Tim Tebow is the kind of person I've always been suspicious of - handsome, talented, kind, principled... I use the term "suspicious" instead of something like envious because, being who I am, being like Tim Tebow doesn't sound too appealing... or... fun. Instead, my suspicions are aroused any time something, or in this case, someone, seems too good to be true. There's a reason why every Tim Tebow joke involves him as a pedophile-hiding-bodies-in-the-closet type. There's gotta be more to it. And being a Gator never helped.
The point of my ramblings today, if I may be so bold as to assert that there IS one, is not to hate on Tebow. Although it took awhile, his sainthood was established in my world the night he helped to take down the evil evil Pittsburgh Steelers. But, is it a question of good and evil?
Tim Tebow, along with the Denver Broncos, is now a part of "America's Team" [completely different than Team America, f--- yeah***]. Mainly, I guess, because it's a great underdog story. The last-minute, impossible wins and a quarterback who wasnevergonnamakeit create a pretty good story for the media and its consumers. But we can't ignore the Jesus factor.
It isn't my purpose to criticize Tebow's faith and borderline televangelism. I truly think he should be able to say what he wants, turn off or offend who he might, as I'm sure there are also a lot of fans who love and respect him for that as well. Far more interesting than one player's kind of unsensational faith (as he certainly isn't the first), is the media's fascination with it all.
Living in Florida, amidst so many (ugh) Gators, I've been hearing about Tebow, his virginity, and his favorite Bible verses for some time. Once he left for the NFL, I was quite certain he'd slide into relative obscurity, leaving me only to hear his name from a sullen Gator fan, reminiscing as a way to cope with a losing season. Then, of course, Tebow rises again (pun intended), and starts helping his team pull wins out of, well, nowhere- and the resurrection left him bigger than ever before. He went global.
Suddenly, my Facebook feed was full of friends "Tebowing", making a sensation out of Tebow's sideline prayers. And, those last-minute, crazy wins- well, they were nationally attributed to... Jesus.
Now, most of the time, this kind of stuff just makes me roll my eyes. I didn't actually start thinking critically about the whole phenomenon until Bill Maher got involved. After the Broncos got spanked by the Bills, Bill Maher posted the following on Twitter:
"Wow, Jesus just f---ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler 'Hey, Buffalo's killing them."
And outrage ensued. Demands to boycott HBO followed (Maher has a show on that channel). Eric Bolling of Fox News tweeted about it with the tagline #straighttohellBill (the hypocrisy is rich). And it was more than just media hype: people I know personally were discussing canceling their HBO.
Ok, so here is what in find interesting: not Bill Maher, who is always offensive to someone (and probably enjoying the publicity, right before the new season of his show premieres), and not that religion is such a hot topic (duh). But, if you find Maher's comment offensive, isn't the WHOLE thing offensive? Meaning, the Tebowing... the SNL skit with Jesus in the locker room... the entire concept that actual Jesus is actually taking the Denver Broncos under his actual arm and leading them to victory-ish... for Tim Tebow??? Doesn't he have more important things to do, like picking the winner of the Republican primary???
Maher's comments were an extension of the ridiculous metaphor... if Jesus is leading the Broncos to victory, it naturally follows that any losses would be, well... attributable to Satan. The whole thing is silly but, well... I guess that's my point. I think being offended by one thing would lend itself to being offended by the whole thing entirely. But, what do I know? The last time I said in a group that I didn't find Maher's comments offensive, I'm quite certain I was almost sent to the stake.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
A rose by any other name...
What's in a name? For Romeo and Juliet, it was what made their romance forbidden (and probably hotter). But what does it mean for a generation of Internet daters? Maybe a lot.
A study from the UK was recently published that looked at what names people would be most attracted to (or repelled by) when they couldn't put a name to the face. The most attractive names were: Charlotte, Emma, Hannah, and Marie for women. All very nice names, but they all strike me as very innocent, very virginal, and very sweet. Maybe the kind of girls who would bake you cookies and do your laundry. For guys they were: Jacob, Alexander, Max, Peter, and Mark. I'm no theologian, but aren't almost all of those Biblical names? They're definitely all either names of a book of the Bible or a great conqueror of Ancient times. Basically, the names for both sexes are very non-threatening.
On the flip-side, the women who got the worst responses were: Mandy, Celina, Chantal, and Jacqueline. Who even has those names??? It sounds like the cast of next season's Rock of Love. I think that's the point. For men, they were: Kevin, Justin, Marvin, and Dennis. In my personal experience, Kevin's are jokesters and Justin's are grown-up jerks/the really hyper kid in 3rd grade... But Marvin and Dennis?? Nerdsville.
I'm sure there are some differences in British names and America names anyway, but the concept itself has to remain true. I myself ave always placed great importance on names. Personally, I've never really loved my name. My real name is Loriann, which is nice and different, but I never go by that since it has often been confused with Lorraine [shudder]. So, I go by Lori, which is just kinda blah and not the kind of name that makes anyone take notice. I was always jealous of the girls with cool names that made a random guy in a bar say, "oh that's a beautiful name.". Lame pick-up line or not, I never got it.
