Whitney Is A Terrible Show

I'm watching Whitney.

This. Show. Is. Terrible.

I've watched all four episodes now. I wanted to like it. I've liked her on the various roasts on Comedy Central, so I was pretty optimistic about her eponymous show.

The show says it's filmed in front of a live audience. This means that every sentence  is followed by a long pause, and the audience gives a very poor quality laugh track (I'm sure there is some Sweetening involved, here). I don't blame them, nothing in the show is really funny enough to laugh at. I'm not even sure there's much humor in the show at all.

The show is ostensibly about Whitney, a photographer, (who doesn't hold a camera properly, mind you) and her live-in boyfriend of five years. They are not married, because they're not the marrying folk. Or something. Whitney appears to be some sort of feminist too. Or maybe she just likes being macho; I'm not entirely sure.

The Pilot consists of Whitney going to a sex shop to buy a costume. Apparently their sex life is in a lull. She's not hot enough on her own, she needs to dress in a plastic/latex nurse costume. Her boyfriend ends up in the hospital, and they realize that their relationship isn't picture perfect, but it works for them. Gawker posted a video of Whitney saying "okay" over twenty times, or, once a minute. I suppose they needed more filler.

The next episode is First Date. Whitney realizes that she and her boyfriend have never been on an official first date. Of course, they've been on dates before, so this is a lie. She means that they didn't have a normal, romantic one. Like you see on TV and movies. On shows like Whitney. But, Whitney doesn't even seem to care about that sort of nonsense throughout the show, so it sounds like she's really just trying to make her and her boyfriends life miserable.

This is the only logical conclusion I can make since that is exactly what happens. She takes the First Date pseudo-seriously, and her boyfriend kinda doesn't take it seriously at all. She gets mad at him, and they go home. But she decides to be funny and tells him she doesn't go home with guys on the first date. Her boyfriend, Alex, takes this time to point out that, in fact, she does. She closes the door on him, and he sleeps at a friend's apartment. They spend the rest of the episode apart scheming against each other with the help of their friends. You know, like normal people. Wait, you mean you don't do this kind of crap to your significant other? Hmph, must just be them.

The next episode is called Silent Treatment and centers around Alex looking at another girl. You see, in TV world this isn't allowed. Certainly one should never gawk but what would most likely be a rather mundane part of everyday life turns into an entire episode that takes place over an entire day.

Whitney questions Alex and he lies. He figures Whitney doesn't want to hear he looked at another lady. Apparently, she's the only pretty person in the world now, all other women are ugly. I suspect that if he had looked at an "ugly" lady, she wouldn't have made an issue of it. Needless to say, she doesn't believe him that he didn't check out said lady and she gives him the silent treatment. The episode names they come up with on this show are awe-inspiring.

She soon realizes that her voice is really quite grating, and that she is actually rewarding Alex by not speaking to him. She's usually yelling and has a pretty monotonous voice, after all. Now, she ups the ante, and tortures her boyfriend by actually talking to him now. We all know that in the real world there is no greater punishment than having to listen to your significant other speak. To you. Regularly.

Right?

Whitney decides to annoy and harass Alex until he confesses that he checked the lady out, and proceeds to point out all the other good looking women at the bar-like place they always hang out. Naturally, Whitney does not approve. I don't remember how they settle this. He probably won't tell her when he sees an attractive lady, and she probably will try to ignore it. That's always the best way to solve problems--sweep them under the rug and ignore them.

Also, apparently their friend, Roxanne, wants to make her ex jealous and takes slutty Myspace pictures of herself.

This brings us to tonight's episode.

Basically Whitney and Alex try to be romantic. Again. They go on an awkward date. She deals with her friend's crisis. Her friend, Lily, is afraid that her boyfriend, Neil, is going to propose to her. She wants him to, so basically she's upset over nothing.

Alex and Whitney's date eventually takes them to where Neil is proposing to Lily. The entire time, Whitney complains and is a jerk to Alex.

That's really what makes this show terrible. Whitney is essentially about a couple that is bored and can hardly stand each other. But they love each other in some weird way for some strange reason. But they don't want to get married because Whitney's parents divorced.

Whitney is always rude to her boyfriend Alex. Alex is always pretty ambivalent to Whitney. There's nothing here to draw you in. None of the characters are even likable. I could care less what happens to the characters. This is a bad thing for a television show. The magic of shows like Friends or Community is that you care about the characters. All of them. You are interested in them and invested in them. People hoped for years that Ross and Rachel would get together. Sort of how people hoped Dawson would end up with Joey (but didn't).

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.

Irene Terrorizes The East Coast Leaving A Massive Trail Of Butthurt In Her Wake

Image Credit:Ron Garan at NASA

I like storms. They are fun and energetic. Sometimes Nature just wants to remind of that it's there. Sometimes nature wants to smack us in the face and say, "Don't be such jerks." And sometimes Nature is just really angry and figures we obviously haven't been getting the message.

