just thought you'd like to know

My girlfriend and I broke up tonight. Her call, but I can't say I really had much to disagree with. Its nice, but its been going nowhere fast. And she's been a little testy with me lately, and didn't want it to get worse, which is certainly a good idea. I was feeling about the same way, but I guess I was just hoping to get some of the nice times back again. I felt like we weren't getting to be together much lately, and I missed that. My one regret is that we weren't really able to get back there before calling it quits. There was one night a couple weeks that was just really nice.

But, ultimately, all it ever got was nice. Its sad, because its not like it was anything bad or really difficult. But it was just nice. Its a weird feeling. I mean, a lot of me is really sad, but also releaved that she said it and I didn't have to. It just confused me. Its not easy to break up with someone just because its only nice. But, better to break up now before we get to a point where we resent each other.

So, here I am. Single again, and again worried. Took a quick glance at online personals and was quickly depressed at the "full figured but working on it" posts. Finding someone who is into fat acceptance isn't easy. I really loathe the BBW Dance scene. They've gotten so that you've got many more women focused on weight loss than not, and that's just depressing. Not to mention the fact that I tend to be shy when I meet people, and don't really have a circle of friends in Boston to go to a BBW dance with. Even there, I can't feel like a woman is going to really want to be with an FA.

But its a little early to get fatalistic, I imagine. Oh well.

future of a blog

So, I think I mentioned a while back that I've pondering the future of this blog. My posting has dwindled a lot lately, for a variety of reasons. Just busy for one. Also, I'm frankly not interested in posting somewhere where I'm just going to get harrassed by some troll who got here from some fat hate site. Like, say, NAAFA. Primarily, though, I'm concerned about pleasing my audience. I know somethings interest people more than others. Lately, I've been very interested in politics and have posted about it a lot, but a lot less than I wanted. Sometimes, I want to post about baseball or the football playoffs, but I know you guys don't care about that. This also keeps me from promoting this site. I have a link at the fat related sites I post, but not other ones, because I'm too concerned about the inconsistant focus. I mean, I'd like readers, but I know I'll just turn off a sports fan with a lengthy post about John Edwards. And as to political sites I visit, are they necessarily going to give a damn about non-political fat issues as an introduction?

So, what do I do? Decide to focus on one subject? That'd make sense, but I've never been good at concentrating on one goal. I always want them all. So, I'm thinking I might just start several new blogs to post on my interested subjects. I figure I'd have 4. One for fat issues, one for politics, one for sports, and one for pop-cult stuff. I'm thinking about keeping this blog as a kind of clearinghouse for all posts, and obviously some stuff would be cross posted. My pimping for Romeo Void's appearance on Bands Reunited is both fat related and pop-cult focused, for instance. I'm thinking this might actually get me posting more, because I'll be less concerned about turning off my audience and could actually bother to, you know, GET an audience beyond a couple friends.

Just a thought for now. Actually, that was my original idea for a site before I started my blog. I wanted a site to post my writing with defined sections for various topics. Of course, I'm the king of unfufilled projects. Already setting myself up for one as I've started writing a graphic novel I know I'll probably do nothing with, even though I've already bothered to come up with a three-year story arc. Mid-to-late 20's angst, I guess. You know, the feeling that I want to persue all my hopes and dreams, and the nagging feeling that I dropped the ball by not doing more to persue them when I was 20. All sorts of missed opportunites due to spreading myself to thin. (which, of course, is what I'm proposing now, but lets not confuse this discussion with logic) Wishing I was more dedicated to singing or acting in high school. Contradicting that wish by wishing I was quicker to give up on performing and concentrating on developing myself as a writing. Wishing I was Communications major in college. Wishing I bothered to learn how to really draw instead of learning how to do some really good sketches but missing some key skills. Wishing I tried to developing my comic side so I could have been a comedy writer. Wishing I knew how I could start persuing any of this now. Wishing I knew what I want to do with my life. Lots of wishing.

