Home > Critical Eye
I’ve got baggage
A few years ago, when the Transport Security Administration (TSA) implemented their 3-1-1 rule, my dad came home from a business trip with a story about a girl who had cried when an airport security guard made her throw out her lip gloss.
Apparently the container was more than three ounces. Ouch. In these post-Bonne Bell days, throwing out lip gloss can mean tossing out a good chunk of your paycheck. Although I’d like to think I could keep it together, the cheapskate inside of me might shed a tear at seeing my MAC go to a graveyard of hand lotion and shampoo bottles.
Although I’m pretty sure they’ve loosened up a bit on that rule, I didn’t push it on my trip home last month. What I did push, though, was the limit of my overburdened carry-on bag.
Like a lot of airlines, mine charged a fee to check a bag. Pshaw. It was a five day trip, but I restricted myself to carry-ons. Most airlines allow one carry-on bag and one personal bag (I suggest stuffing your largest purse to the brim. And guys, I suggest investing in one of those Jerry Seinfeld murses.)
Even though baggage fees have been in place for a while now, some of my fellow travelers were unpleasantly surprised to have to fork over a twenty for their luggage. Here’s a list of popular airlines and baggage fees so that you can be prepared for your next trip.
American Airlines: $20 for the first checked bag and $30 for the second. If you’re a true diva and take more than that, you’re looking at $100 per additional bag.
Continental Airlines: $20 for the first checked bag and $30 for the second.
Delta Airlines: $20 for the first checked bag and $30 for the second. $5 off when you register online.
Northwest Airlines: $20 for the first checked bag and $30 for the second. $5 off when you register online.
United Airlines: $20 for the first checked bag and $30 for the second.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
A hefty problem
A little over a month ago, Time published an article entitled “Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.” For reasons too obvious to list, it was pretty popular.
That said, I’m pretty shocked that now, over a month after it was printed, that the article is still a staple on Time.com’s ‘most popular’ list. On most news sites, the list of popular stories does a complete overhaul every few days. But this one, like a friend who updates their facebook status every half hour, just can’t seem to go away.
The article (if you can call it that) is a first-person essay about a woman who, despite years of exercise, hasn’t seen an impact on the scale. I have nothing against an essay; hearing about a person’s experience can be interesting. But this one, which was made into a cover story and given a headline that would lead a reader to believe that the article is anything but anecdotal, is just irresponsible.
If studies on Americans’ health reveal anything, it’s that there is a desperate need for more exercise and diet-related education. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have some alarming statistics on their Web site:
During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 2008, only one state (Colorado) had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-two states had a prevalence equal to or greater than 25%; six of these states (Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%.
It’s no secret as to why the Time article is so popular. We all want an easy fix. That’s why pills and fads generate so much revenue. I’m sure that this cover story gave Time a sizeable increase in sales. I’m sure it also pleased its online advertisers. But that doesn’t make it right. We need more accurate information, not less.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Nice girl, bad salary
Latoya Peterson of jezebel.com (a great blog site) just published a fascinating post about salary negotiation. She wrote in response to an article in Forbes entitled “Do women self sabotage at work?” The Forbes piece is definitely worth a read, but unfortunately it mostly regurgitates advice we’ve all heard over and over again.
It reminds us that women are consistently paid less than men (a study published in BusinessWeek found that: One year out of college, women working full time earn 80% percent of what men earn. Ten years later, women earn 69% percent as much as men.) The Forbes article then reminds us that women are far less likely to negotiate for higher salaries than men, and that this mistake can cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars (not to mention entire careers) in the long run.
It’s basically the Sesame Street of articles. The message is painfully clear, and even comes with a career sabotaging slideshow, in case you need your news in written and visual form. The lesson? Quit worrying about how you may come across and start negotiating now.
But Peterson rains on their “it’s so simple” parade. I’ve read quite a bit about women and salary negotiation, but Peterson was the first I’ve found to point out the very real reason why so many women are afraid to ask for what they want: Women often face social penalties for negotiating.
