Would You Like Some Cheez Whiz With That Whine?

There's a storm a brewing, and the mommy/food bloggers are not happy. You see, this is what happens when you replace a longstanding professional trade or career with amateurs.

I am not a journalist. I could never hope to be one on my own. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, nor do I have information gathering services like that of NBC. I just like the stuff. I follow it where I can and do my due diligence to verify what I read.

In this same regard, food bloggers are not professionals (in the traditional sense). You can learn to cook on your own; almost everyone learns this way. But curating a food blog does not a professional make. I'm the worst person to critique food since I can't actually, you know, eat most of it.

If you truly wanted to be a critic of anything seriously, you really have to prepare. Can I critique photographs? Sure. But my reading Strobist hardly makes me an expert. Seeing movies doesn't make me an expert capable of critiquing them either. And making dinner every night and posting about it on my blog doesn't make me a foodie or an expert on foods.

Does it matter what non experts think? Of course! That's why Adam Sandler cranks out movies that critics hate. Because the rest of america loves them. But Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, and Reign Over Me (the last one in particular) are great movies that critics loved. And they all failed at the box office.

Recently, some food bloggers got an invitation to a dinner hosted by the one and only George Duran. You know, that guy who hosts Ultimate Cake Off. The one you want to kick only slightly less than the tool that hosts Cupcake Wars.

Photo from Food Network Canada

Yeah, that guy. Food is serious business.

Apparently, some bloggers are upset because they feel like they were lied to and duped into eating free food they would not have otherwise eaten. I don't want to sound like a douche, so here's what went down (objectively).

An invitation was sent to a select few bloggers; it looked like this:

The bloggers were told that this restaurant was essentially a pop up shop of restaurants and would be open for only five days. The bloggers were allowed a guest/date, and were allowed to have a giveaway on their blogs for dinner at Sotto Terra.

I'm not familiar with how this sort of thing works, but I'm something of a skeptic. And I research pretty much everything. I don't think I am normal like this, but I'd think anyone with a large audience would at least research places they were going to blog about.

Is it normal for a restaurant to open for only five days? Restaurant equipment is exorbitant. I'd think that five days would make very little sense for a restaurant. A pop up fashion or letterpress shop? Absolutely! The amount of overhead is much lower for those businesses. Not to mention food permits, etc.

I didn't even know George Duran was a chef, so I Googled him. Turns out, he is. Go figure. He went to NYU for Communications, worked as a producer, so on and so forth. Then, he went to France to learn how to cook. To me, this is important, we'll see why later.

Next, I'd Google Ketchum. This person I'm supposed to reply to works there (or at least has an e-mail address there). Oh, they are a marketing and PR firm. That's odd, but hey, maybe that's normal. George Duran isn't going to give you his personal e-mail. For all we know, Christine is his assistant. Or his agent or something.

The invitation states that they will be dining at an Italian eatery, learn about food trends from Phil, talk to each other, and sample George's Sangria while eating a four-course meal hosted by George Duran and Phil Lempert.

A few points. This is an Italian restaurant. George Duran studied French cuisine. His specialties are French, Armenian, and South American. I'm sure he can make a decent enough Lasagna, but I would be more excited about being served Italian food by someone who's known for cooking Italian food. In the celebrity chef scene, Mario Batali immediately comes to mind. Needless to say, this is yet another red flag.

But wait, the invitation refers to George and Phil merely as hosts. I don't think it implies that they will be cooking. In fact, the only time it mentions them in relation to food is when it says they'll be served Chef Duran's Sangria. You know, something South American.

So let's read what some of the bloggers had to say.

Over at Mom Confessionals, there's this:

Our entire meal was a SHAM! We were unwilling participants in a bait-and-switch for Marie Callender’s new frozen three cheese lasagna and there were cameras watching our reactions. I’ve got a sense of humor so I was okay with it and I had been enjoying myself up until that point, but I could tell that the rest of the participants were not. Everyone feigned weak shock and faked approval of the frozen meal.

