I am normally no feminist, but recent ads for the upcoming reality show “More to Love” have really gotten me hot and bothered. This Bachelor-esque competition strives to separate itself from the pack by proclaiming that its contestants are “real women.” But as far as I can tell from the commercials, the only criteria for being “ real” is that while “the average reality show contestant is a size 0 or 2, the average woman is a 12/14.” This statement is followed up by shots of three different women crying, talking about how they are judged because of their size, and lamenting that they just want their own “happy ending.”
I have to assume that the producers of this show are trying to appeal to more female viewers and appear sensitive to women’s issues – especially after the last season of the Bachelor ended with such a scandal. But is this depiction of women really supposed to be empowering? Is it supposed to show that “average-sized” ladies are just as desirable as super-skinny ones? That they are just as deserving of love? Give me a break. The clips they show of these women are probably edited in such a way as to make them seem far more desperate and sad than they actually are, and therefore pretty much impossible to find the premise for this show anything other than insulting. We are not all sitting at home crying and imagining we will be alone forever unless Prince Charming comes to rescue us. We do not all obsessively stare into the mirror hating our stomachs, or thighs, or whatever, and believe that if only we could lose 20 pounds, our lives would become perfect. And furthermore, we do not all believe that all men like the pin-tin type. Some of us even know that cellulite on the back of our legs is the last thing a man will ever notice.
I will never forget a friend of mine in high school. Sherry was not only quite overweight, but had terrible skin. She would regularly mention guys she was dating that she met at the mall, or at a concert, etc, and I think we only half believed her. Then, she showed up at homecoming with her boyfriend, who was a dead ringer for Johnny Depp. Nobody said anything, but I know we were all a little shocked that this guy actually existed, and was so cute and seemed so nice. And I’m sure we were jealous since none of us ever got asked out. And then it hit me: we were all insecure, awkward, and self-doubting. Sherry was confident, funny, relaxed, and easy to talk to. She was such a happy person that you felt happier anytime you were around her. She never said a negative word about herself, was always smiling, and always up for trying something new. Small wonder that she was out having fun on the weekends while we sat around complaining about how boring our lives were.
So let Sherry be a lesson to all of us women: your attitude about yourself and life has far more to do with your happy ending than your looks. And furthermore, your happy ending has nothing to do with finding a man, and everything to do with finding meaning and purpose in your own life.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Want a free vacation to Bermuda? Become a terrorist. Since Obama is trying to close down Guantanamo Bay, he has to send its detainees somewhere, and in this case, it was the tropical island of Bermuda. Four men were sent there as "guest workers," with the potential to become naturalized citizens, which would allow them to travel in and out of any country they choose. Worse yet, the British government, who owns Bermuda, was never consulted about this matter.
But here's the other side of the coin: there has not been much news coverage of this story, and consequently, it is difficult to determine what, if anything, these men are guilty of. One news source claims that they were simply victims of a tense political climate and were captured in Afghanistan after fleeing persecution in China. So if that's the case, and they are completely innocent, why didn't Obama bring them to the United States? Why didn't he use them as an example of how unfairly we've treated our prisoners, show the American people their plight, and offer to help them start a new life here?
Instead, he quietly tried to settle them in Bermuda without even going through the proper channels within the British government. And now, he has offered the Pacific nation of Palau $200 million in "development and budget aid" at the same time they've agreed to take 13 more detainees.
Where do these actions fit into Obama's promise for a "transparent presidency?" He is certainly more communicative than many other presidents, what with his weekly YouTube updates, frequent press conferences, and repetitive declarations about the "historic" nature of his leadership. But transparent? I don't think so. In fact, he is totally silent when it suits him. (For example, when Dick Cheney asked that information gained from enhanced interrogation techniques be made public.)
And finally, where will we be if we have to spend $200 million on every 4 terrorists we've detained? Oh - right. We'll just print more money.
But here's the other side of the coin: there has not been much news coverage of this story, and consequently, it is difficult to determine what, if anything, these men are guilty of. One news source claims that they were simply victims of a tense political climate and were captured in Afghanistan after fleeing persecution in China. So if that's the case, and they are completely innocent, why didn't Obama bring them to the United States? Why didn't he use them as an example of how unfairly we've treated our prisoners, show the American people their plight, and offer to help them start a new life here?
