I'm so angry that the vast majority of people didn't fully understand what i was saying. Or didn't care. Oh well, here it is:

I skimmed through the many posts on the episode review, and people seemed to love the cake scene. I just don't get it. It seems pretty obvious to me that the writers were more concerned with appeasing the fans than staying true to the characters. The premise of the show two heterosexual guys who love each other. Having them act faux-gay, even for that brief moment, takes away from that premise. It cheapens it. And I feel it caters to the people who don't REALLY appreciate this complex bond that Christian/Sean share. I know people will say i'm reading too much into the scene, and they were just goofing around, but it just didn't ring true to me. There's no way the woman would confuse them for being gay. First of all, i'm quite certain that it was Kimber who booked the tasting. Or at the very least, when Christian booked it, he mentioned who the parties were going to be. Or, when they arrived, someone said "btw, my fiance couldn't make it, so my friend came to help me". I'm disapointed that so many fans were excited by the faux-gay stuff. It annoyed me on two levels: the first being the aforementioned complaints about it being out of character and used just to appease the fans. The 2nd is that i find it homophobic to a certain degree. Yes, i understand that the creator is gay (i THINK i have that fact right, but I may be wrong). But, that doesn't give him, or the show, free reign to write anything they want about the issue. If sean and christian acted "black", wouldn't that be racist [and yes, i know saying "acting black" is in and of itself racist. The more accurate description would be poor/urban city/street]? Why is it ok for straight people to act gay? It was meant to be lighthearted and comical. What's funny about acting gay? Of course, maybe i'm just in left field on this issue. I think Will/Grace has absolutely set the equal-rights/gay movement back decades. Edit
sean_mcnamara RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 7:01 pm	I thoroughly agree on all points
Candy RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 7:19 pm	They never implied there was anything wrong/bad/silly about being gay. The only humor in it was that they weren't the couple, and they were goofing around, maybe pulling the cake woman's chain a little. Actually, the fact they were so unruffled by being mistaken for a gay couple sort of implies to me that neither one sees it as something that's bad or humiliating. Homophobic or anti-gay men would have corrected her misconception in a big hurry, and possibly been very offended by it. As for it cheapening their "complex" bond, how? They were *joking* around. There are some fans who will enjoy the moment because they'd like to see the relationship take that turn (so where's the harm if some of us get a little guilty thrill that way?), and others who will just laugh at it because to them, it shows how totally comfortable these guys are with their heterosexual friendship that they *can* joke around like that without it changing anything.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 8:00 pm	I think the fact that the clip of them holding hands was featured in all of the previews for the episode speaks volumes. It wasn't just a throw-away casual joking moment. In some small way, it was sort of "here, we are giving the fans what they always wanted." This has been done in other shows as well. I wasn't a huge x-files fan, but i watched enough to know that fans wanted Scully and Mulder together. And there was an episode where a shape-shifter (my god, i can't believe i'm writing this) made himself look like Mulder and "they" almost hooked up. I just felt that the hand holding and stuff wasn't something that the characters would really do, but rather what we would want them to do (even in this joking manner). And i think the characters are at least a bit homophobic, as their reaction to Quentin shows. Edit
CarverAntics RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 8:48 pm	That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. "Giving the viewers what they want"? It's the 10th episode of the season and it lasted like 20 seconds. I really don't think it was meant to stand out. It was just a joke. Two friends kidding around. That's just how relationship between them is. There was nothing out of character about it. And they are far from homophobic considering their anestisiologist happens to be a lesbian. Christian was merely making it firmly known to Quentin that "he isn't that way". modified: Nov 28 - 12:51 am GMT modified: Nov 28 - 12:52 am GMT
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 9:27 pm	I think some people are taking the show too seriously. The show doesnt take itself entirely seriously. Its highly stylized fantasy with blatant disregard to feasible logistics. I think its a mistake to read so much into it.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 10:08 pm	go back to the posts about the episode and you will see more than a handful of people who specifically mention that cake scene as being their favorite. And again, it was featured in the previews. But i guess the fact that it was only 20 seconds is more important than those two facts. Also, why does Christian comment about whether the Chris on the phone is male or female? It's a little dig about being bi-sexual. And remember when Christian tells Sean about him being bi and they both poke fun at each other that Quentin might have a crush on them. I don't buy into the "oh, it's just a TV show" argument when it comes to how things affect our society. These types of things have an impact on the viewers. Will it change our country's view of homosexuality? Of course not. But everything adds to the social consciousness. I feel that it moved it (ever so slightly) towards a more homophobic society. Again, will someone please comment on my question about how the scene would have been perceived if they were acting "black" instead of "gay"? Edit
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 10:14 pm	the cake scene was referenced 17 times in the episode thread. Edit
CarverAntics RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 10:27 pm	People would be flat-out offended if they acted black - especially black people. They are two completely different types of people. It would be tasteless, unfunny, and above all racist. Why do you automatically assume just because this show talks about homosexuality that the writers are trying to send a moral message? It's not uncommon for people to be bi or gay. These characters just happen to be gay. It adds to their storylines. It makes them interesting. The reason why people love this scene is because it is FUNNY. The gay issue itself doesn't make it entertaining or shocking. It's just a cute scene between two buddies joking around. That's it. modified: Nov 28 - 2:29 am GMT
BehindBlueEyes RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:00 pm	I like the scene because it was funny and after everything that's been going on with the show, this light hearted moment was a well needed break, for Sean and Christian, and for the people watching the show. I also love how it showed that the guys are so comfortable with themselves, and their friendship, that instead of being quick to correct the woman and tell her they weren't actually a couple, like a lot of straight men would have done, they had fun with it. I've joked around with my friends like that on more than one occasion. I just think it shows how our society today is more accepting of homosexuality/bisexuality. If someone was actually homophobic, I don't think they would joke around the way Sean and Christian did.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:21 pm	1) And they are far from homophobic considering their anestisiologist happens to be a lesbian. 2) it's not uncommon for people to be bi or gay. These characters just happen to be gay. It adds to their storylines. It makes them interesting. I don’t see how these two statements don’t contradict each other. You use the fact that a character is a lesbian as evidence that the writers aren’t homophobic. Then, you go and say that characters are multilayered and being gay is just a trait and not dispositive of anything. I agree with the latter, but not the former. Just “having a gay character” on the show doesn’t necessarily mean that a show is pro-tolerance. If that character adheres to the negative stereotypes that are common in society, then it reinforces those beliefs. There was a time when movies had people in blackface. Do you think that those types of shows were immune to contributing to racist stereotypes? Unfortunately, we still live in a society where a gay character is gay first, and a regular character second. Liz has been fleshed out quite nicely as a full character. She’s not just a carbon copy of generic lesbian stereotypes. I definitely feel that this helps society grow in terms of tolerance. Another good example would be David and his partner from Six Feet Under. Their characters were so deep and complex that the viewers were forced to see them as “regular people”. Their relationship was one of the realest I’ve ever seen portrayed on television. By no means do I feel that a writer or tv show should feel “obligated” to become a social activist. But there is a general responsibility that comes with producing art that is going to be consumed by the masses. Negative stereotypes and intolerance can seep into your art and become detrimental to society. Everything effects us; it all contributes to our overview of society. We may think we are above this, and that we have free will, but there is a reason that corporations spend billions of dollars in advertising. Sometimes these stereotypes and influences seep into our subconscious without us even knowing it. You label the cake scene as harmless fun that lasted only 20 seconds. You keep saying it was funny, but you don’t ever explain WHY it was funny. I want to know specifically why it was funny. You say acting black is bad, but acting gay isn’t, but you don’t actually explain why. In my opinion, acting gay is the equivalent of telling a polish Joke. It’s not overtly homophobic, but there’s something subtle there. We are almost implying that it’s funny to be gay. Edit
sookietex RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:30 pm	kronicfatigue said: "Again, will someone please comment on my question about how the scene would have been perceived if they were acting "black" instead of "gay"?" i was among those who said the cake scene was one of my favorite parts of the ep. i also happen to be black---or as i frequently refer to myself "colored" as that is what it says on my birthcertificate---[i was born in 1958] and i am also part blackfoot indian---but i digress; back to the question. the reason the cake scene appealed to me predominately was the double-entendre dialog i.e. "you're the one i want, the only one i want" for me was clearly christian teasing sean about wanting him to come back to the practice. for me if the dialog had been delivered in a derrogetory/stereotypical way read "lisp" i would have found it offensive rather than cute and funny. but it wasn't. it was in a tongue-in-cheek, casual, matter of fact way. i get your point about the "acting black" question, but again if someone were to deliver a line in a derrrogatory/stereotypical way yes i would be offended. if it were simply funny and not intentionally hurtful i would not be offended. for example some people are offended by what i consider classic comedy; the amos & andy sitcom of the 1950's. the main characters owned their own cab company at a time when in real life that kind of prosperity was virtually unheard of, and it was funny[sorry to any politically correct minded who may not share that view.] also in the film bulworth, warren beatty's character in many scenes for lack of a better descriptive "acts black". i had no problem with that---i was troubled by halle berry's character referring to him as her n***** and him responding to her in kind. since childhood the "n" word is one i've found distasteful, don't use it, and am offended when i hear it no matter who is saying it. i know it's just a word, but there it is. i'll tell you what did offend me in the ep was when they referred to anglo-saxon noses as being "more refined", and the patient tacitly agreeing with that description. WTF man!
