I Just Don't Understand.

I recently discovered a blog that I LOVE, and not through Madame Queen, even though she linked it recently.

It's called "Jason. For the love of God." It's written by That Chick, who also writes at Scrivel. I'm not going to pretend that I get the title, but I do get that That Chick rocks.my.socks. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Plus, I relate. I'm telling you, I love it.

I also love blogging in general. I love that I've made friends that I've never even met. I love that there are people willing to share themselves, and others who are willing to support them. I love that a bunch of crazy women can rent out a whole store just for a party.

That's why I was so disappointed today.

That Chick recently wrote a great post about her struggle with food. She's a little overweight. So am I. In fact, I'm more than a little overweight. I know what a struggle it is. I know how it makes you feel like you're less of a person, like everyone is judging you. So I know That Chick put herself out there when she wrote that post.

I commented on it. I congratulated her on losing 40lbs. I let her know that she isn't alone. I didn't bother to read all 38 comments first, because I really wanted to say my piece. After I'd posted my comment, I went back to read them. Most were the kind of comments you usually see, loving and supportive. But I also found this, posted by Anonymous:

"I've been reading this blog for a long time now and I have to be honest...I don't understand the appeal. You aren't funny. You are fat. Not just fat but extremely fat. So boo-hoo go work out instead of sitting on your fat ass in front of the computer all the time. Your husband cheated on you and you married him anyway. You're writing sucks and no one is ever going to publish it. You are really pathetic. I don't know if all these people just feel sorry for you or what but you are just a loser.

All your stupid minions will probably attack me now. I've seen them do it to others who have dared to say the truth about you. But I don't care. I'm the only one who will say the truth."

I hesitate to even repeat it here because it makes me physically ill. It makes me want to cry. It was the 5th of the 38 comments. Many of the following comments condemned Anonymous. I was tempted, but I didn't feel like I could put my anger into words.

It's people like this that have maimed our society. People who judge others, who believe that some are better than others, who don't have the manners to keep it to themselves. It's people like Anonymous who make me so self-conscious that sometimes I struggle going to the grocery store. The reason I don't swim anymore, even though water is one of my greatest joys. The reason I walk through a public building, wishing I were invisible.

I don't feel that way all the time, of course, but I do feel that way sometimes. I'm sure That Chick does too. That's why this comment causes me so much pain. Even though I know Anonymous is one giant jerk-face, it hurts me. I know it hurt That Chick, and that hurts me too. So here's my response.

Dear Anonymous,

It must be nice to be anonymous. You can say anything you want to anyone, with no repercussions. It says a lot about you. Mostly, that you're enough of a bitch to be cruel, but too much of a pansy to do it with a name.

If there is anyone in the blogosphere that's really pathetic, it's you. A person who feels the need to put down another person; one you've never even met.

What makes you like this? I'm trying not to be a hypocrite here; I'm trying not to judge you the way you've judged others. But really. What kind of person anonymously attacks someone who has just opened herself up? Do you think this makes you some kind of hero? That it makes you better than someone else?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Telling the "truth", as you call it, isn't a virtue. The virtue comes in accepting people for who they are, and realizing their value and human beings.

Here's another secret. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being. You are everything that is wrong with society. You are contemptible, revolting, loathsome, foul, vile, despicable, hateful and putrid.

Someday, your cruelty will come back to haunt you. Someday, your life will not be so perfect. You will struggle, agonize, and wish for someone to comfort you. And there will be no one there. You will have brought the pain upon yourself, because you do not deserve sympathy or assistance.

Have fun rotting in hell.

Love,
ekbetsy

Harsh? Perhaps. I'm not known for my kindness when I lose my temper. In fact, it takes an awful lot to get me that angry. I don't apologize. My other regret is that I don't know Anonymous better, so that I could take shots that would hit closer to home.

Dear That Chick,

Don't let the bastards get you down. No one defines your worth except you. You have accomplished goals, worked for what you have. You fight against your weaknesses, rather than giving in to them. And that makes you a better person than many.

I don't know you, although I wish I did. But I know that you have plenty to be proud of, and that you don't deserve such hateful cruelty. I'm sorry that it happened. I wish I could undo it, but I can't. The best I can do is tell you, and anyone else that it's not okay, and do my best to keep if from happening to anyone else.

