she got her leftist cronies to disinvite Palin.
Erik Sean Nelson, of The Huffington Post wrote a very offensive piece entitled, Palin will Run in '12 On More Retardation Platform. In fact, the article was so offensive that he pulled it. In it's place is an apology.
While it's true that every public figure must develop “thick skin.” There is something very venomous about the attacks Sarah Palin has had to endure. She'll have 4 years to regroup, unencumbered by the duties of Governorship, hopefully to make a run in 2012.
c. 2009
I was really depressed when I found out that Republicans had selected John McCain to run in the '08 elections. I was definitely not a fan to begin with, but I knew there was no way he could possibly compete with Obama fever. But my outlook brightened considerably when I got word that Sarah Palin would be his running mate. The RINO would be forced to reckon with a true elephant. It was now a dream ticket. She is such a powerhouse, with a contagious excitement that easily tops Obama's “Yes we can” platform. The more liberal McCain might be more attractive to democrats and disillusioned republicans, and any socialist deeds he might be inclined to would be kept in check by the ever- conservative Palin. It was now a ticket I could definitely get on board with.
Palin was a breath of fresh air to the Republican party. She incited a fresh enthusiasm that we truly could have change without sacrificing our principles. Liberals saw this, and it scared the hell out of them. Here was a woman who truly had everything, family, career, looks, charisma, and a run for the highest office in the country. (And she did this on her own. She didn't have to ride on anyone's coattails). You really can't hope to get much better than that. You'd think that the feminists would love her. The only problem is, she didn't do it their way. She didn't count on government handouts. She sent her son off to war. She didn't believe in “choice,” and acted out those beliefs in her everyday life.
Liberals certainly weren't going to have any of this. Because they recognized what a threat they were, they made sure that McCain was painted in the same hues as Bush, although the two couldn't be more different. And the popular Alaskan governor had to be quickly cut down to size.
They constantly pummeled her with inexperience allegations, which is simply ludicrous given her opponent's level. Her experience as Governor gave her more executive experience than Obama. She has experience running both City and State, as Governor and Mayor. She has experience lowering taxes as well as building an oil pipeline, which helped meet the energy needs of Alaska. She did all this while raising a family and giving birth to a newborn baby, herself. She didn't even let having her water break stop her speech at a conference in Texas. Is she Superwoman or what?
In 1992, when she was just 28, she began her two three-year terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska. This was prompted by a concern that the revenue from new sales tax would be spent recklessly.
Although she labeled herself as a conservative Christian, and the particular church she went to disapproved of alcohol. She surprised her opponent, and probably everyone else, by voting against a bill that would force bars to close 2 hours early,
It's understandable that Hilary had to be feeling a bit one-upped by Palin. In fact, according to the NY Daily News, In September '08, Hilary Clinton angrily backed out of a pro-Israel, anti-Iran rally when she learned that Sarah Palin would be there as well. She was so threatened that she got her leftist cronies to disinvite Palin.
Erik Sean Nelson, of The Huffington Post wrote a very offensive piece entitled, Palin will Run in '12 On More Retardation Platform. In fact, the article was so offensive that he pulled it. In it's place is an apology.
While it's true that every public figure must develop “thick skin.” There is something very venomous about the attacks Sarah Palin has had to endure. She'll have 4 years to regroup, unencumbered by the duties of Governorship, hopefully to make a run in 2012.
c. 2009
Meghan McCain: Fighting for Republican Coolness
Meghan Marguerite McCain apparently thinks she's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City. To others she seems like Paris Hilton, with the same intellectual witticisms. She's actually an extremely bright girl with a case of diarrhea of the mouth. She just doesn't know when to quit.
Her blog, the MccainBloggette, as well as her column for The Daily Beast, is chock-full of inane commentary on all sorts of topics. Her weight, what it's like on the campaign trail, being single; her attempt to make Republicans seem cool. She shouldn't bother, because she's not one.
But she calls herself a Republican who is liberal on social issues. (Just like her dad). She says, "I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes." She calls herself a “pro-sex” woman, who is “a lot more religious than I let on. I have a great relationship with God. I was raised to love people and not judge people....”
