Archive for the ‘Prescient observations’ Category
Dancer Lacey Schwimmer Tells Critics to “Zip It”
This week, controversy swirled around “Dancing with the Stars” cast member Lacey Schwimmer, a professional dancer, because supposedly at 5’3″ and being a size six, she’s “too fat.” As this isn’t the first time her weight has been talked about in a derogatory manner, Schwimmer has apparently had enough.
Here’s what she said here about these critics:
There’s nothing I can do about except let it go and get over it,” she told In Touch, adding two simples words for would-be critics, “Zip it!”
Let me try to explain how asinine it is that anyone would criticize this woman over her weight. Schwimmer, 23, is a size six. She dances for a living, so most of her body is toned muscle, as she is fit and in shape. She doesn’t have an ounce of flab on her, as the skimpy costumes the DWTS female pros often wear will show anyone who has any sense at all. And while she’s probably the curviest dancer on the show, that doesn’t mean her weight is too high; on the contrary. It means most of the other dancers need to gain weight.
Schwimmer seems to have a healthy body image, as the following quote shows:
“I have boobs, I have a huge butt and I have a lot of muscle,” the 23-year-old dancer told In Touch magazine, via the UK’s Daily Mail. “I like having curves – I’m proud of them!”
And I say, “Good for her!” Because if a woman who is a normal weight, who’s toned, fit, and in shape, is getting so much criticism, what chance do those of us who truly are “big, beautiful women” (also known as “full figured,” which are the kinder ways to say a larger than average size) have of being portrayed accurately in the media with any empathy at all?
Not Enough Words, Seven Years Later
Folks, as of midnight 9/21/11, it has been exactly seven years since I last saw my husband, Michael B. Caffrey, alive.
I keep wondering what, if anything, I could’ve done to save Michael’s life, but none of us knew that his heart was about to give out. If Michael had known anything of the sort, he would’ve camped himself in the nearest hospital ER even though he hated hospitals; there’s no way he’d have wanted to have his heart completely fail after four heart attacks, the first one having started around 10 a.m. on 9/21/04. He fell into a coma quickly thereafter and never again regained consciousness.
Michael fought hard; the doctors said they’d never seen anyone fight as hard as Michael did to cling to life. There was a pattern to the seizures he was having on the right side of his body; he appeared to be trying to communicate with me, even though he was in a coma. He certainly knew I was there and he was trying very hard to make his body work; he just couldn’t do it, that’s all.
At 8 p.m., about two hours after a fourth heart attack had lowered Michael’s blood pressure to 30/10 with a pulse rate of 4, Michael was pronounced dead. And I had to say goodbye to the man I’ve loved the most in all the world; I did my best to do this, even though it was and remains difficult for me to believe that my beloved husband Michael, an extremely creative, warm, and witty person, was dead.
I’ve told you in this blog post about how my beloved husband died. But I cannot tell you how he lived, except with gusto and grace; I cannot tell you how much he loved me, only how much I loved him.
So, even seven years later, I don’t have the words to express the depth of my feelings for my beloved husband. I wish I did; oh, do I wish I did.
All I can tell you is this: Michael changed my life for the better. I miss him every single hour of every single day. I know I always will. And because of that great love, I will keep trying to help our writing find its audience (his, mine, ours, makes no never-mind now because it all has to go through me); that’s the only way I know to keep even a small part of him alive.
What to do when a Publishing Relationship Ends
Why is it that most writers plan for the beginning of a publishing relationship, but never plan for the end?
I know, I know. The end of any relationship, in or out of publishing, is not what most people prefer to dwell upon because it’s depressing. The end of any relationship means the end of any current possibilities, and that’s sad and extremely difficult for most human beings to contemplate.
That being said, in the current world we live in, we need to plan how to deal with failure graciously. (Not that every end to every publishing relationship means you’ve failed, mind you; just that it’s going to feel like failure, especially when you know you’ve tried everything in your power to make a publishing enterprise work.) We need to learn how to come to terms with setbacks, be they minor or major, and learn to deal with them as graciously as possible.
See, I look at the publishing business as a long-term thing that, in its own way, is a microcosm of life. We’re going to have good days and bad. The good days are usually easy to handle; it’s the tough ones we must learn from as best we can.
