Dec 4th 2007 6:02PM Blahnik has benefited from clever publicity, but not only is he not a "man's man," he's not a woman's man, either: his womens' shoes are devilishly uncomfortable and VERY harmful to the feet. They remind me of a western version of Chinese foot-binding (constriction and eventual withering of the toes; severe limitation of mobility). Most of the pairs I've seen are clownish and absurd; it takes a celeb (read "compulsive exhibitionist") to want to be seen in these horrors in public, yet many otherwise intelligent women wear these things. Talk about the Emperor's New Shoes!
Nov 27th 2007 4:39PM Our old friend, Sudan: Isn't that where Bin Laden hid out for so many years?
Nov 27th 2007 1:41PM If Plame was not an intelligence agent, then why did the CIA redact such a large portion of her book?
Did I (a registered Republican) "miss the memo"? As a person raised during the Cold War, I was always taught that betraying the identity of America's intelligence agents was an act of treason. ("Loose lips sink battleships", you know.) The secure gathering of our national intelligence is NOT a "liberal v. conservative" issue; it is what is DONE with the information that is political. If a standing government wishes to fire or root out politically undesirable agents, well and good; but to publicize their names puts all these agents' contacts in jeopardy. To my old-fashioned eyes, this is unpatriotic, selfish and treasonous, and should be punished accordingly.
Nov 26th 2007 4:05PM #5 Chief: Your statement that atheism is a "conscious act" is not true, at least not in my case. One must affirmatively to believe something that has been put forth (but not proven); one cannot choose to "disbelieve": You either believe something is true, or you do not. I would very much LIKE to believe in life everlasting, eternal punishment for the wicked who escape punishment on earth, etc., but I simply do not, notwithstanding the efforts of family, friends, and society at large to "inculcate" this belief in me. Guess I was born with the ability to think critically--oh, woe!
Nov 20th 2007 4:52PM Mary, what you describe sounds very democratic to me: the people around you are exercising their right to freedom of expression, and they are clearly expressing the fact that they HATE your cigarette smoke. Nobody stops you from doing this on your property. And obviously, nobody in America has outlawed obesity, or one-half the nation would be working exclusively to keep the other half in prison.
Nov 20th 2007 4:45PM E, you're missing the fact that a sovereign nation has the right to determine who will be admitted as a resident/potential citizen. The fact that New Zealand already has its own obese (or smoking or drugging) populace makes their desire to preclude more of the same even more understandable. And one doesn't "deport" someone who is already a citizen. We're talking about someone who wants to "get in through the door" (which apparently isn't wide enough for her). If you are American, please review your own country's lengthy list of immigration exclusions, many of which pertain to health. These have been in place since the days of the European migrations through Ellis Island.
Nov 20th 2007 4:14PM Let me clarify, as I do not wish to offend, Casual Observer. Yes, in my experience, allopathic physicians can exacerbate health problems with their drug-based "therapies." I, too, have gained SOME weight from a prescribed medication--but definitely not over 100 lbs. worth (assuming your chart weight is in the area of 200). So be honest with yourself, my friend, and admit an unhealthy fondness for food. The statistics on weight-related health problems are quite compelling, but fortunately, there is a totally natural cure--cut back on the food. Few people (unfortunately) choose to go the natural route; why should immigrants to New Zealand be any different? So my comment about driving up healthcare costs stands, with applause to you for exploring alternatives. (Let me emphasize that this is NOT a moral or even esthetic judgment, as I actually prefer a more "solid" appearance; nor is any slim person entitled in any sense to feel superior. It's just that obesity is unhealthy and costly--It is what it is.
Nov 20th 2007 2:08PM What's this about fat peoples' "rights" and New Zealand being "the fat police"? Did I sleep though the bit about the Obese Person's Bill of Rights in High School Civics? Funny, I thought obese people had precisely the same "rights" (or not) as everyone else in America. Newsflash: New Zealand is NOT America; whatever special "rights" you believe obese people enjoy in America (the right to double seating, double on-flight meals, or??), this has nothing to do with New Zealand. Clue: if you have to ask or assert a "right," then it probably doesn't exist. You're thinking about special treatment, it seems.
Nov 20th 2007 12:26PM Ahem, Cenk, sorry. I abhor rudeness and discrimination to obese people, but in this situation, I understand New Zealand's position. They have the right to admit whomever they feel will benefit the country (economy). New Zealand, as I understand it, has nationalized medicine. Whyever would they allow in new residents when it can be clearly seen that they will run up very high medical bills, probably far outstripping any taxes they might pay. No doubt New Zealand has enough obese citizens of its own, without importing them. ANOTHER INCONVENIENT TRUTH: obesity is unhealthy and costs big bucks in medical bills. Forgive me, no insult is intended, but...
Nov 19th 2007 6:12PM 424 here again: OOPS, that was Hermes, not Chanel. (Guess Oprah's not the only one with dumb moments.) By the by, folks, speaking from experience, Oprah sounds like she's having a menopause meltdown--all those tears and touchiness.) This woman puts the rest of us to shame with her efforts to do well and do right. She's not perfect, but then neither are we, right, fellow bloggers?