I feel like "bait-and-switch" gets thrown around a lot. This is one of those times. This was not a bait and switch. They promised a four course meal hosted by George Duran and delivered. Also, bait-and-switch is kind of excessive considering that the food was free. It's not like Best Buy having an ad for a free monitor, then not having it and convincing you to buy something else.

All in all, this blogger seemed a bit annoyed, but mostly because her guests were duped.

Next up is the very poorly named blog of Chubby Chinese Girl (cuz she's, you know, kinda skinny).

First, I'd like to commend her for being the only one who took decent photos. The crop of the invitation came from one of her photos, in fact.

Then the focus shifted to healthy eating, fresh and local, seasonal, reading our labels, so on and so forth. Sort of like a Food Inc. panel if you will. I pointed out that the reason I ate organic, fresh and good food was because my calories are very precious to me, so I want to use them wisely.

(emphasis hers)

Okay I have some problems with this. Lasagna and Razzleberry pie don't exactly conjure up words like healthy or calorie conscious to me. I honestly can't take something like Razzleberry pie seriously. It sounds like something out of Willy Wonka or (yes) Marie Calender.

The reading labels thing throws me off, though. Eating fresh, local, and seasonal [ingredients] doesn't really involve labels. I'd hope a serious chef (or food blogger) would use as little prepared foods, except maybe ones they'd made themselves.

I'm NOT their target consumer and they were totally off by thinking I would buy or promote their highly processed frozen foods after tricking me to taste it. I'm not saying I ONLY eat/write about healthy and organic foods, but what unhealthy stuff I choose to eat/write, at least I was aware of it and it was my decision to do so.

But this is hardly new. Companies have been doing this for decades--getting people to try something they'd say they dislike (Think Coke and Pepsi).

I don't think they thought that the bloggers would do nothing but praise them either. I think they wanted to give them food they'd otherwise shun because it's processed and see what they think. If they all hated it, they'd know to change the recipe or whatever. I don't think they were thinking, "Let's woo some food bloggers with a big name like George Duran, some sangria, and free lasagna. This will get us tons of free positive publicity. Nothing could possibly go wrong." No, when giving people food, you always run the risk of a negative review. Food critics always get free food, and negative reviews abound. If a food blogger thought, "I won't say anything bad, I'll be polite" then they ought to not be reviewing food. Personally, if they found it so disgusting at Sotto Terra, they should have spoken up.

If I was a foodie and expecting a home made meal from a big name chef and it was only so-so, I'd certainly at least say something to the people around me. I wouldn't call the chef out on it because I'm just not that extroverted. But hey, if I had thousands of readers who took my opinions to heart, maybe that'd be different. Who knows. But I'm sure there was at least one loud mouth (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in the group. Why didn't anyone say "This Lasagna tastes like crap, who the hell taught you to cook?"

But Chubby Chinese Girl was again mostly upset at having eaten processed food. She seemed more upset than the first blogger, but seemed to take it mostly in stride.

The people over at Food Mayhem, on the other hand, were nonplussed.

To Mr. George Duran:
On behalf of the the culinary world, we hereby revoke your dodin bouffant; apron; and most of all, your right to call yourself a ‘chef’. You sir are an embarrassment to those in the culinary industry working hard to maintain and enhance a culture of food as one of the best parts of living.

hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. This is the equivalent of people calling each other tea baggers, libertards, or any other sensationalist garbage. This hardly disqualifies chef Duran as being a chef. He's just doing his job as a spokesman for Con Agra Foods. Anyone who has watched the Food Network (and they all do) would see Food Network chefs promoting products during the commercial break.