I'm actually optimistic about that graphic novel, but I always get like that and never follow through. But, maybe I'm wrong. I've got this weird thing where I'm a pessimistic optimist. Ah, well.

bubbles up one's whoopsie daisy

That damn roaming gnome commercial is addictive. Every time I hear about how things have gone "doddy bonkers", I get hypnotised. Must listen to the droll British guy. Must learn about whoopsie daisies. Must travel with Travelocity.

missing the movies

Hey, remember when I used to post silly little pop cult things and people actually read this blog? Lets try that again...

I haven't been to the movies for a couple months. My girlfriend hurt herself when moving into her new house and has been slow to recover. A consequence is that she can't really sit for very long so movies have been out of the question. So, I'm getting a bit pent up with movies I want to see, so I figured I'd give my thoughts about 4 movies I haven't seen but want to.

Return of the King
In spite of my geek tendancies, the Lord of the Rings triology was one bit of geekiness I never got into. (Never played D&D, either; I guess the whole fantasy geek thing missed me) So, I've been encountering the movies as a first-timer. I must say, I'm impressed. The movies have been really engaging and exciting. I actually skipped the first one in the theaters because I was fairly disinterested, but when I saw it on DVD, I was looking forward to the second film. Since then, I've been eager for the finale. Obviously, it'll be in the theaters for a while more since its the Oscar front-runner, but it'll still be the first film I want to see.

Big Fish
I'm a fairly big Tim Burton fan, so I'm also eager for this movie. It looks great and I've heard plenty of good things. Ewan McGreggor and Albert Finney are both always good, so that's a plus. And it looks like Burton's film that finally gets him some attention. (Which really should have been Ed Wood) Anyway, it has all the elements of a movie I'll enjoy, so its a strong #2 on my list of films to see.

Win a Date with Tad Hamilton
Here is one I'm not so sure about, so I'm wondering if anyone's seen it. I'm a big fan of Topher Grace. It seems like a sweet little romantic comedy with a mildly antiquated concept. I'll probably end up just renting it, because it doesn't have a real must-see vibe to it, but if I hear really good things I might change my mind.

The Butterfly Effect
Yes, Ashton Kutchner's movie. I know, I know. But maybe he is a decent actor who just hasn't gotten a good part to show it. The concept is very interesting to the geek in me. Time Travel is a cool concept, and the idea of a time travel movie where all time travel ever does is seriously screw everything up. It does, aparently, have a plot line which I know will really freak me out as it deals with one my admittedly irrational but overwhelming fears, but it also has Ethan Suplee, who's always cool. (I actually just got an action figure of Suplee for his character from Mallrats) He's a great actor (and supposedly a very cool guy, too) but he's never really gotten his due. It's almost surreal that they are mentioning him by name in the commercials.

So, that's it for now. Just laying low this weekend. Turned 26 on Friday. Whee. Hope all is well out there in cyberspace.

my nomination endorsement

Okay, I have decided to make an endorsement in the Democratic Nominations for President.

Yeah, I know you don't care, but I'm doing it anyway.

I've been going back and forth between Kerry and Edwards for a while. I do respect Kerry, but some of his campaigning has annoyed me. Although I voluneteer and raised money for his senate campaign in 1996, I was having a hard time pulling the trigger on supporting him. Especially since I kept getting nagged by John Edwards.

I've liked him for a while. I like his story. I like ideas. I like his positivity and his optimism. He basically had me sold with his great Two Americas commercials, but I still worried that no one else would pick up on Edwards and I'd just be supporting a lost cause. Back in 1992 (when I was all of 14 and WAY too interested in the election), my candidates kept dropping out. It got very discouraging. First I liked Bob Kerry. Then Tsongus. Then Brown. I even flirted with Perot, briefly, before coming to my senses. Just didn't want to get my hopes on Edwards. I was actually resigning myself to nominee Dean. Then Iowa happened.