People freak out about storms. I guess this response is warranted at times. But most of the time it's just crazy people being crazy. Thunderstorms and rain doesn't mean to stock up your bunker for a week. I think in situations like this, though, some caution is warranted. But mostly just in an "always be prepared" sort of way.

That's really all you can do.

Stressing out is never going to be beneficial, ever. And in the event there is an emergency, or severe kick you in the ass weather, you'd really want to have your wits about you.

I wouldn't evacuate though. Maybe if there were going to be an onslaught of tornadoes or a giant category 5 hurricane waltzing its way through the neighborhood picking on us like a little kid frying ants with a magnifying glass, maybe then I'd leave. But I'd rather sit back and watch what happens during a storm. As long as people aren't seriously hurt or killed and damage isn't extensive, I'm happy.

Every once in a while though, I think we need reminders to keep us on our toes. So, thanks Irene. You probably won't hear that much, but thanks.

From me and the rest of us.

Response: Why You Were Probably Expecting Too Much From Taylor Swift, Andrea Lampros

I read this article today entitled, "Parent Regrets: Why I Wish We Never Went to See Taylor Swift" and the arguments made in the article bother me. I'll go through the post little by little, but the author basically says the following: "Wah, wah, wah, I'm butthurt that Taylor Swift isn't the perfect symbol for feminists and her concerts are too flashy."

Good thing she didn't go to this concert; I imagine her son and husband would be scarred for life.

That said, here we go.

A note to moms: If you're thinking about taking your daughters to see Taylor Swift as their first concert, and maybe your first show since the Indigo Girls in 1996, please don't.

Here's your problem, Andrea. You haven't been to a concert in fifteen years. Things are different now. Concerts need to gross hundreds of millions of dollars now. Taylor Swift doesn't actually make money by selling millions of records (believe it or not). She makes money from endorsements and concert ticket sales. (Unless Tay Tay has a 360 deal, which is a possibility).

If you're thinking you'll see a sweet Southern singer/songwriter on stage with her guitar, a few pretty dresses, and simplistic but heartfelt lyrics, you won't.

If you want to see that, go to the House of Blues. You could probably see someone like Adele there. She's probably more up your alley, although not country or southern.

The overwhelming message of the Swift concert to the sea of girls ages 5 to 55: be pretty, be conventional, be quiet (well, it's OK to scream for me), and definitely put on some lipstick.

Bitch much? Considering anything I've ever seen of Taylor swift, she's hardly "conventional." She wears cute dresses instead of lingerie on stage. You ought to be happy you didn't bring your family to a Britney Spears concert where she dry humps the stage for ninety minutes.

When my 10-year-old daughter learned to belt out "A Place in this World" on her guitar a few months ago, I began to feel some affection for Swift. Country music up until the quasi-country, anti-Bush Dixie Chicks had never appealed to me, but Swift's commitment to writing her own songs and to making her own way in the music business was compelling. And she even maintained some dignity after being publicly berated by an obnoxious Kanye West.

Agreed. Taylor Swift is probably the closest I'd get to country music. She seems to handle herself with dignity and poise too, which is, well, unconventional. Plus she writes her songs, like you said.

On a recent trip to Washington, DC, my husband and I splurged on Swift tickets for ourselves and kids -- an 8-year-old boy and two girls, ages 10 and 12. We thought the young singer would be especially inspirational to our daughters who love her music and are avid musicians.

That's sweet of you. Taking your three children to a concert would be quite the outlay of cash for not just tickets, but food and souvenirs as well. And you suckered your husband into tagging along as well. You sneaky devil, you. However, I'm not sure that your reason of it "being inspirational" to your daughters was the best use of your money. But I'll give you a pass—you haven't been to a concert in fifteen years.

We joined the ebullient, predominantly female concertgoers in floral H&M jumpers and cowboy boots streaming into DC's Verizon Center. Many arrived holding their daughters' hands before the first two opening bands to stand in long lines for Swift t-shirts and merchandise and take photos next to the towering Swift cutouts in the lobby.

I hope people paying that much money for tickets at least saw the opening acts. Oftentimes, that's the best part of a concert. Also, those opening acts might have also served as an inspiration for your daughters. Or your son or even your husband for that matter.

The scene was sweet until you got to the CoverGirl stands (Swift is a CoverGirl) where girls of all ages sat on stools before stage mirrors to receive makeovers -- perhaps selecting the lip and eye colors that Taylor wears.

Cross promotion, baby. I'm sure that's in a contract somewhere. Maybe CoverGirl pays part of the concert expenses, or it's a part of her endorsement, either way, is this really important? Do you never wear makeup? If you do, why do you?