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:39 pm	Interesting distinction regarding the lack of the lisp. Just saw the scene again, and you are right, it's not over the top stereotypical (although i didn't care for the way christian said "sweetheart"). I only saw parts of Bullworth, but I hated it. Amos and Andy were before my time. We could have a whole seperate discussion on the N word. There was an amazing documentary on the word...It was fascinating to see so many different opinions on using the word. There's one group of thought that says it's more offensive to call it "the N word" instead of actually saying the real word. In short, they think that it desensatizes (sp) us to the power of the word, when we SHOULD be shocked and offended. Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:41 pm	shees! this is SO outta hand. Them acting gay is not homophobic, nor does it have any impact on society's views of gays. Straight guys mock gay guys. They do it in real life, they did it on the show, because the show is supposed to be portraying life (sort of). Thats all there is to it. I cant even believe this thread is serious. White comics mock black guys all the time and vice versa, and everyone laughs. Nobody makes huge protests that it shouldnt be done because it will shift our society into racism. WAYYY too serious here. Of course the media can impact society. But there's nothing going on at that level here. You expect every show to filter itself into being politically correct? S and C are best friends. Best friends are not politically correct with each other. Well, I loved the seen anyway. I had fun with it. And it hasnt made me less accepting of gays or anyone else.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 27 - 11:51 pm	Yes, straight guys mock gay guys in real life. Yes, white comics make fun of black people and vice versa. And, shock of all shocks, we live in a racist and homophobic world. We have states altering their constitution to make sure marriage is only between man and woman. All I'm saying is that I appreciate when art attempts to better the world (or at least not make it a little worse). I think these characters mocking homosexuals, without any consequences or counter argument, has the potential to hurt society. Not sure if you caught the Rosa Parks memorial service, but Al Sharpton gave a great speech that discussed, in part, about the role the entertainers has in black society. He was dismayed about how black women are potrayed as "hoes" and how black rappers use the N word and glorify violence. The rappers defense is always "hey, i'm just holding up a mirror to what's around me". Sharpton ended his speech saying that mirrors aren't just used to reflect, they are used to correct. I hate the idea of cliches/sound bites, but i think that was really on point. If you want to just be "entertained" by a tv show, that is fine. But i enjoy a show a lot more when it makes me think about my own morality and other issues. And it frustrates me when I see a show that I think adds to something negative in the world. But, to each his own. Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 12:52 am	I still think you're reading WAY too much in here. Of course we have racism and homophobia in society. I'm appalled at the anti gay marraige movement. It makes me ashamed of our society, quite frankly. But that doesnt mean that ANY treatment of the issues in the media that doesnt bend over backwards to be politically correct and change the world is contributing to the problem. there's nothing in that scene that contributed to any problem. Thats not a 'to each his own' thing. Being able to laugh is not the same thing as propogating ridicule. With all the real problems with homophobia and racism in our society, I think your efforts would be better spent where there is real trouble. There is none here. Just fun here. For most of us.
stevecoy RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 2:59 am	I don't think kronic is reading too much into n/t. Reading into entertainment is an important discipline, and nowadays a major part of sociology. It's also one of my favorite things to do.I did sense a subtle homophobia in the scene, Like they were making fun of the chance that they might be gay, or as omniscient viewers of a parallel realty, making fun of such a possibility. But more than that I thought it aws an acknowledgement that S+C's relationship exists somewhere between platonic friendship and gay romantic relationship. Lots of scholars argue that sexuality is a spectrum, not just 3 defined points of gay, bi and straight. Witness the threads on this board talking about S+C being in love, or people wanting to see them have sex, etc. It is because they have demonstrated willingness to be open with each other, to love and support each other, that viewers recongize that their relationship is somewhere in the middle. I found the scene funny, but not because I think gayness is funny, but because the writers,in a tongue-in-cheek way, admitted to us that they're in on the fantasy that many viewers have. And admit it, when Sean said "I love that you love me that way," barely keeping a straight face, it was precious. Perhaps Sean thinks such a scenario is absurd, but not because he thinks gayness is absurd. Moreso because the cake store woman finally gave them an outlet to express a side of their relationship they always knew was there without having to actually be gay. They were making an ironic comment on themselves through a kind of third-person view. Does this make sense? It's hard for me to word it, but maybe it's like they were looking at Bizarro S+C, or flying overhead looking at themselves like in It's a Wonderful Life. I think you can analyze this scene and still find it funny.
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:18 am	Well of course s and c were making fun of gays, and displaying some homophobia. And all the other things you describe in the scene, of course thats there. What I'm saying Kronic is reading in is that there is some negative position on the issue that the show is expressing. Its just a harmless scene with two guys doing politically incorrect things. Its not the show making a statement about homosexuality or contributing to negative attitudes. They showed sean hitting julia too, that doesnt mean the show is contributing to some mysogenistic violent movement? He's just reading all this heavy stuff in that just isnt there. All the stuff you cite, stevecoy, is of course there. So I guess I would have been more correct to say he's reading the 'wrong' things in to it. In my opinion anyway.
EveryDiva11 RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:28 am	Sterotypes.. Hmmm... This has ruffled a few feathers... The 'cake-lady' thought that Sean and Christian were a couple, because they were cake-tasting together.. She was the one that looked so dumb for that assumption. So why not humiliate her comments more by playing the "gay sterotype"??? That is what I saw in it... That is why I found it amusing... I was laughing at her stupidity, not 'the scene'... It is how both actors portrayed it... I think others saw that as well... It was over the top.. Someone is taking things a bit too serious here.
CarverAntics RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:19 am	I think the scene is funny because they were mistaken for being something they weren't and they went along with it as a joke. That's funny to me. It's as simple as that. If these characters were at all homophobic, they'd be disgusted by what she assumed. If actually believe the writers take a negative stance on homosexuality, then watch the episode "Sophia Lopez". You will see that you are clearly wrong.
tracydarlin RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:36 am	Have you ever seen best friends interact? Even straight women have teased like that before. I personally think they were teasing the "cake lady". LOL. I loved the scene. I have seen many guys do that before. No harm done. Comedians have done far more offensive things.
frisky RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:52 am	omg this is so assanine. nobody is mocking anybody else. if anything they are mocking the CAKE LADY.. gosh. this just seems to mellodramatic!!!!!
Onlooker RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 6:21 am	I adored the cake scene. I think that, as several people have already pointed out, it showed the opposite of homophobia because they were so relaxed and natural about it. And don't forget they were drinking, too. I loved the fact that they both had the same reaction and it showed that they're finally fully at ease with each other after all the recent tensions (Matt's parentage, Sean's failure to fully back Christian when he was under suspicion). There was one other aspect no on one has remarked on, which was that it came out during that scene exactly how Christian and Julia got together and Sean could see that it was partly his fault, because, as usual he had put career before family. I think Sean finally and fully forgave Christian in that scene. I don't think they were pandering to fan expectations, except insomuch as they finally had a light and funny scene in a pretty dark season, which is something that fans have been complaining about. Ryan Murphy (who IS gay) has always said that this show was a love story between two heterosexual men and that's exactly what it is. It was good to see them together again and feeling comfortable enough about their sexuality to feel not threatened but amused by a misunderstanding. Actually, there was another really funny scene in Oona Wentworth when Matt was called before the headmistress and talked about his "two dads" and she misunderstood and said that that was a more and more common situation. Far from being bigoted, this show is known for its sympathetic depictions of the more unusual types of human relationships.
Candy RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 10:16 am	I just have a couple other comments on the cake scene. First, if anyone's worried that it's given viewers who wanted a romance between Sean and Christian what they wanted, relax. Sure, it gave some of us a few guilty giggles, and it's a scene that will probably always be a fan favorite for a myriad of reasons, but if some fans really want a romance between the guys, this wasn't it--it was a joke. What viewers looking for a romance "want" is a serious moment where a shift occurs between them. Not two buddies goofing around (but some of us have some fantasy fun with that since we probably won't ever see a serious version of that moment). So what is it hurting if a few fans have fun with that scene in a way some other fans don't approve of? It's not like we all agree on everything else about the show, either. And second, I agree with CarverAntics--the humor was in them being mistaken for something they weren't--and that's one of the oldest comedy routines in the book. This show has too much of an open minded history about sexuality to consider this one joke among friends homophobic. Actually, the same dialogue and joking could have happened between a man and a woman who weren't really a couple who were mistaken for one. Let's say, Liz and Christian. Sean and Gina. Julia and...well, okay, she's been with most of the guys in the show, so that's not a good example , but seriously, you could take any two consenting adults who weren't a couple and put them in that scene, male or female, and the dialogue and gestures would still fit. So how can it be homophobic?
crystallynn RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 11:47 am	if you didn't like the way the show portrayed homosexuals... don't watch it...
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 12:50 pm	There are a lot of examples within the show that pro-tolerance in terms of the gay community. Like i said before, Liz is a well fleshed out character. Also, Matt's confusion was handled in an intelligent manner (even if we were eventually angered by his actions). I think in general, the show has been a positive in this area. The sophia storyline, the eventual humanizing of the Ava character, Liz's struggles, etc etc. All wonderful and positive things. But, there has been some negatives. Christian didn't just reject Quentin in the foursome, he was flat out agitated. S and C then teased each other about Quentin having a crush on them. Christian also made a snide "is chris a man or a woman" comment when he was on the phone. These things are insignificant compared to all the positives, but they are there. BTW, i clearly misread the comment that i latered numbered and said were hypocritical of each other. I thought you (I can't remember you name) said "the writers have a lesbian anathesiologisit (sp)" when you were actually saying "the doctors have..." Sorry about that. I also think that has led to some of the confusion over my opinion. My concern isn't whether or not the doctors are homophobic. Overall, i don't think they are. Christian told Matt he'd be ok with whatever he was into. Sean EVENTUALLY accepted sophia. My primary concerned was the societal impact of certain scenes. I must have a completely different group of friends then the rest of you. Everyone says that acting gay shows that Sean and Christian are tolerant of that lifestyle. From my experiences, its my homophobic friends who act like that. Maybe not actually kissing hands or touching, but they're the ones to do the lisp impersonations and limp wrist stereotypes. And finally, someone commented about Sean hitting Julia. The difference with that scene is that there were consequences to his actions. He almost loses his daughter b/c of that violent act. That was a dark scene, and it helped bring the issue of violence to the forefront. The mixed emotions i felt over the social workers trying to do their job but hurting an "otherwise non violent" Sean was very gripping. I respect everyone's opinions on this thread. Except for the one that said if i don't like it, just turn it off. Clearly, you didn't read my posts, b/c i'm concerned over the impact that they have on society. If you don't think they have an impact, that's fine. We can disagree on that. But, the "just turn it off" argument is insulting. I guess if i have problems with this administration, i should just leave the country. Sticking my head in the sand wont make the impact on society any less real. Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 1:25 pm	So you think ALL shows should totally censor themselves to show only politically correct expressions of any social issue based on the morality of......well, who would decide whats moral....you? Why do you keep asserting that there is some significance to showing this scene? They did what people do. Shows cant allow that to air? It might reflect realistic behavior, but we need to stick our heads in the sand and not view it because YOU think its having a negative impact on society? Only politically correct, pretty pictures that couldnt possibly offend anybody should be allowed to be aired on any media venue? Does this really make sense to you? You sound like Jerry Falwell.
bignip RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 1:52 pm	I don't know. I suppose if I had been lead to believe that Christian and Sean are seriously homophobic and they used this scene to add more fuel to their attitude, I may be able to see your point more clearly. However, I'm pretty comfortable that the scene was a private, comical moment shared by two best friends, spoofing on what the cake lady said to them. Sometimes, we just have to laugh in spite of ourselves, without digging in our heals and creating a motive that just isn't there.
bignip RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 1:54 pm	double modified: Nov 28 - 5:57 pm GMT
