Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin...again.

Oh, the sweet, sweet taste of quiet regurgitation.

And so here we are again.  

Another politician with yet, another juvenile, diabolical transgression, with yet, another humiliated wife looking on at yet, another news conference addressing indiscretions.  I may elaborate more about Weiner himself later, but for now allow me to repost from 2008, as the topic is relevant yet again.


REPOST

March 16, 2008

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

As of late, I have seen and heard many individuals, particularly women, ramble on about how angry they are with Silda Spitzer and her so called pathetic, codependent choice to support her husband during the controversy surrounding Mr. Spitzer’s recent, imprudent behavior; or what I have come to call—Seriously Spitzer, Could You Be a Bigger Narcissistic Moron?

To some degree I can understand this critical assessment of Mrs. Spitzer, as I must admit to my own knee jerk reaction upon first seeing her standing catatonic beside Spitzer at the podium. In fact, for a moment I was livid, yet slightly disoriented as to why I would be so quick to judge another's situation, as it’s not normally within my nature to automatically do so, especially under such an extreme and depraved circumstance. So I was puzzled, if not slightly sickened as to my disparaging response.

Seriously, what kind of bug did I have up my ass that day? Although at the time, I must admit that I was riding out some nasty cold medication.

I mean, justifiably our anger and criticism should be directed toward Spitzer himself, but instead we posture aggressively toward Mrs. Spitzer. It is truly astounding how quickly we have taken our eyes off the ball or in this case—off the bald. After all, Eliot Spitzer is the hypocritical, adulterous, self-centered narcissist who brought shame upon his family, not Silda. He is the aggressor, while Mrs. Spitzer and her three daughters are the victims, right?

So, why is it so easy for us to blame the victim?

As usual, it’s the media.

Upon reflection and in an effort to think outside the media driven box, I came to realize that I wasn’t at all upset with Mrs. Spitzer’s decision, but in fact with the media’s decision to methodically use and thereby assign a most subliminal term—“Standing By Her Man”—as the end all description for Mrs. Spitzer’s response; presentation of said subliminal term is of course complete with gripping graphic and melodramatic music required to further evoke drone like submission from the masses.

24-hour media loves the literal, injudicious picture. They would prefer not to truly think or deliberate, as both waste time, so the quicker to judge, think and/or deliberate (in fact manipulate), the quicker to air; the quicker to air, the higher the ratings; the higher the ratings, the more money they make. It’s a lava lamp of misleading, agenda driven information; hypnotic and painstakingly repetitive as it creates legions of disciples who are addicted and willing to depend upon 24-hour news as their definitive source for deliberative thought.

This tag: “Standing By Her Man," is an irresponsible assumption; a manipulative suggestion, with a rudimentary connotation that is entirely strategic, primitive and discriminatory in nature, while it leaves little room for interpretive discussion and/or deliberation. I mean as a viewer why bother with deliberation? There she is, demure and dutiful in her unassuming blue suit; complete with silk scarf accoutrement. She looks like an accommodating flight attendant: Can I get you a beverage Mr. Spitzer?  Would you like a pillow Mr. Spitzer? Hot hand towel Mr. Spitzer? The entire scenario is so 1950’s I could gag.

So I ask. Is she really Silda “Standing By Her Man?”

I’m not blind. I mean I see her standing there, demure and seemingly devoted as ever, but is she indeed supporting him?

Hello? I’m talking to you 24-hour news. Did you bother to investigate the situation before smacking this simplistic, suggestive tag upon her response and presence? Surely you have the journalistic capacity to sniff out a reliable source that might offer some insight as to Mrs. Spitzer’s genuine motivation for showing up to this humiliating press conference. After all, you hunt down sources to feed your incessant Britney stories; half a million reporters are strategically posted outside of Heath Ledger's loft waiting to get a shot of the velour covered mound (formerly known as Heath) as it/he is wheeled off into the coroner's vehicle. So what gives? Why this sudden, lackadaisical approach?

This tag: “Standing By Her Man," has become tiresome as politician after politician is compelled to believe that they are beyond the moral/legal law and further, entitled to break it: Senator Larry Craig, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Governor James McGreevey and Senator David Vitter just to name a recent few. And guess what? All of their respective wives could be seen “Standing By Her Man,” albeit looking as if they had just thrown up in their mouths a little bit.

But should we be surprised with this rush to tag behavior?

No. As usual, 24-hour news has failed society. It has failed to consider that Mrs. Spitzer’s presence may be indicative of anything other than spousal dedication; that “Standing By Her Man” may not at all be about devotion, but strategy. For all we know she has already hired an assassin to settle all this cheating nonsense—although Silda, I wouldn’t recommend the extermination route, as I’m sure that your husk of a husband is friends and/or plays poker with the majority of NYC hit men, I’m just sayin’.