What I do when a publishing relationship has ended is to acknowledge it, make some sort of announcement to those who need to know about it, and am otherwise as polite as humanly possible. My thoughts, which are greatly influenced by those of my late husband Michael in this regard, are these: who knows if I’ll be working with this person/these people in the future? So why be obnoxious now when there’s really no need for it?
Yes, we need to acknowledge when we’re upset or frustrated. I’ve never advocated “sitting on” any emotion, as in my experience that tends to fester and make things worse later on. But we don’t need to go out of our way burning bridges this way and that, either . . . in fact, if we can avoid burning bridges, that’s probably the best way to handle things.
All that being said, it’s sad when anything you’ve spent a great deal of time and effort on goes for naught; I’ve had this happen a few times this past year, and the only thing that can be done is this: chalk it up to experience, be as polite as possible, and move on.
This is very hard to do, granted. But if you can do it, others will notice and appreciate the professionalism of your attitude, which may lead you to further and better work in the future.
So, to sum up, here’s the three things you need to do when a publishing relationship of any sort ends:
1) Come to terms with it and write a brief, polite, professional note saying you’re sorry things have come to this pass (whatever it is), and that you’ve appreciated working with whomever. Also, if you can bring yourself to it, wish the person (or people) well in the future as this costs you nothing.
2) Acknowledge it to those who need to know in a brief, polite and professional note. (Keep your feelings about it, as much as possible, to yourself.)
3) Allow yourself to grieve the loss, because it is a loss — give yourself an hour, or even half a day if you must, to be upset over it. Then, do your best to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on.
Most importantly, do your best not to bear a grudge. Remember that we’re all human, we’re all fallible, and there’s no need to spread nastiness. You don’t need to put up with bad treatment, mind you; far from it. Just try to rise above it if you can while knowing that it’s possible that someday you might work with this person (or these people) again. And if that opportunity arises, you want to be able to work with whomever without undue rancor if at all possible.
You need to think long-term at a time when your inner self is screaming, “No!” at the top of its lungs. This isn’t easy, but if you can do it, it’ll help you in the long run.**
——–
** Michael’s name for this was the “better in sorrow than in anger” method. Try it. It works.
Kenosha News Refuses to Print my Election Letter
The Kenosha News, in their infinite whatever, refused to print my election letter on the grounds that I’m not a Kenosha County resident, and that I’m not a subscriber to their paper. Yet as far as I know, their “Voice of the People” section (what most papers call the “letters to the editor”) does not contain anything that says you must be a Kenosha County resident or a subscriber in order to comment on current events or anything else — I’ve read the Kenosha News many times because I don’t live that far from the Kenosha County line and often pick it up at a local gas station.
At any rate, since the Kenosha News refused to print my election letter, I’m going to print it here, in its entirety; you see if you find it objectionable in any way, shape or form:
To the Editor:
Though I live in the city of Racine, I have a great appreciation for Senator Bob Wirch and wish he were my state Senator. Here’s why.
In 2006, Sen. Wirch discovered that Gateway Technical College (which had a $2.4 million budgetary shortfall at the time) had appropriated five million dollars of taxpayer money to create two private organizations. One of these was actually run for profit, but did the taxpayers of Wisconsin ever see a dime? No!
Without Sen. Wirch bringing this to light, we’d have likely had no idea about what had happened to that five million dollars.
At a time of unprecedented belt-tightening, we need Bob Wirch to stay in the Senate to make absolutely sure that our money is spent wisely; we can’t afford to waste a single penny.
During these unsettled times, where Republicans run “fake Democrats” in recall primaries to give themselves more time to raise money, and Gov. Walker told the “fake David Koch” that he’d seriously considered planting fake protestors in Madison to cause further unrest, we need Sen. Wirch more than ever. He’ll fight against bad budgetary decisions while continuing to fight for a transparent, honest and accountable government.
We need more people like Bob Wirch in the state Senate, which is why I urge you to please cast your vote for him on August 16, 2011.