Sure, she doesn't judge anyone. I suppose this remark about Ann Coulter was meant to be endearing. “I straight up don't understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.” She thinks Coulter is too extremist in her political views, and thinks that she is doing more harm to the party.
McCain has said she'd "be flattered to be considered the anti-Ann Coulter, the anti-Rush Limbaugh."
She says that she had changed her party registration from Independent to Republican "as a symbol of my commitment to my dad and to represent the faith I have in his ability to be an effective leader for our country and to grow and strengthen the Republican party when he is elected President of the United States."
Apparently her “commitment” is little more than symbolic, when she goes around calling Joe the Plumber a “dumbass.” Another, an example of her not judging. "Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing."
You may have read about her catfight with Laura Ingraham, who made a distasteful comment about McCain's weight. I can sort of see both sides here. Ingraham was doing a satire bit on Bill O'Reilly's show, in response to an article McCain wrote. She was impersonating McCain, saying, “Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models...”
Of course this is a horrible thing to say about anyone, and certainly not true in McCain's case; but also no worse than anything the libs say about, say, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else they don't like. You can watch for yourself Ingraham's defense, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjRyR4WSWZ4&feature=related
McCain responded on her blog, “...Instead of intellectually debating our ideological differences about the future of the Republican Party, Ingraham resorted to making fun of my age and weight, in the fashion of the mean girls in high school.” I have a feeling that she would be no match for Ingraham in a debate.
Her book, My Dad, John McCain, came out in 2008. She also hopes to write a "satirical account" of her experiences on the campaign trail. (I wonder if she'll be more sympathetic to Ingraham as a satirist). The one thing she won't talk about is Sarah Palin, which seems to be the one break, that Palin has experienced in this election.
Speaking at The Log Cabin Republicans convention in April 2009, she shared this mantra, "I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.”
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now. Being a Republican is cool.
c. 2009
Her blog, the MccainBloggette, as well as her column for The Daily Beast, is chock-full of inane commentary on all sorts of topics. Her weight, what it's like on the campaign trail, being single; her attempt to make Republicans seem cool. She shouldn't bother, because she's not one.
But she calls herself a Republican who is liberal on social issues. (Just like her dad). She says, "I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes." She calls herself a “pro-sex” woman, who is “a lot more religious than I let on. I have a great relationship with God. I was raised to love people and not judge people....”
Sure, she doesn't judge anyone. I suppose this remark about Ann Coulter was meant to be endearing. “I straight up don't understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.” She thinks Coulter is too extremist in her political views, and thinks that she is doing more harm to the party.
McCain has said she'd "be flattered to be considered the anti-Ann Coulter, the anti-Rush Limbaugh."
She says that she had changed her party registration from Independent to Republican "as a symbol of my commitment to my dad and to represent the faith I have in his ability to be an effective leader for our country and to grow and strengthen the Republican party when he is elected President of the United States."
Apparently her “commitment” is little more than symbolic, when she goes around calling Joe the Plumber a “dumbass.” Another, an example of her not judging. "Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing."
You may have read about her catfight with Laura Ingraham, who made a distasteful comment about McCain's weight. I can sort of see both sides here. Ingraham was doing a satire bit on Bill O'Reilly's show, in response to an article McCain wrote. She was impersonating McCain, saying, “Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models...”
Of course this is a horrible thing to say about anyone, and certainly not true in McCain's case; but also no worse than anything the libs say about, say, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else they don't like. You can watch for yourself Ingraham's defense, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjRyR4WSWZ4&feature=related
McCain responded on her blog, “...Instead of intellectually debating our ideological differences about the future of the Republican Party, Ingraham resorted to making fun of my age and weight, in the fashion of the mean girls in high school.” I have a feeling that she would be no match for Ingraham in a debate.
Her book, My Dad, John McCain, came out in 2008. She also hopes to write a "satirical account" of her experiences on the campaign trail. (I wonder if she'll be more sympathetic to Ingraham as a satirist). The one thing she won't talk about is Sarah Palin, which seems to be the one break, that Palin has experienced in this election.
