A kind letter to people I don't know

Dear Fellow Gymgoers,

Welcome back to the new year at (our local gym). It's nice to see you back. I've been going to this gym (as well as visiting several other branches in the franchise) and have a few things that I would like to share with you. I am sure that these suggestions (I use that term loosely, I consider them requirements) can help us both (or just me) have much happier gym visits. To wit:

1) The changing room is for changing. It is not for sitting around and talking. It is not for exercising your children. It is not for spreading out every item you own and taking up all available space. It is not for sitting there for 20 minutes while people try and get past you in the narrow aisles and never even bothering to say excuse me. Changing. Taking clothes off, putting clothes on, and the swift and efficient application of moisturizers, deodorants and powders. Possibly some towelling.

2) There are 2 (two!) towel bins in the changing room. You are never more than about ten steps from a towel bin. PUT YOUR USED TOWELS IN THE TOWEL BIN. This is where they belong for the ease of the employees and the hygiene and convenience of EVERYONE ELSE IN THE GYM. Places towels do not belong: on machines you are not using, on the floor of the shower, strewn liberally across the benches in the changing room, on the changing room floor, stuffed in un used lockers. Your towel that you used is your mess and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN UP. Were you raised in a BARN people?! The employees have to put up with a lot of stuff and touching your dirty, damp towels is not something they should have to do. It is not something that I should have to do just to use a bench!


3) Machines are for exercising on. I know that they are sometimes shaped to cunningly resemble chairs, but I assure you, they are not meant for the primary purposes of sitting on your keister and watching the big screen TV's. You can watch the TVs, but you must be moving while you are doing so, or at least be taking VERY SHORT (20 minutes does not count) rest between reps. 


4) Machines are for exercising on, NOT ABUSING. Do not pogo jump on the treadmill. So not drop the weights on the weight machines so hard they crack or break the little stick thing that I'm sure there's a name for. OTHER PEOPLE ARE USING THAT and would like for it to work properly, thank you. 


I am sure that if you will follow those rules and, most importantly, stay out of my way, that we will all get along hunky dory. 


Much love (or not),
Footnotegirl

Finding our good twins.

So today, hubby and I went shopping after staying in bed quite late.
Well, I stayed in bed quite late.
Plus there was a momentary hormonal blitz that left my bedroom half torn apart as I looked for some tiny strips of doublestick tape.
Don't ask, it's best you not see what happens when I get like that.

But things were all hunky dory after that. We went out, ate dinner, had some ice cream, shopped for sheets (couldn't find any we liked) and then went to Lush.
Just in case you wanted to know how very boring my life is. ;)

Lush however, was not boring. Lush was fun! And freaky! Freaky funtimes!
Shortly after we get there, a guy in the store looks at me and then says "Ohmygod, we have to show that shirt to my fiance." and drags me a couple of feet away to show off my "Don't make me use my Librarian voice" t-shirt, because it turns out his fiance is a librarian.
Also turns out that he and his fiance are geeks.
And Gleeks.
They like Whedon.
And gaming.
Also, he works at the same company my hubby does.
Also they both clearly like Lush.
Also, Gaimanites.
Likewise, comic book fans.
Both hubby and the guy were wearing red shirts.
Both I and the girl were wearing dark blue shirts.
It was all quite amusing and they took down our emails and we're going to get together for a game night sometime soon. Yay!

Man, you fundies suck at debate.

God how I love tearing up bad arguments. I was surfing the web and found a lovely article on the Concerned Women for America site about the five "myths" of same sex marriage.
Let's see how they do with their arguments (my comments will be highlighted).

Myth #1: Having same-sex couples celebrate their love does nothing to harm anybody else’s marriage or damage the institution of marriage.