XOXO,
ekbetsy

I don't understand cruelty. I wish I could make it stop. How much better would our world be if people would only have respect for one another? But all I can do it refuse to be cruel myself, and encourage others to do the same.

Oh, and Anonymous? If you have anything to say to me, at least have the guts to put your name on it, you disgusting weasel.

For the Love of Farnsworth*

There seems to be an anti-TV epedemic going around. Laurel, over at The Tea Party Place, has been spouting some craziness about giving up TV for a year. Everyone is being all supportive, but I know Laurel comes over here regularly, so Laurel? I think you're nuts. I mean, go ahead and do it if you want, but I don't know what you did to make you do something so mean to yourself. The madness continues at Vintage Thirty. Tootsie Farklepants discusses the shortcomings of TV here.

And now it's time for my shocking confession for the day. I LOVE TV. Love. It. Acutally, I love stories in all forms; books, television, movies. I know it's a form of escapism, but frankly, my dear, I just don't give a damn. (Oh, how dorky was that?). And so, for those of you who share my love for the good ol' Boob Tube, or for those who have forgotten or forsaken the joys of television: a run-down of my favorite shows. Because you know you care.

Bones
Love it, love it, love it. In fact, I love it so much I've already blogged about it here. Forgive the rambling - I think I was sick when I wrote that. The point is, it's a fabulous show with a different take on the whole crime-fighting premise, and a flawed but lovable main character. And there's a new episode coming April 14th! (Stupid writer's strike and American Idol.)

Grey's Anatomy
I don't care how cliche it is, I love this show. I get so into the lives of the characters that my friend Felicia and I talk about them like they're real people. I have to say, I was wary after the end of season 3 (what with the whole infidelity arc), but I've been pleasantly suprised by season 4. I should have know better than to doubt Shonda Rhimes, the fabulous creator of Grey's. I also love her new Private Practice, which will be back in the fall. There's a new episode of Grey's scheduled to run April 24.

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
This show makes me cry every time, without exception. It touches me to watch communities come together to help people in need, especially when those people are usually so inspiring themselves. It gives me warm fuzzies to watch people helping others with no expectation for a reward (other than ratings, I guess). It revives my hope in mankind, the hope that stupid shows like Nip/Tuck wear down.

Eli Stone: Best New Show
This show just aired about a month ago, but I love it. Some people are comparing it to Ally McBeal, and there are definite similarities, but Eli Stone is more uplifting. It's about a tough lawyer who starts having hallucinations. He worries he's going crazy, but it turns out that he has a brain anurism, and the visions have relevance to his life. He sees a Berkley educated accupuncturist who assumes a Chinese accent for his clients, and who convinces Eli that he might be a prophet. It's a show with great characters and fun plots, about one guy trying to make a difference.

Dharma & Greg: Best Old Show
The only place you can find Dharma & Greg anymore is on WE, which is a shame, because it's a hysterical show. I love a story that can make me laugh out loud. I love the extremes between Dharma's hippie parents and Greg's snooty, socialite parents. If you're looking for great characters, this show is a winner. Good luck watching it though. It's even hard to get on DVD.

To all you TV haters: Ha! So there! Oh, and a gift for those who are concerned about the fate of their favorite shows after the lame-o writer's strike: TV Guide's Post-Strike Coverage

*Bonus Question: If anyone can tell me how the title of this post relates to the topic (hint: TV), I'll give you a prize.

Seeing Through Society's Eyes

Living in the Valley of the Sun, as I do, I have heard a lot about Jordin Sparks. She was on the front page of the newspaper after she won American Idol. Hometown girl makes good, and all that. I'll admit, I didn't really follow this season of AI. I did, however, watch enough to be familiar with Jordin.

There has been a lot of hometown support for Jordin, from all over - TV news, radio, newspaper. So you can see why, on Wednesday morning, I was reading the "Arizona Living" section of the Arizona Republic, and I was disappointed by what I found there.

There was a feature on the front page of the section entitled "Jordin vs. Blake: Why s/he will win," written by Randy Cordova. It gave two lists of ten reasons why Jordin/Blake would win American Idol. The article itself was fine; it actually favored Jordin rather blatantly. It was a comment within the article that I found disturbing.