Normally, I'd run down a response to an entire blog post like this, but it's so filled with sensationalist, angry bitterness that I'm not even going to bother. (some examples, just so I don't look like a sourpuss):

Let’s consider a more personal hypothetical: George, how would you feel if invited to my home, fed chicken cordon bleu, and then afterwards informed that we had secretly stuffed the cavity with entrails of rats found in the street, cleansed using various chemicals from the utility closet, such as bleach (also food safe in small quantities).

because excessive salt and food coloring is just like bleach and dirty rat innards.

After several minutes, your partner-in-crime Phil Lempert addressed the group...

Crime? What crime? Inviting you to dinner? Giving you free food?

What good P.R. teams do not do is lie to build attendance. Lying to media makes it that much harder for legitimate P.R. teams to achieve their goals. Build trust, not facades.

P.R. teams lie all the time. This is what people refer to as spin. Sure, maybe it's not really lying. But it's just like advertising. Lying wrapped with a pretty bow. And I wouldn't consider food bloggers media any more than I'd consider myself the media. Sorry, maybe it's nit picky, but no.

This line is probably the closest to a sane point made in the post and even it is pushing it:

Whether a belief is grounded in religion or science or completely random, part of your job as a chef is to support it. This is not taste preference, such as putting ketchup on steak tartare, this is what one chooses to eat. Would you feed beef to a Hindu? Swine to someone kosher? Or, chicken to a vegan? I am none of those, but would never force them to do something against their belief.

No. Seriously, no. Do not compare this to feeding beef to a Hindu. Or non kosher pig during Passover. Or even vegans. This is an insult to them.

Believing in natural products that haven't been processed is a fair belief to have. I, too, think there's way too much unnecessary shit in our food. There's absolutely no reason for high fructose corn syrup in bread, for example. But this is not an appropriate analogue.

But let's be clear here: this should not have even been a surprise. All these bloggers needed to do is a little bit of legwork. The last blogger actually referred to the group as "the media." Well, the media actually does research beforehand. What would a little research have uncovered?

George Duran is a spokesman for Imusa, selling things like pressure cookers and cookware.

At least as of January of this year, George Duran has worked with Con Agra Foods. There are even pictures of him. Seriously, this is not that hard.

Of course, not everyone who attended was as flagrantly pissed off. Kimberly Coleman took it all in stride and didn't get bent out of shape.

We were all shocked. You could have knocked us over with a feather, because we never saw that coming. Personally, I found it hilarious. I turned to my friend who came with me and said, “Oh my gosh…I feel like Justin Timberlake on Punk’d!” (I didn’t almost cry/totally lose my street cred for a minute though…but that’s another commentary.) In any event, from what I observed (and I could totally be wrong/people could have went home and had totally different reactions) the group on my night thought that it was a fun way for MC to prove their point that their new lasagna was as good as homemade lasagna. (I couldn’t stop teasing my Italian friend for not knowing the difference though…he grew up on his grandmother’s authentic Italian food!)

But you know what they say. One person's hilarious joke is another person's hellish nightmare. Or something like that.

This all kinda reminds me of this episode of Penn & Teller in a way


P.S. Don't get me started on bottled water.
P.P.S. Maybe this from Consumer Reports was just too late for some bloggers.

"I Only Shoot Natural Light"

This subject came up the other day at the mall when Krissy and I were picking up my suit. We'd met an acquaintance of hers who is a photographer who shoots in natural light. I don't know if she uses it exclusively, but from what I saw and remember, she does.

This made me think of the numerous photographers I see saying they only shoot in natural light; when I start thinking, sometimes words just start flowing out of my mouth, this one one such time.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with natural light, this isn't some anti-sun rant or anything, this is more about attitude. I love natural light, I think we all do; without natural light, we'd all be dead.

But I have some problems with people who seem to brag about the fact that they use sunlight exclusively.

First of all, strobes are not unnatural light. They are available. Joe McNally often quotes someone who says he only uses available light. He of course finishes by saying that "available light" is "any fucking light that's available" and to this sentiment I agree.