Suddenly, both of my guys were highly viable. It seemed Edwards was really communicating well. Basically, I knew it wasn't just me. So, I thought about it for a couple days, and I've decided I'm going to throw in and do what I can to support Edwards. Being a hopeless in debt (college loans, not credit cards, thank goodness) 20-something who works for a non-profit, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to give much to his campaign. I want to wait and give to the general election, since I think I'll only be able to make a small donation. But, I'm going to volunteer to do what I can. He's a good candidate, and I'd really like to see him win. So, here I am. Endorsing John Edwards.

I promise to try to stop talking about politics. But before I do, read this. It's beyond disgusting, but something we need to raise hell about. My newspaper actually broke the story, but if its not in your paper tomorrow morning in a big way, let them know that you are upset they are ignoring such an important story. And remember how much we heard about non-stories like Whitewater and Travel-gate. Here is a honest to God Watergate redux, complete with Republican underlings stealing Democrat's files. This should be a no-brainer for the press. We need to know what happened here, and people who broke the law need to be brought to answer for their crimes.

seeing no evil

Big ups to Al Franken for pointing this line out from the SOTU from W. Like I said, I don't need to be lied to on my Tuesday Night. How Bush can say this with a straight face is just beyond me. They have no conception of criticism. They act like it doesn't exist. They act like the consequences of their actions are non-existant. It's just mind blowing. Anyway, here is what W. said...

"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America."

From the Washington Post on Monday. MONDAY! As in the day BEFORE the SOTU.

Arms Issue Seen as Hurting U.S. Credibility Abroad

a temporary thing

I want to again plug the Romeo Void episode of Bands Reunited on VH1. It was just a great episode which handed everything so well. It delt with Debora's size in an honest and respectful manner that was just so great to see. It was a lot of fun to watch and I just wish we got more concert video. I suggested to some others that if the series is a hit, VH1 might run the concerts. Wishful thinking, I know. Maybe a DVD release, though.

More than my personal interest in this episode, I'm really liking what I've seen from the series. It could have been a real kitsch fest, but it genuinely isn't. It's part Behind the Music, part Where are They Know, and part Reunion Tour. For all of the gimmick of the show's set-up, it works because the host is so sincere and genuine. This isn't meant to be some off-shoot of "I Love the 80's". It comes off as a real reflection upon the great bands of the 80's and a study in personalities of those involved. Honest, but positive, and giving a full appraisal of all of the band members. The two episodes so far have actually focused more on the non-lead singers, which is a real kick to see. They really respect the idea of the band and the episodes also serve to educate people about why bands are more than their front men/women. I'm already hooked on the first two episodes, and highly recommend it. I'm mildly concerned about what happens when the Reunion doesn't work. It has to come up at some point. That's got to be pay-off of the series. It can't all be positive. I wonder how that will effect the genuine spirit of the show. But I'm cautiously optimistic. Its just so much fun and a really neat show for the pop-cult network, VH1.

state of the (insert pun here)

One quick comment about the SOTU from W. (which I didn't watch; I don't need to sit around and be lied to on my Tuesday nights)

Remember all of those scary WMD's Bush loudly proclaimed last year? Think he'd just avoid the issue this year? Pretend it didn't happen? Of course not. Because W. exists in a universe where he can do no wrong and reality will bend to his every word. So he actually BRAGGED about what they found. You know, the NOTHING they found. He bragged about it. Didn't call it nothing, of course. What did he boast about finding in Iraq?

Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

I guess after their over-predictions of last year, now they'll just qualify the hell out of everything and pretend it means something. Because we found ourselves some weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Well, no. WMD programs? Not that either. WMD activities? Nope. But we did get us some weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Like this.

Yep. And that, of course, was Blatent lying-related program activities.

not so inevitable anymore

So, the Democratic Nomination has just become a race. Count me as a little surprised. I'd spent the last few weeks coming to terms with Howard Dean as my candidate, and now my two favored candidates have turned up the heat.

