I have totally sucked at this blogging thing lately. I've been hella busy at my new job, with training and everything. You gotta prioritize, you know? I do want to keep on writing, though, and as I've learned from Jen Sincero, if you don't do it- it doesn't get done. I had originally had the goal of writing one op-ed a week, but I don't think that's practical. I'm going to try to do two a month for April and May. Have any ideas on what I should write about? Post a comment or drop me a line!

Went hiking in Malibu this weekend and it was beautiful! If you live in SoCal, make the drive and hit up Malibu Bluffs Park. It's gorgeous! TMS and I have been going every weekend this month to drink a coffee, hike the trails and just enjoy the good weather.

Another awesome thing we've been enjoying is the farmers' market. We made a commitment to eat sustainably and locally as much as possible, while cutting down on animal based proteins as much as possible. I made purple sweet potato and baby beets for dinner the night before last and they were awesome! Snap peas, carrots, asparagus, blood oranges, cuties, white grapefruit, baby artichokes, strawberries and blueberries part of our haul this week. This has been our second week shopping exclusively at the farmers' market, and it's cost about $20/more than Trader Joes. And if we cut out the more exotic stuff we're sure that it would cost the same, or less. It's been really fun, like an adventure, every time we've gone shopping.

As far as television, I've been watching RuPaul's Drag Race (was totally surprised that they sent Pandora home! and TMS and I HATE Tyra! HATE!) and Millionaire Matchmaker (we LOVE you, Patti!). Nothing too exciting. TMS has been recording Lost, so I've kind of gotten roped into that, too. It's exhausting, but addictive. I'm powerless and Must. Keep. Watching.

And that's that. Not as awesome or controversial as some of my more recent posts, but it's what's up. I will return soon.....

(I started this on Friday and just finished today. I had a busy weekend! I'll be writing more later this week!)

Happy Friday n stuff, fans, frenemies and faithful/faithless readers!

I love that people responded to my theory that the masses are extra appreciative of Gabourey because of her size. Oddly enough, when I mentioned the topic on Twitter, before I published my article, I got 7 ugly emails. 2 claimed that I was too thin to have an opinion, 2 claimed I was too white, 1 claimed I was racist and the last 2 just claimed I was stupid. While I won't argue that my physique or ethnicity has affected my general outlook, neither renders my opinion invalid. And if you really think I'm racist or a fat-phobe or a complete idiot, well, thanks for thinking of me at all!

After posting my opinion I got NO hate mail. I was actually kind of disappointed. After all of that build up it was a bit of a let down! I am really enjoying the comments, though. A couple agree that obesity is becoming far too accepted in society. Several invoked the "fat doesn't equal unhealthy and thin doesn't equal healthy" argument.

I agree that weight doesn't dictate health. I am totally on board with that notion. Like many of you, I have friends who weigh more than me and can kick my ass in cardio fitness and cholesterol levels. And some of them are probably on the "overweight" side of the chart.

But the example I gave wasn't of a woman who is carrying an extra ten pounds, or even twenty or thirty pounds. And the example I gave isn't someone who is being recognized for talent X and who happens to be overweight. The example I used is a 350 pound woman. That is morbidly obese. There is a difference between being overweight and being obese. There is even a difference between being obese and being morbidly obese. And I zoned in on the fact that she is being celebrated for her extreme obesity.

So, while fat may not automatically equal unhealthy and not all fat people will get diabetes, have heart disease or joint problems, suffer from sleep apnea, and so on and so forth- the likelihood is much higher. Sure, there are exceptions. There are smokers that live to be 101. Keith Richards is still alive and kicking. Does either of these examples incite you to pick up a pack or a needle? Why is the fat example so different?

I think I've spent longer putting this post together than any other. I even questioned whether I should spend time writing about it. I asked people what they thought, and in the middle of my research I even asked my peeps over on Twitter what they're opinion was. I won't say that all I heard were crickets in response to my question, but it was close. And one of the few responses I got was- "I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole!" That should be pretty telling!

So, what is this combustible topic? Heath care reform? Abortion rights? Taxes? Jake picking Vienna on The Bachelor (On The Wings of Love)? Not even close.

Weight.

Specifically, whether Gabourey Sidibe is being celebrated for her talent or her size, and whether she should be presented as a role model or not.

Most of the media coverage I've encountered seems to celebrate her as a role model for young women, talks about her as an inspirational figure, vilifies her for her size or dismisses her as a flash in the pan. Only time will reveal which angle is correct, of course, but it does bring up lots of questions about size, body image, health and perceived value.