When I was a kid I used to think that certain names would automatically make you prettier and more popular. My favorite was always Liz. I've also always been a fan of the "V" names- Vanessa, Valerie, Veronica - those are always the names of the cool, bitchy-but-beautiful girls in the movies. Oh, and I was always a Heather worshipper, long before I was aware of the movie. Alternatively, everyone knows that if you want a daughter who's destined for the pole or the trailer park (or both), you name them after a season or a day of the week.
It works the same for guys - I always wanted to date a Brad. Oh, Brads.... As a grown-up(ish), I've fantasized about dating a guy with a sexy, mysterious name like Ian or Ethan. Instead, I always got the guys with the weird and uncool names. I legitimately used to be afraid to tell people that my boyfriend's name was Bob. I mean, Bob? Seriously? I could feel their judgment and they hadn't even met him. I had a crush on a Randy and I dated a Gary. I had a really bad streak [*sorry to any of those people who may read this- I still love you but you have to know- and I couldn't change your names for purposes of this particular story*].
My teacher friends also have names they hate to see - for different reasons. Some names just always equal BAD KID. I checked, and there was a study about this too. Also British, the "naughtiest" names were Brooklyn, Callum, Connor, Liam, and Brandon [my brother's name]. For girls, no one wants a Chelsea, Alesha, and Demi.
I guess there really is a lot in a name- so all of that energy my new mommy/daddy friends are putting into naming their kids is pretty important. One of my friends wants to name her bun-in-the-oven Harrison, but is terrified people will call him Harry. I have to admit, I wouldn't pick a guy named Harry on match.com....
A study from the UK was recently published that looked at what names people would be most attracted to (or repelled by) when they couldn't put a name to the face. The most attractive names were: Charlotte, Emma, Hannah, and Marie for women. All very nice names, but they all strike me as very innocent, very virginal, and very sweet. Maybe the kind of girls who would bake you cookies and do your laundry. For guys they were: Jacob, Alexander, Max, Peter, and Mark. I'm no theologian, but aren't almost all of those Biblical names? They're definitely all either names of a book of the Bible or a great conqueror of Ancient times. Basically, the names for both sexes are very non-threatening.
On the flip-side, the women who got the worst responses were: Mandy, Celina, Chantal, and Jacqueline. Who even has those names??? It sounds like the cast of next season's Rock of Love. I think that's the point. For men, they were: Kevin, Justin, Marvin, and Dennis. In my personal experience, Kevin's are jokesters and Justin's are grown-up jerks/the really hyper kid in 3rd grade... But Marvin and Dennis?? Nerdsville.
I'm sure there are some differences in British names and America names anyway, but the concept itself has to remain true. I myself ave always placed great importance on names. Personally, I've never really loved my name. My real name is Loriann, which is nice and different, but I never go by that since it has often been confused with Lorraine [shudder]. So, I go by Lori, which is just kinda blah and not the kind of name that makes anyone take notice. I was always jealous of the girls with cool names that made a random guy in a bar say, "oh that's a beautiful name.". Lame pick-up line or not, I never got it.
When I was a kid I used to think that certain names would automatically make you prettier and more popular. My favorite was always Liz. I've also always been a fan of the "V" names- Vanessa, Valerie, Veronica - those are always the names of the cool, bitchy-but-beautiful girls in the movies. Oh, and I was always a Heather worshipper, long before I was aware of the movie. Alternatively, everyone knows that if you want a daughter who's destined for the pole or the trailer park (or both), you name them after a season or a day of the week.
It works the same for guys - I always wanted to date a Brad. Oh, Brads.... As a grown-up(ish), I've fantasized about dating a guy with a sexy, mysterious name like Ian or Ethan. Instead, I always got the guys with the weird and uncool names. I legitimately used to be afraid to tell people that my boyfriend's name was Bob. I mean, Bob? Seriously? I could feel their judgment and they hadn't even met him. I had a crush on a Randy and I dated a Gary. I had a really bad streak [*sorry to any of those people who may read this- I still love you but you have to know- and I couldn't change your names for purposes of this particular story*].
My teacher friends also have names they hate to see - for different reasons. Some names just always equal BAD KID. I checked, and there was a study about this too. Also British, the "naughtiest" names were Brooklyn, Callum, Connor, Liam, and Brandon [my brother's name]. For girls, no one wants a Chelsea, Alesha, and Demi.
I guess there really is a lot in a name- so all of that energy my new mommy/daddy friends are putting into naming their kids is pretty important. One of my friends wants to name her bun-in-the-oven Harrison, but is terrified people will call him Harry. I have to admit, I wouldn't pick a guy named Harry on match.com....
