Sometimes I wonder if CNN cares at all about its reputation. Today, under the heading "Law," there is a completely frivolous story about a woman who called 911 just to get a good-looking police officer to come back to her house so she could flirt and give him her number. (He had checked in with her earlier, after responding to a legitimate noise complaint she phoned in.)
The alleged point of the story is to make people aware that 911 is not a dating service. What annoys me is that everyone knows what 911 is for (with the exception of a few crazy people who might count this woman among their ranks). The county sheriff is even quoted as saying this is the first time in his experience that 911 has been used for a personal reason like this.
I feel like the story enforces the stereotype of "desperate-unmarried woman." I feel like this story could even be completely fake, or at least, exaggerated considerably. The woman apparently told the dispatcher: "I just thought he was cute. I'm 45 years old and I'd just like to meet him again, but I don't know how to go about doing that without calling 911."
Even if this is 100 percent true and she's among the ranks of desperate single girls in addition to crazys, why is this CNN homepage-worthy news?
Friday, July 14, 2006
Of Breeders, Homos, and the Marriage Debate
So straight people are being harassed in Provincetown. Apparently they're being taunted and called "breeders."
My first instinct is to laugh. Hahaha! The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? There are enough places in the country that a gay person can't go -- it's about time there's one where straights get harrassed just for being straight.
But then I realize that the straight people who would choose to surround themselves with homos for their vacation are probably not the ones who deserve this kind of treatment.
There's one particularly absurd case, though, where a Provincetown woman who signed the same-sex marriage ban petition was called a bigot by some guy... who she then turned around and filed verbal assault charges against. The kicker is that she drives around in a trolley with a sign plastered on it that reads "That 'love thy neighbor' thing? I meant it . . . [signed] God."
So I guess it's loving thy neighbor to publicly declare him a second-class citizen, but calling someone a bigot is crossing a line. Hypocrites.
---------
Joshua had a good idea for solving this whole marriage debate. There should be no marriage at all, he says, except within one's own church. The state should recognize civil unions only, and those civil unions should be available to any two people regardless of gender or relationship. You would be legally bound to any one person of your choice. Obviously in most cases it would be husbands and wives. In other cases, gay or lesbian partners. But if, say, two widowed sisters wanted to combine their finances and ensure that they could make medical decisions for each other as they age, they should be able to get a civil union.
I definitely agree. Why should the government require that we be sleeping with the person we want to take care of us?
I'm so sick of seeing people protesting up at the State House (they were there two days ago for the umpteenth Constitutional Convention). I think civil unions for all is a perfect compromise.
My first instinct is to laugh. Hahaha! The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? There are enough places in the country that a gay person can't go -- it's about time there's one where straights get harrassed just for being straight.
But then I realize that the straight people who would choose to surround themselves with homos for their vacation are probably not the ones who deserve this kind of treatment.
There's one particularly absurd case, though, where a Provincetown woman who signed the same-sex marriage ban petition was called a bigot by some guy... who she then turned around and filed verbal assault charges against. The kicker is that she drives around in a trolley with a sign plastered on it that reads "That 'love thy neighbor' thing? I meant it . . . [signed] God."
So I guess it's loving thy neighbor to publicly declare him a second-class citizen, but calling someone a bigot is crossing a line. Hypocrites.
---------
Joshua had a good idea for solving this whole marriage debate. There should be no marriage at all, he says, except within one's own church. The state should recognize civil unions only, and those civil unions should be available to any two people regardless of gender or relationship. You would be legally bound to any one person of your choice. Obviously in most cases it would be husbands and wives. In other cases, gay or lesbian partners. But if, say, two widowed sisters wanted to combine their finances and ensure that they could make medical decisions for each other as they age, they should be able to get a civil union.
I definitely agree. Why should the government require that we be sleeping with the person we want to take care of us?
I'm so sick of seeing people protesting up at the State House (they were there two days ago for the umpteenth Constitutional Convention). I think civil unions for all is a perfect compromise.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
M. Night is 80% Water
Maggie:
I'm really excited to see M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water with Paul Giamatti. It comes out next weekend.
Ben:
I'm curious about Lady in the Water, but I don't have any high hopes for it. I thought Signs and The Village were both ridiculous. I feel like M.N.S. was a one-hit wonder with Sixth Sense.