The message -- you're not really beautiful until you cake your tiny, pre-pubescent face with makeup -- wasn't the empowering one I had envisioned. (I later watched a five year old with ruby red lipstick pouting because the color had come off in her cotton candy. Welcome to the hardscrabble world, baby.)

This is actually complete, utter bullshit. What little girl doesn't like playing with makeup? For a child, makeup is a fun, tactile, experiment in dress up. This isn't even relegated to those without a Y chromosome; little boys enjoy make up too. This has nothing to do with empowering or belittling children. It doesn't tell them, "you're only as beautiful as the makeup you cake on your face." And if it does, you're probably not doing a very good job as their mother.

OK, I thought, that's advertising -- not Swift's fault? Actually the pre-tweens in makeup set the scene for the CoverGirl meets Disney extravaganza.

At least you seem to be giving Miss Swift the benefit of the doubt, here. Not sure what the latter half means, but I'm not to keen on the over-Disneyfication of our youth, either.

After her opening "Sparks Fly," that featured an inordinate amount of hair flipping, Swift stood on the stage for what felt like a long and awkward few minutes, taking in the screams of her girl fans, eyes wide open with feigned amazement. Glancing to the far reaches of the arena where fans paid upwards of $130 per ticket (the going rate on Craigslist), she gazed left. She gazed right. She beamed. She stood still and put her hands to her heart.

This is what she does. I've not been to a concert, but any performance I've seen, she does this. I think it's nice actually. She seems earnest in her appreciation of her fans. There aren't many concerts where the artist attempts to make a connection with the entire audience, as opposed to the front few rows. Complaining about ticket prices won't get you anywhere either. That's not something she controls; talk to LiveNation/Ticketmaster about that one. I could write entire blog posts about that, so don't get me started.

Throughout the concert, even the best songs -- "Speak Now" and "Fifteen" -- were convoluted by an elaborate stage show and a relentless multimedia set with projected live images of Swift inside a gigantic framed mirror. Hearts and words with curly-cue lettering flashed on the screens. (The most ironic image projected was of a girl's quaint bulletin board with a tacked up ticket stub for a concert that cost $10.)

I think next time you need to do a little more research, Andrea. You went to a concert at a venue that seats 20,000 and expected an intimate style show. At a place like the Verizon center where you are paying "upwards of $130" a ticket, that's not what you're going to get. You're going to get a show. There will be explosions, lights, lasers, projections, and —yes— even a little hair flipping. You can see concerts for $10, too, though I understand the irony.

Dancers swirled up and down a staircase in the middle of the set and around Swift like something out of Glee, but not as entertaining. The music and lyrics (which do speak to girls) were secondary to the sparkle and fireworks -- literally -- of the stage.

Glee is not entertaining. Glee is just a high production value karaoke run by a couple douchebags who whine anytime a band won't let them use their songs. The show is unoriginal, uninspiring, and boring. Not to mention it's just a vehicle to offload said karaoke onto iTunes. And yes there will be sparkles and fireworks at concerts now. Especially ones that take place in large venues such as the Verizon Center.

Fleshing out the princess theme, Swift even drifted just above the crowd in a floating balcony -- her eyes seemingly meeting the eyes of each concertgoer. My husband was sure she was singing just to him.

Not sure if this is a complaint or not, but perhaps you should have enjoyed the show rather than critiquing every.single.aspect of the show. I'm all for critiquing but you could have tried to enjoy the concert at least a little.

My 10-year-old girl stood rapt on her chair, taking in everything. Like most of the girls (except the 13 year old making out with her boyfriend in the row in front of me) she loudly sang along with each song.

Yeah, you're going to see people making out at concerts. Sometimes same-sex couples if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you wish to protect your children from it (though, I hope not). If kids making out bothers you, I advise you to avoid any festivals or any concert with a "lawn" section. You, your husband, and your children will be exposed to far worse. You'll thank me for it.

I didn't expect Taylor Swift to make any radical, edgy, feminist remarks, but I also didn't expect Gidget meets the Little Mermaid. What an incredible platform for Swift to say something as simple as "Girls rock!" or something even crazier like "Love yourselves!"

I'm sorry, but saying "Girls rock!" or "Love yourselves!" is as lame as Glee. Honestly, this is your job. Do you want to rely on pop stars to get your children to like and appreciate themselves? Sure, maybe it wouldn't hurt for children to receive positive messages from many sources, but—really?— "Girls Rock?" I think I saw that on a backpack. And a t-shirt. And a Trapper Keeper. It was lame every single time.

Instead, she finished each song by looking wide-eyed into the crowd and noting how "amazing" it was that so many peopled came to the show and how "beautiful" everyone looked (incredible how she could see people with all those lights in her eyes).