What if you only use sunlight, and the sun isn't cooperating? You can't work. Yes, people will understand that, but I think at times it can look unprofessional. Imagine getting set up with a customer/client and the clouds roll in killing your dramatic light you had, or there are no clouds and the light is harsh and overbearing. Do you tell them to wait? Do you say you'll try again some other time? I understand you can work with this and around this, but by declaring strobes off-limits seems silly to me.

I think people are scared of flash. I think flash is the proverbial fat-assed gorilla in the room that they want to approach, because when do you get to see a gorilla up close? But they're terrified he will go, quite literally, apeshit on their asses. That's flash. People are intrigued, but afraid because of the uncertainty.

Or maybe they are just lazy.

Then there are the hipster types who are just too cool for any kind of light that isn't directly from the sun falling on powerlines or old fountains. And cross-processing it. Or using polaroids, because manual film is too mainstream.



All that said, I think that a knowledge of light, is paramount for any photographer. Painters were (and are) masters of light, so when something is the backbone of your work, you have the duty to understand it and to utilize it to its fullest potential.

Knowing how light works allows you to take sunlight that may not be ideal and sculpt it onto your subject. You can then supplement this light with strobes, or hot light, or iphone screens, or any other source of light as needed.

So I think natural light only is something of a cop out. People sound pompous when they say it like, "I don't use strobes, I don't need to cheat, I work with what nature gives me to show you how you really look" when in reality, strobes absolutely do the same thing--and so much more.



Rings made by Vicky definitely recommend her shop

I Don't See How A Flat Tax Solves Anything

I fully admit, I don't understand the arcane art and science that is taxes and their applicable laws. But there's been something that has sort of been on my mind since around October or so.

Back when the Tea Party movement was in full force (not that it isn't now), there was clamoring for an overhaul of our tax system. I think anyone can agree our tax system is far from perfect, and needlessly convoluted. But their solution, I feel, far oversimplified things. I don't think you can take the most complicated of things, and reduce it to the simplest without losing something.

To boil humans, an extremely complicated species, for sure, into an amoeba, for example. So much would be lost in the process. Intelligent thought, for example. And no, I will not use this as an opportunity to insult tea partiers or republicans. =)

So you have our insanely complicated tax system, thousands of pages of tax codes, and thousands of people to help people understand all this. Big companies hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to pay as little as possible, so on and so forth. Poor people pay no tax, because, well, they're poor. Average people pay average tax, and the rich overwhelmingly pay most of the taxes.

Some people want to change this to a flat tax, and I understand the sentiment. Taxes are complicated, and who wants to pay someone to do their taxes. Who wants to employ an entire government agency to collect them, et cetera. Well, I do, for one.

Imagine that there was a flat tax. First of all, it doesn't work, a flat tax is regressive. Flat tax boils down to a very simple set of ideas:

First, the poor end up paying more taxes. The people who can afford it least actually have to pay more and, in effect become poorer.

Second, the rich pay less in tax. The people who need the money least end up with even more money.

The gross side effect of this nonsense is that the middle class basically disappears. The income inequality is already bad enough, with CEOs making hundreds of times what their workers earn, and that is largely due to the fact that our tax system has been slowly regressing more towards a flat tax (in theory).

But, taxes really aren't that complicated. Most people can file a 1040 or 1040EZ which takes only an hour or so of your time, even if you don't know what you're doing. For self-employed people, taxes can in fact be more complicated, but this is largely do to having to do your own bookkeeping, not an overly complex system of tax codes. How much did you spend on gas and electricity? There's a line for that on the form. How much in entertainment and food? Take half of that and slap it on the form. It's basically a boring adult version of color-by-numbers.