She links her thoughts to a really interesting/infuriating article from The Washington Post entitled, “Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling.” Here’s what the article said:
Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women’s reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more — the perception was that women who asked for more were “less nice”.
“What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not,” Bowles said. “They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not.”
Ugh. I really hope that this nasty little catch-22 clears itself up sometime soon. Although I’m still an advocate of negotiation, my cynical self won’t be too surprised if most of us “nice” women wind up clipping coupons for the rest of our careers. See you in the clearance racks, ladies!
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Glamour talks the talk…
My poor mailbox. It’s borderline ancient, is held by two rusty nails to the front of my apartment building, and has the grave misfortune of being assigned to me — a magazine addict. By the time my bills, junk mail, and magazines are stuffed in there, it probably holds five pounds daily.
But my mailbox’s strain is not without justification. After signing up for 12 subscriptions I can say with confidence that I know magazines. I know their fonts, I know their voices, I know their advertisers, and I know which ones to put on my coffee table, and which ones to hide away from judgment.
Glamour usually gets hidden. Like most women’s magazines, it’s pretty dumb. Sure, it’s a good guilty pleasure, but it’s about as cheesy and predictable as an episode of I Love Lucy.
But this month, something caught my eye. Next to an article about body confidence, there was a picture of a nearly-nude plus-sized model. The model had something that I’d never seen in any other mainstream women’s magazine — a pooch. ‘Good for Glamour,’ I thought, and then flipped through the rest of the magazine, where, predictably, anorexic-looking women reigned.
Then a funny thing happened. Bloggers talked up the picture. Newsweek wrote about the photo. Glamour’s Editor-in-Chief, Cindi Leive, blogged about all the praise the photo was receiving.
Since I know her magazine pretty well, I found Leive’s comments more than a little patronizing. Here’s what she said:
Here’s the deal: The picture wasn’t of a celebrity. It wasn’t of a supermodel. It was of a woman sitting in her underwear with a smile on her face and a belly that looks…wait for it…normal.
…..
Lizzi moved to New York City from San Jose three years ago to become a model (a “plus-size” one by modeling industry standards, though hello, at size 12 she’s actually “normal size”…but I digress).
Technically, there’s nothing wrong with what Leive is saying. She sounds like any other woman — one who is ready for magazines to start featuring a diverse cast of models. But here’s why I don’t buy it: She has been in the publishing industry for a long time. Leive is the former Editor-in-Chief of Self, and got her start with Glamour as an Editorial Assistant.
If she had wanted to, she could have done something like this a long time ago. But she didn’t. For years, Leive has been helping to promote the type of body image that has created the need for articles about body confidence. I’m happy that a plus-sized model has made it onto Glamour’s notoriously thin-loving pages, but Leive needs to drop her “hey-girlfriend, I’m-just-like-you” attitude.
When you spend your whole career promoting one thing, one 3 inch by 3 inch photo doesn’t negate much. It’s going to take many more photos and articles for me to believe that Leive’s actions have finally caught up with her attitude.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Snobbery at its finest
For the record, I realize that my calling out Cintra Wilson of The New York Times for being sassy is about as ironic as Kathy Griffin calling people out for being annoying, but her latest Critical Shopper column, “Playing to the Middle,” was just ridiculous.
With all the combined snobbery of a Harvard study group, Cintra tackles the latest store to enter New York City’s Herald Square: J.C. Penney. “Why would this dowdy Middle American entity waddle into Midtown in its big old shorts and flip-flops without even bothering to update its ancient Helvetica Light logo?” Cintra so lovingly asks.
I’m not one to defend J.C. Penney. I’ve been receiving and returning the store’s half-off cable knit sweaters and ironic t-shirts every Christmas since middle school. (Sorry, Grandma.)
Wilson poked fun at the store, and did a pretty good job of it. But only read it if you’ve been entertaining the idea of developing an eating disorder. She’s quick to note that it took her a long time to find her size 2’s, but almost no time to find 10’s, 12’s, and 16’s. (Apparently walking into a J.C. Penney prompted Wilson to realize that not all of us subscribe to Rachel Zoe’s coffee and cigarettes diet.)