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Baby, it's cold outside
Ben found out today that I have a blog and, because he doesn't understand why I would do such a thing (or who would read it), he started calling it my "liberal manifesto". (Someday I'll write my "why opposites attract" blog...) Admittedly, it would be difficult not to comment on the Iowa Caucus tonight, with the news websites full of stories with titles like, "Santorum's Anal Sex Problem"... or, at the very least, a juvenile but hilarious look at the word, "caucus".... but, in an effort to prove that I can talk about something other than politicians who have been debating whether states should ban birth control while opposing abortion, yet promising to fix our economic problems while severely limiting public benefits... Yikes, I oughtta digress...
But, seriously, my mind has been on a far less controversial subject today- the weather. Yes, more than an unoriginal yet reliable topic of conversation for those like myself, certain that nothing is more awkward (or terrifying) than silence in an elevator, the weather in Florida is a matter of great interest to an Ohio girl like me.
I will never forget my first Florida Cold Snap. I distinctly remember a Miami newscaster warning listeners of sub-tropical temperatures; reminding his public of the importance of dressing in layers for a high of 65. I recently realized that there's an extreme discrepancy in the way Floridians even talk about weather. In Ohio, when we say, "it's going to be 55 today", not only do we mean that it's finally time to break out our shorts and visit the tanning bed, but we mean that the high of the day is 55. When a Floridian *complains* that it's going to be 55 that day, they are referring to the overnight lows.
That being said, it was legitimately cold here today. When people got a glimpse of the Ugg boots I tucked my suit pants into today, many of them commented ..."but you're from OHIO". Naturally, my response is always, "riiiight, and why do you think I came here?"- but it caused me to think about an age-old myth: does moving South truly "thin your blood"?
I spent some riveting hours in court this morning researching this issue for my readers, as loyal and plentiful as they may be. First of all, blood doesn't really "thin". Your blood either clots easily or it doesn't. If your circulation is bad, certainly different parts of your body can feel cold, since they aren't getting blood all the way down there. This is entirely unrelated to where you reside.
This led me to another brilliant question: why are you always so warm when you're drunk? (aka: where does that liquor coat come from?). Answer (copied and pasted so I don't have to re-type):
One effect of alcohol is to make the skin capillaries dilate. This brings more blood to the skin. Since the heat receptors are close to the surface of the skin, you will feel warmer. However, at the same time, you will lose body heat more quickly. (With enough alcohol, you will be more likely to freeze, but less likely to care whether you do or not.)
So, there you have it. Hopefully you know a little bit more about cold weather and I bet I successfully avoided offending anyone with such a dull topic (except, ironically, Ben, who is still banned from reading my blog).
So, drink up and warm up, wherever you are!
But, seriously, my mind has been on a far less controversial subject today- the weather. Yes, more than an unoriginal yet reliable topic of conversation for those like myself, certain that nothing is more awkward (or terrifying) than silence in an elevator, the weather in Florida is a matter of great interest to an Ohio girl like me.
I will never forget my first Florida Cold Snap. I distinctly remember a Miami newscaster warning listeners of sub-tropical temperatures; reminding his public of the importance of dressing in layers for a high of 65. I recently realized that there's an extreme discrepancy in the way Floridians even talk about weather. In Ohio, when we say, "it's going to be 55 today", not only do we mean that it's finally time to break out our shorts and visit the tanning bed, but we mean that the high of the day is 55. When a Floridian *complains* that it's going to be 55 that day, they are referring to the overnight lows.
That being said, it was legitimately cold here today. When people got a glimpse of the Ugg boots I tucked my suit pants into today, many of them commented ..."but you're from OHIO". Naturally, my response is always, "riiiight, and why do you think I came here?"- but it caused me to think about an age-old myth: does moving South truly "thin your blood"?
I spent some riveting hours in court this morning researching this issue for my readers, as loyal and plentiful as they may be. First of all, blood doesn't really "thin". Your blood either clots easily or it doesn't. If your circulation is bad, certainly different parts of your body can feel cold, since they aren't getting blood all the way down there. This is entirely unrelated to where you reside.
This led me to another brilliant question: why are you always so warm when you're drunk? (aka: where does that liquor coat come from?). Answer (copied and pasted so I don't have to re-type):
One effect of alcohol is to make the skin capillaries dilate. This brings more blood to the skin. Since the heat receptors are close to the surface of the skin, you will feel warmer. However, at the same time, you will lose body heat more quickly. (With enough alcohol, you will be more likely to freeze, but less likely to care whether you do or not.)
So, there you have it. Hopefully you know a little bit more about cold weather and I bet I successfully avoided offending anyone with such a dull topic (except, ironically, Ben, who is still banned from reading my blog).
So, drink up and warm up, wherever you are!
