dreamworks, miseducating our youth

i'm tired of movies that miseducate our children. movies that show children the impossible (i.e., walking into a closet and finding another world on the other side) that intend to expand the imagination our kids are one thing -- they do a service to our children in teaching them how to think outside of the box. i'm talking about movies that are just scientifically sloppy -- because someone thought that was funnier or more interesting or just didn't do research. these movies do a disservice to our kids.

dreamworks has apparently decided that male protagonists are more interesting than female protagonists, and that this justifies an entire re-writing of how the natural world works. in both bee movie and antz, they invent male workers. (here's an article from the ny times on the topic.) what's the point of this? are female characters so lacking in interest? are men so important that we must re-write the laws of nature to invent more male characters?

(don't even get me started on the nickelodeon pile of dung, barnyard, in which cow characters who are male have udders. how? and more importantly, WHY?)

joy v2

thank goodness i have this to keep me happy.

diversity of campaign staff

dude, no he didn't

my favorite quote from the willy week's review of OTO's muscle max:

"Dave Nemorino (Zakk Hoyt) is the wiener-slinging hero pining after bracelet-bedecked Adina (Natasha Risotto), who harbors a wet spot for hunky Steve Belcore (Michael Miersma)."

hmm. i didn't know one could "harbor" a wet spot.

anyway, my real point is: is the term "a wet spot" really appropriate in this review? (or any review?) having personally seen the show in question, i can find no justification for the use of such an overtly sexual reference in the review of a show that is so insanely PG in its portrayal of the characters' sexuality. lacking substantive reason for the use of blatantly sexual terminology, the reviewer's choice of words is just plain crass. (i'm sensing some gay-boy girl-hating in this choice of words -- the female character is the only one who is so crassly and unnecessarily and inappropriately sexualized -- but that's another conversation.)

here's to a new low in my favorite reviewer's body of work, published by my favorite local paper!

should overweight be my goal?

hmm. here's an article on an interesting story from all that's fit. seems that mortality rates are lower among the overweight (but not obese) than among people with "normal" or "ideal" weights. maybe i should stay closer to my current bmi of 30 than my goal of 23? or maybe it's just that the goal should be physical ability rather than physical appearance?

bicycle city

the top emailed article in the ny times today is about portland and -- what else -- bicycles.

damned if you do, doomed if you don't

An interesting look at the perceptions of women in the workplace from all that's fit to print.

“Most of what we learn shows that the problem is with the perception, not with the woman,” he said, “and that it is not the problem of an individual, it’s a problem of a corporation.”

Duh. But thank you for putting it in print.