As for the people that taxes are really complicated for? The obscenely rich who have investments and the like who pay lobbyists to insert loopholes that they then hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to exploit to the max. Maybe this is a little biased, but when is the last time you took advantage of a tax loophole? I'll bet Exxon-Mobile does it on a daily basis, like monkeys on the discovery channel. Does it make sense that the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment gets paid $800,000 in wages (taxed at 35%) and $20 million in dividends (taxed at 15%). This is why the tax codes are needlessly complicated, because rich people intended it to be so.

Note: I'm being chastised because the other half would like to work out, so I will bring this post to a close. I actually only intended it to be a short little snippet of a post anyway.

Casting aside the irreparable harm that a flat tax would cause to this country's economy and to it's people, I have another extremely large concern. This is my main concern, really, and why I started this post originally.

If we went to a flat tax for everything, and got rid of the IRS, then what? What about those people? They are now not only out of a job but out of a career. They will have been trained for an industry that no longer exists. The IRS workers would all be out of jobs and basically screwed. Would tea partiers be willing to have the government pay to reeducate these people for new careers? Or are they strictly on their own? Would my dad be able to retire? I don't think he can go back to school for a new career at his age. What about my brother and his family? Would they be out of luck too? Would they add to unemployment and homeless statistics? What about Kaulean who does something related to taxes and auditing for the government?

Also, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and the like. Although I don't like them as businesses, certainly they employ at least some decent people who'd be out of work. As would every other CPA or accountant.

So tell me again, how is a flat tax good, and what problems does it solve? Because frankly, my dear, I just don't see it.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

The Moral Ambiguities Of The Pro Choice/Pro Life Argument

Rick Santorum, if you don't kow, will probably run for president in 2012. Recently, he came under fire for saying this:

"The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the constitution?" he said. "And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

He then explained what he meant a few days later:

"For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

I know that there are few fights that incite more anger and vitriol in this country than ones centered around abortion rights, and everyone is entitled to their views. There is no right or wrong, necessarily, just right and left, up and down, et cetera. Views are views, they are unique to each person and we must all deal with that fact.

What never really occurred to me, though, is the argument Rick Santorum is making. I don't mean about Obama and blacks and slavery. No, I mean how he is arguing that an unborn fetus is a person, and that he would hope the constitution might recognize that one day.

I understand the moral argument against abortion. I can see how people would think it's wrong. It's not a choice I'd make, and certainly not one I'd ever want to have to consider. But, I know there are many situations where it is the right choice. For those who make it. And their choices never affect me, so I don't really get hung up over what other people choose to do with their own bodies.

But Rick Santorum is suggesting that unborn fetuses are people. People. But how? In what capacity? Do fetuses have any rights? Obviously he'd want them to have the right to life, but what else? I can't imagine what other rights they could give, really. I mean, they are unborn, they have no physical presence in this earthly world.

But what really got me thinking is death. Specifically, the death of an unborn person.

You see, if an unborn fetus is a person, and they have the right to life, then what of their deaths? What if abortion were illegal, but someone did it anyway? Who is the criminal? Is it the mother? The doctor? The father? Maybe it's all of them.

What if the baby is stillborn? That's really no one's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that a person is dead. Would there be a crime there? What about a lithopedion pregnancy, or an ectopic pregnancy?

When does a cell become a person? Conception? When they develop organs? A brain? A heartbeat? How does one even decide that? At the very least, I can understand the rationale some have for arguing that a fetus isn't a person until they are born, until they exit the womb. At that point, they are here, on land, independent of their mother's body. How could one pinpoint any stage earlier than that? Even conception is kind of early, considering it's mostly just two things mushed together to form a cell. (My recollection of health class is a bit fuzzy, so my terms may not be super accurate.)

So would that make abortions murder? Would they be punished the same way killing a child or baby would be? Would it be capital punishment? Is taking someone's life because they took someone else's just another moral conundrum? Especially if that "person" hasn't breathed their own air yet?

Is a miscarriage, or any other complication like those mentioned before, considered manslaughter? Because, when people dies, there are investigations. Someone is at fault when someone dies. A little kid in Connecticut recently died at a gun range firing an Uzi. His dad and the owner of the range were help responsible. If the mother's body destroyed the fetus or the baby, is she liable?