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 1:55 pm	i never once said that they shouldn't be allowed to show this scene. I just didn't care for the scene personally, b/c of the perceived impact i think it could have. Of course they should be allowed to show it. And i'm not going to stop watching/enjoying the show b/c of one scene. A show as "edgy" as n/t is going to have some hits and some misses. I just think this one scene was a miss. I don't think it was intentional at all. The "problems" with the scene are so subtle (some would argue non existent) that i imagine the writers didn't even think about the impact it could have. There are a dozen more controversial scenes/issues within teh show that i absolutely love. First and foremost is the already mentioned violence that Sean displayed. I by no means think i should dictate what's aired and what isn't. Every artist has their own right to put out there whatever they want. I'm not my brother's keeper. But, if i'm a fan of a show, I'm going to notice things that I value. And i'm concerned about how entertainment impacts the society that views it. That's all i'm saying. Nip/tuck has done more good than harm, and that's one of the reasons i like it (the most important reason i like it is b/c i'm entertained). It's always a balancing act. I used to like will and grace, but at some point, the stereotypes became so over the top, that it offended me more than it entertained me. So i stopped watching. I don't think its impact on society is so outrageous that I need to become an activist against it or anything. With this one scene, all i've done is start a thread on a fan board. Some people have disagreed with me and pointed out things that I've used to redefine my stance. Other people might not have thought about the issue before hand, and now they have (and either decided to agree or disagree with me). We could all "move on", but I much prefer a continuing dialogue. I think that's where true intellectual progress is made. Again, the only comment that offended me was the "if you don't like it, don't watch". And that has more to do with my life and how people have reacted to my political beliefs (if it's not obvious, i'm "far left" and have been critical of the war, corporate america, etc etc etc). I disagree with you comparing me to the religous right. Those people want to censure things that offend them. I hate the FCC and have been a strong advocate of the 1st amendment. But, that's a different argument. Everyone should have the right to express whatever they want. I was just pointing out that in this one instance, we should step back and try to understand the impact that it has on society. Entertainment shapes our belief system. In that one scene, i think that there was some subliminal homophobic tendancies portrayed. I was a little surprised by how universally loved that scene was. When i saw it, i shrugged it off as mildly (ever so mildly) offensive, and just moved on. It was only after i read the reader reviews that i became more concerned. But, i guess i'm done with the subject. Anything else i say will just be repetitive. I'm really looking forward to tomm's episode where Christian feels the need to hurt other women to mask his own pain. The way christian deals with his pain has been the most fascinating aspect of the show, in my opinion. Edit
love C.T. RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 2:46 pm	Those people want to censore things that offend them.... Well, yea if it was a perfect world I wouldn't have to see anything I didn't like or anything I thought was offensive! I am a Christian and I have beliefs and it's ok to have them. In reality no one or no thing is perfect. Just because I have certain beliefs and not afraid to express them make me "one of those people"?? It's like everyone is free to say or do whatever they want...be gay, be a movie star, be married, don't be married, black, white chinease, be a animal activist..or be a hunter..Whatever you get the picture!! But as soon as I say hey I'm a Christian..I'm crazy or I get compared to someone like Jerry Falwell!! WHat the hell is that all about? Don't you realize when you said one of those people, that would be the same as if I said that about a gay person or a person who's black, etc. Someone who is religious does not have to be compared to the one guy who is a whacko job (jerry falwell) just like I wouldn't compare all gay people to Richard Simmons or all athesists to Marilyn Manson. GET IT??? Geeshh!! And talk about uptight people..your posts don't have a spot of humor to them and look how long they are!!Add a smiley face once in a while and stop being so uptight...SMILE.... .. sorry that the only religious people you have ever talked to make you feel this way...we are not all this way, in fact Christianity teaches the opposite.."love thy neighbor.." You all have been having chats with the wrong people!!!!
stevecoy RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:00 pm	kronic, you are threatening to take away my gold star for intelligent posting! Haha. I really liked your arguments and I agree that media is more meaningful when we discuss its social implications. Homosexuality is adressed in a very refined way on this show most of the time. However I think some of the writer's decisions are made to pander to the lowest common denominator. For me the best example of this is Quentin's bisexuality, not in and of itself, but how it relates to the Carver. The Carver rapes men and women, and Quentin has consensual sex with both, so in MANY people's minds, that means Quentin is the Carver. I can't tell you how furious I was to read many people's posts listing that as a major reason for their Quentin theory, and I had to explain time and time again how rape isn't about sex, blah blah blah...There is a post called "let's put an end to it" somewhere in the Season 3 archives. The point is, people want to be right about their primal beliefs. Homosexuality is still a hot-button issue, and one that many many people are insecure about. The cake tasting scene tried to bring a bit of levity to the debate while, I agree with you, VERY SUBTLY reinforcing that homosexuality is a joke if you're straight. However, I think it was more like "What if we were gay" rather than "My God, we could never be gay, that's horribly absurd." To me, that shows a sensitivity towards the gay community. Honestly, though I consider myself very tolerant and accepting, imagining myself in a gay sexual relationship makes my stomach turn. I should note that I do not have any reaction, positive or negative to other men having gay relationships, only ones that theoretically involve me! When gay men have come on to me, I have had a few reactions like Christian's to Quentin's advance in addition to just saying thanks but no thanks. My point is that they could have handled the cake lady's intimation that they were gay much more brutally, and in most people's minds they would have been right to do so. But they played along and did so with sophistication, both from a character and writer standpoint.
CarverAntics RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:13 pm	Kronic, I am sorry if I seemed too hostile with my first post. While I still disagree, I now respect and understand your view points.
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:28 pm	Kronic - ok I went back and looked. You dont explicitly advocate censoring the scene. My bad. Although I think that was implicit in your remarks. You were saying something is bad about having that scene there. My objections are that its not bad because its showing what people do. Like it or not, there's nothing wrong with scenes that show what people do. You said the julia violence seen was justified since it showed negative consequences for shaun. Why does it need that justification? If the scene didnt have those consequences, you would disapprove? Men hit their wives all the time without accountability or consequences. It would be wrong for a show to illustrate that? (or at least, you would disapprove). you see thats the part I dont get about your position. Also, in rereading the your original post, you say no way would s and c ever be mistaken for a gay couple. Part of your justification is that the woman would have been told who the couple really was. Obviously, she was not, that was a basic premise of the scene. She why couldnt she have mistaken them for a gay couple? Because of their manly personalities? Careful now!!! On the topic of propogating stereotypes....ahem.....
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:35 pm	When i typed "religious right", i was thinking of a specific group of religious extremists, not christians in general. Sorry if that term offended you. In truth, i wrote that b/c i couldn't remember which religious fanatic was referenced in the above post. I should have just typed "people like Falwell". Edit
flameonlkedragon This argument is overrated Nov 28 - 3:39 pm	Hate to spoil it for anyone, but I don't care because it's important to this argument. You can be mad at me if you like. We will see a man-on-man sex scene on an episode of Nip/Tuck very soon. How homophobic is that? No show on TV has pushed the envelope on homosexuality like Nip/Tuck. We see transsexuals, lesbians, gay men, etc. Now there's going to be man-on-man sex. I know gay rights people have complained for a while that it's ok to show two women kissing/making love but not men. Well, here you go. Don't miss tomorrow's episode, ok?
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:42 pm	If it sounded like i was saying that S/C couldn't be confused for a gay couple, that's not what i meant. I meant that that specific woman probably should have known they were straight b/c the booking was probably done by Kimber (she seemed to be the one in charge of all those things when she was talking with Christian), or, as a practical matter, Christian would have innitially introduced Sean as the stand in. See, that was my OTHER problem with the scene. It seemed unrealistic. As a practical matter, i don't think that the woman could have been oblivious to Kimber's existence and/or cancelling. In fact, the conversations that she overheard between Sean/Christian involved julia. They were also on their third piece of cake or so. There's a lot of time for interaction between the woman and S/C and i doubt (as a practical/realistic matter) that Kimber's name wouldn't have come up. Shoot, i can't remember the 2nd part of the question. I don't like how this message board doesn't allow you to see other posts when you are typing. BRB Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:42 pm	Oh, and on Will and Grace. I dont like that show much anymore either. The Jack character is insufferable. Yes he's a blatant stereotype, but I know gay dudes WAY more flaming than him. I find that personality type rather unpleasant. Grace I just dont think is a good actress, and she doesnt pull off what she's supposed to. Will could be a good character. But even he succumbs (hehe) to the stereotype all too often. Interrupting a serious conversation to remark about color schemes, etc. pretty pathetic. The only thing the show has going for it is Karen. Her pill popping drunken shallowness is a scream. And she's a talent, and pulls it off very well.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:53 pm	Ok, the Sean/violence/consequences argument. Yes, there are men who beat women and never suffer any consequences for their actions. But, we, as viewers, aren't expected to root for them. Sean is the lead character....the protagonist who is generally good, but has flaws (like all people do). If HE was able to get away with the violence without any consequences, it would be hard to root for him. When Matt discovered Quentin and Julia, he said "comprende esse". That clearly had racial implications. But, it's ok to come from a character such as Matt b/c he's so screwed up and hurt. If Sean was upset that Julia was sleeping with Quentin b/c he was latino, then I'd have an issue with that. Everything has to be taken in context. Archie Bunker was a revolutionary television character. He was racist, and sexist, and said very hurtful things. But his character was miserable. Did he ever smile once on the show? In the unaired epsiode of family guy [when you wish upon a weinstein], there were many anti-semetic jokes / stereotypes throughout the episode. But, it was peter saying them. Peter is a bumbling idiot. Thus, when he says them, it's obvious that the writers are showing that such beliefs are unintelligent. I think we need a new word for "homophobic". Because i don't think that the writers fear homosexuals. I just think there are occassionaly scenes (like the cake one), that are less pro-tolerance/equality than others. There have been many issues reagarding homosexuality throughout the series. Obviously, the writers aren't afraid to address these issues. I just think in this one case, they may have unintentionally promoted a stereotype or implied that it's ok to make fun of homosexuals. Edit