She does stop to admire J.C.Penney’s business strategy, however — but it comes with a healthy dose of obnoxious snobbery.
“And herein lies the genius of J. C. Penney: It has made a point of providing clothing for people of all sizes (a strategy, company officials have said, to snatch business from nearby Macy’s). To this end, it has the most obese mannequins I have ever seen. They probably need special insulin-based epoxy injections just to make their limbs stay on. It’s like a headless wax museum devoted entirely to the cast of “Roseanne.””
Wow. Very good, Cintra. There are people out there who aren’t stick thin. And it turns out, they like to wear clothes, too. Stay tuned for next week’s column, where I’m sure she’ll have a sudden realization that average-sized people have thoughts and feelings, too.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Happiness is just a high heel away
At long last, the folks at the National Bureau of Economic Research have discovered the secret to happiness. I’m (apparently) happy to share it with you: If you’re a man, be over 5’10”. If you’re a woman, be over 5’4”. For those of you who don’t make the cut, the study’s analysis in Time may feel a little like going into Disney World and only being allowed to ride the Tea Cups.
I stumbled across the article with fairly ironic timing. This morning, I opened my inbox to find a link from Jenny Snyder, the head layout editor. It was to an article entitled, “10 instant tips to be happier now,” and was chock full of advice like increasing exercise and decreasing nagging.
It was a fun juxtaposition: Work at happiness, or just let it fall into your exceptionally long femurs. As a woman who is tall enough to be a happy man, I couldn’t resist raining on Jenny’s parade. Standing at a shrimpy 5’3”, she falls just short of reaching the happiness cut off.
I showed her the article, “Why tall people are happier than short people” and laughed (which goes without saying, since I am tall and therefore a bucket of sunshine.) She made a quip about how it must be a slow news day.
She’s definitely right, but I kind of like the idea that the secret to happiness is shared by anyone who shops at the Big and Tall store.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Book patrol
Last week, I wrote a column called “The power of one book.” It was inspired by a Northeastern High School parent who deemed a book — The Power Of One— unfit for her daughter’s honors English summer reading list. A few Board of Education members jumped on the bandwagon, too. (None of them, by the way, actually read the whole book.)
Due to space constraints, I was unable to write the novel-length column that could have very easily flowed out of me, Catcher In The Rye-style.
Any book that is truly great will inevitably handle some subject matter that could offend. And unless we want students doing an in-depth analysis of If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, we ought to encourage them to read books that challenge their thinking and push their comfort zones. On that note, I’d like to step off my snarky soapbox to make a few reading recommendations.
Here are my top five favorite banned books:
- The Color Purple, By Alice Walker.
- To Kill A Mockingbird, By Harper Lee.
- I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, By Maya Angelou
- That Was Then, This Is Now, By S. E. Hinton
- Lolita, By Vladimir Nabokov
Read them. They’re scandalously good.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment |
Hungry? Who cares!
On the off-chance that your day hasn’t involved something both ridiculous and offensive, check out Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis’s (ahem) interesting take on childhood hunger.
According to Feeding America, one in five Missouri children is living in hunger. To combat the problem, Missourians entertained the idea of subsidizing school lunches over the summer.
Davis went against it, saying, “Hunger can be a positive motivator.” Here’s what Stephen Colbert has to say about it — and to the folks back home in KC, please, please, please follow his advice.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Feeling angry? Man up!
Sharon Begley just wrote a column for Newsweek entitled, “She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day.” It’s an interesting read, but I have to warn those who are link-happy: If her writing style were a cereal, it would definitely be Bran Flakes. I’ll try to put my own spin on it, Lucky Charms style.
What it boils down to is that two psychologists have published a study on perception. In it, they showed participants pictures of men and women’s faces looking upset. Participants were then asked whether the men and women were “emotional” or “having a bad day.”