Are you kidding me? You want her to say "Love yourselves" but telling the crowd how beautiful they look is too chock-full-o-bullshit to you? Maybe she couldn't see the crowd; maybe she could. I have no way of knowing, but complaining that she said you're all beautiful makes you look like you're just trying to find something to complain about. And if people came to see me perform night after night, I'd still find it amazing. I'd find it amazing that anyone would spend that kind of money just to see me, no matter how talented or famous I was. To spend that kind of money is amazing and she understands that. Don't you find it amazing that 20,000 people wanted to watch her sing? Consider most of the spectators were probably so far away that they needed to look at the Jumbotron just to see her.

But people aren't paying money to see her, or even watch her perform. People are paying that money for the experience. Good and bad. Parking at a venue like that? Terrible and practically robbery. Who wants to pay that much for a ticket to a show anyway, much less for five tickets? Souvenirs are crappy and overpriced and the food is equally terrible and expensive. But this is what concerts are. This is the, dare I say, charm of a big concert. This is also why some people prefer small venues. Good luck seeing U2 at one of those, though.

Maybe my family got the vacuous experience we deserved. That would be true if it were just a benignly bad concert experience. The problem is that it was an insidious concert experience that emphasized everything but the artist's voice -- the flowing fairy dresses and saccharine monologues covering up Swift's real power. Covering up girl power.

How was the concert insidious? In what way were you or your family harmed? Maybe this was in the bad part of DC? You went to a venue that seats 20,000 what did you expect if not a flashy, explosion-filled performance. Oh right. You expected girl power.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this could still inspire your daughter? Maybe she will look at this and realize that women can play music or create art that tens of thousands of people would be more than happy to converge and experience together. That girls can do whatever they want. They can be wildly successful and play giant arenas like U2 or play small hole-in-the-wall pubs for 100 people. That one can be equally successful playing both places is a lesson you could teach your daughters.

The best moments were rare authentic ones with Swift's top lip a wee bit sweaty, hair oh-so-slightly disheveled, strumming "Mean" on a banjo and later "Fearless" on a ukulele. That's what we had come to see, but it was fleeting.

 That's your token mellow song most every large concert has. Sets like these allow the performer to catch their breath in addition to making a more "direct" appeal to the crowd. This is what you wanted the entire concert to be. This is not how large, high-production concerts are produced. Most people would not be happy paying $135-$500 for this type of concert—especially given that most concertgoers could barely see her on stage with just her banjo.

This isn't her fault, nor is it yours. She puts on a certain concert and you were expecting something different. Should you have maybe done a little research? Yeah, probably. Were your expectations for a super positive, "you go, girl" type experience a little out of reach? Yeah, probably. Not because you were unreasonable, though, mostly just because that's not what the other 19,995 people there wanted to hear. The girl positive messages are in her lyrics and (probably) in interviews she gives.

As the house lights came on, my older daughter, age 12 and a half, gave me a deflated, knowing look. My younger daughter was tired but managed to quietly gush: "I loved it." My son loved his glow stick.

 It sounds like your older children know your expectations, and knew you were disappointed. I don't know if this is good or bad. On one hand, you've gotten your beliefs across, which is good. But on the other hand, they probably wished they could revel in the joy that they just saw a sweet concert with their mom instead of having to worry about your disappointment in the show. In all, you wanted to take your daughter to see a concert, to feel inspired and have fun. Did you do that? Did your children enjoy themselves? That's all that should matter.

I hope more discerning parents than us might think twice about Swift tickets. Better to have to explain the explicit sexuality of someone like Gaga and her "Born this Way" message than to have to undo the message of female powerlessness -- especially from an artist who is so fervently emulated by girls. If you have tickets already, perhaps you can prep your music lover. It's sort of like a game of I Spy: look hard and look deeply for Swift's voice. It's there, just buried in the fluff.

Speak Now tour? More like Speak softly and smile a lot.

I don't normally think of Lady GaGa as "explicitly sexual." Sure her style is a bit avant garde but I don't usually see her shoving dildos in her vagina. I think she just has fun with fashion and has a certain aesthetic she likes (Think: Alexander McQueen). I'd say pop stars like Rhianna or Britney are more sexual than GaGa.

As for "her 'Born This Way' message," what are you talking about? I really hope you're not saying this is a message you'd rather they not know or have to "explain" away. Considering all the complaints you made  about wanting your children exposed to more powerful, positive messages "Born This Way" should be the Holy Grail of positive messages for them to hear.

There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"

"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

I can think of no more empowering a message than accepting who you are and embracing yourself—realizing that you are beautiful the way you were made. For all her quirks and fancy, Lady Gaga really is a good role model for a child. But so is Taylor Swift. If you are going to let a concert spoil her message, you might not be winning at that little game called Life.