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 3:59 pm	oh, two tidbits i forgot: 1) 110% agree that people saying that Quentin's bisexuality makes it more likely that he is the carver is absurd. little old ladies get raped too. It's about power, not sex/attraction. 2) did someone really say i wasn't funny because i don't put smiley faces in my posts or break up my thoughts with jokes? how is that an issue? Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:01 pm	Why would you have an issue with Sean not liking Julia with a latino? That would be realistic. It happens all the time. What would your issue be? And as for Archie Bunker, you do realize he is one of the most beloved characters in the history of sitcom tv, dont you? He is a character that we all route for. Of course we know his remarks are racist, but we route for him. If Sean roughed up Julia without consequences, we would still route for him. I dont think that would be irresponsible of the writers, nor do I think Norman Lear was irresponsible for creating a lovable racist in Archie Bunker.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:05 pm	If sean was racist and there were no consequences to that, I wouldn't be able to root for him. Can you imagine a show where Ariel's family are the lead characters and you root for them? I couldn't. If Sean was allowed to spew racist statements without it even being addressed (if you notice, nobody commented on Matt's use of comprende esses), then I'd have a problem. Yes, i know Archie was beloved by the audience. But that was in part b/c he had a family that corrected him, and he was clearly made out to be uninformed and ignorant. Another example would be Andy Sipowitz. He was racist, but he struggled with those issues and he suffered as a result of his ignorance. That's why I was able to root for him. EDIT: if Sean roughed up julia in that one instance, and there were no consequences, i would still be able to root for him. In fact, i thought the scene was so powerful b/c i think his reaction was realistic and ALMOST justified (or at least excusable). That's why it was so conflicting as a viewer. I sat there and thought "wow, i should be really upset that he just hit julia", but I wasn't. It was complex and multilayered. If he came home every night and slapped her around, and there were no other discussions or ramifications of that behavior, then I couldn't root for him. modified: Nov 28 - 8:07 pm GMT Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:06 pm	Yes, I agree that the bisexuality thing being at all equated with rape is heinous. It reminds me of discussions about homosexuality and people start equating it with pedophilia. Or in discussions about sex ed in schools, people equate 'sexually active' with promiscuous. These are all very different things. I remember when Basic Instinct came out, there was a big objection in the gay community that the sharon stone's character was a lesbian, one of the few lesbians in a lead role, and they made her a psychopathic killer.
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:12 pm	Yes, archie was uninformed and ignorant. But what racist isnt? I think we loved him because we were allowed to see the good person underneath and his racism was an unfortunate product of his enviornment (he was beaten by his father, and brought up around hate). So often, we're not able to see any good in a racist. Myself included, I dont even try to see the good in hate-based people. I think Archie probably did wonders for helping to combat racism by showing how it can consume a person in spite of good intentions, and that there's a little archie in all of us (especially edith, hehe).
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:12 pm	That's interesting regarding Sharon Stone, b/c i've talked to people who don't want the Carver to be Liz (or, to a lesser extent Quentin) b/c of the same issue. Some people feel that if Liz was the Carver, all the positives that came from her being a strong lesbian character would be wiped out. I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the Sopranos are anti-italian-american just because the characters are italian-american. I think it's almost anti-PC to think that if a gay character happens to also be a killer that it implies that the two characteristics are intertwined. Again, as long as you go above and beyond the generic stereotypes, then you can break away from these characteristics as being defining. I don't vew Liz as a lesbian. I view Liz as Liz, with all of her characteristics. Thus, I won't be offended if she turns out to be the Carver (not to mention i bet a plate of brownies with someone that she is it). Edit
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:14 pm	is Ariel "ignorant" or "uninformed"? I don't know. I think she's very intelligent and has a wealth of knowledge. It's just that she had the ultimate "conclusion" in her head before she applied this intelligence. There's very little of what she said that was incorrect by a factual standpoint. Edit
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:16 pm	I haven't seen All in the Family that much, but I always assumed the point was that Archie would appear on the surface to be the leader of the family, the one in control, and the one intolerant of others, but that wasn't the case at all. Edith was mousy, but they were on equal footing to a certain extent. And, the young blood of Meathead and the daughter were taking the power away from him outdated ways. Edit
SiddCarver RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:26 pm	Fair enough, yes there are many intelligent people who are racist. I guess I was referring to ignorant and uniformed to be just on the race issue itself. But on this topic, I've always felt racism itself is highly misunderstood. We're all so quick to hate it. And yes, its heinous and toxic. But where does it really come from? Its so utterly prevalent throughout all cultures, it cant just be incidental. It seems to me that since we know we have a self preservation instinct, and a species preservation instinct, in between the two it seems logical that we also have an ethnocentric 'race preservation' instinct. Of course this is just theory, but it makes sense to me. And how would such an instinct manifest itself? Well, avoiding interracial reproduction would be essential. And how would that be assured? By the cultural evolution selecting in favor of hatred of other races. Thats just one theory. But as prevalent as it is, it seems that there is a 'natural' aspect to racism. Like its a fundamental part of the human condition. I think only by accepting that its natural to have those feelings can we move past them. Hating the racist just propogates more hate (I'm guilty myself, of course). I think racism perhaps was once necessary in an earlier epoch for the reasons above or reasons like them. But no longer is necessary, but its a legacy that has stuck with our culture. Perhaps continued obscuring of the races will usher in a movement past it. Who knows. Just my opinion. Nobody be offended please.
kronicfatigue RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:35 pm	I agree that it's "natural". In addition to your self preservation points, I'd also say that insecurity and feeling lonely are also "natural" human conditions. In social situations, it's sometimes easier to feel drawn to people who are "like you". That could mean someone who has the same type of job as you, the same gender, the same race, the same type of upbringing, etc etc. There is also a correlation between racism and immigration patterns in our country. As another culture/race immigrated, other cultures felt threatened. This was in part do the new competition for jobs and whatnot. When the Irish first started immigrating, they were on the bottom of the totem poll. Right now, Latinos are at the bottom of our country's racist food chain. This would tie into your theories regarding species' survival instincts. Whether it's the Italian Mafia or the KKK, groups form for their own (perceived) self interest and survival. You can even extend these ideas to the social contract theory and other areas of sociology. Edit
blackeclipse RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 4:56 pm	I thought S & C were just acting "loving" in that cake scene. No gender there. Wil and Grace - What is Karen anyway? BI? Her character is Over the top but I love it. Sean never hit Julia. He grabbed her by the throat and shoved her into the fridge. Not that that is less severe I just never saw him hit her. And maybe Christian and Sean just don't like Quinten, not bi-sexuals. That's not being homophob although Sean's behavior at the park was questionable if not blatant but that could have been the situation. modified: Nov 28 - 8:58 pm GMT modified: Nov 28 - 9:05 pm GMT
NickyD85 RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 7:06 pm	Im pretty loose guy, very lightened. Take nothing too seriously, but I can kind of see why someone would have opinions on this matter. For some reason, this episode brought out alot of racial/ethical/gay issues and offensives. Between the cake scene, Ariel's speeches, the black women slavery collectables, Ariels fathers speeches of Wrath, and the sawista earings.. its like damn. did anyone see this coming? Next thing you know you have Matt resembling a skin head showing up at the wedding w/ boots and a fukin sawista earing. Saying 'this is who I am' WTF Now dont get me wrong, I dont have much of a problem w/ it. But its hard not to think about the mixed messages.
Candy RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 7:14 pm	>>>> Ok, the Sean/violence/consequences argument. Yes, there are men who beat women and never suffer any consequences for their actions. But, we, as viewers, aren't expected to root for them. Sean is the lead character....the protagonist who is generally good, but has flaws (like all people do). If HE was able to get away with the violence without any consequences, it would be hard to root for him. <<<< I must have missed the scene where he hit Julia. He grabbed her and pushed her (not good things, granted, but different than hitting). He was in a moment of intense emotional duress to the point of vomiting in the kitchen sink, and collapsing to the floor, sobbing, after she left. That doesn't excuse him, but I do think there's a distinction between that and hitting. (There's no indication Julia was bruised from the encounter, and I've never seen the alledged "dent" in the refrigerator.) I find it interesting how few people ever go back and mention the fact that Julia throws a coffee mug the length of the kitchen aimed at Sean's head in the pilot episode for a lot less provocation. Just because he ducked doesn't make it any less violent. He hit Matt, but I won't even go into arguing how many fathers would have when the kid just manhandled his mother. I don't condone domestic violence, but in the two instances where Sean behaves that way, the circumstances were extreme, and he's been on the receiving end of at least one violent action from Julia, just to be fair.
ladym05 RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 10:02 pm	All this season I would have paid Sean to hit Matt and Julia.
Nathalie RE: The Cake scene was overate Nov 28 - 11:12 pm	I would be very, very happy if Sean and Julia sent Matt off to boarding/military school! He needs it. But as for his neo-nazi gf, I think he's investing his anger of his parents into the hate of nazism... channeling it, if you will. But come on, he HAS TO comprehend that Ariel's family is unacceptable in today's society.
love C.T. khronic fatigue Nov 28 - 11:51 pm	It ws me who commented about the smiley faces and humor thing...sorry, I was gettin' pretty heated!! This issue does definitely get people going doesn't it? That's a good thing because someone might be here and change their mind on a certain issue or at least think a little more about it before making up their mind. I think that the thing bout Costa being bisexual does throw people off a little but to try and put the carver/rape thing with being bi is going the wrong way....I think anyone who really likes this show and can join into such an intelligent forum like this would not even be able to do such a thing, I mean , try to link the two issues together. I have seen a few come and go here that do that.... oh, here's a smiley face for you khronic...
love C.T. kronic fatigue Nov 28 - 11:52 pm	It ws me who commented about the smiley faces and humor thing...sorry, I was gettin' pretty heated!! This issue does definitely get people going doesn't it? That's a good thing because someone might be here and change their mind on a certain issue or at least think a little more about it before making up their mind. I think that the thing bout Costa being bisexual does throw people off a little but to try and put the carver/rape thing with being bi is going the wrong way....I think anyone who really likes this show and can join into such an intelligent forum like this would not even be able to do such a thing, I mean , try to link the two issues together. I have seen a few come and go here that do that.... oh, here's a smiley face for you kronic...
EyezWithoutAFace RE: kronic fatigue Nov 29 - 12:18 am	If sean and christian acted "black", wouldn't that be racist [and yes, i know saying "acting black" is in and of itself racist. The more accurate description would be poor/urban city/street]? Why is it ok for straight people to act gay? It was meant to be lighthearted and comical. What's funny about acting gay? It's funny because it's out of character not because they are trying to demean gay people. They were having a good time with the gay thing because they were caught offguard by her assumption. The situation they were put into was lighthearted and comical. Maybe if they acted flamboyant and used lisps it would be a little demeaning but all they did was hold hands and say they loved eachother, which to themselves they found funny. According to your logic, acting as something you aren't is morally reprehensible? Julian McMahon is Australian and acts American, is that racist? John Hensley is like in his 30s and acts 17, is that wrong? Yeah they didn't joke about those, but it's rediculous to be offended by acting.
tracydarlin RE: kronic fatigue Nov 29 - 1:37 am	When you really think about it, they weren't acting "gay" they were acting engaged.... LOL. I watched it again tonight... I really look forward to the new episode!!
blahnik Cake scene underrated Nov 29 - 7:38 pm	Blah blah blah. Someone needs to go smoke a joint... Have people actually read all the posts in this thread? I lost interest after about the tenth one. I can't wait for the bag scene tonight!!! modified: Nov 29 - 11:40 pm GMT
flexy633 RE: Cake scene underrated Nov 30 - 1:49 am	Jesus Christ (sorry all you Christians), but could this have been blown anymore out of proportion???? Dear God help us if Quentin or Liz is the Carver because then everyone will be saying it's offensive to the gay/bi community! It really ticks me off that a gay person or bisexual person is supposed to be so loved and admired otherwise we who dislike a person (not based on their sexual preference) are considered hate mongers even though we may dislike the person and not necessarily their gender. For example, if I got into a fight with a lesbian woman, but not even knowing she was lesbian, it would be considered a hate crime just because she is a lesbian. I think that's obsurd! I suppose all the gays/transsexuals/bisexuals applauded the scene where Matt was beat to a pulp and pissed on too, right?