Overwhelmingly, the women were labeled “emotional.” The men were “having a bad day.” In short, the men had a reason to be upset, the women didn’t. Begley explains that while many people stereotype women to be more emotional than men, there’s very little evidence to back that idea up. These types of perceptions, the psychologists argue, often stop women from being in positions of authority at work.
This study would make an excellent replacement for that dated, yet delightfully snarky Dilbert cartoon on your cubicle wall — because sadly, it’s so true.
I couldn’t help but be reminded of some trouble I once had with a coworker a few years back. I felt a little pushed around by her, but never complained about it. Instead, a few coworkers brought it to my boss’ attention. So, in a course of action so random and illogical it couldn’t even be worked into an episode of Family Guy, my male boss let me know that he’d been made aware of the situation and that I needed to be “a little less sensitive.”
To clarify: I have the emotional depth of discarded cardboard. I’m offensive more often than offended, and am one of the few people insensitive enough to make their Facebook status: “Bummer about Micheal Jackson. He touched so many people.”
So when I was asked to be “a little less sensitive,” I knew right away that it had more to do with my gender than my attitude. In response, I nodded my head emphatically, smiled and said “sure.”
For a second, I thought about getting angry — or even just standing up for myself. But that would have been a little too emotional. And there’s no room for that in the corner office.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
When hate gets a makeover
If you’re interested in a good scare, take a look at Newsweek’s article on the rise of hate groups in America. Although the combination of the economy and the election of our first black president doesn’t hurt, the primary reason for the rise in hate groups is that organizations like the KKK have gotten a snazzy new makeover — one that makes them a little more easy for the mainstream to accept.
In addition to highlights and spray tans, the groups have altered their message. Instead of being about ‘hate,’ they’re about love — the love of white people. They claim their violent, horrific past is ‘misunderstood,’ and for the most part, are leaving their white sheets in the linen closet.
They are focusing on recruitment, and thanks to a softer approach, they’re growing in numbers. The article reads:
During the Knights weekend in Arkansas, Roy, a guest speaker, advised white recruiters to “keep it subtle. Don’t hit ‘em with anything too hard right off the bat or you will shock them. Find a chink in their armor and make friends. If you are too radical, they won’t listen.”
The article reminded me of an encounter I had with Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. His group protested my church’s regional meeting, due to our open and accepting stance toward the gay, lesbian and transgendered community. (Yeah, we’re the crazy ones who actually believe the whole ‘love they neighbor’ business.)
The members of my youth group were understandably disturbed by Phelps’ family, who are best known for protesting the funerals of homosexuals (usually carrying signs that either read God hates f* or F* burn in hell) and for keeping a tally of the number of days hate crime victim Matthew Shepard has supposedly been in hell.
But I wasn’t quite as bothered. Of course hate groups are incredibly offensive, but I think they’re offensive in a way that disturbs almost everyone, regardless of personal politics.
It’s the more subtle kind of discrimination — the kind that goes on behind closed doors — and the kind the “new” KKK is pedaling that gets ingrained into people’s thinking and accepted by the mainstream.
And that’s what’s really scary.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Is Disney done with racism?
There’s a new princess in the castle, and at long last, she’s black. The New York Times printed an article about it yesterday, detailing Disney’s careful sidestepping as it struggles to effectively handle race — a subject the company has famously mishandled in the past.
Here’s a brief refresher course for those who haven’t visited the magical world of Disney in a while. The article reads:
“Dumbo” traded in black stereotypes in 1941 with its band of uneducated, pimp-hat-wearing crows. All the animals in “The Jungle Book” from 1967 speak in proper British accents except for the jive-talking monkeys who desperately want to become “real people.” More recently, “Aladdin” ran into trouble in 1993. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee labeled certain song lyrics defamatory (“Where they cut off your ear/If they don’t like your face/It’s barbaric, but, hey, it’s home”).
While I love a good animated musical, I don’t love the way Disney is handling the criticism of their past films. Their response was that the films (referring to Dumbo and The Jungle Book) were made in dramatically different times, long before the civil rights movement.