Boobies

It's no secret that I like Scandinavia, so I often find myself reading about or looking at things that are somewhat Scandinavian. I've read a bit about Stieg Larsson's books and some of the controversy surrounding them—namely that his partner feels cheated by his estate for getting nothing. So she held the last book hostage. But now that they are turning the books, turned into Swedish movies, into American movies, there's more controvery. And it's Boobs. Breasts. Nipples. Tits. Whatever word you choose. I'll usually read comments on articles to see what people think, until I realize that humans are pretty stupid, and oftentimes I'll refute them to myself because, well, that's what I do, I guess. But I thought this might be a good topic to discuss and since it's just me here, I'll use the comments to foment a sort of pseudo-discussion. Oh yeah. But first, the picture in all it's tortured, nippled glory:

So there it is.

I've not actually read the books, nor do I know what they're about, so I won't go into that here, but the movie and books are pretty dark from what I understand. Very rated-R, which is something not many studios are willing to do: put $100 million into a rated-R movie. So this movie poster seems to fit my limited understanding of the movie and the books. But lets look at some comments, shall we?

Smoking hot? She’s flat as a board. They should have got someone with boobs.

Of course this comment shows up, I'm just surprised it wasn't first (it was second). The problem is she does have boobs. They're right there, under Daniel Craig's arm. Thankfully, several people responded with helpful comments like these:

She is supposed to be flat, it is in the book.

which makes it helpful for people like me who didn't read the book to know that the studio didn't insist on cartoonish or fake ones. I also learned that Rooney Mara's breasts are apparently much larger than those of the Swedish girl in the original movies.

This comment in particular caught my attention though.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. But I do have a problem with GRATUITOUS nudity, just I have a problem with gratuitous violence. Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign.

I fail to understand how this is gratuitous nudity. Of course, gratuitous means something different to each individual person, but this is hardly X-rated.

But I think this person is wrong. She says being nude makes you vulnerable. This is true. And yes, Lisbeth (apparently) is fighting back. But this person is flat out wrong. This movie poster negates nothing. This movie poster does not make the character weak, nor does it portray her as such. Nothing about this poster takes away any of the power gained because, yes being nude or posing nude makes one vulnerable.. But only to the extent that they let it do so.

Instead of letting this act drain the character, Rooney Mara has embraced it and that takes a certain amount of strength, doesn't it? How many people would willingly put their half-naked bodies on display for millions of people to see and critique?

Even more importantly, I wonder how many women this picture could inspire to be happy with themselves. As some commenters pointed out, Rooney Mara has small breasts. So what? So do lots of ladies. You don't need to have giant silicone-enhanced breasts to display them. And our society would probably be better off if a  lot more people realized that.

I think this comment sums up, more or less, how I feel on the subject:

A lot of the comments here perfectly illustrate why most of the world regard American as a culturally bankrupt nation. It’s not scandalous or dirty or shocking, it’s just a topless woman. I swear, the moral majority has screwed this country up beyond repair.

BREAKING NEWS: Michelle Obama Eats A Hamburger! And A Shake Too!

It's sad but true The Washington Post reports that the only thing worth reporting about Michelle Obama's visit to a newly opened diner was that she ate a burger, shake, fries, and a diet coke. That's right, not just one sugary sweet drink, but two!

The headline of this story? Seventeen hundred calories of gastrointestinal goodness that Michelle Obama has been campaigning against with her Let's Move Campaign. Maybe she went for a run afterwards? We'll never know because, sadly, WaPo left out any other details.

Of course she did say this to ABC news over a year ago:

I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human.

The article also doesn't mention whether she ate the whole meal or not. Maybe she wrapped up a good portion of it and gave it to a homeless person. And then encouraged that person to exercise.

I like what David Katz had to say:

I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch

Or, there's this comment by Kitchendragon50:

Burger, fries, Coke, and a shake? I'd bust with that much food.

Unlike multi-mansion Al Gore, the first lady needs to set an example rather than an exception. Let's hear about her daily exercise routine, assuming she has one. No more "do as I say, not as I do" from our national leaders.

First, lots of people can eat varying amounts of food. We're all unique. Second, nowhere does it say how much she ate, just what she ordered. Also, I don't understand what Al Gore has to do with anything. Are they suggesting that the First Lady does not lead by example?

Why do people freak out every time Michelle Obama eats ice cream or something? She isn't saying eat only fruits and vegetables; she's saying be reasonable. As far as I can tell, she looks like she's in fairly decent shape so I don't see how anyone can possibly complain. She hardly looks like your typical practically morbidly obese American.

Good Job, Washington Post!

What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense.  But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.

Advertising: Utilizing Obnoxious Customers To Your Advantage

I approve of this type of advertising.

What would be even better is if they had these play before the movies instead of the regular canned "don't text" ones. But this will certainly do.