The Giants scored a touchdown with 1:59 remaining in the 4^th quarter. This made the score 21-19 with the 2 point conversion coming up. The camera then focused in on Coughlin trying to call time out. A little part of me died inside.

Unless I’m missing something, here are the important factors to take into account:

The Seahawks are almost definitely going to challenge the play. It didn’t look like Toomer got his feet inbounds at first. Upon replay, we learned that he did. But, with the game on the line, it’s a no-brain challenge.

I think (but am not sure) that there is no exception to the 2 minute warning rule. As far as I know, the two minute warning occurs as soon as there are 2 minutes or less in the half/game and the play is dead. At 1:59 and a TD having just been scored, I assume that the two minute warning occurs before the conversion.

The NFL average for 2 point conversions is about 30%. I assume that every team has 2 or 3 pre-designed plays to run. I suppose it’s possible that something occurring during the game would make you change your mind on what play to run, but I doubt it would significantly alter the that 30%.

So Coughlin calls timeout so he can have time to discuss what play to run. Of course, he was already going to get time during the challenge and probably for the 2 minute warning.

If the Giants don’t make the two point conversion, then they need to get the ball back so they can attempt a fieldgoal. Having 3 time outs would mean they’d have about 90 seconds (assuming Seattle goes 3 and out). With only 2 time outs, Seattle could run the ball three times, and have the chance to shave 45 seconds off the playclock once.

If the Giants do get the two point conversion, then they would still want the timeouts. If they were able to get the ball back, they could still use them to march down the field.

And that’s exactly what happened. With 25 seconds left, the Giants got to 3^rd and 1. They only had one time out left, so they let the clock run down and kicked (and missed) a fieldgoal. If they had that extra time out, they could have called it and attempted a first down. If they get it, they can spike it and throw on 2^nd down, or run one more play and then use your last time out. But, we never had that option. Coughlin’s wasted this time out and NOBODY seems to be making a big deal about it.

The seahawks, on the other hand, took a timeout in OT that gave the refs time to review the Shockey catch. It was a brilliant use of the time out.

Oprah: Daytime Talk’s Jihadi Sister

May 25, 2005
By Debbie Schlussel

My rebuttal in bold italics.

Ann Coulter says Katie Couric is “the affable Ava Braun” of daytime TV.

Remember when people like Ann Coulter were outraged by commercials that compared Bush to Hitler? In the very first sentence, you provide a very hypocritical quote. Couric is Hitler’s girlfriend. Yes, that is responsible journalism. Way to have me hooked, Debbie.

But Couric’s got nothing on Oprah Winfrey.

So she’s worse than Hitler’s girlfriend? Man, she must eat babies or something.

Oprah is the affable Joseph Goebbels of daytime talk . . . of chick magazines . . . of Oprah seminars—and every other medium in which the self-anointed high priestess of the religion of Oprah has her hands.

Ah, one Nazi reference isn’t enough, is it Debbie? Wouldn’t Coutler be proud of Oprah’s business success though? Isn’t this capitalism at its best? If you are against the Oprah empire, shall I assume you are against News Corp., G.E., Disney, and Viacom as well? Where is your outrage there? Or is it harder for your little mind to grasp a corporate conglomerate? Sure, it’s easier to demonize one black woman.

Through all of these, Oprah preaches “how to be your best self” and “live your best life.” Unfortunately, a predilection for radical Islam and excusing terrorists is a prominent element of Oprah’s “best self.”

What does one have to do with the other? As you say, Oprah is a “religion” with many different areas. Don’t you think it’s unfair to tie in her beliefs with living your best life and her beliefs regarding Islam? Living your best life is about personal reflection and self confidence. The issue of Islam is more political and religious. The topics are not related.

Cheating husbands don’t get off as easy as Islamic terrorists, murderers, and torturers in Winfrey’s world.

Show me the quote where she says that terrorists should be punished less severely than cheating husbands. Please.

Take “O” Magazine, Oprah’s monthly print version of self-conceit. Like every other month, the cover of the June issue of “O” features Oprah—for the gazillionth time. Unfortunately, also for the gazillionth time, the inside of the glossy mag features Oprah’s unique brand of understanding and empathy for terrorists and radical Islam.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The “O” on the front of the magazine stands for Oprah. She’s built up a name and audience for herself. The target audience of this magazine is people who have watched Oprah and respect her opinions. Who else would you want on the cover of such a magazine? So far, your anger seems to stem from a jealousy that she has a lot of areas of media that she’s conquering. “self-conceit”. Define that for me. What is the proper level of exposure a person is allowed in your world? George Bush gets a lot of coverage too. Is he conceited? Obviously, he has a more important job (when he’s not on vacation), but just because someone exists in the public limelight does not necessarily mean she’s conceited. You have a website with your name on the top. Maybe the pages aren’t as “glossy” as Oprah’s website, but it’s still attempting to get your voice out there.

Last month, Oprah’s “O” asked readers to understand “The Heart of a Destroyer,” Mohammed Atta. You remember him—the Al-Qaeda ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers who murdered 3,000 Americans.

There are two nouns in that title. I give you credit for spotting the first one, but did you see the second? I realize it’s three syllables, but sound it out. De-story-er. That’s a bad thing. Look it up.

But that’s not exactly the way “O”’s “reading room” wants you to remember him.

Yeah, because the word “destroyer” has nothing to do with 9/11 or the 3,000 deaths.

Beneath a picture of young Mohammed and his smiling sister on the Egyptian beach, “O” exhorts you to read a book that “sets out to understand the hearts and minds of the men behind the photos” of the 9/11 hijackers, a group of “lonely, exiled young men.”

Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the safety of our country to understand the motives of the terrorists? Perhaps if we better understood where they were coming from, we’d be able to prevent them from terrorizing (or destroying). What’s a better national policy? Hunting down terrorists after they do something, or creating an environment where they don’t grow up to be terrorists in the first place?

But the fatherless and motherless children who lost their parents to Atta—hey aren’t lonely, are they?

Why are the two things mutually exclusive? If I say that person A is lonely, that does not mean that person B isn’t lonely. This is probably the most basic of all “logical” theories. How can you not realize this? I suppose you would expect every sentence to expand to include every other possible outcome. “a group of lonely, exiled young men. And speaking of lonely people, here is a list of every lonely person who has ever existed. Also, please see appendix C for a list of all young people currently on planet earth. We wouldn’t want Debbie to think that, by calling the terrorists young, that we were somehow implying that there aren’t other young people out there.”

The book, “O” tells us, “is a simultaneously passionate, compassionate, and dispassionate book that [doesn’t] indict Islam.” Just what we need—the CEO of the Oprah Book Club urging America’s women to have compassion for Mohammed Atta. On the next Oprah, “Stupid Talk Show Hosts and the Terrorists Who Love Them.” (Or is that, “Brave Terrorists and the Stupid Talk Show Hosts Who Love Them”?)

First, just because a book is compassionate (while also being dispassionate) doesn’t mean that it’s urging the reader to have compassion. I imagine you live in a world where people are just born good or evil, and that their motives are very simple. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where social interactions are complex and help shape the lives of people who are exposed to them. I’m not saying “let’s let him off the hook, b/c he had a bad childhood.” Rather, I’d like to see the bigger picture of what made him a terrorist, but not his neighbor. Again, learning about the terrorists would aid in our security. But, I imagine you live in a world where saying “the devil made me do it” is still a viable defense.

Second, let’s take a look at the word “Brave”. The official definition of Brave is possessing or displaying courage. Courage is defined as: The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery. This man fearlessly faced danger with confidence. Is there any denying that? He gave up his life for something he believed in. He KNEW he was going to die. We say our soldiers are “brave” for going to war, but at least they have the chance of living. He knew he was going to die, and did it anyway. Regardless of whether or not you believe in his motives, I don’t understand how you can say that that isn’t brave. Please explain it to me.

I think Stedman’s starting to get jealous.

If Oprah was a man, would you mention his girlfriend in this retort? Or do you define a woman’s self worth by the man she’s with? This is a very sexist comment, but I’m no surprised since it comes from a very simplistic and prejudiced person.

To add insult to injury, the latest issue, “O”'s June 2005 edition, demands that we understand the pain and turmoil of Yusra Abdu, a teen-age Palestinian would-be homicide bomber, fiancée of Hani Akad, leader of Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group. Akad’s group, funded by Libya (one of “O” Mag’s “Five Places to See in Your Lifetime”), murdered 27 children and injured 134 when they attacked a Jewish school in Ma’a lot, Israel. Note the map of hate and swastika in the group’s May 22, 2005 Syrian-based newsletter.

Yusra Abdu is not Hani Akad. I would explain this further, as you clearly need assistance in understanding this concept, but I fear I may fall into a David Letterman “uma/oprah” pun. But, you demonize Abdu b/c of something Akad’s group did (and way to bring in Libya as well). I imagine that if did some research on this attack of the Jewish school that I would find it’s not as clear cut as you state. But, now I’m starting to see your motive. I bet you are one of those people who think that Isreal is 100% right and Palestine is 100% wrong. Maybe I’m wrong in this assessment, but I doubt it.

But in Oprah’s world, Muslims aren’t terrorists, and terrorists aren’t Muslim (more on that, below). Instead, “O” calls Akad “a charismatic and young rebel.” “O” describes the cold-blooded, hateful Abdu and Akad as “a Shakespearean tragedy.” Yes, in Oprah’s world, Islamic terrorists aren’t terrorists. They’re James Deans, Romeos, and Juliets.

Wait, I forget, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square, right? Do you disagree with the statement that not all Muslims are terrorists and/or not all terrorists are Muslim? Even someone like you must be able to comprehend that at least one Muslim isn’t a terrorist. So, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are implying that Oprah is saying that, if you are a terrorist, you can’t be Muslim. By that, I imagine Oprah is saying that to be a Muslim is to believe in god and the teaching of Islam. And since Islam finds such violence reprehensible, then you can’t “really” be a Muslim if you commit such acts. In other words, if you going around killing people in the name of god, you aren’t “really” a Christian. But, I still have this lingering doubt that you really think all Muslims are terrorists.

And it’s not their fault that they’re homicide bombers. Or Islam’s fault. “O” quotes Saudi-funded Islam apologist John Esposito blaming not Islam, but the desperate “context” of their lives. Reality: Most Palestinian homicide bombers, like the 9/11 hijackers, come from wealthy families, but they hate Jews, Christians, and Americans. That’s the “context.”