I'm sure that even bringing this topic up will generate lots of hate mail and nasty comments. In some ways, I like that. I like riling people up. But instead of dismissing me as a skinny white chick who is just writing about this because I'm Racist or Fat Phobic or Just Love To Hate On People Who Are More Successful Than Me, read the post in its' entirety and leave a constructive comment. Or don't. But in the case of "don't" you'll just get deleted. I really want to incite an honest discussion about weight and how its' perceived, especially in America. I really don't want to have a knock down drag out with name calling until someone invokes Godwin's law. There are plenty of forums on this vast WWW of ours where that sort of exchange is already in full swing. Debating Gabourey's acting skills doesn't really interest me, either. How her size may affect peoples' perception of her skills? Sure. But she was nominated for an Academy Award, so let's use that fact to settle the argument for now.

As for my opinion, here goes-I don't think that she is a good role model. (I'll expound on this below.) I believe that Gabourey is being celebrated and promoted as a role model because people crave validation. (I'll get to that in a minute.) And I believe that that celebration and promotion is eclipsing the recognition she's received as an actress. (Me writing this blog is proof of that.) On the flip side, I don't believe she'd be getting that recognition if she were average sized, or merely overweight, at least not this soon in her career. (While she did an amazing job playing Precious in the film, I think that a mediocre actress with the same physical characteristics would've generated media attention simply because of the extreme physical attributes the role called for.) As I stated before, time will tell whether she's here to stay or just a blip on the radar, but it's a valid thing to discuss.

And now for a few snippets of "Why." I don't think Gabourey is someone that should be pushed as a role model for the same reasons that I don't think Keith Richards is a good role model. They both represent unhealthy extremes. And presenting unhealthy extremes in a positive, public light validates them. I'm not saying that obese people or drug users can't be successful or should hide in a cave somewhere. I just don't think they should be touted for being inspirational for their unhealthy attributes. On the other end of the spectrum- all of the attention Calista Flockhart got over her weight was disturbing, as well. My opinion isn't based on a bias against fat people or the English. It's an across the board bias against unhealthy extremes. And even some healthy extremes. You can read about that here.

As for validation, it's no secret that people like to have aspects of themselves validated by the media. It's what drives advertising. The media plays on our fears, insecurities, differences and commonalities, using them for and against us. It's also no secret that America is fat. Over half of the population is overweight and over a quarter is obese. I think that the rocket to recognition that Gabourey has experienced has been driven, in part, by that desire to see ourselves reflected in the media, to champion those who have qualities like ourselves and, on some level, to champion those who seem to have the odds stacked against them. Because Gabourey is obese AND black, the perception is that she has "beaten the odds." And the average American (who is probably overweight) can see themselves reflected, to a certain extent, in her size. That makes her easy to identify with. And reassuring. It gives the viewer/consumer permission to be fat. "If she can be x, y and/or z, it's OK for me to be x, y and/or z."

I can't say that I'm directly affected by her fame or accomplishments in a negative or positive way. I do know that my recent interest in food in America has made me more aware of obesity and how it's perceived. I'm certainly not an expert in anything I've touched upon today, but in seeing all of the press that she's gotten as an actress I couldn't help but ponder if there was a connection between her size and her popularity with a population that has a rapidly expanding waistline. At the end of the day, supply strives to keep up with demand, and I'm certain that the obese population demands validation, like all of us do.

So, if it doesn't affect me directly, why have an opinion? Or, more importantly, why blog about it? I don't have a simple answer to that. Maybe I'm looking for validation for my theory?

At any rate, that's my .02 cents.

What's yours?

Totally forgot to mention that TMS and I went to The Museum of DEATH this weekend. That's almost as bad as me forgetting to mention how awesome Joshua Allen is. (Who is totally following me on Twitter now! It's awesome when your celebrities follow you back!)

But back to the Museum. Of. DEATH.

(And, yes, you have to say it like you're in a heavy metal band with lotsa emphasis on "DEATH.")

Quite simply, it rocked. The collection is extensive and varied. I'm a Manson and serial killer buff and was totally impressed by the crime scene photo collection as well as the extensive book and newspaper collection they have. The Heavens' Gate exhibit was especially interesting, as was the Nazi artifacts they have. (A Zyklon B canister. Srsly.) I'd say that it was 70% historical stuff and 30% shock value stuff. And there's nothing wrong with the latter! If it were all historical that might be a bit boring to those who aren't as "into" the history of unnatural death as, say, I am.