Speaking at The Log Cabin Republicans convention in April 2009, she shared this mantra, "I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.”
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now. Being a Republican is cool.
c. 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Feelin' Thrifty
Since I, along with most people, am feeling thrifty, I searched high and low for thrifty tips. Here are some of my favorite websites dedicated to saving a few more pennies.
http://www.thriftyfun.com
http://www.thrifty-living-tips.com/
http://thrifty.lifetips.com/
http://www.betterbudgeting.com/
You can find coupons online for a lot of your favorite grocery and drugstore purchases. From food to deodorant to razors http://print.coupons.com
Organize in a folder or envelope kept in your purse or car for easy access.
Of course we know that buying in bulk saves money. Several grocery stores sell in bulk or you can shop at a warehouse club. But this is not a savings if it is going to just sit in your pantry. Since I am a single person, I don't buy food in bulk, however I will buy toiletries like toothpaste and toilet paper in bulk.
Bakery outlets are a seldom-tapped resource. You can find savings on bread and all sorts of baked goods.
“But,” you say, “eating thrifty isn't always eating on the skinny. All the cheap foods are bad for you.” Well, the 99 cent Chef reports some cheap choices that help keep your svelte figure. All sell for under a dollar.
http://www.tiphero.com/tips_325_&lpid=16
Entertainment
Make use of your local library or buy books at used bookstores. Amazon has a “used' link. You can usually save a lot. Some sell for 99 cents. I never pay full price for books.
Hulu.com in place of cable. With 900 current prime time hits that you can watch whenever you want, paying for cable seems rather pointless. Plus you can stock up on used DVDs at your local Blockbuster which sell for 2 or 3 bucks.
Thrifty Vacations
•backpacking
•camping
•working vacations – popular in the UK during the 50s, when money was tight and people couldn't afford holidays, they would often spend two weeks picking hops on the farms in the south of England.
These sorts of vacations are still available today in many different parts of the world. You can pick fruit or grapes for wine, or do some sort of environmental project. All are great ways to explore our world and meet new people. http://www.frugal-living-tips.com
How fun would it be to go grape picking in France? I guarantee that you would become the envy of your friends, not to mention your enemies, if you took that trip.
If possible, travel off season when the rates are lower. You can often avoid a price increase if you
buy your airline tickets in advance
Be sure to arm yourself with a City or Entertainment Guide with a list of all the attractions as well as coupons for restaurants and amusements. http://www.entertainment.com
Health http://www.alwaysfrugal.com/frugal-living.html
One of the best ways to stay thrifty is to stay healthy. Being sick is very expensive. Exercise is extremely important and very easy to fit in to any schedule.
I don't have the discipline to exercise at home. Some do. The most frugal thing to do would be to find some second-hand exercise equipment at yard sales, Goodwill, and sales at sports stores, so you can work out at home. However some need the discipline of a class to get (and keep) an effective regimen going. Your local Y offers all sorts of classes and exercise equipment for a decent rate. Most will work with you on this.
If you are a self-motivator and can keep a consistent exercise program at home, walking, biking, and hiking are ideal. In these cases, a good bike may be a valuable investment.
I cannot recommend yoga enough. I take at the Y, but they also hold classes at community centers and
churches. It is a great stress reliever and really helps with your disposition in these tight times.
While we're talking exercise, I found this recipe on http://www.tightwad.com/tips5.htm for deodorant. I am not yet thrifty enough to actually use this tip. But for those who are, mix full strength household bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) with water or a water and liquid soap solution. (Never mix bleach with any chemicals containing ammonia, it produces a deadly chlorine gas!) After washing underarms with soap and water, soak a wash cloth and use a 1/32 ratio of bleach to water for cleaning, then air dry.
Decorating
As a former artist, I know framing can be expensive. It doesn't have to be though. A simple
frame hanger can cost at least $3.99. But the pop up top from soda cans can do the same thing, for
much cheaper. Simply remove the top by turning slightly until it pops off. Then attach to frame with
small screws or tiny nails.