Maggie:
I didn't really like The Village, but I like Signs, although I feel like it was a little absurd that water ended up being the way to fend off the aliens. And also, I didn't like actually seeing the alien towards the end. I think it was much scarier to see a foot here, a claw-hand there, never the whole creature. Much like it's better to want something than to get it, it's better to let your imagination create the most creepy thing possible than to have the movie show you a stereotypical-looking alien.
Also, I felt like, if the aliens were such good problem-solvers as the characters say they are, wouldn't they have realized that the planet is 80% water -- the thing that kills them?
With The Village, I was more interested in what happened after their ruse was uncovered. If the whole movie was condensed into twenty minutes or so, and then went on from there, I'd have been happier.
Ben:
I only saw Signs and The Village once each so I don't remember a lot of specific things that ruined them for me. I agree that we never should've seen the aliens in Signs. The quick glimpse on that home video was admittedly one of the creepiest/scariest movie-things I've ever seen... but as soon as they came fully into view, it was rather ridiculous, especially when that one was being all swooshy dancey around the Culkin boy. And you're definitely right in pointing out the absurdity of them coming all that way to a planet made up of water... but I didn't even think of that. I was too hung up on the fact that an alien who traveled across the galaxy in a space-ship could then get stuck in a pantry.
I'm really excited to see M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water with Paul Giamatti. It comes out next weekend.
Ben:
I'm curious about Lady in the Water, but I don't have any high hopes for it. I thought Signs and The Village were both ridiculous. I feel like M.N.S. was a one-hit wonder with Sixth Sense.
Maggie:
I didn't really like The Village, but I like Signs, although I feel like it was a little absurd that water ended up being the way to fend off the aliens. And also, I didn't like actually seeing the alien towards the end. I think it was much scarier to see a foot here, a claw-hand there, never the whole creature. Much like it's better to want something than to get it, it's better to let your imagination create the most creepy thing possible than to have the movie show you a stereotypical-looking alien.
Also, I felt like, if the aliens were such good problem-solvers as the characters say they are, wouldn't they have realized that the planet is 80% water -- the thing that kills them?
With The Village, I was more interested in what happened after their ruse was uncovered. If the whole movie was condensed into twenty minutes or so, and then went on from there, I'd have been happier.
Ben:
I only saw Signs and The Village once each so I don't remember a lot of specific things that ruined them for me. I agree that we never should've seen the aliens in Signs. The quick glimpse on that home video was admittedly one of the creepiest/scariest movie-things I've ever seen... but as soon as they came fully into view, it was rather ridiculous, especially when that one was being all swooshy dancey around the Culkin boy. And you're definitely right in pointing out the absurdity of them coming all that way to a planet made up of water... but I didn't even think of that. I was too hung up on the fact that an alien who traveled across the galaxy in a space-ship could then get stuck in a pantry.
Ben Answers your Questions about Superman Returns
Our premiere question comes from Tom, my coauthor on the short-lived Crisis on Infinite Blogs, and it's more of a comment than a question.
A mistake, Tom, but one that is both endearing and understandable. It seems our imaginations have not caught up to the realism 21st-century special effects are capable of generating, because I'll admit that even I (yes, even I) was momentarily unsure of what was going on. Not a nostril blow, in fact, but heat vision, which we are accustomed to seeing represented by simple red beams. Here the rippling air shooting from his face, which you interpreted as a super-sneeze, was in fact the result of the heat vision super-heating the air, creating an effect much like the distortions you see above hot sidewalks in the summer.
But, indeed, an awesome scene regardless of where Kal-El was shooting from.
Got a question about Superman Returns that doesn't involve why there's so little action and why the movie is falling short of box office expectations? Send it along!
[Bryan Singer] did a very good job of showing [Superman] use all his powers -- my favorite was when he took the shuttle off the plane using breath from his nostrils!!
A mistake, Tom, but one that is both endearing and understandable. It seems our imaginations have not caught up to the realism 21st-century special effects are capable of generating, because I'll admit that even I (yes, even I) was momentarily unsure of what was going on. Not a nostril blow, in fact, but heat vision, which we are accustomed to seeing represented by simple red beams. Here the rippling air shooting from his face, which you interpreted as a super-sneeze, was in fact the result of the heat vision super-heating the air, creating an effect much like the distortions you see above hot sidewalks in the summer.