Sincerely,
Barb Caffrey
Racine, WI
Now, what’s wrong with this letter? That I like Bob Wirch? (That’s what election letters are for — expressing your appreciation, or your disgust, for a candidate running for office.) That I think it’s great he’s been able to bring things to light that otherwise would’ve gone unknown and unheeded? That it’s under 250 words, which fits their guidelines? What?
Mind, if the Kenosha News had prominently said on their Opinion page that they do not, emphatically do not, accept letters from people who neither live in Kenosha County nor subscribe to their paper, then I’d not be as upset. I’d still not be happy about it, but I’d not be upset.
My letter to them in return after they said they were uninterested in my “voice” was something to the effect that I didn’t appreciate this, at all. And that as I live in Racine County — right up the road from Kenosha — it’s ridiculous to think I don’t know what’s going on in this election, especially as part of Bob Wirch’s district runs straight through Racine County.
I also sent a voice mail, which, while again polite and using no four-letter words, expressed my outrage over this. Emphatically.
So, now I know that at least one newspaper in this area doesn’t care what real people think about the important recall elections. And that’s not just bad, sad, or shameful — it means they’re unwilling to do their real job, which in part is to report on what real people in their area think about the issues at hand. Including this recall election.
Wisconsin State Journal’s editorial about recalls falls down on the job
Folks, I am livid after reading this extremely biased, slanted staff editorial by the Wisconsin State Journal, one of the best-known papers in the state. The WSJ has the nerve to say that recalls are bad because they extend the election cycle, and when, pray tell, will it end?
Well, I’ll tell you when it’ll end. When we finally have some responsible people in government who stop behaving like Wisconsin is their personal fiefdom and that the rule of law need not apply. As Grant Petty, writing for Madison’s alternative paper The Isthmus, wrote in his response to the WSJ editorial:
It was not simply that I disagreed with your position. I disagree with other publications’ positions all the time without necessarily feeling insulted by them. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was that you had once again ignored or grossly oversimplified deep and important issues affecting Wisconsin while basing your position on superficial ones.
Petty goes on to say later on in the article that many things have caused the people of Wisconsin to recall their legislators (especially those of the Republican variety); these things include, but are not limited to:
- The lack of transparency in government, for the rule of law, and for the constitutionality of our courts by our elected officials.
- Creating new obstacles to voting in traditionally Democratic demographic groups (minorities, the poor, college students, elderly who don’t live in nursing homes)
- What Petty calls “blatant pay-to-play favors” for major campaign donors (including the one railroad exec. who pled guilty to an illegal campaign contribution of $49,000 to Scott Walker)
- A state Supreme Court that Petty calls a “rubber stamp” that was “bought and paid for by Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce,” a lobbying group that traditionally backs Republicans and conservative ideology. and
- Last, but not least, the overarching inaccuracies of the vote going back at least to 2004 in Waukesha County; Petty describes several troubling aspects of the vote in the 2011 judicial race between Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg that changed the outcome of the election, starting with Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus’s finding of 7500 votes over a day after the election had supposedly ended and continuing on with problems with the voting machines and electronic tape malfunctions that were never explored or explained (including one where the totals inexplicably read March 30, 2011, not April 5, 2011 as they should’ve; Barbara With, who observed the Waukesha County recount, explicitly made sure the Government Accountability Board knew about this and testified as to what she’d seen and heard and entered her picture of the faulty tape into evidence, yet the GAB, again inexplicably, refused to believe or accept this and left this testimony out of the official record).
Note that all of this — all — is why most people in Wisconsin, including a sizable minority of Walker’s own party, remains livid regarding the conduct of our current crop of public officials (mostly the recently-elected Walker and many of the Republican officeholders who are being recalled, including State Senator Alberta Darling). Petty said it extremely well, and I only wish that I’d have written this summation myself; this truly is why Wisconsin is upset and has recalled an unprecedented number of people (remember, before this year, only four people had ever been forced to run in recall elections, with two of them holding their seats while the other two, including my former Republican state Senator George Petak, R-Racine, lost).
As to why the WSJ decided to write a slanted, utterly biased editorial? Who knows? But I do know that whenever I read their paper online in the future, I will keep their partisan slant in mind and judge their reportage accordingly.