While the collection deals with lots of famous deaths and happenings, it also includes plenty of hapless regular people as well. And the collection of embalming equipment applies to us all- famous or common!

So, get thee to the Museum of DEATH! It takes about an hour to go through, but plan on two hours and watch the Traces of DEATH video in the Theater of DEATH.

Food Inc. is a fascinating flick, and very well put together. It deals with subjects that can easily be sensationalized and it doesn't use that tactic to convey its' point. Highlighting different aspects of the food industry, it presents a convincing argument for changing the way we consume, purchase and think about food.

I've been itching to watch this ever since I saw the Michael Pollan interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I was immediately impressed with the way he presents the argument for sustainable food without being an extremist in terms of diet. I'm committed to dairy products (I am probably 50% cheese and ice cream at this point) and can't imagine a life without an occasional steak, and whenever a vegan or (permanent) vegetarian diet was invoked as a cure for the state of our planet I sort of tuned out. Don't get me wrong, I've been on board with Meatless Mondays and Mr. Fitzgerald and I consume far more veggies than dead animals, but it sort of became background noise. But this film really brought the issues that affect us, and our food, front and center. And it didn't cause me to tune out. Food, Inc., for lack of a better phrase, "kept it real."

And they were able to do it without relying only on their ability to tug at our heartstrings. They could've used all of their time and energy showing video of animals mistreated within the manufacturing food system, but they didn't. There were a few clips of people treating animals harshly, and it did get me in the gut, but it wasn't the entire movie. I must admit, I was afraid it would be. But the filmmakers were smarter than that. They appealed to logic and our pocketbooks as well. By following the food manufacturing chain and showing us, the consumers, how we're being duped into purchasing the same products in different packages, as well as the effects of each and every purchase, they created a convincing argument for buying locally, in season and as sustainable as possible.

The film covered a wide variety of subjects including the obesity/diabetes epidemic, food borne illness, factory farming procedures and conditions and genetic engineering. It illustrated how they're all connected and how we can affect change as a society in each instance.

We hear about obesity, diabetes and income level a lot, at least here in America. The likelihood of a person getting diabetes is 1 in 3 if they're low income, and 1 in 2 if they're a minority. Over a quarter of people in the US are obese, regardless of income level, and well over half are overweight. This is a direct result of fatty fast food that's full of empty calories being so cheap and healthy food being expensive. The family in the film is shown purchasing fast food, then an interview with the mother of the family is shown where she complains about how expensive the diabetes medication is for her husband. She also refuses to purchase a pear at the store for her daughter because a fast food hamburger is cheaper. In her instance, and millions of other families' realities, it's a trade off. Cheaper food now, more expensive medical bills in the future. If more people bought pears, for example, the price would go down. Like nuclear energy, you're just putting off paying the piper.

Food borne illness is also addressed in Food, Inc., and completely freaks me out. The fact that it's so easily avoidable really bothers me, too. Apathy allows so many undesirable things to slip through the cracks. I find it disturbing that these huge corporations dismiss deaths as collateral damage. Find out more about Kevin's' Law here.

The segment on factory farming procedures is probably what will bother most viewers the most. Scared cows, chickens and pigs crammed together in unsanitary conditions. Genetically engineered to get as big as possible in as short a time as possible before being slaughtered. It made me incredibly sad to see the animals in filthy conditions and being treated without regard. As I stated before, I'm not a vegetarian, but that doesn't mean that I'm OK with my food being treated with no respect. As a counterpoint to this farming angle, Food, Inc. interviewed Joel Salatin. He's a fascinating character who farms meat sustainably and lectures on the subject as well. He's so common sense that it's hard to argue with his logic.

The thing that bothered me the most, next to the inhumane way that animals are kept in the factory farming system, was the way that farmers are forced to use genetically modified crops and are punished for not using them. It makes me incredibly sad that diversity isn't encouraged in farming, and that farmers are forced into debt or just able to keep their heads above water because of the monopoly that Monsanto has on seeds. The idea that a farmer would be punished for not purchasing seeds from this company is disturbing and scary.

As for affecting change, it's really common sense. Eat more "real food." Eat food that's in season. Eat foods that are sustainable. I feel very lucky to live in California and to have access to resources for local, fresh foods of all kinds. If you live in a different state and have a a resource that helps you work it out, let me know and I'll post it here on my blog.

To sum up, I think this movie is awesome. It explains WHY it's so important to change the way we eat. It uses common sense to illustrate its' points and demonstrates the need to maintain genetic diversity in produce, feed our livestock foods they're able to digest, monitor food production to keep us safe and to reject the idea that we need everything all the time in order to be satiated.