Its looking like John Kerry will win Iowa. Not only that, but he's going to win with 15% more support than he was polling. This is huge for a campaign which was looking dead in the water, like, a week ago. What's more, the second place finish is going to John Edwards, who came from even further back and also had 15% more support than he was polling. (In fairness, though, the caucus system is not a primary, so polling is not an accurate way to measure predicted results). I'm really stunned at how this turned out. Word is, Edwards did a media blitz in Iowa and really changed a lot of minds. Kerry has always been in a strong position, and the buzz has it that some good ads articulating his position on keep middle class tax cuts while rollbacking cuts on the wealthy positioned him well to capitalize on Dean's fade. He's actually found a very effective way to be a Democratic anti-tax candidate. I'm amazed by its simplicity and obviousness. The points have been made before, sure, but never so forthrightly and emphatically. The message could destroy the Republican anti-tax advantage, too, since it exposes their weakness by focusing on corporate loopholes. As he said in his acceptance speech tonight, the tax code has added tens of thousands of pages in loopholes, but you can bet the average American doesn't have a page for them.

Dean not only didn't win and didn't finish second, but he wasn't even a close third. That's got to scare him. Even more disappointing, though, was Dick Gephardt. Not long ago, he was thought to be the only person who could keep Dean down in Iowa. Even then, a Gephardt victory wouldn't have meant much since he put all his chips into winning Iowa and wasn't fooling anyway into thinking he was a viable candidate. He's now a VERY distant fourth and strongly considering dropping out of the race. Actually, before I even finished this, Gephardt HAS dropped out.

Graham and Mosley-Braun called it quits before votes were cast (not counting the pretend primary in Washington, DC). Kucinich and Sharpton won't survive New Hampshire, in all likelyhood. Lieberman will probably quit then, too. Which means we'll have a much more compact 5 person race

If not 4. Kerry's strong showing is a major blow to Wes Clark's campaign. His strong polling in New Hampshire could disappear. If he falls back to single digits, he could easily drop out, too.

But what about after New Hampshire? The Super Seven primaries come on February 3. Lieberman and Sharpton might survive NH, but this will be their final test. The primaries in South Carolina, Arizona, North Dakota, Missouri, Delaware, New Mexico, and Oklahoma could be the biggest thinning out period for the field. Dean still has a big lead in organization and money, so it will take a major blow in New Hampshire to really shake him leading into the Super Seven. Indeed, because he's lead NH for so long, he doesn't need to win it so much, anymore. Just look at W. in 2000. He was beaten badly in NH, but shrugged it off by destroying McCain in South Carolina. At least check, here is how those states are going...

Delaware (15 delagates) Dean has a strong lead in the last poll, with Clark polling strong and Sharpton running third. Kerry and Edwards are pretty far back, and unlikely to pull ahead. Lieberman is putting a lot into Delaware, something Steve Forbes did in 2000. It might win him the primary, but it'll be a hollow victory that will just delay the inevitable.

Missouri (74) Gephardt, obviously, has a huge lead here, so this race will change dramatically. Given Kerry's big lead in Iowa, he'd have to be an early favorite now.

SC (45) With Edwards big bounce, he should do well here. Dean had been gaining steam, but should be vulnerable now. Sharpton and Clark are also polling well, here, though, so it's anyone's race. If Edwards doesn't win, though, his campaign may be over.

AZ (55) Clark is polling strong here, already, so he can probably really take advantage of Dean. Kerry is so far back that he'll need a big win in New Hampshire to gain much ground here.

NM (26) Dean and Clark are out ahead, but not by much. Kerry or Edwards or even Lieberman could easily make a strong run here.

OK (40) Dean and Clark are way out ahead, but with plenty of undecideds. Given it's demographics, Edwards should be well poised to jump.

ND (14) I can't find any info for North Dakota. I'll take a wild guess, though. Dean is leading and Clark is coming on strong.