Instead, he quietly tried to settle them in Bermuda without even going through the proper channels within the British government. And now, he has offered the Pacific nation of Palau $200 million in "development and budget aid" at the same time they've agreed to take 13 more detainees.
Where do these actions fit into Obama's promise for a "transparent presidency?" He is certainly more communicative than many other presidents, what with his weekly YouTube updates, frequent press conferences, and repetitive declarations about the "historic" nature of his leadership. But transparent? I don't think so. In fact, he is totally silent when it suits him. (For example, when Dick Cheney asked that information gained from enhanced interrogation techniques be made public.)
And finally, where will we be if we have to spend $200 million on every 4 terrorists we've detained? Oh - right. We'll just print more money.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What happened to the Swine Flu? For a couple of weeks, it was all you heard about on local and national news. When there were only a handful of cases here in the U.S., the media was in a frenzy that created a huge amount of fear about a virus that is basically not much different from what we know as the "normal" flu. I know as the mother of a toddler, I was incredibly worried, especially when we had to travel out of state to a wedding. But now that there have been nearly 8,500 cases confirmed worldwide, with almost 5,000 of those in this country, the potential pandemic is lucky to get even a brief mention in the evening news. And what is making it to the headlines? Obama's Notre Dame speech, record heat and record amounts of rain, more negative reports about the economy...let this be a lesson to all of us about the power and influence of the media. There are thousands more cases of swine flu now, and hundreds more deaths, but somehow the story has gone away. And because the story has gone away, so has most of the panic. We tend to assume that the media covers the news, but that is not the case. They decide what they want to cover, and that becomes the news. Meanwhile, busy Americans who tune in to the evening news think they're getting an accurate idea of what's going on in the world when what they are really getting is a picture of the world that the medai wants them to see.
Monday, May 11, 2009
By now, almost everyone has heard about the Miss California gay-marriage controversy. But how many people have actually heard what Carrie Prejean said over the deafening roar of her critics? Asked whether she “believed in” gay marriage, she responded, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. 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." This has got to be one of the most bland and inoffensive statements it is possible to make about this issue. Prejean made no moral judgments; she did not even use any evaluatory words like “wrong,” “sin,” or “bad.” On the contrary, she says it is “great” that we have a right to choose. And by using the phrase “I think” several times in her answer, it seems she may not even be totally committed to her position. She even qualifies it with, “no offense to anybody.” A milder statement of belief could hardy be imagined.
Prejean’s feelings are not unique; many Americans feel that marriage should continue to be defined legally as being between one man and one woman. While this is a religious and moral issue for some, others simply feel that making the definition of marriage more inclusive will make it impossible to exclude any other unions – such as those between multiple spouses, relatives, even people and animals. Pageant officials encouraged her to apologize, but she refused. And why should she apologize? She answered a direct question with an honest expression of her personal opinion, and she did it in a very kind way. Furthermore, the beliefs she expressed are by no means weird, outdated, or unusual. The effort to legalize gay marriage failed in California as recently as 2008.
Her critics, however, are determined to act as though she is a total deviant. The first major attack came from Perez Hilton, a judge in the pageant, whose “job” is to blog about celebrities on his gossip site. He called her a “dumb bitch.” He was immediately backed up by the pageant’s co-chairwoman, Shanna Moakler, who said his criticism was “well-spoken…clear and precise.” Moakler’s credentials are even less impressive than Hilton’s: she was a Playboy Playmate of the month, involved in a bar fight with Paris Hilton, and threw herself a divorce party featuring a cake with a bleeding groom and a knife-wielding bride. That these two people have such influential positions in the Miss California pageant is slightly disturbing, but it is absolutely ludicrous that their ridiculous over-reactions to Prejean’s statements have garnered so much support.