Nice use of Shut Up And Let Me Go by The Ting Tings

"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

Sometimes Wedding Bells Sound More Like Thunder Claps

Weddings are fickle things. They are important but silly all at the same time. They are kind of like birthdays in a way. I don't feel much different on or after my birthday, but the ticker that keeps track of my life has seemed fit to increase by one. After a wedding, is anything really different than before? I don't think marriage makes you care for someone more or love them more, but the way people treat weddings, you feel like you ought to.

I maintain a wedding is just a big ass party; I don't think you can deny that. Sure, there's a ceremony, but the bulk of a wedding is the reception-- that's the part people have fun at, the part people remember. Do people really remember a ho-hum ceremony when the DJ rocked some pretty phat beats courtesy Kenny G? I highly doubt it.

So it seems silly that for what is essentially a gathering of people, strongly resembling that of a party, has so much pressure put on it. Even more weird is that, most weddings are pretty much the same, formulaic bullshit. No offense to anyone who opts for such a wedding, some people love tradition, I respect that. I just think people should shake things up a bit from time to time.

I don't know if the best way to manifest that is by playing the Sex Pistols at a wedding, though. Just sayin'

There is definitely a weird aura that surrounds weddings and their planning, though. Everyone has an opinion. Most of those people, of course, are the ones who pay for weddings, so their opinions tend to find themselves grounded more in fact than opinion, though. This can be kind of stressful at times though, when the same people are telling you to do what you want to do in one breath, and the next don't seem too thrilled by your choices.

Like rings. Engagement rings aren't really necessary, are they?

Apparently to everyone else they are very important.

A song which will likely be played at the wedding:




This is pretty much verbatim what went down buying a suit. Some words may be slightly off, but I could not understand the tailor at all. Personally, since she was a woman, I think she is a seamstress. To me, tailors are men.

The salesman dude reminded me of an amalgamation of a whole lot of people. I actually quite liked him, though. He wasn't very pushy (until the end, but that's okay, I guess). He was more than patient, gave us space, and didn't mind being playful. Salesmen are all too often far too serious. I know, I used to be one and worked with a bunch of them. Pushy little fuckers. That company is out of business now though, so it serves them right. He had a kindness about him though, sort of Tim Gunn-esque. Just not as fabulous.

Prairie dogs. Need I say more?

Pronghorns. Their horns are unlike that of other horned animals. They actually shed their horns every year. They are also bone, which is covered in a sort of hair-like furryness.

Pygmy marmosets. Pretty much Krissy's favorite animal ever, so they had to be included. The Howler Monkeys are rather fun, too.

Apparently, dinosaurs are not appropriate. I think the dinosaurs and zoo animals would get along just fine. A rather large group of people are under the impression that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted peacefully, so I think they'd get along with peacocks as well.

Seating cards. If we could do it the way I'd want to (in an ideal world) they'd be flawless and seamless. Since we lack the right kinds of equipment and expertise and junk, we'll have to settle for adorable and still pretty kick-ass.

Where the whole shin-dig is going down. This picture is so pro. I should get paid for this kind of thing.

What's nice is that the walls are wood, so any light ends up with a very warm color temperature.



Peacock! They just roam about. There are at least five of them. This one is particularly pretty.



In the end, any stress really isn't worth it, though. Minuscule details, even if not perfect, will probably be forgotten. What people will remember is if the day was fun, if they enjoyed themselves, and hopefully that the day was a bit different.

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.

The Return Of Weezer. Well, Sort Of.

There are a lot of people who are, let's just say, less than enthused with Weezer lately. And by "lately" I mean the last fourteen years or so. You see, to some, Weezer kind of dropped off after Pinkerton. And yes, Pinkerton is a great album, as was the Blue album.

But their other music isn't bad, it's just different.

I do understand why people are disappointed, though. In his teens and twenties, Rivers was writing deep, intellectual and emotional songs. In his forties, he's writing about getting sex; It's kind of ironic, considering one of their earlier songs was "Tired of Sex."

But maybe they are coming back, so to speak. Some of the songs on Death To False Metal (which I believe were old unreleased songs from the Blue/Green era) weren't so bad. And then there's this.






Yes-- it's an ad, which kind of blows. But it is a song, and it is pretty good and retro Weezer-esque.

As far as advertisements go, this is definitely one of the better ones.

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.

Goodbye Keith, We'll Miss You

In the world of news, there are very few people who can make it exciting. While Keith Olbermann may have at times been a little over the top, I think he brought something that the news needed: unrelenting honesty. And I think that with that comes a certain amount of anger, which at times can be hard to control for someone in a  position like that. I can understand many of his frustrations, and I think his show was something of a triumph, if a bit biased.

There are few wordsmiths quite like Keith, though, especially in the news, and that is what really made his show enjoyable; I love words, and clearly Keith Olbermann does too.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So we bid you adieu, for now. I'm sure you'll be back sometime, somewhere, and we'll be waiting. Besides, we don't watch tv anymore anyway, so hopefully you end up somewhere where we can catch up.