Comments welcome!

So, if you know me IRL or on the WWW, you know I appreciate The Funny in life. Without Funny life just isn't worth living, you know? Well, I've been a selfishly keeping Joshua Allen to myself, and I'm sorry. Really sorry. Extra sorry. And so on and so forth.
I'm not sure what my motivation was for keeping his deliciousness all to myself. I'm not sure why I haven't informed you- faithful/faithless reader, frenemy, fornication fan- about his wit, sexiness and ability to turn anything into hilarity. I hope that this post makes up for my folly.
Go check out his website- www.fireland.com
His Tumblr account- www.fireland.tumblr.com
And follow him on Twitter! @fireland

The only thing that sort of sucks about Joshua Allen is that he is already married.

In Other People I Should Share With The World At Large news, my corset maker, Amy Crowder, is now on Twitter. You can follow her @waspcreations and check out her website- www.waspcreations.com. She runs a webcam and announces it on Twitter, so if you're a creepy voyeur who would like to watch a tightly cinched redhead sewing, you're in luck. And chances are, if you're reading my blog, you're either creepy or a voyeur.

Right?

Pulled this from an entry over at FemDommeSmut.com, that I xposted over on BondageCompendium.com. Boobies!

I'm just going to go ahead and spit it out. I was disappointed in Alice In Wonderland. I'm disappointed in myself for being disappointed. I really wanted to like it. I love Johnny Depp. I love Crispin Glover. (Like, REALLY LOVE.) I adore Helena Bonham Carter. I have totally been into just about everything Tim Burton has done. (The exceptions are Cabin Boy and Planet of The Apes.) But something about the film just didn't come together for me. It was hard to develop any empathy for the characters and because that connection wasn't made the story didn't have any weight. It was hard to understand Johnny Depp, too. Everyone in the small group I went with felt the same way. I liked the lead actress, who played Alice, and feel that she didn't get lost in the shuffle of Big Names. I thought the intro was a little short and wish there had been more linking between the Real World and Underland. Allusions were made to Tweedledee and Tweedledum, for example, by two girls at the party. I wish that they had done more of that. The characters introduced at the party were very single minded and I wish they'd integrated them into Underland instead of just leaving them to meander about while the script played out. I don't think that the movie fell flat because of any wrong doing on the actors' part, though. It felt like the flaws were in the script. And who knows, perhaps there was lots of script we didn't get to see. But the movie didn't feel like it ran long. It's 109 minutes. At any rate, it felt like there were holes in the story telling and avenues that weren't explored. I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carters' performance of The Red Queen, and loved how intense Crispin Glover was as The Knave. I don't think that Anne Hathaway (as The White Queen) or Johnny Depp (as the Mad Hatter) were really allowed to shine in their respective roles. The White Queen is a caricature of someone held together by what they assume people expect of their appearance and performance, but (once again) no empathy is developed for her side because we don't get to know her at all. She appears in the last quarter of the movie and the allusions made to her throughout the rest of the film don't explain why she is preferable to the queen on the throne- at least for the common residents of Underland. And Johnny Depps' character is very narrow and seems a bit confused about his role in the story. He plays his part with a lot of enthusiasm and thought, but I don't think that the accents used sporadically or the lack of cohesion in his attitude towards his surroundings played out well. Both were deliberate on the part of the actor and director, but didn't come across as such.
The visual effects and characters were stunning, though. Completely brilliant in execution and design. My favorite completely CG character was the Cheshire Cat. When seeing previews over the past year I was rather put off by the fact he was blue, but was won over within seconds of his appearance. Voiced by Stephen Fry, the part was played to perfection. The clothing and attention to character detail was impressive. I imagine that the film will have lots of impact on style and fashion in the coming year. The costume design was amazing. Every character at the party was decked out in a very detailed outfit that matched its' mood, right down to the shoes and other accessories. Gloves, hats, tiny buttons... The fashion seemed to be spot on historically with elements that made it modern.
So, that's my opinion on the film. I'm bummed about it, as I'd been looking forward to it for months. TMS suggested that my expectations might've been too high, but I think I went in with an open mind. I was excited to see his version of it, what he did with the story. I didn't have any rigid expectations in mind, except for a good story. My visual expectations were certainly exceeded, and perhaps that was Mr. Burtons' intent. I do hope that storytelling isn't sacrificed for the sake of visuals as a common practice in the near and far future. Piranha 3-D is evidence for the opposition, though. Eeeeekkk!