So if you disagree with Oprah’s statement that it’s not Islam’s fault, then I guess you believe that it IS Islam’s fault. That’s pretty impressive of you to damn an entire religion like that. Were the Crusades Christianity’s fault? Or did a group of people misinterpret the meaning of Christianity? And, since when do most homicide bombers come from rich families??? Please supply the data for that. Why do you get to define the “context” of someone’s life. Is being rich the only “context” you allow for. Are there two types of people in the world, rich and poor? That’s very American of you.

Incredibly, super-heroine Oprah calls this psychobabble-ish, understanding-the-world’s-Islamic-terrorists sob-story, “Rescuing the World’s Girls, Part Five.” And some people actually have the nerve to say Savioratrix Oprah is conceited.

I don’t understand this paragraph.

And what is Oprah’s solution? That’s easy. Donate to Oprah’s Angel Network, “which is awarding a grant to one or more programs that work to prevent Palestinian children from becoming suicide bombers. No thanks. Or donate to UNICEF, “which runs summer camps and trauma programs for Palestinian children.” No, actually, UNICEF helps UNRWA (both UN agencies) propagandize future Islamic terrorists from cradle to grave.

Can you supply the evidence that UNICEF helps propagandize future Islamic terrorists? Also, isn’t this against your theory of not needing the “context” of their lives. How do we know that UNICEF does this w/o first accepting the existence of such context. The very concept of “propaganda” suggests a complex interweaving of nature and nurture.

What about Israeli children’s trauma? How about donating to some Israeli children who are victims of Palestinian terror and need prosthetic limbs, even face implants—because half of their faces were blown off at the Dolfinarium Disco in Tel Aviv? Not a word about them in “O.” They simply don’t exist.

Again, you fail to grasp the most basic definition of logic. Oprah didn’t mention air or water in this article. Does that mean she doesn’t think they exist either? What color bracelet do you have on now? Yellow? Pink? Well, you better have all of them on, b/c if you don’t, then you don’t care about the other issues (or even think they exist). For the record, since our country has a higher population of Israeli people vs. Palestinian, there is already more support for Israeli charities. Perhaps Oprah singled out Palestinians because they are less covered and known about. But I guess you are only allowed to care about Israeli kids.

Oprah’s agenda isn’t new. Her unique understanding of Islamic terrorists is manifest in:

• A post-9/11 “Islam 101” show —a pandering presentation featuring Jordanian Queen Rania Al-Abdullah. Rania claimed she doesn’t have to wear a hijab head-covering and that honor-killings of raped women doesn’t really happen in her country. Of course it doesn’t, since “her country” is a swanky Fifth Avenue New York apartment in the US, where she mostly lives.

You draw a lot of conclusions about Jordan, their queen, and their politics from this segment. Actually, I can’t figure out what those conclusions are. What is your point?

• A September 2004 show, discussing the terrorist massacre of children in Beslan, Russia, on which Oprah banned the use of the word Islamic, saying the terrorists “came from the mountains.” (Okay, so they were Mountainese terrorists, not Islamic ones.) Oprah stated that the Beslan massacre was “a watershed because terrorists never before killed children.” Remember those murdered Jewish kids in Ma’alot (and throughout Israel) by the DFLP? I’m sure they’d disagree with the “Queen of Daytime Talk.” If they were still around.

Oh my god, you are such a horrible person b/c you forgot to mention the children that were killed in 9/11, or the hotel bombings, or any of the other numerous examples. Do these people not exist? Of course Oprah was incorrect in her statement that children were never killed before. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t care about those Jewish kids if she knew about them. Just as I imagine you would care about the children that were killed in other terrorists acts that you don’t mention.

• An episode on which a guest claimed Jews practice ritual sacrifices of babies. Oprah: “I want to make it clear that this is one Jewish person, so don’t go around now, saying to people, you know, ‘Those Jewish people, they’re worshipping . . . .’ This is the first time I heard of any Jewish people sacrificing babies, but anyway – so you witnessed the sacrifice?”

Again, what is your point? Is it anti-Semitic to say anything negative about a person who happens to be Jewish? Are you denying that this ritual takes place even on the fringes of radical Jews? There are some radical Islamics who commit acts of terrorism. And, according to this segment, there is one person who practices a radical form of Judiasm where children are sacrificed. I’m not far enough into your rant to realize that your focus is more on Judaism than Oprah’s support of terrorism. Look at how many times you’ve brought it up. What does Judaism have to do with anything? If you were trying to explain that some of the terrorists are motivated by the fact that we support Israel in their conflict with Palestine and the rest of the middle east, I would applaud you. But the beginning of your thesis was that Oprah was trying to humanize the terrorists. And then you spiral out of control in a lunacy base rant on how Oprah hates Jews. Please focus.

• Ignoring the mass-murder, rape, torture, and slavery of Black Christians by Sudan’s Arab Muslim government, despite repeatedly teasing a group of Colorado children (who bought some Black Christian slaves’ freedom) that they’d be on her show. She told them the issue was “too complicated.”

What have you done to bring the issue of Black Christian’s slavery to the forefront? Nothing. Clearly, Oprah has at least mentioned it (or else you wouldn’t be complaining about the lack of attention). I imagine that the issue IS too complicated for a 40 minute show. Especially when there are people as ignorant as you who can’t even handle examining the context of a terrorist’s life.

• Refusing President Bush’s invitation to serve our country by touring Afghani girls’ schools on his behalf. The normally vocal Oprah had “The View’s” Star Jones speak on her behalf, saying the Bush White House “used” her.

President Bush has also requested that people enlist in the Army and serve our country. Have you or your family enlisted? What are you waiting for? Have you gone over to Afgani schools to help? Then how can you criticize Oprah for not doing so? Do you really disagree with the concept of the white house trying to round up celebrities for good PR on the issues?

• Repeated fundraising for “Women to Women, International,” a Muslim women’s charity that claims it stops honor killings, but whose spokeswoman denies that honor killings have anything to do with Islam. Right.

I’m Christian. If I tried to get other Christians to stop killing abortion doctors, and said “listen, killing abortion doctors isn’t what Christianity is all about”, would you call me a hypocrite?

Over the past year, Oprah and her publicity team have pushed Oprah’s latest weight loss—to loud, gushy media acclaim. Oprah, girlfriend, if only you could have gained the weight of a conscience.

Oh, snap. You are sooo clever. Again, your sexism is apparent, as you take shots at her weight in an article that’s supposed to be about politics. I bet you really enjoyed twisting the idea of physical weight loss to the figurative weight of a conscience.

The next time we need someone to “Rescue the World’s Girls,” keep Oprah out of it.

And I’ll end with something equally on point. I don’t know you, but I hate you.

Before Duke destroyed SHU last week, there was a segment on the news previewing the game. They talked about how overmatched SHU was, but how they still had a shot. And as proof of this, they talked about their huge upset over the "powerhouse" Arizona (or was it Alabama? some school with an A) in the tournament. I didn't remember any huge upsets last year, so i turned my head to look at the tv. Sure enough, there were video highlights of the first round game... where the EIGHTH seeded pirates beat the NINTH seeded Wildcats (or whateve Alabama's team is).

This isn't a major upset. in fact, it's not an upset at all.

[I send several emails a day to companies/people...some positive, but mostly negative. Since nobody ever replies to me, i'm going to just paste them here as well, so at least it's not completely a waste.]


I realize that this email will probably never be read, and definitely wont be replied to, but I have to write it anyway...

I am curious as to whether Ms. Charlesworth is satisfied with her career choices; whether this is what she expected when she went to school to become a news reporter. I understand the concept of "news" no longer exists because companies only care about making money and selling ad space during their news slots. But, I really am curious as to whether the individual reporters have accepted this sad fact, or if they still cling to the hope of being respected in their profession. Michelle seems to get the least newsworthy topics to cover (and trust me, the bar is set shockingly low on your channel). Tonight she was going around the streets of new york talking about some products from "oprah's favorite things". Obviously, i understand why ABC would air this segment...they are trying to hold onto the viewers of the 4 pm oprah show. But, I wonder if a little part of Michelle dies when she has to "report" on this topic. I know a little part of me dies when i think about how doomed our country is. This is NOT news!

Thanks for not reading this,

********

Yesterday i was finally ready to try sushi. There were so many other weird things on the buffet line that I figured i should just shoot the moon. I remember putting the sushi on my plate (i was a little embarassed that i had to put it on the bed of normal rice. i'm not sure WHY that embarassed me, but it did). I remember seeing it on my plate while i ate the other food. Then, I must have gotten distracted or something, b/c when i was looked down, my plate was basically empty. I couldn't find the sushi anywhere.

26 years, and i had all this build up of what it was going to be like to eat sushi. And then i must have throw eaten it w/o even noticing.

This is why i should just stick with a bucket of gruel.

Honeynut Cheerios - the standard by which all other cereal should be judged. They are just the right amount of sweet. They are also universally identical. While i respect a cereal that has rasins or clusters, I also appreciate not having to worry about getting too much of one thing in any spoonful. They have the right density and surface area as well. When you get a spoonful, you know it's going to be hearty. I've been eating honeynut cheerios for most of my life, and I have no intention of ever stopping. If i had to guess, i'd say it's been around 33% of all the cereal i've ever eaten. My only complaint is that I often find myelf pressing them against the roof of my mouth and crushing them instead of chewing. This ultimately leads to a very cut up mouth. But, this is more my fault than cheerios.

Frosted Flakes - If Honeynut Cheerios are the meat and potatoes of the breakfast world, Frosted Flakes are the red bull and vodka. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, but afterwards you are disgusted with yourself. I used to be a big FF eater. The best thing about them is that they can be consumed with very little milk. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they are a "different" meal when you eat them with only a slight amount of milk. The downside of FF is that they become soggy by the end and the milk becomes way too sweet to drink.

Shredded wheat - The big ones w/o sugar....I just don't get. They are disgusting. I like the little ones that are coated in sugar, though. They are a good changeup; often i'll have a box of those open and sneak a bowl into the rotation as i'm going through the normal boxes.

Cocoa puffs - Highly overated. They are a poor man's version of.....

Cocoa Krispies - I haven't had these in awhile. I miss them. It's kind of odd that snap, crackle and pop don't endorse this cereal anymore. I wonder what happened. For awhile, they had a monkey as the spokesman. Now, the commercials focus on the fact that they turn the milk chocolately. That's been my little secret for years. Now that I think about it, I can't recall ever seeing rice krispie treats made from these. You'd think that would be a natural progression.

Special K Vanilla Almond - I had to walk over to the kitchen to get the name of this cereal. I'm a little disturbed by the cover of the box. I don't think i've ever noticed this before. These aren't ph balanced for a woman, are they? I think i'm going to have to take them out of the rotation.

Special K also makes one with rasberries. They are good, but a little intense. I usually mixe it with the Vanilla one when i have both. God, I hope i'm not admitting that a cereal that is ph balanced for a woman is too intense for me.

Honey bunches of Oats - The clusters are great, but actual flakes are very weak. They are too light or something. It feels like I'm taking the holy eucharist when i eat it.