The argument that “what I do is my business and doesn’t hurt anybody but me” is an old argument that has been refuted in numerous ways. Not that we're going to go into them here. The institution of marriage has existed throughout history in almost every culture to protect women and children. Actually, it's existed mostly to codify transfer of property, and has not been a great protection for either women or children. Marriage is already under attack from a promiscuous, me-centered culture that derides any male who “gives up” his rights for altruistic reasons and labels him a “powerless wimp.” Likewise, women who “hold out” for marriage are called “prudes” and worse. How does this have anything to do with the 'myth' at all? As for marriage being under attack, how come divorce is highest in the bible belt states and among evangelical christians? These cultural changes are bad enough. Society opens the floodgates of cultural destruction if marriage becomes meaningless. That assumes that gays being able to marry makes it meaningless, it's very meaningful to my cousin John and his husband. Counterfeits always devalue the real thing. Counterfeit marriage will lead to “anything goes” unions. But only you think its counterfeit, plus that's a snowball argument. There will be no legal reason to deny anyone the umbrella of “marriage.” The age of those seeking unions will be irrelevant; their blood relationship won’t matter; the number of partners seeking the ceremony or any other characteristic will become meaningless. Really? Why? I'd love to see a source for this assertion. The whole institution of marriage will be rendered irrelevant. Just look at Scandinavia: they legalized “same-sex marriage”; now, cohabitation rather than marriage is the prevalent household arrangement. Actually, their marriage rate was decreasing long before that, and recently... it's gone back up. And blood relatives, children, and animals aren't getting married there either.

Myth #2: Same-sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue.

Activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is like the civil rights issue of racial equality, that homosexuals “deserve” the right to “marry” and have the same benefits and protections of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. Any denial of that “right,” they say, violates their “equal rights.” The reality is that the same-sex “marriage” effort is more about getting society’s approval for behavior; it is not about benefits or protections. On your say so.. all the gay people I know say it's about being able to get benefits and protections. All American citizens have the right to marriage, and all the protections that homosexuals seek are already embedded in American law. This argument would have also worked against interracial marriage, claiming that people have an equal right to marry anyone of their own race. This is a ridiculous argument that only makes sense to fanatics. Anyone can legally designate beneficiaries and establish who can or cannot visit them in hospitals. Actually, a number of states have DOMA laws that make it so that you cannot establish those legal beneficiaries. Also, try telling that to Janice Langbehn.Clearly the push is for approval, mainstreaming an aberrant set of values, and condoning certain behaviors; it is not for establishing “rights” that already exist. Saying 'clearly' does not actually make it clear. Marriage is more than a “legal” institution; it is an institution supported by society as a haven for children, the foundation of the family, and the well-spring of civility and national strength.That's your opinion. Legally, it's just another form of contract.  The homosexual activists are seeking a special right, one that denies the human truth that male and female are designed to be “one” and are created as the natural means for propagating the human race. Ah, that old saw. And what about seniors who marry, or people who can't have children, or just people who don't want to have children?

Myth #3: Any group of people — including homosexual couples — can contribute to the well-being of children and form a productive unit of society.

Conveying marital status to any group of people gives them societal affirmation and establishes them as an essential element of society when the research indicates they are not capable of performing those functions. Source?Social science research sends a clear and unequivocal message: the married couple, mom-and-dad family is best for children — not just good, but best in comparison to any other household arrangement. Source? Recent studies have shown that children of gay parents do just as well (and in some areas better) than children of straight parents. It's children of broken families that do less well. But I don't see you trying to outlaw divorce... Other households (headed by anyone other than the married mother and father) are far inferior and damaging to children’s well-being and their futures. Already our children are at risk from the increase in cohabitation and the decline in marriage. If we add same-sex “marriage” into the mix, we are disregarding the best interests of our nation’s children. You mean like the children languishing in our foster care systems? Per capita, gay couples are more likely to take in these children than straight couples. American children are at risk in carefully-documented ways when they are raised in any household but a married mom-and-dad family: They make worse grades, are likely to drop out of school, more prone to getting into trouble, have greater health problems, are more likely to experiment with drugs and/or alcohol, and will likely engage in early sexual activity and thus be more likely to contract a sexually-transmitted disease, have an abortion(s) and/or teen pregnancy. Source. Seriously. And something that has been done since the middle of the last century where anything but the nuclear family was suffering under the added turmoil of dealing with constant 