In an effort to mitigate any damage that might have been done to California’s reputation, former pageant winners filmed a public service announcement to promote diversity. The credo they promote is: “I believe when I express my opinion I have a responsibility to do it in a way that respects others who may not agree.” Perez Hilton and Shanna Moakler must not have seen the announcement yet. And obviously, neither has Micheal Musto, a columnist for the Village Voice. If he had watched it before his interview on MSNBC, he certainly would have found a more tactful way to say that Prejean had to “cut off her penis” in order to win the pageant. He might even have skipped the bad joke that “she thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository.” He would have refrained from saying she is “dumb and twisted,” and he definitely wouldn’t have called her “Klaus Barbie” and likened her to a Nazi war criminal.
On The Today show, Matt Lauer asked Prejean if she wished she had held back instead of expressing her opinion about gay marriage. She said she did not, and that because people are so passionate about the issue, “that regardless of our opinions…I think that we just need to respect each other, even when we disagree.”
Throughout this scandal, it seems clear that Prejean is the only one heading the call to express opinions in a respectful manner. The very people who are the biggest proponents of free speech and expression are grossly misrepresenting her comments, making inferences about her beliefs that are totally unsupported, and are acting as though she is a truly deplorable villain. They are falsely equating her non-support of gay marriage to “rabidly advocate[ing] depriving gay people of equal rights,” (again, Micheal Musto’s overwrought analysis.)
This scandal should be disturbing to every American because it reveals increasingly successful attempts to silence political discourse in this country. Whatever Washington, Hollywood, or the media decides is the “right way” to think about an issue is fast becoming the only way to think about it. Anyone who expresses a different opinion – even if their opinion is actually fairly commonplace – is shunned and demonized. Personal insults have no place in real, honest discussion, and those who use them are simply revealing their own ignorance and intellectual laziness. The climate in this country should encourage debate, not make people afraid to say what they think. When one way of thinking is presented as the only right way, you have propaganda. And when propaganda succeeds, you have tyranny.
Prejean’s feelings are not unique; many Americans feel that marriage should continue to be defined legally as being between one man and one woman. While this is a religious and moral issue for some, others simply feel that making the definition of marriage more inclusive will make it impossible to exclude any other unions – such as those between multiple spouses, relatives, even people and animals. Pageant officials encouraged her to apologize, but she refused. And why should she apologize? She answered a direct question with an honest expression of her personal opinion, and she did it in a very kind way. Furthermore, the beliefs she expressed are by no means weird, outdated, or unusual. The effort to legalize gay marriage failed in California as recently as 2008.
Her critics, however, are determined to act as though she is a total deviant. The first major attack came from Perez Hilton, a judge in the pageant, whose “job” is to blog about celebrities on his gossip site. He called her a “dumb bitch.” He was immediately backed up by the pageant’s co-chairwoman, Shanna Moakler, who said his criticism was “well-spoken…clear and precise.” Moakler’s credentials are even less impressive than Hilton’s: she was a Playboy Playmate of the month, involved in a bar fight with Paris Hilton, and threw herself a divorce party featuring a cake with a bleeding groom and a knife-wielding bride. That these two people have such influential positions in the Miss California pageant is slightly disturbing, but it is absolutely ludicrous that their ridiculous over-reactions to Prejean’s statements have garnered so much support.
In an effort to mitigate any damage that might have been done to California’s reputation, former pageant winners filmed a public service announcement to promote diversity. The credo they promote is: “I believe when I express my opinion I have a responsibility to do it in a way that respects others who may not agree.” Perez Hilton and Shanna Moakler must not have seen the announcement yet. And obviously, neither has Micheal Musto, a columnist for the Village Voice. If he had watched it before his interview on MSNBC, he certainly would have found a more tactful way to say that Prejean had to “cut off her penis” in order to win the pageant. He might even have skipped the bad joke that “she thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository.” He would have refrained from saying she is “dumb and twisted,” and he definitely wouldn’t have called her “Klaus Barbie” and likened her to a Nazi war criminal.
On The Today show, Matt Lauer asked Prejean if she wished she had held back instead of expressing her opinion about gay marriage. She said she did not, and that because people are so passionate about the issue, “that regardless of our opinions…I think that we just need to respect each other, even when we disagree.”
Throughout this scandal, it seems clear that Prejean is the only one heading the call to express opinions in a respectful manner. The very people who are the biggest proponents of free speech and expression are grossly misrepresenting her comments, making inferences about her beliefs that are totally unsupported, and are acting as though she is a truly deplorable villain. They are falsely equating her non-support of gay marriage to “rabidly advocate[ing] depriving gay people of equal rights,” (again, Micheal Musto’s overwrought analysis.)