Monday, January 2, 2012
New Year, New Blog
Well, it's official, it's 2012! I have decided to welcome the new year with a new blog post - something I abandoned pretty early on in 2011. Just one girl among the masses you will see at the gym for the first two weeks of January, I made a lot of vows to myself for the year. This includes a vow to use my brain a little bit more - and I'm going to start by giving my writing muscles a little flex. I tend to want to revert to complete brain shut-down mode when I come home from work - just give me some mindless tv and a bit of facebook perusing, please. This has to stop... or at least, improve a little.
The past year has been a crazy one for me. First of all, I fell in love. And, without sharing too many fluffy details (both to protect your gag reflexes and my love's private nature), I can simply say that although it's certainly not the first time (and those who know me know that quite well), it's definitely the best time. There's some sort of fantastic balance I've never achieved before- undoubtedly a mixture of meeting a specific person and, in large part, timing...
In the midst of settling into a new relationship, I also had a relatively stressful year regarding my health. It was something I didn't discuss too openly nor very widely, but I did have the support of a small yet solid group of friends and family when I needed it. Let me summarize the ordeals by simply stating that there was a surgery, a tumor, more than one biopsy, and far more needles than I care to see ever again. And while I only feel comfortable putting this into cyberspace now that I can say everything turned out fine and I am healthy, I would certainly strongly encourage all the women in my life to maintain their regular health screenings. It can be your resolution.
As it turns out, the steady combination of upheaval and overwhelming delight in my life in 2011, as a result of the events shared here and those that will remain personal, created obviously a strong sense of personal growth and contentment - but also more of a desire for balance. I've always struggled with balance, in a trillion arenas of my life - but I've always been pretty lenient on myself regarding the failures as it always seems to indicate that there are just too many people to love, things to do, games to play, and subjects to learn... that really, the struggle itself seems to reveal itself as a blessing.
Nonetheless, I have resolved to do many things this year. It's come to my attention that there's this whole, righteous anti-resolution movement - but I am nothing if not a slave to tradition. There's something ceremonial about the process, even if some are a bit more successful than others (I think I wrote a blog this time last year about resolving to make my bed every day? Uh... right.). Personally, I like to think of it the way my yoga instructor teaches... more of a process of setting your intentions for the year.
At the end of the day (or, as it goes here, at the end of the year), we all want the same things: better health, better friendships, better organization - and, really, just a whole lot of love and happiness. I guess we all just kind of plan to get there in different ways- person to person, and year to year. And, even if we are "anti-resolution", it is difficult not to think of the beginning of another year as a little bit of a clean slate.
Good luck to everyone in accomplishing all you want to accomplish... and, if I do things the way I want to, you'll hear more from me about how that's going in 2012 ;-)
The past year has been a crazy one for me. First of all, I fell in love. And, without sharing too many fluffy details (both to protect your gag reflexes and my love's private nature), I can simply say that although it's certainly not the first time (and those who know me know that quite well), it's definitely the best time. There's some sort of fantastic balance I've never achieved before- undoubtedly a mixture of meeting a specific person and, in large part, timing...
In the midst of settling into a new relationship, I also had a relatively stressful year regarding my health. It was something I didn't discuss too openly nor very widely, but I did have the support of a small yet solid group of friends and family when I needed it. Let me summarize the ordeals by simply stating that there was a surgery, a tumor, more than one biopsy, and far more needles than I care to see ever again. And while I only feel comfortable putting this into cyberspace now that I can say everything turned out fine and I am healthy, I would certainly strongly encourage all the women in my life to maintain their regular health screenings. It can be your resolution.
As it turns out, the steady combination of upheaval and overwhelming delight in my life in 2011, as a result of the events shared here and those that will remain personal, created obviously a strong sense of personal growth and contentment - but also more of a desire for balance. I've always struggled with balance, in a trillion arenas of my life - but I've always been pretty lenient on myself regarding the failures as it always seems to indicate that there are just too many people to love, things to do, games to play, and subjects to learn... that really, the struggle itself seems to reveal itself as a blessing.
Nonetheless, I have resolved to do many things this year. It's come to my attention that there's this whole, righteous anti-resolution movement - but I am nothing if not a slave to tradition. There's something ceremonial about the process, even if some are a bit more successful than others (I think I wrote a blog this time last year about resolving to make my bed every day? Uh... right.). Personally, I like to think of it the way my yoga instructor teaches... more of a process of setting your intentions for the year.
At the end of the day (or, as it goes here, at the end of the year), we all want the same things: better health, better friendships, better organization - and, really, just a whole lot of love and happiness. I guess we all just kind of plan to get there in different ways- person to person, and year to year. And, even if we are "anti-resolution", it is difficult not to think of the beginning of another year as a little bit of a clean slate.
Good luck to everyone in accomplishing all you want to accomplish... and, if I do things the way I want to, you'll hear more from me about how that's going in 2012 ;-)
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Famous for all the wrong reasons?
I'm sure most of you have been wondering why I don't blog more. In fact, I'm rather certain that thoughts concerning my blog occupy most of your minds, most of the time.