Myth #4: Same-sex “marriage” is a matter of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

This is one of the more insidious myths related to “same-sex marriage.” There is no way to ignore the fact that same-sex “marriage” violates the deeply-held beliefs of millions of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim citizens whose opposition to same-sex “marriage” is founded on central tenets of their faith. I'm sorry, but for something to be a central tenet of a faith, it has to be more than 1% of your holy book Y'all spend a lot more money on this than other central tenets like 'don't steal'. Knowing this, the homosexual activists are working through indoctrination programs for the nation’s children. Our public schools are becoming the means through which activists plan to change public opinion and the rule of law. Curriculum programs are instilling the idea that there is no legitimate opposition to homosexuality; instead, any opposition is bigoted and hate-filled. Laws are being changed to force innkeepers, businesses, and even our social services to celebrate homosexuality. No, not celebrate it. Just treat it the same way that you do heterosexuality.

More to the point, same-sex “marriage” is already used to bludgeon religious liberties and drive out Christian social services. One recent example: Massachusetts and the District of Columbia have both driven out Catholic adoption agencies, whose moral stand is unacceptable to the homosexual agenda. They didn't drive them out, and certainly not intentionally. However if the Catholic Church is going to pick and choose which tenets to follow (for instance, they'll adopt out children to previously divorced couples, a sin that Jesus himself spoke against and he didn't mention thing one about homosexuality) then they'll have to pay the piper. Frankly, a religious group shouldn't be in charge of government social services ANYWAY so good riddance. The radical politics of homosexuality requires orphans to remain without parents at all rather than to allow a Christian agency the religious liberty to find them a home.And apparently the Catholic Church would rather restrict a child to being held in an orphanage than place them with a loving, caring family. WWJD indeed... And again to point out that you didn't actually disprove this 'myth' because you only argued from the point of your conscience and religion, without accepting that there are others that are different from yours. 

Myth #5: “Same-Sex Marriages” are just like heterosexual marriages.

This last myth is probably the one furthest from the truth. In actuality, homosexual unions have a very short lifespan; many of the same-sex “marriages” in Massachusetts are already being dissolved. So are many of the heterosexual marriages that happened in Mass. in that period I would bet as well. People who marry in a rush (for instance, because they want to get it done before the right is taken away, or perhaps caught in a heady rush of celebration... like in Vegas?) tend to divorce pretty quickly too. How is this different from straight marriage? Further, the health risks associated with homosexual practice are very real and very much in evidence in the emergency rooms of hospitals. There is no denying: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. Both HIV and HPV are epidemic among homosexual men. By this they mean anal sex, which not all homosexual men take part in, and there's no mention of lesbian sex which is much less of a risk. And HPV is epidemic among pretty much everyone. Domestic violence is a common problem — twice as prevalent among homosexual couples as in heterosexual ones. Source? Though if true, perhaps part of that is due to stresses due to being treated unequally by society, as well as a lack of access to psychological support as well as a lack of societal and familial teaching because the previous generation of homosexual people tended to have family issues related to their sexual orientation. Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity. Neither does a strictly civil marriage between straight people, but you're not making those illegal are you? And what about churches/religions that DO believe that gay marriages are equal in sanctity to straight marriages? You're infringing on their rights! Instead, the ceremony creates a sham that will devalue all marriages. How? It doesn't devalue my marriage. Your marriage must have very little value.The government establishes “standards” for measurement and value; to declare a sham union equal to marriage would devalue the “standard” and render all unions worthless and irrelevant. If the U.S. government establishes same-sex “marriages” under law, it will be redefining marriage — completely and irrevocably. You mean like when divorce became legal? Or when women were able to give their own vows and sign their own marriage contracts? Or when men were no longer allowed to marry more than one woman? Or when marriage ceased to be "a man and woman becoming one person, and that person being the husband." Marriage has gone through a lot of changes. Such a powerful statement will contradict the prevailing social science research: Source?There is a big difference between 1) a family created and sanctioned by society when a man and a woman commit to each other and thus form a cohesive unit, and 2) a couple or group of people who live together to form a household in defiance of the prevailing moral codes to render meaningless an institution that has been the bulwark of the family and society throughout history. Except through equal rights being allowed, a married gay couple moves from being under the #2 scenario to being under the #1 scenario... And every year, more and more people are of the opinion that marriage is a human right not restricted by sexual orientation. 65% of incoming freshmen approve of gay marriage. Nearly a quarter of freshmen who described themselves as social conservatives support gay marriage! Same Sex marriages more and more are in fact considered a family sanctioned by society. This is circular logic. Same sex marriage is wrong because it's not accepted, and we have to make sure that it isn't accepted because it's wrong. 