As long as you don't need a custom size frame, often you can find cheaply framed prints at stores like
Family Dollar. You can toss the print and use the frame for your objet d'art.
Now that I've shared some of my thrifty secrets, I'd like to hear some of yours.
c.2009
http://www.thriftyfun.com
http://www.thrifty-living-tips.com/
http://thrifty.lifetips.com/
http://www.betterbudgeting.com/
You can find coupons online for a lot of your favorite grocery and drugstore purchases. From food to deodorant to razors http://print.coupons.com
Organize in a folder or envelope kept in your purse or car for easy access.
Of course we know that buying in bulk saves money. Several grocery stores sell in bulk or you can shop at a warehouse club. But this is not a savings if it is going to just sit in your pantry. Since I am a single person, I don't buy food in bulk, however I will buy toiletries like toothpaste and toilet paper in bulk.
Bakery outlets are a seldom-tapped resource. You can find savings on bread and all sorts of baked goods.
“But,” you say, “eating thrifty isn't always eating on the skinny. All the cheap foods are bad for you.” Well, the 99 cent Chef reports some cheap choices that help keep your svelte figure. All sell for under a dollar.
http://www.tiphero.com/tips_325_&lpid=16
Entertainment
Make use of your local library or buy books at used bookstores. Amazon has a “used' link. You can usually save a lot. Some sell for 99 cents. I never pay full price for books.
Hulu.com in place of cable. With 900 current prime time hits that you can watch whenever you want, paying for cable seems rather pointless. Plus you can stock up on used DVDs at your local Blockbuster which sell for 2 or 3 bucks.
Thrifty Vacations
•backpacking
•camping
•working vacations – popular in the UK during the 50s, when money was tight and people couldn't afford holidays, they would often spend two weeks picking hops on the farms in the south of England.
These sorts of vacations are still available today in many different parts of the world. You can pick fruit or grapes for wine, or do some sort of environmental project. All are great ways to explore our world and meet new people. http://www.frugal-living-tips.com
How fun would it be to go grape picking in France? I guarantee that you would become the envy of your friends, not to mention your enemies, if you took that trip.
If possible, travel off season when the rates are lower. You can often avoid a price increase if you
buy your airline tickets in advance
Be sure to arm yourself with a City or Entertainment Guide with a list of all the attractions as well as coupons for restaurants and amusements. http://www.entertainment.com
Health http://www.alwaysfrugal.com/frugal-living.html
One of the best ways to stay thrifty is to stay healthy. Being sick is very expensive. Exercise is extremely important and very easy to fit in to any schedule.
I don't have the discipline to exercise at home. Some do. The most frugal thing to do would be to find some second-hand exercise equipment at yard sales, Goodwill, and sales at sports stores, so you can work out at home. However some need the discipline of a class to get (and keep) an effective regimen going. Your local Y offers all sorts of classes and exercise equipment for a decent rate. Most will work with you on this.
If you are a self-motivator and can keep a consistent exercise program at home, walking, biking, and hiking are ideal. In these cases, a good bike may be a valuable investment.
I cannot recommend yoga enough. I take at the Y, but they also hold classes at community centers and
churches. It is a great stress reliever and really helps with your disposition in these tight times.
While we're talking exercise, I found this recipe on http://www.tightwad.com/tips5.htm for deodorant. I am not yet thrifty enough to actually use this tip. But for those who are, mix full strength household bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) with water or a water and liquid soap solution. (Never mix bleach with any chemicals containing ammonia, it produces a deadly chlorine gas!) After washing underarms with soap and water, soak a wash cloth and use a 1/32 ratio of bleach to water for cleaning, then air dry.
Decorating
As a former artist, I know framing can be expensive. It doesn't have to be though. A simple
frame hanger can cost at least $3.99. But the pop up top from soda cans can do the same thing, for
much cheaper. Simply remove the top by turning slightly until it pops off. Then attach to frame with
small screws or tiny nails.
As long as you don't need a custom size frame, often you can find cheaply framed prints at stores like
Family Dollar. You can toss the print and use the frame for your objet d'art.
Now that I've shared some of my thrifty secrets, I'd like to hear some of yours.
c.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