(*realistically, I know it's actually presumptuous for me to even address a plural audience, as it reflects the assumption that more than one person even reads this - hi mom :) )
Seriously though - irrespective of the size of my audience, I do enjoy my little blog, and don't add to it more frequently because of this whole "simple life" I've sort of intentionally, sort of unintentionally, adopted.
I don't have Internet or cable. I probably will break down soon and get the Internet. It is sort of lame that I have an IPad and a new laptop and don't have the Internet (or any un-password-protected wireless connections to scam from). The reason I'm not "plugged in" is really more out of laziness and general I-object-to-Brighthouse-cable-ness than anything else.
As far as cable goes -- there's a bit more deliberate intention there. I basically am addicted to cable. When I do have cable, my heart palpitates and my palms sweat just thinking about all of the things I need to watch to clear room on the DVR box. I mean, godforbid an episode of Dancing With the Stars is bumped off the box before I make room in my schedule to fast-forward through it.
My weakness is specific to reality tv. More specifically, Bravo programming. Love. It.
And, so, this strangely long and rambling opening finally arrives at my point. One of those rare moments when a news story combines my two loves - criminal news stories and reality tv - in a manner that not only begs for, but requires a blog post (home Internet connection, or no).
Read on:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-woman-dalia-dippolito-reality-tv-defense-murder/story?id=13467249
First of all, we can speed over the obvious: the weird news always happens in Florida. I know.
Sooo... this woman is caught on (undercover police) camera, soliciting what she [allegedly] believes is a hitman to kill her husband. Surprise, it's an undercover cop.
Before giving her the whole, surprisewe'recopsputyourhandsup!, schtufff, these [prone-to-drama] cops then call some more cops (this time in uniform) to tell her that her husband is dead. [cue performance worthy of reality tv, fo. sho.]
**the video of her Oscar-performance reaction can be seen on the page you find at the above link. worth watching.
Ok, so, she's caught red-handed. Until... she comes up with BEST DEFENSE EVER.
She claims that, the whole time police are interviewing her, she is waiting for her husband just to walk in at any moment. Because A- she knows he isnt really dead and B - her husband has orchestrated his own contract killing, not as a strange suicide plot, but rather as some sort of complicated way to get his own reality show???
Let's take a moment to reflect, as this information presents several interesting questions for the viewer.
A) What kind of reality show would this be?
I suppose some sort of Newlyweds drama meets Jersey Shore type drunk violence situation??? Nick and Jessica were cute when they bickered. Mike and Dalia would have been cute when they... plotted one another's murders???
***As apparent as my sarcasm may be, I will be honest: I would watch this
B) I was going to say: what sort of idiotic lengths are we to believe a person would go to in order to be on tv? Then I realized this was a dumb question, in an era where a brilliant pair of parents would send a balloon into the air, while convincing a nation that their child was in said balloon, whilst said child is actually being held hostage in a garage/basement, only to further their reality tv careers... and then I withdraw my question.
Ok... so, picking up where we left off:
When I got to this point in the story, I thought... ok. Well, didn't the husband just tell the police that he planned this, therefore making the prosecution of this case kind of needless and, well, stupid?
But, then you get to the part of the story where the husband testifies and says he has noideawhatshestalkingabout and was pretty shocked when he found out his wife had hired someone to kill him.
Major. Fail.
There's other evidence against her, such as text messages and independent witnesses that are supposedly going to support the State's case against her. Likely this means she will testify herself. Likely this means I will watch it.
As a side note, there are some important ironies to point out:
1- During the sting that led to her arrest, the [original] reality show Cops was taping an episode. No matter what happens, she wins in the famousforthewrongreasons department.
2- Dalia has been on reality tv shows before. Most notably, she was on an episode of The Jamie Kennedy Experiment (speaking of major fails), that... wait for it... featured a plot line involving a fake hit man!
You just can't write this stuff.
(*realistically, I know it's actually presumptuous for me to even address a plural audience, as it reflects the assumption that more than one person even reads this - hi mom :) )
Seriously though - irrespective of the size of my audience, I do enjoy my little blog, and don't add to it more frequently because of this whole "simple life" I've sort of intentionally, sort of unintentionally, adopted.
I don't have Internet or cable. I probably will break down soon and get the Internet. It is sort of lame that I have an IPad and a new laptop and don't have the Internet (or any un-password-protected wireless connections to scam from). The reason I'm not "plugged in" is really more out of laziness and general I-object-to-Brighthouse-cable-ness than anything else.
As far as cable goes -- there's a bit more deliberate intention there. I basically am addicted to cable. When I do have cable, my heart palpitates and my palms sweat just thinking about all of the things I need to watch to clear room on the DVR box. I mean, godforbid an episode of Dancing With the Stars is bumped off the box before I make room in my schedule to fast-forward through it.
My weakness is specific to reality tv. More specifically, Bravo programming. Love. It.