So, this is all to say, it's still very much a race and Dean is not the candidate of destiny he once was. Is this good or bad for Dems? Common line is bad, since more money will be spent in primaries than in the general election. I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, that money is spent increasing visability. As long as they can eventually return to positive points, it could well energize people to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But, we'll have to wait and see. Iowa just threw a major wrench in the process.

never say never

Just wanted to pimp for something I think a lot of my readers will be interested in. Coming this Tuesday as part of VH1's Bands Reunited series they'll be doing an episode on the 80's band Romeo Void. Why should you care about Romeo Void?

Debora Iyall, that's why. Forgeting for a moment that Romeo Void had some of the most exciting and daring lyrics and music of the day (and even more so compared to the cookie-cutter pop of today), lyricist and lead singer Dee Iyall is one of the few real life fat pop stars. Watching a video of the band on their VH1 site is almost unbelievable. They may have been able to hide Carnie Wilson in her videos, but there is no way to avoid a lead singer completely. Seeing a fat woman in that setting is so far outside one's experience. I've loved what I have heard of Romeo Void and look forward to getting to see them in concert as part of special. Iyall, by the way, is very fat positive. She designed the original logo for Fat!So? and did the photography on perhaps the two most recognizable "Anatomy Lessons" from Fat!So?: Belly and Butt. Unquestionably someone worth supporting and I'd encourage all of my readers to spread the word about her appearance on VH1's Bands Reunited this Tuesday at 10pm (Eastern) with her band Romeo Void.

space invaders

You know, I support space exploration, and even I have a hard time with Bush's plea for a Mars mission and a Moon mission redux. His explanation just rang completely hallow. Even I know that space exploration is a bit of a waste of money. Why rush off to spend billions on a project that last I checked wasn't something we could really do?

Oh, that's right. Aerospace contracts. Don't you just love how synergy works?

The folks at NASA are probably too blinded by the money to really ask themselves what is to be gained by going back to the moon and trying to go to Mars. They're good people, but let's face facts. They want to do anything in space. You offer them money to do it, and they won't say no. Doesn't mean its really the best use of our extra-terrestrial exploration funds.

Bush did himself no favors in his pitch by basically bad-mouthing the Mars rover mission that's actually happening NOW. I mean, that's just rude. To trash talk about something the government you're running is doing right now. Show some class. Especially since his reasoning was so suspect. He trashed the rover because we humans need to see things for ourselves. The kind of work of the rover (which he didn't mention specifically, but clearly was referencing) was just not enough, according to Bush. I just don't think that is necessarily true. A lot of space exploration has been thinly vailed public relations stunts. It was when Kennedy proposed it, and I can't help but think it is now, too, that Bush is trying to channel JFK by setting an ambitious plan for space exploration. Thing is, I don't think Bush's ideas will be able to pan out.

But this was the guy who also came up with calling astronauts to bizarre term "spacial entrepreneurs". Seriously. "Spacial entrepreneurs". Says it right their on Whitehous.gov. Go ahead and google that. Seems W. is the FIRST person to ever utter "spacial entrepreneurs". I know, you're shocked.

The whole tenor of his speech was disturbingly unilateral. My impression of the PR aspects of the original moon missions is that we talked about them being for all mankind, and left the world to understand that this was the United States on the moon. Well, planting the flag was less than subtle, but it was also pure symbolism. We didn't say it outright like Bush is doing now. This isn't about all of humanity. This is about what America is gonna do. Such a bald plea for attention isn't likely to do much for our image.

And strictly speaking, Bush's challenge is remarkably underwhelming. Kennedy promissed a man on the moon in 10 years. It was an absurd suggestion in 1960, but sure enough we got there. Bush is proposing to put a man on the moon in 2020. He doesn't even dare suggest a timetable for Mars, probably because he realizes that it'd just be talk and nothing more. Which is another thing that annoys me. He brought up Mars purely to capitalise on the attention given a mission he took the time to dismiss and to get headlines that he knew his 16 years to get back to where we once belonged would get. It was craven and fake.