Good night and Good Luck. Though, I'm not convinced you'll need it.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

What's The Deal With Believers Hating On Atheists?

Holier than thou comes to mind.


Hate is a very anti-Godly sentiment. I'm not sure of any passages in the Bible that suggest Christians hate anything, or anyone. There is something about loving one another though. Actually, that's in there a whole lot.

Believers are Good because God requires it. Evil, or bad people go to hell, so believers are sort of scared into doing good deeds and being good. And apparently condemning those less good than they, ironic, no?

Atheists are good, not as an afterlife styled reward, but for a moral reward, for being fair and good to their fellow man, regardless of their creed.

Why do believers assume that atheists are bitter about death and not having a heaven? I would think not having a Heaven would lead atheists to lead fuller, happier, more meaningful lives. Believers don't believe their soul ends at death, the more meaningful life for them, therefore, is in the afterlife, in eternity. Human life, as we know it, is merely a waiting period to see if one is worthy of that afterlife. For non believers, though, this Earthly life bears much more consequence, and they are forced to live a good life. Not necessarily a better life mind you. Believers and non believers are no better than one another. just different in their opinions.

Believers find hope, joy, and meaning in God, in the Bible (His Words), and in His message. A message filled with wisdom such as "Be good to one another," "Don't hate," "Be honest, loving people," and so on. Nonbelievers find meaning in similar sentiments, they just aren't based on any type of theologic doctrine of any belief in a God or gods. Being good for goodness' sake, comes to mind.

Rewards aren't always the best catalyst for good deeds. Doing so likens us to animals-- getting treats for behaving and punished for disobeying. But we are more than just animals, wouldn't you think? We ought to think better of ourselves. Sometimes being good is it's own reward. If I'm passing by an accident and stop to help, should I be doing so to gain favor from God, or because those people really might need the help? (Of course, sometimes helping just gets in the way of firefighters, and other emergency responders, so do keep that in mind!)

Atheists don't even generally hate on religions or God as a whole. Yes, some do, and they're morons. I don't think your average nonbeliever looks at religious people with disdain or pity. I think that they generally accept religious people's belief system as one that gives them meaning and joy. Atheists don't snicker or belittle them, they just don't get anything gratifying from praying to a God they don't believe exists. I would think believers would appreciate that nonbelievers don't pray to a God they don't believe in. To me, that would be more offensive.

Pretending is far worse than not participating. I'm not a religious person, so I don't attend church or anything like that. But if my presence is requested at a church for a wedding or a baptism, I'm not going to say no. My presence there means more to those who invited me than my unease about being in a church. And that trepidation isn't that I'm scared of not having an afterlife or anything, it's because I don't intend any disrespect to those who fervently believe in that religion's teachings and beliefs. But I am respectful, always. I've grown up going to private, Catholic schools, so I know the traditions. I don't pretend to adhere to them when I'm at a baptism or wedding, instead I participate. In the event I'm invited to, not the religious aspects of it. If I were asked to be a Godparent to someone, I'd inform them of my beliefs, and make sure they understood that my being a Godparent, would not be religious, but physical. I'd be whatever was required of me.

Nonbelievers don't attack religious people, or believers in God (in general). They don't even attack God. I think the most angry, and vocal voices tend to be against how believers treat other believers. Atheists tend to argue against the establishment when the establishment acts, shall we say, less than humane. Often, this is a voice of support to those who might not get much, and it's probably from the last place expected. Televangelists who take advantage of their constituents, Muslim women who are mistreated and beaten, Catholic priests who get transferred after being accused of molesting children. These are all events that tend to incite the more fervent anger from atheists, not the fact that some people believe in a God atheists don't believe in.

We should all just be good people. Treat others well and with respect, and it will be returned. We don't need any of that holier than thou crap; it gets us nowhere.

On Censorship, Specifically Why It's Unnecessary

Recently, the northeast got pounded with snow. From what I understand, most of the country now has gotten at least some snow.

Which leads me to this:



I don't understand. I really, truly don't.

Seriously, I try to understand why some of the most innocuous things offend people the way they do, but I just don't get it. So a couple of kids made a penis snowman.

At the beginning, there is a kid who seems absolutely terrified of having saw it. I feel bad for him, honestly, I do. But I think his parents put him up to it. What does he do every time he needs to pee or take a bath? Does he wallow in his tears, feeling offended that he has to look at a penis? I mean, it's just a penis.

Parents were offended, the town was offended, but it's a penis. Every boy has one. Every mother has seen some. You know what, I'm willing to bet every single person in that town has willingly seen a penis.

Then there is the mother who says her two-year-old doesn't even know what it is. Only, she says it like it's a travesty that her child may now know what it is. I bet her kid doesn't know what mayonnaise is either. Or Wolves. Or Velociraptors. Velociraptors would cause much more harm than a penis.