This scandal should be disturbing to every American because it reveals increasingly successful attempts to silence political discourse in this country. Whatever Washington, Hollywood, or the media decides is the “right way” to think about an issue is fast becoming the only way to think about it. Anyone who expresses a different opinion – even if their opinion is actually fairly commonplace – is shunned and demonized. Personal insults have no place in real, honest discussion, and those who use them are simply revealing their own ignorance and intellectual laziness. The climate in this country should encourage debate, not make people afraid to say what they think. When one way of thinking is presented as the only right way, you have propaganda. And when propaganda succeeds, you have tyranny.
Monday, May 4, 2009
President Obama has made quite a few dramatic changes in policy and procedure since he took office only three short months ago. From the decision to close Guantanamo Bay, to his economic stimulus plan, to his redesignation of terrorist acts as “man-caused tragedies,” it is clear that, for better or worse, his modus operandi could not be more different from the previous administration’s. Witness one of his latest acts: the release of previously classified CIA interrogation memos that spell out the techniques used to gain information from prisoners. His belief is that these techniques, such as stripping prisoners, forcing them to stand upright or stay awake for long periods of time, preying on their fear of insects, and waterboarding, are torture.
What must it feel like to those CIA employees who have given this country years of faithful service, who have sacrificed their personal safety on a daily basis, who were following orders to the letter, to be told by the President of the United States that they were, in fact, torturing people? Obama believes this so strongly that he is willing to leave the door open for possible prosecution of officials from the Bush administration who gave legal support the use of these techniques. Yet, when he comes face to face with employees at the CIA, he tries to mitigate any fallout from his decision to release the documents by delivering a soothing speech filled with platitudes. He tells them not to be discouraged, that this is a time for “reflection,” and that acknowledging we’ve made “some mistakes” is what makes this country great. But then he reemphasizes the seriousness of the “mistakes” by calling them “part of a dark and painful chapter in our history.” It seems to me that the dark and painful chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks and their immediate aftermath, when we saw how far-reaching the effects of the tragedy were, both in the loss of life and in the fear and panic the terrorists successfully spread. The fact that we were able to take measures that have since prevented any further attacks, that have bolstered patriotism and begun to restore Americans’ feelings of safety, is a huge victory. By preventing the CIA from using these very successful measures, Obama is making these times far more dangerous. He tells the CIA he is “going to need [them] now more than ever,” but he has taken away their most effective tools. By publicly criticizing them and spelling out the limits of their power, he has made them much weaker when they face our enemies. Furthermore, they must now operate under a continual worry that the procedures they are told to use may at any moment be deemed illegal, and that they could face prosecution for trying to do their job in good faith.
Never mind this insult to some of this country’s most valuable protectors – what are the implications of this act for this country’s safety? Obama’s CIA chief, along with the four chiefs who came before him, all opposed the release of these documents on the grounds that it would damage national security. On the other hand, Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, said that releasing these documents would “enhance America’s image abroad.” Emanuel has a Master’s in Speech and Communication and has worked in politics ever since he graduated from college, so perhaps this does make him a good judge of America’s image. But shouldn’t he be more concerned with America’s safety? Rather than debating the culpability of the people who were at least trying to get information to prevent further attacks, we should be far more concerned with the culpability of the individuals who orchestrated them. Instead, we are trying to improve our image in their eyes. This type of backwards thinking will only encourage them and make us less and less able to protect ourselves. This ridiculous obsession with our own alleged culpability is going to find us sitting on our hands, completely defenseless the next time we have an attack. In fact, this is exactly why a misfit band of teenage pirates from Somalia was able to hold off the United States Navy for four days.