I don't necessarily think people should get abortions, but sometimes they are vital to saving a life. What if the pregnancy will kill the mother, should the baby be aborted? Would that abortion be legal or illegal?

There are a great many things that I do not know, and even more that I am unsure of. but I don't think we can or should legislate morality, because everyone's morals are different. In some cultures, shaking hands is prohibited, or rude. Some people settle arguments with a few punches. Sometimes, maybe it's necessary to have an abortion.

Besides, you have to admit, it's kind of ironic that people get so angry over abortions but those same people (generally) don't seem to have any problems whatsoever with the death penalty.When is it okay to take a life, and when is it prohibited?

Where does the line get drawn?

Have You Heard Of BlogHer?

I don't think I respond to things the way most people do. Sometimes, I feel bad because of how I respond, because I wonder if I am fair, or just whiny. For the record, I'm not whiny, though I am a critic. I, like most, have an opinion about everything, and I tend to share it.

I don't praise everything, either. I tend to point out the flaws in things. I don't do this because I'm a Negative Nancy (sorry if anyone named Nancy reads this, it's nothing personal.) I just feel that everyone points out what's good. Look at competition shows: what good is telling people on American Idol they are all talented, or bakers on TLC (don't get me started...) that they're all talented. Of course they are. That's like telling someone on Jeopardy that they are all intelligent. The rounds and rounds of testing they need to pass to get on Jeopardy proves that. Only one person can win.

So I point out what is wrong with things, because I think people tend to overlook them. Not that flaws are bad, mind you. I like flaws, they add character. But sometimes, these grievances need to be aired.

BlogHer is a blogging network of sorts. Basically, it's a collection of blogs that they think women would be interested in. I don't like this. I don't like a men's version either. They are stilted. I'm willing to bet I like more websites on the BlogHer network than the College Humor or Asylum network of sites.

Apparently, men like the following things:

- Women. Lots of them. The less clothing, the better. Some sites offer scantily clad one, others offer naked ones, while others offer celebrities.

- Vehicles. The more horsepower, the better.

- Tools, clothing, video games, movies, music, et cetera.

I don't agree with this. I don't care about looking at things like AskMen or Maxim and seeing women in them. And anytime I click a link to one of those websites that does interest me, I'm inundated with women everywhere, and Krissy facetiously asks me why I'm looking at sexy ladies. But I'm not; she's my sexy lady, so I look at her.

Then there's cars. I don't really care about cars. I have one, it gets me from A to B. I don't need a cat that costs a million dollars, or goes 200 MPH. I don't need to tow a house through the Grand Canyon. I just don't. I have an interest in tools, but I'll get what works and what's needed, it's not an obsession. The rest are really applicable to anyone. In fact, it all is.

Women like movies. Women like music. They even, gasp, play video games. Not just wussy ones, either. They play things like Halo and Call of Duty. True story.

It is in this vein that I disagree with BlogHer. Here is their information page for bloggers and what it says:

• over 90 days old
• open to comments
• that are updated weekly (preferably twice a week, or more)
• free of any advertorial or sponsored posts, and compensated product reviews
• that are not password-protected
• without profanity in the title and/or URL
• that don’t publish adult content
• that don’t belong to another ad network, requiring “above the fold” placement
• hosted by a service that allows advertising (some do not)
• not hosted by a service that places graphic banners at the top of the page
• written by women, or with a demonstrated female audience
• that adhere to our Editorial Guidelines

First, I must add that they randomly made some words bigger than others. Much bigger. This hurts my eyes, and is obnoxious. This is not dynamic, it is stupid. Reading is not a roller coaster ride, it doesn't need to be more exciting. They are guidelines, treat them as such.

They want blogs that have been around for a bit, I understand, they want people to be able to comment, fair enough. They want people who actually blog, and that people can actually see. This all makes sense.