Number 4 on the list of why Jordin would win: "Jordin is showing America that being zaftig is nothing to be ashamed of. After all, here is a full-figured girl who has no problem going sleeveless on national TV. That confidence only makes her more attractive, not to mention a great role model."

Now, I think it's great that Mr. Cordova is pointing out a critical flaw in our society: the idolization of an unrealistic female figure. My problem with his statement is that rather than dispelling such a notion, Mr. Cordova has fed into it. See, the thing is, Jordin Sparks is hardly zaftig.

Let's take a look.



"Full-figured?" Are you kidding me? This girl isn't "full-figured" (which, face it, is just a euphamism for FAT). She's curvy and voluptuous and exactly what a woman is supposed to look like. I would kill to have that girl's curves, I bet most women would, and I bet men find them pretty freakin' attractive. But instead of just pointing out that she's gorgeous, Mr. Cordova felt the need to refer to her as "zaftig."

Well, screw you, Mr. Cordova.

Here's the truth, as I see it. It's true that we are fighting a battle against obesity in this country. Heaven knows, I could stand to shed a few pounds. It's also true that millions of women worry about constantly worry unnecessarily about their weight because our society has developed an unhealthy image of what is "attractive."

There was a time that "full-figured" women were more considered to be more attractive than skinny women; there are cultures where that is still true today. Women are curvy for a reason. They carry more weight around the hips to protect a child that might grow inside them, and to bear that child. They are soft so that they can comfort that child when he's tired, hungry or scared. The fact is, you're not supposed to be able to see a woman's ribs.

So let's review:


REAL WOMAN


STARVING AND PROBABLY CRANKY WOMAN

We clear?

The Idiosyncrasies of Utah

I have lived in Utah for 4 years now, and for the most part, I've been happy here. At first I loved it; I felt like I finally belonged somewhere. After a while I started seeing the little oddities that are inevitably found in a community dominated by one group of people. And now, well, sometimes I'm just freaked out.

An example of this occured today while I was reading an article in our campus newspaper, The Daily Universe (excellent issue today, by the way, my compliments to the DU staff). The article initially ran in the LA Times and can be viewed at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-kanab24jun24,0,3479500,full.story
It discussed a resolution recently passed by the city council of Kanab, a small southern Utah town. The resolution regarded the "natural family," a term the council defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, with "hearts open to a full quiver of children." Essentially, a mom, dad, and a whole passel of kids.

Now, I'm all for marriage. In fact, I'm a huge supporter of the Marriage Protection Ammendment. I believe that marriage is something held only between a man and woman, and like the city council of Kanab, I believe that it is ordained of God. Because Kanab is largley a Mormon community, I think most residents would agree. I, however, feel that the Kanab's resolution takes this doctrine too far, and quite a few of Kanab's citizens concur.

My qualms are both moral and political. First, I believe that such a decree violates the Constitutionally required separation of church and state. Until Christ Himself sets up a theocracy, it is simply an ineffective way to govern people of many beliefs. This applies in Utah as well.

Morally, I feel that it is inappropriate to maintain that a specific type of family is superior to another, with the exeption of marriage between man and woman. There are many types of families; a childless husband and wife are no less of a family than a family with twelve children. In more and more cases, people are considering their friends to be more of a "family" than acutal blood relatives. Is this any less valid? The purpose of a family is to love, care for and support one another. When did the look of the family become more important than the purpose?

A quotation from the resolution: "We envision young women growing into wives, homemakers, and mothers; and we see young men growing into husbands, home-builders, and fathers…. We look to a landscape of family homes, lawns, and gardens busy with useful tasks and ringing with the laughter of many children." I personally have a problem with this statement in itself. In my opinion, it limits both girls and boys in their quest to become better, more educated people. It seems to imply that after the good little children graduate high school (if that is even deemed neccessary), they should marry the first member of the opposite sex they see and promptly start making babies. Good little girls grow into good little housewives and spend their days canning produce fresh from the garden, while good little boys grow up to attempt to support a family doing menial labor.

I want to emphasize here that my problem is not with housewives, menial labor or having children. My issue stems from the effect the mindset of the council members of Kanab has of squashing potential in their youngsters. The mayor of Kanab, Kim Lawson, sadly makes a perfect example.