If this country is to remain safe, our enemies must believe that if we are threatened, we are capable of using any means necessary to defend ourselves. The only deterrent to their attacks is their belief – quickly fading now – that we are bigger, stronger, and more powerful than they are. Our enemies are violent, and their violence is encouraged and legitimized by their religion. They have no internal moral compass that we can hope to tap into through tactful diplomacy, kind requests, or pleas for what we consider reasonable behavior. But by releasing these documents, Obama seems to be saying that the measures we use to protect and defend this country should be so inoffensive that the entire country should know about them and feel comfortable with them. Could he really be this naive? What sort of kind and respectful questioning does he imagine will work on the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Thanks to Obama’s foreign policy techniques, we no longer display an attitude of righteous anger about the attacks on our country; instead we appear to be humble, even repentant. We seem to be seriously considering the possibility that our national behavior and image may have contributed to our being attacked. This ridiculous attitude that he projects is only making us weaker in the eyes of the militant extremists who already despise us. Their goal is to demoralize us, frighten us, and ultimately destroy us, and actions like this from our president are making their job that much easier.
What must it feel like to those CIA employees who have given this country years of faithful service, who have sacrificed their personal safety on a daily basis, who were following orders to the letter, to be told by the President of the United States that they were, in fact, torturing people? Obama believes this so strongly that he is willing to leave the door open for possible prosecution of officials from the Bush administration who gave legal support the use of these techniques. Yet, when he comes face to face with employees at the CIA, he tries to mitigate any fallout from his decision to release the documents by delivering a soothing speech filled with platitudes. He tells them not to be discouraged, that this is a time for “reflection,” and that acknowledging we’ve made “some mistakes” is what makes this country great. But then he reemphasizes the seriousness of the “mistakes” by calling them “part of a dark and painful chapter in our history.” It seems to me that the dark and painful chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks and their immediate aftermath, when we saw how far-reaching the effects of the tragedy were, both in the loss of life and in the fear and panic the terrorists successfully spread. The fact that we were able to take measures that have since prevented any further attacks, that have bolstered patriotism and begun to restore Americans’ feelings of safety, is a huge victory. By preventing the CIA from using these very successful measures, Obama is making these times far more dangerous. He tells the CIA he is “going to need [them] now more than ever,” but he has taken away their most effective tools. By publicly criticizing them and spelling out the limits of their power, he has made them much weaker when they face our enemies. Furthermore, they must now operate under a continual worry that the procedures they are told to use may at any moment be deemed illegal, and that they could face prosecution for trying to do their job in good faith.
Never mind this insult to some of this country’s most valuable protectors – what are the implications of this act for this country’s safety? Obama’s CIA chief, along with the four chiefs who came before him, all opposed the release of these documents on the grounds that it would damage national security. On the other hand, Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, said that releasing these documents would “enhance America’s image abroad.” Emanuel has a Master’s in Speech and Communication and has worked in politics ever since he graduated from college, so perhaps this does make him a good judge of America’s image. But shouldn’t he be more concerned with America’s safety? Rather than debating the culpability of the people who were at least trying to get information to prevent further attacks, we should be far more concerned with the culpability of the individuals who orchestrated them. Instead, we are trying to improve our image in their eyes. This type of backwards thinking will only encourage them and make us less and less able to protect ourselves. This ridiculous obsession with our own alleged culpability is going to find us sitting on our hands, completely defenseless the next time we have an attack. In fact, this is exactly why a misfit band of teenage pirates from Somalia was able to hold off the United States Navy for four days.
If this country is to remain safe, our enemies must believe that if we are threatened, we are capable of using any means necessary to defend ourselves. The only deterrent to their attacks is their belief – quickly fading now – that we are bigger, stronger, and more powerful than they are. Our enemies are violent, and their violence is encouraged and legitimized by their religion. They have no internal moral compass that we can hope to tap into through tactful diplomacy, kind requests, or pleas for what we consider reasonable behavior. But by releasing these documents, Obama seems to be saying that the measures we use to protect and defend this country should be so inoffensive that the entire country should know about them and feel comfortable with them. Could he really be this naive? What sort of kind and respectful questioning does he imagine will work on the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Thanks to Obama’s foreign policy techniques, we no longer display an attitude of righteous anger about the attacks on our country; instead we appear to be humble, even repentant. We seem to be seriously considering the possibility that our national behavior and image may have contributed to our being attacked. This ridiculous attitude that he projects is only making us weaker in the eyes of the militant extremists who already despise us. Their goal is to demoralize us, frighten us, and ultimately destroy us, and actions like this from our president are making their job that much easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