But here's what I don't get. adult content, profanity, and written by women for women. I'm sure there are women that like adult content. They are alienating a large group of women with this. Adult content is exceedingly vague, too. Does this mean no penis? No vaginas? Women love vaginas though, they are beautiful, like childbirth. What about breasts, is that "adult content?" Is a woman grabbing her breasts adult, but checking for breast cancer okay? If so, what is the difference, a woman is touching herself either way.

Profanity. Women curse. Yes, we curse too much as a whole, but profanity hardly should be censored. Women, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to be shielded from language, coarse or otherwise. Fuck isn't going to hurt anybody. Shit, either, unless someone flings poo and it gets into your eyes. But not the word; it's just letters. Maybe copulate and excrement are more suitable. But we all know they just mean fuck and shit. Even women; especially women.

The big one: written by women for a demonstrated female audience. I don't qualify, I'm not a woman. Apparently, men do qualify, though, because David Lebovitz is a member. They just appear to emphasize  women writers, literally, "women" and "female audience" are several sizes larger. I get wanting female writers, though. Women are interested in other women, and simultaneously hate every single one of them. But how does one demonstrate a female audience?

Does blogging about food do it? What about politics, does that do it? Does one need to post about feminist ideas, or emasculate men? Can you write about sex without breaking the earlier rules about adult content? Jezebel certainly doesn't apply, because their writers use profanities and talk about all kinds of adult content, yet they are a blog about and for women. In fact, Krissy makes fun of me when I read it. Blogging for a female audience seems awfully vague about a very specific idea.

Then there are the editorial rules, most of which are fair, and the heart of why I started this post. Their editorial guidelines stipulate:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that:

Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam. 

except, they actually encourage it through their reviewer program. Let me explain. BlogHer has advertisers. These advertisers give BlogHer money and products for their bloggers to review and give away. This clearly violates the whole "no sponsored posts" rule, and is, frankly, disappointing.

Here's an example: Right now, BlackBerry is a sponsor, so if you head here you get a page of BlackBerry ads. Also on that page are links to blogs, like this one, which are really just advertorials. Maybe that's not fair, or being too fair. Advertorials are written by the ad agency to look like editorials, and we recognize them as such. No, these paid reviews are more like payola in the music industry.

I clicked one of the BlackBerry posts which led me to a site about baking. What does a baking blog need to review a cell phone for? Computer magazines don't review chocolate. Of course, this isn't really a review either, it just praises the phone.

Uh, I couldn’t be more wrong. This new BlackBerry Style phone is rocked. It features a full QWERTY keyboard and it’s one of two BlackBerry(s) to run on the BlackBerry’s latest OS 6, the best part—it is the only one to sport a 5 megapixel camera. How’s that for being dead wrong? I’m a BlackBerry user and always have been. I love its functionality for work and for play—most importantly, it’s a hardy phone. No cracked glass screen when I drop it. Yes, I know there are sleeves to prevent that, but I firmly believe a phone should be able to withstand a drop without going bust. I’m also a working mom who needs functionality and form to work hand in hand.

Okay, so first impressions are that...it's one of two BlackBerrys with the new OS? That excites her? oh, and a full QWERTY keyboard, because that's unique. It also has a 5 megapixel camera, because when it comes to cameras, megapixels is all that matters.

Here are the things that I look for when I’m phone shopping:
Size
Yes, size does matter. I love that the BlackBerry Style is even smaller than my work issued BlackBerry Bold. That means I can easily slide it in my back pocket for convenience and since it’s a flip phone I don’t have to worry about any accidental butt dials!

Okay, it's smaller. This is a plus? It's smaller, has a full QWERTY keyboard and a 5 megapixel camera?  Anyway, the real benefit here is that the camera is smaller than her old BlackBerry, so she can place it in her back pocket no problem. I can thus only reach one conclusion. Her old BlackBerry must look like this:

Zack Morris, you have a phone call.