She lives!

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm lazy.
It's been far too long.
And I am back on here to snark, surprise and wonder. Once again, it's snarking about clothes, but with an extra added side of so damn pissed at the fat shaming in society today. It all kind of came into a ball when I was out shopping today.

See because of the lovely and talented Gabourey Sidibe being up for an Oscar, there's been a lot of talk in the news about obesity (not like there already wasn't) and some of it has been good, and some of it has been bad, and some of it has been ridiculous (like this lovely Reuter's article). But what's been worse has been the comments on some of these posts (I have stopped reading them utterly) many of which have shown some of the worst sides of humanity.
But some of which almost seem reasonable, until you look closer. The one I see most often has been something along the lines of "but they can't possibly be aware they're fat, or they'd simply get up and move sometimes and eat less!"
Oh if only it were that easy. For one thing, it is not a direct 'calories in/calories out' situation. Oh how I wish it was. Of course that's the basic equation, but some people spend calories more easily by far. For instance, for the last month and a half, I have been going to the gym every other day, doing at least an hour of mixed cardio and weights, and eating between 1500 and 1900 calories a day.
How much weight have I lost?
I gained four pounds.
So yeah, it's just not that easy. I'm more average than your active american, and it's not getting me any thinner. It is, however, getting me more healthy and so I'm not upset because getting healthy, not losing weight, is the reason that I decided to go forward with the gym membership et. al. If weightloss happens, it'll be a nifty side benefit, but I'm not worried about it. I've already lowered my heart rate considerably and I'm enjoying a lot more energy and bounce in my life.
Today though, I went shopping, and I was reminded of one of the other hurdles that people might face in getting healthier. It's a small one, maybe it's a petty one, but for someone who's already facing a lot of hurdles (shame, health issues, possibly depression, lack of access to healthy food, etc) it can be a big one.
Lack of decent workout clothing.
Now, this is a bigger issue for women than for men. At all of the stores I checked out (and there have been many) that carried clothes for men, there were at least one or two brands that carried workout clothes up to a size XXL. Yay for them. Not so much for us girls though.
I couldn't find anything larger than an XL, and even those were few and far between, and all cut on the small side of the spectrum.
Sure, I can exercise in nothing more special than a t-shirt and a pair of old sweat pants. However, for many women it's embarrassing enough to be in a gym, let alone in a gym looking even more different from everyone else than you already do. Most women that I know of who refuse to work out list he fear of being stared at, judged, or ridiculed as the number one reason they don't go to a gym.
Secondly, and this is just speaking for myself, a t-shirt and sweats don't really stretch in all the right ways (I find that most of my T's the necks are a little too small when working out. They shift and make me uncomfortable) and it's getting warmer, and I find that they are really crappy for working out when it might actually get above, oh, sixty. They get sweaty and uncomfortable quick! I want moisture wicking, and coolmax, and all that wonderful nifty high tech stuff! I want to be comfortable when I work out. I deserve, dammit, to be as comfortable as thin people. But apparently that's not allowed. I even went to a few plus size stores (both online and brick and mortar) and what very little workout gear they had was all very thick and heavy and more suited to lounging than actually moving.
Society! Please stop shaming me for my fat and then turning around and making it harder for me to get fit! It's really nasty and hypocritical of you!