And, so, this strangely long and rambling opening finally arrives at my point. One of those rare moments when a news story combines my two loves - criminal news stories and reality tv - in a manner that not only begs for, but requires a blog post (home Internet connection, or no).
Read on:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-woman-dalia-dippolito-reality-tv-defense-murder/story?id=13467249
First of all, we can speed over the obvious: the weird news always happens in Florida. I know.
Sooo... this woman is caught on (undercover police) camera, soliciting what she [allegedly] believes is a hitman to kill her husband. Surprise, it's an undercover cop.
Before giving her the whole, surprisewe'recopsputyourhandsup!, schtufff, these [prone-to-drama] cops then call some more cops (this time in uniform) to tell her that her husband is dead. [cue performance worthy of reality tv, fo. sho.]
**the video of her Oscar-performance reaction can be seen on the page you find at the above link. worth watching.
Ok, so, she's caught red-handed. Until... she comes up with BEST DEFENSE EVER.
She claims that, the whole time police are interviewing her, she is waiting for her husband just to walk in at any moment. Because A- she knows he isnt really dead and B - her husband has orchestrated his own contract killing, not as a strange suicide plot, but rather as some sort of complicated way to get his own reality show???
Let's take a moment to reflect, as this information presents several interesting questions for the viewer.
A) What kind of reality show would this be?
I suppose some sort of Newlyweds drama meets Jersey Shore type drunk violence situation??? Nick and Jessica were cute when they bickered. Mike and Dalia would have been cute when they... plotted one another's murders???
***As apparent as my sarcasm may be, I will be honest: I would watch this
B) I was going to say: what sort of idiotic lengths are we to believe a person would go to in order to be on tv? Then I realized this was a dumb question, in an era where a brilliant pair of parents would send a balloon into the air, while convincing a nation that their child was in said balloon, whilst said child is actually being held hostage in a garage/basement, only to further their reality tv careers... and then I withdraw my question.
Ok... so, picking up where we left off:
When I got to this point in the story, I thought... ok. Well, didn't the husband just tell the police that he planned this, therefore making the prosecution of this case kind of needless and, well, stupid?
But, then you get to the part of the story where the husband testifies and says he has noideawhatshestalkingabout and was pretty shocked when he found out his wife had hired someone to kill him.
Major. Fail.
There's other evidence against her, such as text messages and independent witnesses that are supposedly going to support the State's case against her. Likely this means she will testify herself. Likely this means I will watch it.
As a side note, there are some important ironies to point out:
1- During the sting that led to her arrest, the [original] reality show Cops was taping an episode. No matter what happens, she wins in the famousforthewrongreasons department.
2- Dalia has been on reality tv shows before. Most notably, she was on an episode of The Jamie Kennedy Experiment (speaking of major fails), that... wait for it... featured a plot line involving a fake hit man!
You just can't write this stuff.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Reality Show IQ
Not everyone loves tests quite as much as I do, I know this. I suppose I can understand why not every child got the same rush out of a math problem that I once did. As a recovering television addict, I can also understand both sides of the reality tv hysteria. Although I have somehow managed to survive a few months at this point without cable or a DVR, I can remember a time in recent history where the only thing that could get me out of bed early on a weekday was the knowledge that an episode of Real Housewives was waiting for me on that little machine.
So, what does reality tv have to do with me being a little nerdy? Apparently a lot. The SAT recently used an essay prompt that turned out to be quite controversial...about reality tv!
The 16 year-old in me weeps with excitement.
(As an aside, the SAT has changed quite a bit since most of us took it - it is now scored out of 2400 points, with an added Writing Skills section that includes an essay-writing task).
(As a double aside, I was shocked when I taught my first Kaplan SAT course and was reviewing the kids' practice tests- score after score, 1200, 1450, 1300... I thought they were geniuses. Once you put them on a scale of 2400, they'reactually pretty terrible scores. And that's more like it.)
Anyway, the following prompt appeared on the most recent administration of the SAT:
"Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular.
These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled.
How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?
Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?"
-----------------
Ha! That is awesome... But, apparently, not all of the nerds of America (and their pushy, overprotective parents) are pleased. Check out what one such socially-challenged teen had to say about the test question:
“I ended up talking about Jacob Riis and how any form of media cannot capture reality objectively,” he wrote, invoking the 19th-century social reformer. “I kinda want to cry right now.”
I kind of want to cry just reading this, personally. Jacob whaaa?? Out of virtue of the fact that I personally have no CLUE wtf that kid is talking about , I believe he probably aced the SAT, despite his parents' refusal to allow him to watch MTV - (and, might I add, he probably wanted to "cry right now" because he has no friends).
Meanwhile, the kid who spends a lot of time watching the tube says:
“I talked about American Idol (how it can push people to strive towards better singing skills) and The Biggest Loser (how it influences people to become healthier,)” one commenter, “bandgeek156,” wrote on College Confidential. “Wasn’t that hard from what I thought.”
That sounds like the. worst. answer. ever.