The best thing about flip phones? You can totally put them in your back pocket, sit on them all day and not dial old ex-boyfriends with your ass. You might have a nasty case of hemorrhoids, though, so I don't think the back pocket is the ideal place to put a phone. Just sayin'

Camera
Camera. Lights. Action. Go. Okay, so my son doesn’t get this kind of preamble, usually it’s me just shoving my phone’s camera in his face to capture a moment. I don’t carry a point and shoot everywhere but I do carry my phone everywhere. Having said that, I’m loving the 5 megapixel with flash. That’s right five-five megapixels on a phone!

Lights! Camera! Action! Wait, this camera does video? Oh, no, it doesn't. Now I'm confused. Okay, so maybe she confused video and still photography, no biggy. She does have an amazing camera in her phone though. I mean, it's five megapixels! That is unheard of in a phone. Wait, didn't the Nokia N95 have a 5 megapixel camera? When did that come out again? Oh yeah, that's right, 2007. 

Speed
This BlackBerry-baby is fast. For a working mom, time is a commodity—so yeah, I need speed. The load time for switching between web based applications is nil and the search time on the web browser moves at the rate in which I can inhale a cupcake—Ahem, that pretty much means a little under a nano second.

It's fast. Blazing! But the Torch (AT&T) is faster. And then there's the iPhone and many Android based phones with a processor nearly double this ones speed. And the BlackBerry app platform is hardly robust compared to that of Apple or Google. This sounds like total pandering, and I don't like it.

Needless to say, I love this BlackBerry Style phone, so I’m excited that in conjunction with Blogher, BlackBerry is offering this phone with Sprint’s network to (2) lucky winners.

Great! except, they are only giving you the phone, you're on your own for service. And it only works on Sprint. How much does this phone retail for? $399. Yikes! This must be a pretty good prize, no? What's that? You're telling me this phone is only $20 when you sign up for a contract with Sprint?

You can enter thusly:

• Leave a comment letting me know the most important feature you look for when shopping for a mobile phone.
• Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment on this post. 
• Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post.
• For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules for alternate form of entry.

Commenting is easy, although clearly this is so BlackBerry knows what people want. That's fine, we all want better phones. Maybe they can give us a phone that the wireless providers can't cripple with their own software? Android is supposed to be open, and it is, but AT&T and Verizon cripple them with their own, closed software. We shouldn't be at the mercy of the providers.

Tweet! That way, #BlackBerry #Style can be trending on #Twitter and people will  be #curious about this #Payola! As they say, any news is good news.

You could also blog about it. I wonder if this counts? Does a blog criticizing the company, the product, and the network count? After all, there was not one flaw reported in that entire "review" Maybe she could have mentioned how the app market is poor compared to competitors. Or that the browser is slower than Apple or Android. How web pages look tiny on the itty-bitty screen? The incessant scrolling and zooming you need to do to read the pages could have been pointed out.

FYI: I just checked, it actually does do video. How could she leave this out?


Here's a real review on the camera courtesy of PCMag:

The Style's 5-megapixel camera could be better. Its awkwardly placed, so it's easy to cover it with your thumb. The continuous autofocus can make for some blurry pictures if you don't wait a second or so for it to lock in. And images are a little bit dark, and show slightly too much color noise. It's not hideous by any means, but there's better out there. The video mode takes 640 by 480 videos at 20 frames per second with a slight pulsing effect; that's behind the 30fps we see on top-of-the-line Android and Apple phones.

 So the camera is actually just okay, and can be kind of annoying.

Anyway, I'm done. I just wanted to dissect BlogHer and their advertorial/Payola system, because this kind of stuff really bothers me. I don't like pandering to companies, and how mommy blogs were kind of founded on it. I'd hate for someone to have read a less then genuine review on a blog only to buy that product and be disappointed.

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.