That’s essentially like saying “All the cool kids were being racist, so we decided to join in, too.” That’s not a good excuse, and I hope the public rejects it. For the record, the appropriate response is: We’re sorry. We were wrong to have perpetuated stereotypes, and we hope to do better in the future. (Disney, if you’re looking for a new PR person, I’m okay with being paid in large quantities of those jumbo Minnie Mouse headbands.)
Disney’s feeble attempt at fending off criticism puts me in mom mode. (Tapered pants and all.) I get the feeling that when asked “If all your little friends started making offensive stereotypes, would you do it too?”, their answer would be a resounding yes. But lately, their ‘little friends’ have changed. They’ve elected a black president, and are likely to be a little more accepting of diversity than their parents’ generation.
Disney recently took a 97% drop in their quarterly profits; they are in desperate need of a blockbuster, and know what the public will finally buy. It all makes me question whether the idea for a black princess is really as “organic” as the film’s producer claims it was. While I’m excited about Princess Tiana, I highly doubt this overdue princess was created for all the right reasons.
Sorry Disney, but if the glass slipper fits…
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
ROFLMAO: Explicit acronyms
There’s nothing I love more than a terrifying, 80% fabricated ‘news’ story — specifically the kind that has good suburban parents shaking in their loafers. For this and other news that doesn’t matter, I turn to Fox. So imagine my glee when my friend Danielle pointed out Fox’s latest gem, an article entitled, “50 Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.”
As an avid texter (I paused three times while writing that last paragraph to return texts) and an acronym abuser (OMG, BFF, and BTW are part of my daily RL vocabulary) I figured I’d know nearly all the acronyms that kids these days are texting.
All I have to say is: OMG, kids 2day. Suffice it to say that even the most seasoned delinquent will feel like a sheltered Sunday school teacher after giving this list a quick glance-over.
While the list does succeed in scandalizing its readers, I doubt it accomplishes much else. These aren’t the 50 acronyms every parent should know — they’re a compilation of letters that most teens probably couldn’t decode. Sure, some teens send inappropriate texts. But the thing is, these types of stories never seem to reach the very small percent of the parental population it needs to.
Fox has exaggerated this ‘epidemic’ in an effort to panic parents and get the oh-so desired reader’s attention. Sure, it’s an entertaining read (and a great way to expand your explicit acronym knowledge), but it shouldn’t have been printed. It’s not news; it’s a pathetic attempt to scare people. But NALOPKT.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Sex ed, minus the ed?
My high school sex education classes were about as enlightening and informative as a VH1 reality t.v. show. We were told that sex was meant for marriage, that contraceptives were largely unreliable, and that STDs (much like the boogie man) were everywhere. It was pretty scary information for freshmen, and we ate it up.
To seal the deal, we were shown graphic photos of STD-ridden… um, you know. At that point, even saving it for marriage didn’t seem safe, so my girlfriends and I decided to become nuns.
But committing to a lifetime of hat hair seemed like a bit much, and pretty soon — as is the case with many teens who are taught that abstinence is the only way — my classmates began to discover other options.
In 2007, Congress ordered Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to study the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. The study found that middle schoolers who were taught abstinence-only sex education were just as likely to be sexually active in high school — except that they were less informed. Unfortunately, that study had little bearing on North Carolina.
Ours is one of many states naive enough to still teach abstinence-only sex education. I say naive, but the word reckless is probably more appropriate. We currently hold the ninth-highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. I guess hat hair is universally unappealing.
Luckily, some people are trying to get information into the hands of those who need it. Two months ago, the folks at the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Campaign of North Carolina created the Birds and Bees Text Line — a sexual health line that allows teens to text in their questions and get a response from a trained adult.
I realize that not everyone will be on board with this initiative, but the fact is that teenagers are going to have sex, whether we want them to or not. They might as well do it responsibly, and with as much information as possible.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Are our readers smart?
My favorite former professor always starts her Journalism 101 classes the same way. She says a quick hello, takes attendance, and poses an almost cute question to her students: “What is the #1 job of a newspaper?”