But, indeed, an awesome scene regardless of where Kal-El was shooting from.
Got a question about Superman Returns that doesn't involve why there's so little action and why the movie is falling short of box office expectations? Send it along!
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
A Lexus Offense
All the designers in my office are up in arms over a daily parking lot offense. It seems there is a Lexus SUV that habitually and intentionally takes up two parking spots in the main lot, right near the door. It pulls into the spots diagonally each morning.
Each day they say to each other, "Did you see the Lexus today?" No one knows who is it, but it really rubs them the wrong way. "Not only does the car use all the gas, it needs to use all the parking spots?" they ask each other.
This morning they spent 15 minutes talking about it. They assume it is not someone who works with our company but with one of the other companies in our office building.
Plans for revenge include egging the car, blocking it in or leaving notes on the windshield. Taking a more illegal approach, the Intern is encouraging them to key the side of the car.
On a day when the back windshield of the Lexus was dusty, someone wrote "Oh, you're SO important" in the filth with their finger.
The saga goes on...
I wonder what kind of person can justify to themselves taking up two spots. Do they really think they are that important? Has their car been dinged one too many times, so they want to protect it as much as possible? (If that was the case, I'd think they would park far in the back away from all other cars.) Does the person sneak in and out of the building to avoid being seen and associated with this egotistical behavior? How did they feel when they saw the dust-written message on their car? Do they even know they are exhibiting inappropriate parking lot etiquette?
Each day they say to each other, "Did you see the Lexus today?" No one knows who is it, but it really rubs them the wrong way. "Not only does the car use all the gas, it needs to use all the parking spots?" they ask each other.
This morning they spent 15 minutes talking about it. They assume it is not someone who works with our company but with one of the other companies in our office building.
Plans for revenge include egging the car, blocking it in or leaving notes on the windshield. Taking a more illegal approach, the Intern is encouraging them to key the side of the car.
On a day when the back windshield of the Lexus was dusty, someone wrote "Oh, you're SO important" in the filth with their finger.
The saga goes on...
I wonder what kind of person can justify to themselves taking up two spots. Do they really think they are that important? Has their car been dinged one too many times, so they want to protect it as much as possible? (If that was the case, I'd think they would park far in the back away from all other cars.) Does the person sneak in and out of the building to avoid being seen and associated with this egotistical behavior? How did they feel when they saw the dust-written message on their car? Do they even know they are exhibiting inappropriate parking lot etiquette?
Friday, July 7, 2006
Relating Styles
According to Dr. Jan, there are three basic styles for romantic relationships: Traditional, Merged and Roommate.
Of course, none of these is "better" than any of the others, but Doc Jan has presented an interesting summary here. I think it's pretty accurate, but I feel like most relationships are all of these things in rotation. You may be Roommates when it comes to social lives, Traditional when it comes to apartments or finances, and Merged when it comes to dealing with each of your families. In my experience, I think your style depends on your setting or on what issue you as a couple are dealing with this month.
The Traditional style of relating is often seen in our parents and grandparents - where one person is more dominant than the other in certain areas. For example, he may bring home the bacon while she may run the home.
More rare is the Merged style, where two people’s identities actually form one whole identity rather than two separate individuals. You often see this relationship when people get together when they’re really young, especially in adolescence, when you don’t have your identity fully formed. Or with older couples who’ve been together for 50 to 60 years; they probably started out as Traditional, then merged together.
Many people find they have the Roommate style of relating. In this style, you have two relatively equal individuals. They may live together, be married, they may have sex, they may have children, own a home, but they make decisions unilaterally. They’re not making decisions together in a partnering way. The Roommate style can work when everything is status quo. For many couples, it’s kind of like leading parallel lives; they only come together around certain things. However, when there is a major life change or when one person wants things to be different, it can often be a struggle. So if you have children, there’s a big move, a job change, or a financial change, this style of relating can lead to dissatisfaction or havoc.
Of course, none of these is "better" than any of the others, but Doc Jan has presented an interesting summary here. I think it's pretty accurate, but I feel like most relationships are all of these things in rotation. You may be Roommates when it comes to social lives, Traditional when it comes to apartments or finances, and Merged when it comes to dealing with each of your families. In my experience, I think your style depends on your setting or on what issue you as a couple are dealing with this month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)