But whenever those brave spacial entrepreneurs get there, guess we'll have to hear Bush's cheap PR ploy.

unbelievable. simply unbelievable.

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."- George W. Bush

Now, if you don't hear this absurdly over-reaching boast repeated often (or at all) over the next few days (weeks, months, etc.) then you'll know just what a "liberal" press we have in this country.

And yet the Republican encouraged lies about Al Gore saying he invented the internet are STILL being repeated.

wasn't the new republic a liberal mag?

Sorry, I know I haven't posted for a week. I'm afraid I've been sick and the only thing which sufficiently inspired me was the Baseball Hall of Fame voting, and I know you guys don't care about that so no reason to waste all of our time. Which actually inspired another topic, but I'm still thinking about that.

But I wanted to write something. I've been reading politics blogs for a few days. Specifically, Talking Points Memo and Atrios. Which largely leaves me feel incapable of adding anything useful to the discussion of reading their stuff. But one thing prompted me.

The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman?

Seriously? Lieberman?

Look, I thought Lieberman was an acceptable if flawed VP candidate back in 2000. Yeah, he was conservative, but it balanced out Gore's liberal credentials. Until, of course, some people decided to pretend Gore had no liberal credentials and others tried to pretend Lieberman did. He was a balance for the ticket, but no someone I'd vote for on his own. Al Gore seems to agree. He's too conservative to energize the party's core. Its just that simple. And everyone knows it, which is why he won't get the nod. He's not going to get a majority. Not even in his own state. He's dead in the water. That's why Gore wasn't worried about pissing him off by endorsing Dean.

What on EARTH is TNR thinking? I thought they were a liberal publication anyway. Do they know who Joe Lieberman is? Hey, you don't have to like Dean, but why not stelth-Dem Wes Clark? Or nuanced policy wonk John Kerry? Or as long as we're picking people who can't win, what's wrong with principled and charasmatic moderate John Edwards who is much more the natural decendant of Clinton dems than Joe can ever hope to be. Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for Joe if he was my party's nominee. But I don't need to worry about that.

What's worse about the futility of the endorsement is the way TNR belittled Dean to the point of making it seem like they'd endore Bush if Dean won the election. Their whole approach seems to miss the point of the primary season. Solidfy support from the liberal base and then make the mainstream appeal after. Gore forgot that in 2000 and it killed him. Bush didn't. Remember him sucking up to Bob Jones U? Dean, love him or hate him, has energized a lot of people who wouldn't be participating in the process. And he has the credentials to establish himself as a mainstream candidate. He's not McGovern, for crying out loud. I'm really getting sick of people in my party treating him like that, because they're doing damage.

I still don't know who has my vote. I'm still not all that impressed with Dean but I'll probably vote for him in the primary. Kerry has lost me completely and I'm still wary of Clark and his habit of voting Republican. I'm mildy impressed with Edwards, but only mildly and no one seems to be with me on that. Besides, I doubt he'll still be on the ballot when Mass gets to vote. No one in hell I'm voting for Lieberman or Gephardt if they are still clinging on. Not that I would, but Dennis, Al, and Carol will be long-gone so I'm not even worried about them. Well, maybe not Al, but he'll be on life-support.

So, now that I've bored you all with politics, just remember. I could have been talking about Paul Molitar.

happy 2004

Well, its the New Year. And you know what that means! Being inundated by fucking diet ads on TV. Next week is the Food Network's weight loss week.

*groan*

Well, the only good thing is that if you change the channel and hope it all goes away, it will. The networks get the anti-fat crap out of their system in a couple weeks and even the hold-outs won't make it past February, which only leaves us with the chronic offenders, but we knew they'd be up to no good.

Another year, and another few million people being made to feel like failures for something they have no real control over.