A 17-year-old-intern at the Southern Utah News wrote a coloumn expressing disapproval of the city council, and especially of the mayor. The mayor, rather than allowing the young man to state his opinion, or even rebutting in a open-minded manner, called on the young man's teachers and religious leaders to bring him back in line. In my opinion, such a bold young man should be commended for his attention, thoughtfullness and courage in addressing such a controverisal issue, or in having an opinion on it at all!

Even worse, when the Southern Utah News editor, Dixie Brunner, defended the young man and continued to publish letters on the subject, some citizens started their own newspaper to counter Brunner's, saying it was a saucy liberal rag.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is a liberal rag in the entire state of Utah, much less a saucy one.

It is this uber-conservatism and ultra-old-fashionness that most bothers me. One shopkeeper says she is hesitant to burn incense for fear she will be shunned as "New Agey." Local ranchers are suspicious of the "dog lovers" who work at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary (Heaven forbid people should care about domestic animals). When a group of newcomers came out against the resolution, a 78-year citizen of Kanab submitted this to the newspaper: "Maybe (just maybe) when you have lived here even a fraction of that time, perhaps you will have earned the right to call Kanab 'your' community. That hasn't happened yet." This statement is frightening in it's exclusion and distain. It seems that some citizens in Kanab take their conservatism a bit too far. Many conservatives believe that fanatisms comes only from the left, but clearly the right can breed radicals as well.

This ultra-conservatism, the close-mindedness, the inablity of some to respect the opinions and lifestyles of others, and the occasional distain for those who voice an opinion outside of the mainstream are some of the reasons I have grown wary of living in Utah. Don't get me wrong, Utah isn't a bad place, and the people aren't bad people. Occasionally, they're just a little odd.

Dixie Brunner, editor of the Southern Utah News said, "They are good people here, and that's all there is to it. But sometimes, I pull my hair out."

I hear ya, Ms. Brunner. I hear ya.

Stupid People Who Think They Are Smart.

I heard a great thing on Fox News this morning. Yes, I know it's a Saturday morning and there is nothing more dorky than watching Fox News on a Saturday morning. In my defense, conservative talk and television shows, including but not limited to Rush Limbaugh and The O'Reilly Factor, seems to be omnipresent in my parent's house. But I digress.

Back to what I heard this morning. I was making waffles and listening to the news with one ear, because I find it somewhat interesting. They were debating the placement of Sam Alito as a supreme court justice. Actually, the topic was, "How will Sam Alito effect the stock market?" This seemed a little ridiculous in and of itself, but then one of the guests said something that blew my mind.

"Anyone who is so pro-life clearly has no respect for basic property rights."

My response to that? WHAT THE HELL?!?!? You've got to be kidding me. Now, I'm generally a pretty tolerant person. I strongly believe that all people have the right to believe how they choose and have their own opinion. But this is crossing the line. Where does this guy get off correlating being anti-abortion to having no respect for property rights?

I understand how he could make such a statement sound logical. Theoretically, a woman's body is her property, and she should have the right to do what she wishes with it. This is simply a case of how something that is completely wrong can be twisted to sound okay. Okay, maybe a woman's body is her property. So let her get tattoos and piercings and sexually transmitted diseases. I don't care. But when it comes to another human life, I DO care. You wouldn't hear this sort of argument to support drunk driving. I mean, hey, the drunk person's body is his or her property, as is they vehicle. Why shouldn't they drive? Maybe being firmly against drunk driving makes me loose all respect for property rights.

Of course this position is ridiculous, and the shmuck who was on Money Matters on Fox News this morning would be sure to agree. "It's different," he would say. "Drunk driving is illegal because it protects other people; the people on the road who can't protect themselves." And I would say, "Aha! That is exactly my point." One of the first political ideals that I was ever taught in school was that sometimes we have to give up some of our rights in order to protect ourselves and others.

Being pro-life isn't about refusing to recognize a woman's "basic property rights," just like banning drunk driving isn't. It's about protecting people who can't protect themselves. In the case of drunk driving, it's protecting the mother who is running the pharmacy for more cough syrup and doesn't know a drunk driver is speeding her way. In the case of abortion, it's about protecting the life of a child who deserves the chance to live, regardless of the mistakes of it's parents. It's not about basic property rights, it's about life.

If you want to talk about respect for basic property rights, Mr. Money Matters Man, let's talk about imminent domain and see how you feel about that. But that's a different topic.