Other than that, I agree with Petty’s contention that we should be far more concerned with out-and-out election fraud in this state because we’ve apparently had problems now in Waukesha County since 2004 and nothing, but nothing, has been done about them and apparently nothing, but nothing, is going to be done about them because apparently the political powers who now run the state (all three branches of government are run by Republicans, remember, as I’ve stated before) like it the way it is even though most of the rest of us emphatically do not.
And that, my friends, is not only sad. It’s shameful, and should not be tolerated in what we so euphemistically call “a democratic state.”
Writing and Editing — some Helpful Books
Folks, over time I’ve probably read just about every book on writing and editing there has ever been — or at least it seems that way.
Now, you might be asking yourself why I’ve done this. Simple. I enjoy picking the brains of other writers and editors, and the easiest way to do this is by reading about their particular processes as written down in various books. Some are dry as dust, yes — but the best ones make you laugh, and think, and you’ll come back again and again to ’em in order to find some pearl of wisdom that you’d perhaps overlooked before.
The first, and best, of the three books I recommend is Carolyn See’s MAKING A LITERARY LIFE. Ms. See has fun with her subject; she uses witty commentary and true-to-life examples, but what I’ve gotten out of her book most is the value of being polite. (This is something my late husband Michael would’ve appreciated, I think. He felt people often were impolite for no reason whatsoever and had no patience with it. I have to agree that most of the time, I share his oft-expressed viewpoint.) Because being polite is the way to build literary friendships — expressing your appreciation now and again doesn’t hurt, either. (Ms. See believes you should write what she calls “charming notes” to other writers and editors because life is too short not to express praise when warranted. Though she also believes you should write these notes when you’ve received rejection letters, as a way to turn a negative into a positive — those types of notes are, “I’ve received your rejection and I will be sending you back something else in X time,” which also is a way to keep yourself on track and focused on the long-term goal.)
The second book is Anne Lamont’s BIRD BY BIRD. The title comes from something Ms. Lamont’s father once told her brother after he’d procrastinated about an assignment (this one on birds); it’s a way of saying, “Take things one at a time,” no matter how many things there might be in an assignment (or in this case, a book). Ms. Lamont’s wisdom, similar to Ms. See’s, has a great deal to do with real-life examples. Ms. Lamont admits her first drafts are very far short of perfection (she calls them a synonym for “crappy” that I won’t use here at my family-friendly site) and says the only thing good about them is that you’ve gotten something on the page — anything at all — and that a first draft is not supposed to be perfect so we writers shouldn’t beat ourselves up about that.
This is a very interesting attitude, because we all seem to have the tendency to say, “Oh, no! This is terrible! Why do I write, anyway, if all I can do is this trash?” But as Ms. Lamont says (and Ms. See does, too), the purpose of the first draft isn’t to be perfect — it’s to get it out there, so you can start working on what it will eventually be — good prose, a compelling story, you name it — and get on with the job.
Finally, there’s Sol Stein’s STEIN ON WRITING, which actually is more helpful as an editing primer because Stein explains what he does when he edits. The reason he does this is to help writers catch their own mistakes before they ever get to the editor, but I know that it’s very difficult if I’m in “editing mode” to shift out of that and just write because they’re markedly different things (writing a first draft is messy, as both Ms. Lamont and Ms. See pointed out). And if I think too much about editing while I’m writing, I don’t get much done because I think it’s “all crap, so why bother?” and that’s not good. (Instead, it’s counterproductive to say the least.)
So, read these three books, and see what you can get out of them — and don’t say I’ve never done anything for you.
Cell Phone Etiquette and Other Stories
For this Friday’s blog, I want to talk about something completely different: cell phone etiquette.
Why this particular subject, you ask? Because I’ve run into more ignorant people this week than I can shake a stick at, all of whom did — or more importantly, said — something stupid while on their cell phone.
First up was the gentleman at the local pharmacy who was jabbering away on his cell as his three kids rampaged through the store. I felt like saying, “Hey, buddy! Watch your kids! Keep ’em from stealing the pharmacist blind!” as the kids were running up and down the aisles, throwing candy at each other, knocking over displays, and generally behaving worse than my Mom’s three dogs.