Oatmeal Rasin Crisp - Growing up, i felt like this could have been hugely successful if marketed properly. I used to laugh at the "two scoops of rasins" commercial b/c ORC has a crazy amount of rasins. Seriously, it was out of control. They had mini clusters too to go with it. I remember intentionally eating around the rasins just so i could show people how many rasins were at the bottom of my bowl. I think this was the start of my obssession/cumpulsion when it came to saving the good stuff in cereal to the end. That's a run on sentence, but I'm not going to chance it b/c i know only 2 or 3 people read this blog. Seriously, I'm talking about cereal here...Why are you even reading this?

Other Cheerios - The ones with bananas and strawberries are good but intense (so i mix plain ones in). plain cheerios have no personality. the mixed ones are overated. The yogut covered ones are very overated.

what's the cereal that had the commercial "they're big. oh oh oh, they're not small. oh oh oh." or something like that? Andre the Giant was in a commercial where he scared kids in a tree house. I don't think i liked this cereal.

Cookie Crisp - overated. i kept trying to give them a chance, but couldn't get into them.

The oreos cereal - that was decent.

Applejacks - disgusting.

Wafflecrisp - tasted really good at the beginning, but I'd be tired of them by the first bowl. These were probably the biggest units of ceral ever. One "chunk" was the size of a dozen cheerios.

Cinnamon Toast Crunch - By the end of the box, you have diabietes. wow, did i just spell that correctly? maybe not, but that's close enough to look acceptable. my first attempt had a double e. let's just leave it at that.

Alphabits - I'm not sure if i ever had these.

Captain Crunch - I dont even know that these are. I can picture the mascot, but not the cereal.

Lucky Charms - I still remember the big marketing campaign of adding the purple horseshoe. Did those marshmellows have any flavor?

What's the cereal with the parrot? Tucan sam. what does he sell? Whatever they are, they can't be good. Is he involved with applejacks? God, i can't get over how bad they were.

Count Chocula and Frankenberry. Was there a third one with ghosts? I think so. I also think my cousins used to eat these. I'm not sure if each one of them had a favorite. I peg big z as being a frankenberry man.

Kix with berries - acceptable. but without berries, it was flavorless.

Grapenuts - As disgusting as they were (and my god were they bad!), if they didn't exist, i wouldn't be able to do my ONLY impression: stern doing seinfeld. "they're not grapes, they're not nuts.....what's the deal?"

That's about it for now. The only reason I wanted to write this was because I had a flashback of those old WWF icecream bars that had a cookie outside with the picture of wrestlers on them. That got me really nostolgic for a second, and it made me think of cereals i ate as a kid.

Mcnabb aparently said "either you are with me or against me" at a team meeting. In other words, he really wants that apology from TO. Is this the sign of a professional? If he really cares about the team, shouldn't he be willing to make the huge sacrafice of not getting an apology (especially when it's forced?). Mcnabb is being selfish and hurtign the team. I'm rooting for Owens in this one.

4th quarter, jets are down by 15. They score a touchdown to make it a 9 point game. Clearly, they should go for two points now. If they make it, they are only a td/pat down. If they don't get it, they are down by 9, and need two scores, but at least they have 12 minutes to do it. If they go for 1 point, and make it, they are still down 8. That means that should they score again, they'll HAVE to go for 2. If they don't get it, they'll need another score.

The main difference is that they'll "know" if they have to go for two scores much earlier in the game. Thus, they'll be able to adjust their strategy accordingly. It's so obvious that the right choice is to go for it first. The only reason they don't, is that the coach will be 2nd guessed if they fail earlier. B/c, for people who don't think it out, they'll think that doing it at that time is a "choice", but if you wait until the very last minute, you "have" to do it.

poor logic.

Of course, San diego blew it by deciding to kick a fieldgoal from the 1 foot line. Yes, an 11 point lead is "two scores" and thus much safer than an 8 point league. But, between these two scenerios, which is more likely?

LT can't gain a foot on 4th and goal. The Jets, with their injured offense, then march down the field for 99 yards. They then convert the two point conversion. Then, the chargers dont' score on their next possession (this is about all that can happen in the time left).

or.

Chargers kick the fieldgoal (and make it) and go up by 11. They then have to kick off. A good kickoff return leads to great fieldgoal position. Jets score quickly (either TD+2 or FG) and then stop the chargers. Then, they'd have time to score another TD or FG.


Clearly, the latter is more likely. That's why the chargers should have just gone for the TD. If they get it, they are up by two tds and 1 two point conversion. If they don't get it, the Jets are still at a huge disadvantage by being on their own one foot line.

It’s been about two years by now, but the argument I got in with the Toxic Tort prof. This guy was the leading attorney in the field. Since he represented big companies, I can only imagine he was pure evil. The fact that he couldn’t understand basic statistics is just mind boggling.

It all started when he made us participate in an exercise where we had to guestimate certain measurements. For all the questions, we had to give a range where we thought we were 95 percent sure the measurement would fall in. Example: How long is the Nile river in miles? We were supposed to give the low and high end of our interval. Another question was write the year in which Ghangis Khan pillaged and plundered (or whatever he did).

He thought he was so witty when our answers were “wrong”. He claimed this was a human condition where we intentionally create smaller intervals and we overestimate our ability to narrow. I raised my hand (a rarity in lawschool, but particularly in that boring class), and tried to explain that what he was asking for was an impossible task.

I told him that I had no frame of reference in terms of the length of the nile river and thus I couldn’t form any type of confidence interval. He made some jokes at my expense where he mistook knowledge for intelligence. I don’t think I lack intelligence just because I have no concept of distance. This went back and forth for a couple of minutes. He got me to admit that I knew the Nile river was probably longer than 5 miles and probably shorter than a billion miles. He thought he had won.

What he refused to grasp is that a 95% confidence interval is actually very specific. It means that you expect to be right 95% of the time and wrong 5% of the time. That means that if I answered 100 of his questions, I should get 95 of them right. But these questions were impossible. I could come up with an interval that was 100% accurate by picking absurd book ends or I could guess numbers that I THINK are reasonable. But, my knowledge is so limited that it’s very easy that I could be wrong.

But this professor saw 95% and thought “dang jethro, that’s a big number. It’s gotta be easy to make an interval like that”. But he’s WRONG. A 95% interval is no more or less specific than a 50% interval. Or a 99% interval. Confidence intervals are based on 2 things. The mean and the standard deviation. My mean was just a guess. Based on essentially nothing. And the standard deviation was equally random.

I can’t remember how you specifically calculate a confidence interval, but it goes something like this. Say I’m measuring the length a lightbulb lasts. I have a sample of 100 out of the 1000 that were manufactured. I measure the length of each one of those 100. I find out that the mean length is 10 hours (these are the ones that Gino installed in our apartment). I also notice that each lightbulb lasts either exactly 9 hours or exactly 11 hours. I would take the mean and the average standard deviation (which is 1 b/c each one is 1 off from the mean of 10), and then plug it into an equation that involves the formula for the normal curve. The 95% interval could be something like [9.5-10.5] while the 99% interval could be [9-10]. You could say that, with this data, there is only a 1 percent chance that the actual mean length of the lightbulb is either less than 9 hours, or greater than 10. If I had less lightbulbs to measure (35 instead of a 100), and the average standard deviations were higher (ligtbulbs had individual measurements of 2 hours, 40 hours, 10 minutes, etc), then the confidence interval would expand considerably. It’s logical. If you are getting data all over the place, you gotta step back and think “hmm, I’m not that confident that we really know anything about these lightbulbs. We could just be getting unlucky”

He was confusing “confidence intervals” with gut feelings. If asked me to pick an interval that I was “pretty sure” was right, MAYBE I could (I probably still couldn’t). I’d be frustrated that it was still a guess based on essentially no knowledge, but I could live with it. But, he was bastardizing the use of a stat. He doesn’t have the right to define what a confidence interval is. That’s a stat term. If he’s going to use it, he better use it right. Especially when he’s used confidence intervals in courtrooms on cases worth millions and millions of dollars. He wasn’t telling a jury that he was “pretty sure” that he was right. He was saying he was statistically certain of something.

I wish I had the argument on tape. Because he was so condescending, b/c he’s old and successful and I’m just a punk kid with a baseball cap and shorts. But, that didn’t make him right. And of course, his little lapdog student had to come to his rescue. He used one of the props (a clock like wheel that had an ever expanding red “wedge” that covered more and more of the clock). He said that if he picked a number on the back, and then started making the wedge, I’d know when I was 95% sure that the wedge covered the mystery number.

Yeah, no kidding. Anyone who has seen the price is right knows that. But, in THAT example, there is a limited number of solutions. Say there were 100 numbers. I’d have to cover 95 of them. If we did this experiment thousands of times, I should get it right about 95% of the time.

BUT, with the Nile example, the possible solutions were essentially infinite. I hope that he was just so blown away by my lack of intelligence (well, it was actually a lack of knowledge) that he couldn’t grasp this inability. Because otherwise, it means that he really didn’t know what a confidence interval was. And that’s scary. If he changed the assignment to a 50% interval, I guarantee you that the majority of people would still get the exact number wrong. This wasn’t a situation of “well, I remember aunt sue telling me that the nile was 700 miles long, but I’m going to say 500-1000 just to be safe.” I have NO CLUE how long the nile is. I don’t even know if it goes through countries other than Egypt. I think it does. But, I have no idea what the length of Egypt is. Heck, I don’t even know how wide our country is. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably an 8 hour flight, and planes go about 200 miles, so it’s probably 1600 miles. Would I say that with any confidence? NO.

This old man still makes my blood boil. People claim that I “have to be right”. That’s not true. Rather, when I’m right, I have to win. That’s a big difference. I KNOW he’s wrong. But he “won”. I don’t even care what the other people in the class think. I care what HE thinks. It kills me that he walked away from that conversation thinking that I didn’t know what I was talking about.

I’m 95% certain that I hate him for it.

One of the paragraphs in this article actually disproves the rest of the article. It blows my mind that this article can exist. Basically it comes down to this:

X exists.

Here's all the interesting details of X.

btw, X doesn't really exist.

X exists.

What a relief to hear that a hitter's sudden power surge is related not to performance-enhancing drugs, but the knob on the end of his bat.

White Sox left fielder Scott Podsednik has stopped using a bat with a shaved-down knob, and the difference in his performance is rather noticeable.

Podsednik hit no home runs and only one triple in 507 regular-season at-bats, yet he now has two homers and two triples in 38 at-bats in the postseason.

Must be the knob.

"All year, Scotty has been cutting the end of the knob on his bat — I think it had something to do with his hand hurting," White Sox right fielder Jermaine Dye said. "A lot of guys were telling him that you lose the balance in the bat by doing that. One day, taking batting practice, he started swinging a normal bat and started hitting balls out of the park."