The responses are usually the same. To inform. To tell the truth. To serve the community. But unfortunately for readers and journalists, those answers are wishful thinking.
“To make money,” she says. For those of us who spent our younger years worshipping Woodward and Bernstein instead of ACDC or Bon Jovi, that answer stings a bit. It hurts to watch as your journalistic dreams get a roundhouse kick to the face (courtesy of Chuck Norris, of course), but it’s good to hear it in the beginning. Because it only gets worse from there — especially with a sluggish economy and dismal newspaper sales.
I learned this lesson outside the classroom during my internship at a Boston newspaper, where I was disappointed to see that the line between advertising and editorial staff didn’t exist. When a major liquor store started advertising with us, we ran an article on drinking games. When we snagged a few bucks from a nearby sushi restaurant, guess whose food got a shout out?
It was a huge letdown to know that my journalism degree — along with my dream of uncovering truths and setting the record straight — was being used to please advertisers and dupe readers.
But this kind of thing is getting more and more common as newspapers struggle to turn a profit.
This week, The Chicago Tribune upset the journalism community by allowing readers to view stories prior to publication. (A big no-no that risks compromising truth and accuracy for ‘what the readers want to see.’) After the story broke, Gerould Kern, The Tribune’s editor, immediately stopped the practice, saying:
“To prematurely disseminate information about stories in progress compromises reporting. … There are a lot of reasons, such as potential legal [issues], fairness, accuracy and completeness.”
While I understand why they did it, I disagree with the notion that desperate times call for unethical measures. Sure, the #1 job of a newspaper is to make money, but there’s a way to do that without making Nellie Bly roll in her grave. Here’s my theory: People pick up our paper or go to our Web site to be informed. Occasionally, they don’t like what they see. That’s fine. That’s the nature of news — not all of it is good. But when we start to tailor our news to whatever readers want to see, or write our stories based on who has coughed up a few advertising dollars, we send a strong message to our readers — one of disrespect.
I believe that readers, on some level, can sniff this stuff out. And when they do, they’ll put down the paper or go to another site. Which, ironically, will drive down advertising and do damage to the paper’s #1 job.
When I share this theory with people in the industry, I’m often told that I give readers too much credit. I disagree. I think that when we give readers credit, and respect them enough to put news in a newspaper (shocking, right?) we can satisfy the goals we had as rookies and put a little green in the company’s pocket, too.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment |
Get hitched before you get ugly
Get your vomit bucket ready. A few days ago, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Mark Regnerus entitled, “Say yes. What are you waiting for?” In it, Regnerus brings up the point that the average age for American men to get married has risen to 28. He’s fine with that. What he isn’t fine with, though, is that the age for women is rising too.
Here’s part of what he has to say:
Marriage will be there for men when they’re ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women’s “market value” declines steadily as they age, while men’s tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies — and endless anecdotes — reinforce their conclusion.
To be fair, I got a nice sensation from reading this. For a second, I thought I’d done some serious time traveling. It was like watching a really old cigarette commercial (they’re good and good for you!), or reading about the Salem Witch Trials (if we torture her enough, she’ll admit she’s a witch!). Then I realized that it was 2009, and the novelty wore off very quickly.
Regnerus’ argument for marrying young is weak at its best parts and just plain offensive at its worst. With our country’s divorce rate rising over 50%, you’d think it would be wise to mull things over. For men, apparently, that’s okay. But ladies, let’s not scratch our heads for too long — after all, our “market value” is plummeting by the day.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Miss USA: Glitter, hairspray, and bigotry
Last night, I headed to the gym and had the misfortune of being stuck on the only available elliptical machine — the one directly in front of a TV playing “The O’Reilly Factor.” (I hear that you burn a combination of calories and brain cells when you work out to Bill O’Reilly’s musings.) Naturally, Bill and I didn’t see eye to eye on much — particularly when it came to his thoughts on first-runner up Miss California’s answer to a question about same-sex marriage.