Now, this guy was probably talking to someone from his workplace, as his expression was grave and he was using a calculator in his other hand to add up figures as he aimlessly walked through the store. But that does not excuse him; he still must supervise his children, lest he end up with an unexpected bill in the hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) after his three kids under the age of ten wrecked the store without his cognizance or knowledge.
Next, there was the jerk at the gas station who was yelling at the top of his lungs into his cell about his bodily functions. Apparently he was trying to make his much-younger girlfriend blush — his GF looked to be in her low-to-mid 20s, while this guy had to be in his upper 30s at the very least — and he definitely should’ve known better than to talk about his hernias, his latest bowel movements, and how many times he threw up the night before in public, much less as loudly as possible.
Finally, there was the guy who was swearing profusely as he took money out of the ATM at the grocery store. Was it because he couldn’t get money out? No, it wasn’t — instead, it was because something had gone wrong at home (or maybe with his job) and he was using every profane word he could (plus making up a few new ones) to express his displeasure. All while he either thought no one could hear him (not likely), or didn’t care.
Look. I understand how it is when you must take a phone call, even if you’re out. But when that eventuality does occur, you need to be polite to others.
In these three situations, what should these men — and note, they all were men (as women in general tend not to behave this badly in public for whatever reason) — have done? Well, the first guy should’ve taken his phone call in the car and his kids should’ve sat there quietly (or as quietly as they could) until he was done. Then he should’ve bought them all lollipops (or whatever small treat they wanted) for behaving in the car — or he should’ve then proceeded to take the kids home and punish them if they hadn’t behaved. In no way, shape, or form should he have taken the call in the store and let those kids run up and down the aisles screaming, whooping and hollering as they were — much less making a huge mess, as last I saw they were in the process of doing.
As for the second guy, this may seem overly obvious, but here goes: Don’t talk about your bodily functions in public, period. Really, we don’t want to hear about it. And if you are that hard-up to embarrass your girlfriend, well, it’s either time for you to get a new girlfriend or, better yet, for her to trade you in for a better-behaved model, someone who might actually appreciate her for a change.
As for the third gentleman (using the term loosely, of course)? Try not to swear in public. If you do need to swear, do it quietly, because yelling the “f-word” at the top of your lungs is rude.
And remember, guys, this very basic thing — it’s more than likely that your side of the conversation on your cell is going to be overheard. Use your common sense and see this as the public conversation it is, and treat it accordingly. Or prepare to suffer the consequences as more and more people realize what a completely unlettered jerk you’ve turned out to be, just because they’ve been the unwitting victims of your poor cell phone etiquette.
“Dancing with the Stars” Semifinals — is the fix in?
Folks, I just finished watching the semifinals for the television show Dancing with the Stars (henceforth called “DwtS,” their acronym; note I’m referring to the current United States show), and I am wondering whether what on Earth the judges were smoking tonight. To the point that I’m wondering whether the fix is, indeed, in . . . but first, some background.
DwtS is predicated on stars coming in who have little or no dance ability and little or no dance experience, both learning to dance and “put on a show” in the grand old show biz tradition, so I expect some stars to be better one week and not so good the next. This makes the show fun, unpredictable, yet interesting, as the stars are usually outside to well outside their comfort zones in learning to dance.
I’ve watched DwtS since their second season, the year Cheryl Burke and Drew Lachey won the “coveted mirror ball trophy” (which is actually a tacky piece of hardware that tends to fall apart within a year, but the stars want it anyway no matter how gaudy and trashy it is); I’ve seen many good dances, many bad dances, and many “huh?” dances. I’ve learned what makes up a good paso doble, what makes a good cha cha cha, etc., and I’ve also learned that the most successful stars fuse their personality with their technical ability, showing real, measured improvement from week to week as they go. (Often, they also show a measurable weight loss, as has contestant Kirstie Alley this season. More on Alley in a bit.)
However, I’ve never seen a night quite like this one, where I honestly felt that one couple — Chelsea Kane and Mark Ballas — were handed high scores after doing extremely questionable routines where Kane’s dancing seemed stiff, wooden, and much less of everything than any previous week (including her first week, as Kane had some dance experience, depth unknown, before she came into this intense competition). Kane had three dances — a very stiff tango, where her legs and body didn’t seem to go together very well, an extremely stiff rhumba (mind you, the rhumba has to be fluid and sexy, and Kane was neither), and worst of all, a stiff and clumsy cha cha cha. Yet for these three dances, she was praised and given high scores — a perfect thirty (three tens, the highest score given out on this show) for the rhumba, which was a travesty of justice — then given 15 extra points in the “winner-take-all” cha cha when it was stiff, wooden, clumsy, and even the “tricks” (flashy things to divert your attention) lacked polish?