The point is, there's a lot of controversy over this because, well... people like to create controversy where it shouldn't otherwise exist. And, people get really, really, really ridiculously stressed out about this stuff.
The test isn't actually rewarding kids who watch tv over those who do not. One kid talked about Jacob Riis, the Danish social reformer (ok, I googled it), and another about Steven Tyler. It's pretty obvious who's getting into Harvard here. The essay prompt very clearly explains what a "reality show" is for all those living under a rock (the kind of rock under which one could study calculus with a practically religious fervor) and is not at all unfair to those who don't watch tv. In fact, it's quite clear that those who spend more time with Snooki than with their math book will still remain the big failures in the world of the SAT (although, in a very special and ironic twist, they get to walk away at least feeling like they aced the essay, due to their complex analysis of the rocky relationship between Sammie and Ronnie).
Personally, I loved this story... not only because I would have rocked this essay question, but because it just highlights what freaks we've created in an overly-competitive college admissions environment. The real reason some of the kids freaked out is because they spend hours preparing for these tests and anticipating potential questions... and they weren't banking on this one.
One of my favorite comments from the article's Comments section:
I was taking the SAT for the first time Saturday. When I saw the question, I freaked out. I had no clue what to put down. My tutor had told me to use Martin Luther King as an example no matter what the question, and I don’t think he fits too easily into this topic. When I looked at my paper after the test and saw that I had written about Snooki on my SAT test, I felt pretty stupid to be honest.— Sam
______
That is pretty much the best thing I've ever read. What happened to the days of going home from a football game, only to remember you better go to bed early and stop at the convenient store the next day for No. 2 pencils because, oh yeh, the SAT is tomorrow???
Here's another:
As a junior who took the SAT on Saturday, I was infuriated with the prompt. I read the Times daily and I watch the news every night, so I am more than adequately prepared to discuss the disaster in Japan or the leadership issues with Mubarak and Gaddafi. When I saw the prompt, my jaw became slack and my eyes twitched in horror. SAT essays should reference literature and current events, not reality television.— Amanda
___________
Ahh.. delightful.
In closing, I'd like to commend the College Board for not only writing what I think turned out to be kind of an interesting question (which, by the way, I've been thinking about all day), and for laughing in the faces of all the over-privileged children who have actual SAT coaches. Oh, and mostly, for freaking out the lame kids of America, before they get to college and roommates like me have to break them in.
So, what does reality tv have to do with me being a little nerdy? Apparently a lot. The SAT recently used an essay prompt that turned out to be quite controversial...about reality tv!
The 16 year-old in me weeps with excitement.
(As an aside, the SAT has changed quite a bit since most of us took it - it is now scored out of 2400 points, with an added Writing Skills section that includes an essay-writing task).
(As a double aside, I was shocked when I taught my first Kaplan SAT course and was reviewing the kids' practice tests- score after score, 1200, 1450, 1300... I thought they were geniuses. Once you put them on a scale of 2400, they'reactually pretty terrible scores. And that's more like it.)
Anyway, the following prompt appeared on the most recent administration of the SAT:
"Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular.
These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled.
How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?
Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?"
-----------------
Ha! That is awesome... But, apparently, not all of the nerds of America (and their pushy, overprotective parents) are pleased. Check out what one such socially-challenged teen had to say about the test question:
“I ended up talking about Jacob Riis and how any form of media cannot capture reality objectively,” he wrote, invoking the 19th-century social reformer. “I kinda want to cry right now.”
I kind of want to cry just reading this, personally. Jacob whaaa?? Out of virtue of the fact that I personally have no CLUE wtf that kid is talking about , I believe he probably aced the SAT, despite his parents' refusal to allow him to watch MTV - (and, might I add, he probably wanted to "cry right now" because he has no friends).
Meanwhile, the kid who spends a lot of time watching the tube says:
“I talked about American Idol (how it can push people to strive towards better singing skills) and The Biggest Loser (how it influences people to become healthier,)” one commenter, “bandgeek156,” wrote on College Confidential. “Wasn’t that hard from what I thought.”
That sounds like the. worst. answer. ever.
The point is, there's a lot of controversy over this because, well... people like to create controversy where it shouldn't otherwise exist. And, people get really, really, really ridiculously stressed out about this stuff.
The test isn't actually rewarding kids who watch tv over those who do not. One kid talked about Jacob Riis, the Danish social reformer (ok, I googled it), and another about Steven Tyler. It's pretty obvious who's getting into Harvard here. The essay prompt very clearly explains what a "reality show" is for all those living under a rock (the kind of rock under which one could study calculus with a practically religious fervor) and is not at all unfair to those who don't watch tv. In fact, it's quite clear that those who spend more time with Snooki than with their math book will still remain the big failures in the world of the SAT (although, in a very special and ironic twist, they get to walk away at least feeling like they aced the essay, due to their complex analysis of the rocky relationship between Sammie and Ronnie).