Far too full of snark

I really need to get myself off of yahoo answers and conservative blogs tonight. I'm riding high on the snark. I notice I have been lately, and I am putting this all down to my recent membership in a health club. All this 'health' and 'exercise' is making me uppity. I should go back to my bon bons and soap operas.

And she cooks too!

This particular meal is still cooking, and has not yet been tasted, so I'd wait to make it until it's done. Just sayin'.

In a 3 qt. crockpot:
4 boneless pork chops (I'm sure a pork loin would work good here too)
1 honeycrisp apple (because it was nearing the end of it's shelf life and I wanted more in the cooker)
1/2 white onion (cause the whole thing wouldn't fit)
1/2 small jar of apricot preserves (with enough hot water to loosen it up)
About 3 TBSP of Penzey Spices "Raspberry Enlightenment" flavoring.
About 1 TBSP soy sauce
A squirt or two of Sri Racha hot sauce.
A squirt or two of honey.

Chops first covered by the apples and then the onions, the liquids then poured over the whole. Since the chops are frozen, I'm starting it for the first couple of hours on high, and then will turn to low before I leave for work.
Serving it with either sweet potato fries or ginger green beans, which ever comes out of the freezer first when I go looking when I get home.

Butt-Numb-A-Thon Reviews.

So, I was one of the attendees of Harry Knowles' yearly 24 hour (this year? try 27 hour) film festival, Butt Numb A Thon (otherwise known as BNAT) and I have finally gotten home, and now I can share with you my take on the movies.
I won't go over the trailers, cause I sure can't remember all of them, and other people will be far more in depth than I will.

First movie of the evening was the 1926 silent version of "Faust" and it was just bloody incredible. The print was gorgeous, and it reminded me of much of what we have lost in cinema since then. In the push to make things hyper-realistic, we have lost the ability to envision film as not just an art unto itself but also as a visual art. That things don't have to look 'real' to look amazing and to get the idea across. The special effects were great not because they blended seamlessly, but because they always got the visual point across in a striking, effective way. I could not get enough of the fabulousness of Mephistopheles.

Second movie, and our first premier was Peter Jacksons "The Lovely Bones" from Alice Sebold's novel of the same name. I had read about 3/4 of the novel earlier this year, and though I liked it, well, I didn't finish it. I don't think I'd have seen this movie in the theaters and I still don't think I'll see it again, but that isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It made me cry, and on occasion even made me laugh, and it's truly gorgeous but.. it's too melodramatic for me, I have to admit. Stanley Tucci was amazing as the creepy neighbor though, and the girl who played Susie Salmon will go far and is a joy to watch on the screen.

"Girl Crazy" was next, and for me it was a very mixed bag. Yay Busby Berkely setpieces! Yay Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra! Yay screwball comedy! But then also? Realizing that I never liked Mickey Rooney, and that Judy Garland and he have no chemistry together, and the feeling of not understanding the humor of previous generations. However, also amusement at how the world has changed because... a young girl singing "Embraceable You" to a room full of college boys? Really? Who thought that was a good idea? I have to admit, I actually fell asleep during a couple of scenes of this movie. But I didn't miss much plotwise by doing so.

"The Red Shoes" was Martin Scorcese's pick for this slot on the program, and it was so, so very gorgous. I'm not a fan of abstract dance scenes generally (I fast forward through the Broadway Melody section of Singin' in the Rain whenever I watch it without my Cyd Charisse loving husband) but the way that these were filmed was just so stunning and the colors. My god, the colors. Why did Moira Shearer never do anything else? She was so, so amazingly gorgeous.

The reason Scorcese got to pick a movie? Was because his "Shutter Island" was next. I was interested in seeing this movie, so was very happy to be there for what amounted to its premiere. It was beautifully filmed, well acted, suspenseful. Claustrophobic. Cerebral. I really enjoyed it quite a lot, but won't say much more due to possible spoilers. I am so glad that they do not give too much away in the trailers. So very glad.