Here’s what she said:
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” Carrie Prejean said. “And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
First of all, I’m a little curious about the land where Prejean lives — because in the United States, you don’t have the freedom to choose a same-sex marriage. Getting a same-sex marriage is dependent on whether you are in one of the handful of states that recognizes same-sex marriages. I will give her points for bringing up ‘opposite marriage’, though. I’m not sure what an ‘opposite marriage’ entails, but I hear Zac Efron and Cloris Leachman are strongly considering it.
O’Reilly claimed that she was incredibly brave for defending traditional marriage. I heard a similar argument on the radio this morning. It turns out, there are a fair amount of people out there who think that Prejean is admirable for having the ‘courage’ to speak in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman.
I hate to be Captain Obvious, but voicing an opinion that most Americans already agree with is not brave. Voicing that opinion in front of a notoriously conservative crowd like pageant viewers is even less so.
Admiring Prejean for defending heterosexual marriage is like celebrating a person who advocates for recycling in front of an Earth Day crowd, or someone who takes a stand against animal cruelty at a PETA meeting. O’Reilly needs to hold his applause. It’s time to celebrate actual bravery.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment |
That’s so sweet
My Splenda addiction isn’t pretty. I have a family-sized bag in my kitchen cupboard and five individual plastic dispensers for all of my purses. Most of the Muddy’s employees automatically hand me a packet with my coffee — which is either a sign that they are great at their jobs or that I need to look into rehab facilities.
So when I saw an article about artificial sweeteners in today’s New York Times, I couldn’t help but double click. Turns out there’s a new kid on the block for us sweet-toothed, calorie-phobic folk. It’s twice as expensive as my precious Splenda (and five times as pricey as dreaded Sweet ‘n Low), but is getting cool points for being derived from a plant. That’s right. Truvia is the ‘natural’ artificial sweetener. I’m pretty sure that’s like being a tree-hugging Dick Cheney enthusiast, but I digress.
The article ended with a not-so-cheery reminder that artificial sweeteners aren’t exactly in good graces with the health community. Sweet ‘n Low used to come with a warning that it could be linked to cancer, and some link Equal to neurological damage. They don’t have much dirt on Splenda or Truvia, but the article raised doubts over whether us ‘die-hard’ fans would drop the habit if there was a health risk. Okay, we probably do have a problem. But in our defense, there are much worse white powdery substances to crave.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Evolution in, intelligent design out
I still remember the day that I was taught evolution in my high school science class. The teacher was a fragrant combination of sweaty and nervous and he spent most of the time reminding us that it was “just a theory that some people believe.” He never quizzed us on the topic, and didn’t even wake up the students who had drifted off.
Turns out he was a smart guy. Just two years later local religious conservatives (as plentiful as flatland and good barbeque in my home state), tasted victory when the Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 to tone down evolution education. “Intelligent design” (Creationism’s only slightly evolved cousin) reared its head in the classroom.
Luckily, before I resorted to claiming the other Kansas City as my hometown, things changed. By 2007, the Kansas Board of Education flipped back to teaching what the board chairman called “mainstream science,” which was refreshing because I had started to wonder if that whole separation of church and state thing was just a rumor.
Unfortunately, it’s not just a Kansas thing. Last week, the Texas Board of Education voted on whether science curriculum should include, um… science. Very narrowly, it passed.
The fact that this debate is still going on worries me. I’ll stay away from the potential religious sidetracks and just say this: Teachers should be able to provide students with the most up-to-date scientific information, without worrying about parents or pit stains. And here’s a revolutionary idea — let the students decide what they want to believe.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment |
‘Recessionista’ spotting
Nothing against major newspapers or any of the women’s magazines I turn to for advice on how to cut carbs/snag a man/find the perfect mascara, but I’m not a fan of the latest wave of cutesy recession articles.
Last Tuesday, The New York Times ran an article about cooking a meal for 6 people on $50 (that’s $8.50 per person). The writing was entertaining, but the message was borderline obnoxious. I felt the same way when I read an article a few months back about discovering all the affordable, wonderful stuff you can find at — gasp — Target.