I really didn’t agree with that “winner-take-all” thing at all. First off, in the “elimination rounds,” I thought Ralph Macchio danced better than Hines Ward, yet they kept Ward; in the other one, Kirstie Alley clearly out-danced Kane (and was probably the best cha cha dancer of the night), yet didn’t advance over the stiff and wooden Kane? Why?
As for the other dances, well, Macchio’s time should be up. He’s now healthier — last week he more or less got a “pass” from the viewers as he wasn’t able to dance well due to a hamstring injury — and wasn’t really any better until the cha cha (and I’ve already discussed how unjust that was), his third dance of the evening. Ward’s other two dances were clean and precise, and I liked his tango a great deal (that one deserved a thirty; the other one, not so much, but his pro, Kym Johnson, was dancing with an obvious amount of pain after sustaining a severe neck injury and I believe the judges gave him a little bit more for the first two dances than he deserved — Ward should’ve won the cha cha considering the judges put him there with a unanimous vote, considering how terrible Kane was, but there you go). And Alley danced with grace, elegance, and fire in her Viennese Waltz and Paso Doble — two diametrically opposed dances that are both extremely difficult — and really deserved to win that cha cha competition, too, on merit.
At any rate, Mark Ballas seems to go to the finals every year — and before some folks write in and tell me, “No he doesn’t,” I did say seems. He was there last season with the underperforming Bristol Palin; he’s been there with Shawn Johnson (a good dancer and gymnast), with Kristi Yamaguchi (an outstanding skater and a very good dancer also), and should’ve been there with Sabrina Bryan. He’s quite a good dancer and obviously teaches his students how to dance, of which I approve — but his attitude leaves me cold. (Even allowing for how DwtS can edit folks, Ballas should be more aware of how he comes across on camera. He acts like he’s the star, not his pro, and that’s just wrong. Though of course as a DwtS pro, he has fans rooting for him no matter who his partner is, he needs to remember to be humble — or at least learn to fake it a little better.)
And as for Kane — man, can she please eat a cheeseburger or two? Because she’s way, way, way too thin — every time I see her, I think how she needs to eat more. And when Ballas picks Kane up for the overhead “tricks,” I think, “Whee! She weighs what, two pounds? How tough was that, Mark?” (Compared to the real work Maksim Chmerikovskiy has put in, first teaching his partner Alley to dance and dance well, then to compensate for Alley being a big, beautiful woman — albeit less of one than when she started, as she’s obviously lost at least sixty pounds during the course of this season’s DwtS — I really don’t have much sympathy for Ballas at all.)
Look. It’s just a cheesy reality show, but I enjoy it. I like to see the dancers improve — and they all do, to some extent (even Bristol Palin improved last season). It’s a tough gig to be on DwtS; people get injured (look at Macchio’s injury last week, or poor pro Kym Johnson’s this past week). It’s hard to dance in front of hundreds, maybe a couple of thousand people in person, then know millions of people will see you dance either on television or YouTube. I can’t imagine the sort of pressure that puts on all the contestants and my hat is off to all of them — even the rather klutzy Kane this evening.
But it chaps my hide something fierce when the competition does not seem on the up and up. And I’m sorry — I know Ballas in particular, if he sees this blog for whatever reason, will not agree with me, but unless the camera angles were bad for all three dances with Kane, these were the worst three dances she has had all season. She may have an injury; she may well have been ill; she may be the funniest, cutest, nicest contestant they have ever had on DwtS. But she didn’t deserve the high scores she got tonight, nor did she deserve to win that cha cha as she really shouldn’t have even advanced over Alley in that first “elimination round.”
So the question is: is the fix in? And if it is, why should I watch this show if Kane and Ballas are destined to take home the cheesy trophy?
Barb Caffrey's Blog 