Podsednik's postseason surge actually began before he changed bats, which he said occurred just before the start of the Series.

"I don't know if it has anything to do with the knob," Podsednik said. "I'm pretty crazy, so to speak, a little superstitious. I'm using something different up there just about every week."

Podsednik added, "I'm a feel guy. Sometimes I like swinging a bat with a knob. Sometimes I don't. Tonight it just so happened that the bat had a knob on it. I don't know if it had anything to do with the result or not." — Ken Rosenthal

Wow. Just wow. After a middle reliever gave up a grandslam to Konerko (the whitesox best hitter) with two outs in the bottom of the 7th, i sat there stunned. It's so painfully obvious that you bring in your ace reliever there. The game is going to be won or lost in this at bat. I was blown away that someone who has spent their entire life in baseball wouldn't think about this logically. Lidge is the ONLY choice. Buck and McCarver, an inning later, start to hint that maybe lidge should have been brought in. Of course, they use the typical "outfoxed" technique of saying "some may say" that you should bring lidge in. Buck responds with "but his answer would be that the 7th inning is just too early to bring in your closer. Yes, he's going to go 2 innings tonight, but the 7th is just too early". They almost got it. But of course they were 100% wrong.

And, does anyone else notice that this thing that tracks the pitch is way off? On bagwell's hit, it was clear that he reached outside to hit it. But the little graphic showed it as inside. I started keeping track, and it's very obvious that they are registering pitches as way more inside than they actually are. Why isn't there someone sitting in a booth somewhere franctically calling I/T saying "oh man, we need to fix this, this is so embarassing". How can they show off this new technology (which is just espn's k zone) and have it consistently wrong. Am i the only one noticing this?

I had to stop after 3 questions. His answers were decently funny, but I feel very uncomfortable. It's so awkward to watch college kids try so desperately to be funny and witty when they ask him a question. No matter how cool they think they're going to be, when their voices start to shake, i want to hide under my covers. And then there are the ones who aren't nervous at all. They make me feel uncomfortable b/c they aren't nearly as funny as they think they are.

But, I have to go back and watch b/c Kevin Smith has the worst sweating problem i've ever seen. In question 1, i couldn't understand why the back of his head was so wet. Then, as he continued to talk, i noticed his neck was really shiny. By the end, and i'm not exagerating, drops of sweat* were actually flying off his head when he turned.

*this used to read "drop of sweater". normally, i don't correct my spelling/grammar mistakes, but that was shockingly bad.

Is the Houston contract the worst of all time? I feel like it has all the makings of it.

1) Huge dollar amount and length
2) Player was old and declining
3) player was overated (b/c defense is harder to measure)
4) was in a league with a salary cap (thus, it makes it "worse" than a baseball contract b/c in baesball, even crippling contracts aren't impossible to work around)
5) wound up hurting a team that was consistently good and had aspirations of being championship caliber
6) there was a viable alternative to the position (moving spree back to SG)
7) no other team would have come close to offering a contract close to that one.
8) every single team / media mocked the contract immediately. There wasn't one justification for it. It was hated from the very beginning
9) Not only was it blasted at the beginning, but it turned out WORSE than expected.
10) he wasn't even marketable as a player. too uncle tomish / religous.
11) there were a lot of great free agents coming up in the future that the knicks had to pass on.

#7 is what really gets me. Teams always overpay for vetrans, so that's to be expected. But i've never seen a home team overpay for their own player like this; they LITTERALLY were bidding against themselves. Allan was a loyal guy. I think they very easily could have said "see what you can get on the market and then come back to us, we'll match it". Or, if you wanted to be lazy, you realize that he was about the 5th best SG at the time, so you pay him less than what Kobe, Ray Allen, etc are getting.

The Houston contract upsets me on two levels. First and foremost, it destroyed the Knicks team. But, I also regret having to turn on Houston. As much as i liked him, i just couldn't get past his contract. I used to have so much fun watching. His jumpshot was so pure, and like i've said before, the three-point attempt is the most exciting play in all of sports (you have just the right amount of anticipation between -- set up ---> shot attempt ----> hang in the air ----> make)

What competition does this contract have? albert belle, mo vaughn, shawn kemp? not even close.

I made that mistake last night. Litterally, as i was turning the TV off, they were playing "fact or fiction"

question: Neither team will score five or more runs in any game this series.

Phillips: Fact. The pitching is just too good. Runs will be very very hard to come by.

me: isn't the average runs per game around 4.5? So, with 2 games in the DH'd AL, and 2 games at minute maid park, that's 8 offensive games (at a minimum). What are the chances that all 8 of those perform under average? I will guarantee that one team scores 5 or more runs. Unless they play super small ball. which leads to question #2

question: There will be more sacrafice bunts than home runs.

me: i don't know the numbers of sac bunts. I imagine it's pretty high in NL games. So, i could alsmost see this going as a fact.

phillips: Oh, that's DEFINITELY a fact. In fact, i would bet that there will be more squeeze bunts than home runs.

me again: that's just shocking. How many times is a squeeze even possible? Phillips is out of control.

Besides the serious plot holes and clichéd predictability of the first season of 24, something else really stuck me; every single female character was portrayed in a poor light. I don’t understand how this kind of sexism can exist in such a popular show. Do people choose to not think about things? That must be a nice existence. I, unfortunately, couldn’t trick myself into ignoring the problem. So, here’s a list of every female character. The order will make sense to only me: I’m going to try and do it chronologically (which I’m sure I’ll butcher), but I’ll save the big ones until the end.

• The first minor woman we come across is the terrorist who blows up the plane and steals the ID of the photographer. I found it degrading to women that she was forced to use sex to accomplish her goal of getting the pass. It’s an underlying theme that women are sex objects and that they have to sleep their way to the top. What if the photographer had also been a woman? Would this person have failed in her mission? Or, heaven forbid, what if the terrorist wasn’t attractive? It would have been better if the woman could have actually used her intelligence to pull off the job, but instead, all she could use was her looks. Oh yeah, as a 2^nd point, she did blow up a plane full of innocent people.
• Her girlfriend then blows the deal getting greedy and asking for more money from the guy who organized the deal. She had no idea what she was doing, and her haste and greed ultimately got her killed. If she hadn’t been so nagging and selfish, she might have lived through it.
• Janet (kim’s friend): She’s very helpless and borderline worthless. Her promiscuity and poor judgment is what starts the change of events for Kim. She was continuously drunk/high.
• The woman who was Palmer’s aid and unknowingly dated the would be assassin. This was probably the most overtly sexist character in the entire season. When she realizes that the person she has been seeing is the assassin, she comes forward. When she explains that she doesn’t really know him too well, the men imply that she is a slut. She has to defend herself by explaining that the road is lonely. I wonder if a guy in the same position would have to make the same defense. Anyway, when she’s attempting to place the bug in his wallet, he tells her he loves her. She then diverts from the plan and decides to try and kill him. See, women are so irrational and love-crazed that they can’t be trusted to get the job done. This woman will go away for attempted murder because she needed to be loved so desperately.
• The first mole. I can’t remember her name but I’m going to guess that it’s “Mandy”. First of all, I unfortunately realized she was a mole from the beginning because she was unattractive. It’s easier to dislike someone who is ugly, and besides, no TV show would cast someone that unattractive to be a heroine. And of course, when we find out she’s a mole, we learn that she needed the money because her husband left her and she has a son to raise. Could this be anymore clichéd? The ultimate indignation is that her services were estimated to be worth 1 to 2 million, but she was only getting 300,000. So, she not only prostituted herself, but she didn’t even get market value.
• The news-reporter who first discovers the story of Palmer’s son and the alleged murder - She loses all her journalistic integrity and ambition when she’s threatened by those in power. Neither Palmer or his son back down, but she does. I guess women aren’t strong enough to handle the stress.
• The black woman who was temporarily in charge while Jack was MIA. She was the stereotypical “black bitch”. The way she glared at her coworkers, the way they glared back, all fed on this stereotype. She doesn’t know how to relate to her coworkers and instead just barks orders at them. She apparently also had personal problems with Mia from their previous job. Ca-ca-ca cat fight. So typical.
• Palmer’s speechwriter – She risks (and loses) her entire professional career to try and sleep with her boss. And the worst part is that she is provoked into doing this by another woman. It’s sad and tragic how this otherwise intelligent and strong woman completely and utterly sells out. But I guess women have no self control.
• Palmer’s daughter – this show even has to bash rape victims. During a dinner conversation between her family members, she crumbles into a ball and starts shaking violently. Instead of allowing her to portray a victim realistically, they turned her into mush. And, I’m not even sure if you can even relate it to the rape…her reaction was more directly the result of the family fighting over later, indirect, consequences of it (7 years later).
• Rick’s girlfriend – She hates Kim before she even knows her. Why? Because Kim is a woman and all women are competition. She unfairly assumes that Kim is after Rick, and tries to destroy her (by lying to the cops). They get into a catty fight while in the holding cell, and only comes around after Kim saves her. Women hate other women apparently.
• The woman that Dennis Hopper’s character shoots. She was the daughter of his friend. She was very “old world”ish in that she prepared the meal, served the men, and was generally viewed as disposable. Dennis Hopper kills her just so Jack doesn’t have a viable option as a hostage.
• Ok, unless I’m missing someone, all we have left are: Kim, Teri, Mrs. Palmer, and Mia. I’ll get to them tomorrow. Needless to say, the only one of them who has even a sliver of a redeeming quality is Kim….and that’s a stretch.

after the pregame, they always cut to the announcers so they can give their opening take on the game. these are thought out monologues. brenelly just went on and on about how this is a must win game for Cardinals.

[they are down three games to one].

kind of sums up how stupid our country is....

"The fine is somewhat surprising, considering last week, the league slapped Chargers cornerback Drayton Florence with only a $15,000 fine when he threw a forearm shiver into the ribs of an official out of frustration at a call — an action that the league viewed as intentional.

Barber doubled Florence's fine, yet his actions were largely viewed as unintentional. The difference, however, was that Barber's shot dropped the ref and appeared much worse to the viewer."

During the USC v. ND game, the announcers made a big deal about this one player (i think #5) averaging over 10 yards every time he touches the ball. Pretty amazing right? I had a good feeling I knew how he did it though.

He's the friggin kickoff returner too. Don't kickoff returns tend to average 20 yards or so per play? Unbelievable that they could combine all his plays and call them "touches". Not all touches are created equal. Michael Jackson's friends can tell you that (ba-zing!)

I imagine the original motive behind a PAT was to make a TD worth slightly more than double a fieldgoal. Makes sense. But, there has to be a better way. They are, without a doubt, the most anticlimatic thing in all of sports. Just force teams to go for 2. That would make the game much more exciting.

Remember that tourny to determine the worst espn broadcaster? well, it finally ended. Here is the bracket:

http://www.bravesbeat.com/bravesjournal/bristol/archives/Bristol.pdf