The writing style was one that should be reserved for discovering an unknown land, but instead it was used to deliver “news” that most of us already know. (Turns out, there are things to buy at Target. And guess what? They’re cheaper than the stuff you’ll find at Williams Sonoma!)
Women’s magazines are even worse. Next time you’re at the grocery store, play a little game I call “recessionista spotting.” That’s right. Major dictionaries don’t recognize it as a word, but somehow it has made its way onto nearly every major women’s magazine cover over the past year.
The definition of ‘recessionista,’ by the way, is someone (generally a female ages 18-26) who weathers the current economy by buying a bunch of moderately priced accessories and pairing it with a “smart splurge”— like a $2,000 handbag.
My thought is: If the idea of spending less than $8.50 on a meal or buying a few basics at a discount store is so new and strange that you feel the need to alert the general public, you need a welcome into the real world — because the rest of us have been doing this stuff for years.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Scoop the poop
I’m still making the transition out of college life, so I get nostalgic when I see things like ramen noodles, cheap beer, or angry hand-written notes.
Come on. You remember them. They’re the signs, probably left by an over-worked RA or roommate reminding the world (in all caps and red Sharpie) to clean the microwave, label leftovers, and wipe hair out of the sink. But it turns out my college days aren’t quite over.
A few days ago, when I was out walking my dog, Peanut, I spotted a hand-written, weather-proof sign, reading “DOG POOP.” It went on to describe the dog and dog owner who had left it there. Needless to say, I was amused. I’m still amused. In fact, I’ve been amused for a solid three days.
I’m still not quite sure how I feel about it, though. As a dog owner, I know firsthand how difficult it is to look cool while toting a bag full of dog poop. I’ve tried — It just doesn’t work. But I still pick it up.
I realize that no one wants dog poop in their yard (especially if it’s from a pooch they don’t know and love). New Yorkers were so sick of it that they made it illegal for dog owners to not pick up after their dogs.
But an angry, arguably passive-aggressive sign? That seems like a bit much. There’s got to be a happy medium. Maybe we — dog owners and homeowners — should work together and give courtesy the old college try.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Countdown on Proposition 8
This past election showed, in many ways, that America is moving in the right direction. The election of a half-black president speaks volumes as to how far we’ve come as a nation. But Proposition 8 does exactly the opposite.
While I understand the logic behind letting the people of California decide whether they want same-sex marriages to be recognized by their state, I hope that in 89 days, when the California Supreme Court justices make a ruling, that they side with equality.
Our history shows that it will only be a matter of time before we are united in shame for having denied consenting adults basic civil rights. In 1967, Loving v. Virginia allowed interracial couples to marry. But one year after the ruling, a Gallup Survey revealed that only 20% of Americans supported interracial marriage.
Sometimes, the court needs to step in and make decisions that uphold civil rights— whether that decision is popular with the public or not. Last May, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Here’s hoping that freedom will trump ignorance, once again.
Latest comments
It is a Sad,Sad time when the Coast Guard has a C-130 go down & The D/A don’t even have anything in the paper about it. God Bless Those Crew members, Their Familys and the USMC crew as well.
... read the full comment by Butch | Comment on I've got baggage Read I've got baggage
Я конечно в этом не особо разбираюсь, но после вашего поста стал гораздо больше понимать. Благодарствую :)
... read the full comment by XAM | Comment on Are our readers smart? Read Are our readers smart?
Southwest gives you two bags a person,plus a carry on at zip, zero and no reserve seating and everybody is friendly. God Bless Our Troops,Their Families,Our Veterans & god Bless The USA
... read the full comment by Butch | Comment on I've got baggage Read I've got baggage
Why should us folks here in “The Swamp” even care about the Times??? We all know we have to cut back on eat, do some walking , drink lots of water etc. I’m sure there is a mess of stuff I missed!! God Bless Our troops,Their familys Our
... read the full comment by Butch | Comment on A hefty problem Read A hefty problem