If you think about it, this town should be celebrating the penises, not crucifying and, more importantly, censoring them.

Why is a penis "obscene" but a foot isn't? There is absolutely nothing in our culture that maintains any sense of purity with that body part. Nor a woman's. I understand there are cultures in other parts of the world where showing a foot is basically a full-on seduction. But here? No. In America, nothing is sacred. And that is kind of the beauty of the USA.

Only, we're not really all that free. America is built on freedom, and any time we fight someone we are told it's for our freedom. But it's bullshit. Because you can't say bullshit on television. You can't create art and put it in your yard if someone else deems it offensive.

Well, actually you can. That, too, is the beauty of America. We actually are free to do whatever we want, with one minor caveat, however: we pay the consequence. Make a penis sculpture? Go to jail. Say "fuck" on television (Cable, I might add), pay an exorbitant fine.

But wait, how exactly is this freedom? This is no different that castrating all the statues in the Vatican city-state. This is no different from any other country in the world. No one can stop you from doing anything, and if you do it, you face the consequences. Spit gum on the streets in Singapore? pay a fine. Steal in Iran? Lose your hands. and so on.

Yes, we have more freedoms than some countries, notably the press, although that point can be seriously argued, especially as of late. But in regards to censorship, we are seriously lacking. And we are seriously lacking because art is disappearing. We pour trillions of dollars into financial firms, billions into sports, and practically nothing (relatively) into art and education. Want an example? Republicans trying to take away funding for the CPB which funds NPR and PBS.

I never took art in school. Well, I did the normal elementary school garbage like cutting and pasting. But once I was in middle school, art was relegated to two two-week sessions. Hardly what I'd consider supportive of the arts. Physical education, too, was equally punished (but that's a whole different blog).

In high school, we were free to make our own choices (except freshman year) which was refreshing, and something I definitely approve of. I don't wish I was forced to take X number of classes in art, though, I do wish I'd taken art. I wish before high school I'd been subjected to art-- to a lot of different subjects to be better prepared for high school and college.

My three biggest interests, photography, art, and baking/cooking were completely inaccessible in school. To say I was initiated to art in school would be laughable. two weeks cannot even be considered an introduction or a survey of a course. Especially in middle school. Cooking is obviously never done in school, at least not any I've been to. And photography was most definitely never offered as a course either. I wish they had been.

So why must we censor everything? Does hiding curse words from children really do them any good? Does the word fuck instantly transform a good kid into a deviant? Does seeing genitals on television, or in art create sexual deviants? No. I'm guessing it's the opposite.

Maybe I am wrong, but what is the difference? Imagine you are a blank slate, like a child. Imagine you don't know what lettuce is. Or what a hand is. Or a breast, yes, a breast is a good example. Now imagine flashcards. On one flashcard is a photo of lettuce and on another is a breast. Is one naughty? Is one bad? Is one of those photos going to do something terrible to your psyche? No, because you don't know the difference.

Imagine, now, flashcards of breasts. One card has male breasts, and one has female breasts. Is one naughtier than the other? Is one more vulgar? Why? What if you are a blank slate? Is it because they are covered up? I don't go shirtless outside, does that make my breasts more vulgar than a guy who live in South Beach? Is a roly poly, hairy man shirtless more vulgar than my shirtless breasts? What about a woman who's had a double mastectomy and doesn't have breasts anymore? Is that no longer obscene? I mean, no longer will she have milk-giving breasts, or anything resembling what a woman's breasts are typically. No, they're much more akin to a man's. But no, that's probably not right either. That's probably more obscene in reality. What parent would show their child a woman's breasts post operation? No only would the child be subjected to breasts, but these are no ordinary breasts. They're different. They'd have scars.

Genitals are utilitarian, just like hands and feet. No more, no less. Hands are used to open doors, cabinets, build things, et cetera. Our feet take us from point A to point B. Genitals expel waste and create life. They are surrounded by our pelvic bones, which support our entire upper body. Butts expel waste, too, and there's nothing obscene about them; they're pretty tame and usually get a laugh.

So maybe instead of condemning penile sculpture, we should be embracing them. They do, after all, create life. What has a snowman ever done for you? Besides, find me a kid who's never drawn a penis and giggled. It's fun because we're told its taboo, for no other reason than it's taboo. That's like saying your morals come from morals, with no other rationale. "Why is murder bad?" "Because it's immoral!"

I'd like to ask those people (and the FCC) why they find these so offensive, and so obscene. I wonder if the woman in the video was disgusted when she was having the sex that gave her her two year old child. Maybe that is the real triumph, and she wants to protect her child from making the same mistake she did: seeing a penis. Pray that baby isn't a boy, though.

And why is it okay to show a naked baby but not an adult?