Wacky French comedies were up next on the list, first with a 1970's movie "Le Magnifique" which I made the mistake of thinking I wasn't going to like, thus disappearing out to the lobby for the first fifteen minutes or so. Huuuuuuge mistake. What I thought was a bad madcap detective movie was actually a very funny film about an author writing a bad, madcap detective novel through a string of misfortunes and annoyances. Very amusing, very well done, and yes, Jacqueline Bisset was effing gorgeous.

Next was "MicMacs" by the same director as Amelie. I will have to see this one again, because while it was very interesting and entertaining, I was so tired by this point that I kept nodding off and couldn't follow the rather complex plot and multitude of characters. Plot would advance when I'd nodded off and eventually, nothing made much sense anymore, though still managing to be funny and entertaining and beautiful.

Having gotten a little rest in, we got our first 'horror' film of the program, Adam Green's "Frozen". A lot of people thought this movie was fantastic. A number of people thought that it was so ridiculous as to be unwatchable. This line was drawn somewhere around the Mason-Dixon line, as anyone who lives in a cold climate voted for 'ridiculous'. The acting was good, the effects (non CGI, all of them) were great. The tension was very well done and the storyline was pretty well paced. But it suffered from a number of major plot glitches that made it difficult to embrace. Namely:
1) People who know the cold have better survival instincts than to leave their hoods off/down. Yes, it was probably done that way so that we could see the actors faces, but the fact that they had hoods and either didn't zip them up or put them on was annoyingly wrong. This could have been fixed simply by giving them jackets without hoods.
2) Wolves don't effing act like that.
3) Ski slopes don't effing act like that.

Next up was the Punishment Film slot, the sort of thing usually taken up by "Tiptoes" or "Toys Are Not For Children". This year it was "Centipede Horror" and the talking up it got before it started ensured that this would be the movie I would sleep through. My husband and another friend both decamped to the lobby for the duration, so I took over their seats and my own, stuffed my neck roll under my head and caught a few Z's.

So I was awake for "The Candysnatchers" (at least mostly) which was a 70's exploitation flick. It was heavily faded, and there was a metric assload of misogyny but it maintained at least a level of entertainment by the ineptitude of the eponymous snatchers and the weird autistic kid. At least it was better than last years exploitation flick, insofar as it had a followable plot and quite a few laugh out loud moments.

Then there was the glory of the whole night. Morning was rearing it's ugly, sun-bleached head and we rolled into a film that had barely entered into my consciousness, "Kick-Ass". And much ass it did kick indeed. Basic starting plot is a high school boy who's pretty much the geeky everyman who no one really see's decides to become a super hero by buying a custom wetsuit and proceeding to tell people not to be bad guys. This leads to a massive beat-down and his gaining both a somewhat stronger skeleton (from all the pins and metal joints) and a screwed up nervous system which means he doesn't feel pain as much as he should. That's it for super powers. More on the plot itself I should not say, but there is an 11 year old girl super hero who just, rocks beyond all words. We were a room full of very picky, very tired cinema fans, and this one brought us to our feet, laughing and hooting and hollering and clapping along with fight scenes. It was an adrenaline rush of a thing, and everyone, I mean everyone, should see this movie. But no one will ever get to see it the way we did, and for that, I am sad for all of you.

Finally, and most predictably, we got James Cameron's "Avatar". I liked it, even though it did suck my adrenaline away and I did nod off a couple of times. That was more due to the tired than the quality of the movie. On one hand, it's extremely predictable. If, after the first 20 minutes you don't know how this is all going to play out, then you just haven't been paying attention. Still, for all that you know where the ride is going, getting there is so damn beautiful it's difficult to relate. The CGI manages to avoid the uncanny valley more skillfully than anything else I've seen. The acting wen it's live is great, and even when it's through CGI characters, it's really damn good. And it's beautiful. It's just so. damn. beautiful. This had better come out in IMAX, and if/when it does, I will be there.

Anyway, so that's it. There was more of course, meeting new people, eating new food, coming home with a massive stomach ache. But I'm tired, and my wad is blown, and so I leave you all with this one last thought.

"Kick-Ass", you must see it.