Personally, I loved this story... not only because I would have rocked this essay question, but because it just highlights what freaks we've created in an overly-competitive college admissions environment. The real reason some of the kids freaked out is because they spend hours preparing for these tests and anticipating potential questions... and they weren't banking on this one.
One of my favorite comments from the article's Comments section:
I was taking the SAT for the first time Saturday. When I saw the question, I freaked out. I had no clue what to put down. My tutor had told me to use Martin Luther King as an example no matter what the question, and I don’t think he fits too easily into this topic. When I looked at my paper after the test and saw that I had written about Snooki on my SAT test, I felt pretty stupid to be honest.— Sam
______
That is pretty much the best thing I've ever read. What happened to the days of going home from a football game, only to remember you better go to bed early and stop at the convenient store the next day for No. 2 pencils because, oh yeh, the SAT is tomorrow???
Here's another:
As a junior who took the SAT on Saturday, I was infuriated with the prompt. I read the Times daily and I watch the news every night, so I am more than adequately prepared to discuss the disaster in Japan or the leadership issues with Mubarak and Gaddafi. When I saw the prompt, my jaw became slack and my eyes twitched in horror. SAT essays should reference literature and current events, not reality television.— Amanda
___________
Ahh.. delightful.
In closing, I'd like to commend the College Board for not only writing what I think turned out to be kind of an interesting question (which, by the way, I've been thinking about all day), and for laughing in the faces of all the over-privileged children who have actual SAT coaches. Oh, and mostly, for freaking out the lame kids of America, before they get to college and roommates like me have to break them in.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Freedom of Impropriety?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08muskegon.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us&src=me&adxnnlx=1299682840-FWU238xhdI2NVWfWQQjKgg
I saw this article today and it really exemplified what I think is an interesting and, often times troubling, legal issue that is developing with the advent of a more technological society.
In this instance, a young 21 year-old musician in a small Michigan town decided to take on a musical project with some major shock value....not a novel idea for musicians, nor for guys in their early 20's...and in this case, not too smart.
He sang age-appropriate songs to a classroom full of first graders. Afterwards, he sang a far more (sexually) inappropriate song, this time to an empty room, and later edits a video to give the appearance that he sang the second song to a room full of innocent kids.
Inappropriate? Yeh, pretty much. But the response was equally inappropriate. The kid has now been arrested on charges of Child Pornography, facing a lifetime labelled as a sexual predator. A condition of his bond? He can't perform music...adding insult to this First Amendment injury.
The Supreme Court has decided that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment... But this is continuously misapplied. Another example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
I actually saw this story first on Oprah. Again, it presents what is probably a real issue that needs to be addressed with the young ladies of society (hello, not everyone is Kim Kardashian, and nude photos of you circulating around the playground is not-so-cute)- but, again, is inappropriately addressed by the State.
Young girls were charged with sex crimes for sending nude photos of themselves to their male classmates on their cell phones. Dumb? Totally. Sexual predators? Notsomuch.
The ACLU agreed, and actually took on this case, in an attempt to bar the prosecution from even going forward with the case
(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/).
Just seems to me that these are all examples of local governments trying to legislate morality. Certainly these young people (essentially children themselves) are not the boogiemen we are so well-trained to fear, lurking in minivans with sugary lures. What then, is the purpose, other than to teach quite a costly (and unfair) lesson?
I saw this article today and it really exemplified what I think is an interesting and, often times troubling, legal issue that is developing with the advent of a more technological society.
In this instance, a young 21 year-old musician in a small Michigan town decided to take on a musical project with some major shock value....not a novel idea for musicians, nor for guys in their early 20's...and in this case, not too smart.
He sang age-appropriate songs to a classroom full of first graders. Afterwards, he sang a far more (sexually) inappropriate song, this time to an empty room, and later edits a video to give the appearance that he sang the second song to a room full of innocent kids.
Inappropriate? Yeh, pretty much. But the response was equally inappropriate. The kid has now been arrested on charges of Child Pornography, facing a lifetime labelled as a sexual predator. A condition of his bond? He can't perform music...adding insult to this First Amendment injury.
The Supreme Court has decided that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment... But this is continuously misapplied. Another example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
I actually saw this story first on Oprah. Again, it presents what is probably a real issue that needs to be addressed with the young ladies of society (hello, not everyone is Kim Kardashian, and nude photos of you circulating around the playground is not-so-cute)- but, again, is inappropriately addressed by the State.
Young girls were charged with sex crimes for sending nude photos of themselves to their male classmates on their cell phones. Dumb? Totally. Sexual predators? Notsomuch.
The ACLU agreed, and actually took on this case, in an attempt to bar the prosecution from even going forward with the case
(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/).
Just seems to me that these are all examples of local governments trying to legislate morality. Certainly these young people (essentially children themselves) are not the boogiemen we are so well-trained to fear, lurking in minivans with sugary lures. What then, is the purpose, other than to teach quite a costly (and unfair) lesson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)