Yet this 24-hour assessment of what is indeed assumed accurate should be expected, as deliberate manipulation or at least partial omission is a symptom of the sexist, agenda-driven, one-dimensional society that we live in, wherein the news presents what it is we are allowed to see, dictates what it is we are allowed to think and therefore learn about our roles in society. They are corrupt and far from impartial, as they are in bed with cooperate entities, and therefore, riddled with sexism, ageism and racism. As a convenient source for news, 24-hour news takes advantage of their viewers by providing subliminal anti-group-of-the-moment rhetoric, which we (or most of) society will perceive as the valid truth. We don’t even realize that we’re being discriminated against and molded into thoughtless drones; drones who are taught to recognize that a woman should indeed “Stand By Her Man,” no matter the indiscretion because that's what we do. Put on your best 2-piece tweed, accessorize and smile lady because that’s what you do. Rub your feet, Mr. Spitzer? Would you like another blanket, Mr. Spitzer?

So, as I listen to women criticize Mrs. Spitzer’s choice, I think to myself, huh, nice job 24-hour news, you’ve managed to blame the victim and thereby turn women against women, wherein they cannot come together and give Mrs. Spitzer the benefit of doubt, support, or even consider that she may have her own agenda as to why she’s “Standing By Her Man.” It’s a divisive, strategic tactic indeed, meant to keep the masses from thinking, bonding, forming, gathering and revolting against the corporation and it works like a gem. 

To see the true off her rocker jenji rant click here

Look, I'm sure she has her reasons for standing alongside him at these press conferences, be it religion, her children, whatever. Perhaps she is a passive product of a patriarchal society, I don’t know.  I’m not nearly as psychic as Sylvia Browne suggests each one of us might be. My point is that we truly can't predict what it is that Mrs. Spitzer may be feeling and going through during this particular crisis anymore than we might be able to predict her favorite flavor ice cream. However, we might consider that there may be more than one explanation for her behavior, as even Neapolitan has three flavors.

So, let's deliberate for a moment.

Here’s a question: Has anyone stopped to consider that Mrs. Spitzer is merely protecting her children who have been emotionally abandoned and traumatized by their father's disgraceful indiscretions? That as a matter of protection she may in fact be determined to keep their world as consistent as possible by postponing the feminist solution—to publicly scorn and vilify their father—as it would only serve to further exacerbate these abandonment issues for her children; is that possible? Could this be a Mama Lion at work?

This is just a theory, but it is entirely plausible that Mrs. Spitzer might be gathering all of her energy to provide a stable constant; a parent that her vulnerable children can actually depend upon and trust.

So what’s the solution, jenji? You must have some sort of alternative title/tag up your sleeve that 24-hour news can implement in an effort to describe her response, one which might somehow remain neutral, while still presenting the situation?

Oh, it’s not a tag at all. The solution is that he/she who has deceived, wandered and/or strayed should be holding these conferences solamente, sans the spousal distraction so that we may then concentrate all of our energy upon the true jackass of the moment.

True Jackass of the Moment

True Jackass of the Moment In Training

Then I should think the tags would be quite easy to create--literal even. The problem for the 24-hour graphics department is that these tags would constantly change, as do the deceitful aggressors. What a kick in the pants for graphics.

Still, I should think that these tags would read something like this:

-Governor Spitzer Will Now Talk Out of His Ass and Admit Felonious Activites

-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick Admits to Boning his Ex Chief-of-Staff

-Governor James McGreevey Admits Homosexuality and Buys Property on Fire Island

-Senator Larry Craig Admits Incontinence, But Insists That His Bladder Is Not, Nor Has It Ever Been Gay

-Senator David Vitter Admits DC Madam Is On His Christmas Wish List

-Anthony Weiner Continues To Live Up To His Name

Do you see what I’m saying? Now that’s simplistic and literal! The graphics department can thank me later.

I'm just sayin', take a moment to truly deliberate, to think outside of the media driven box and resist the mesmerizing, hypnotic, 24-hour lava lamp of complacency; consider as many sides of the issue as possible before you harangue and blame the victim. Make an effort to wade through the thick, 24-hour bisque of the day and whether vituperative or supportive in the end at least you’ve taken the time to interact before you react.

A bit of advice for Eliot Spitzer: although Mrs. Spitzer has been victimized she still has the capacity to react as anything other than a victim, for most mothers would agree—betray me and we may be able to work this out, betray my children and you’ll find yourself wishing you had never been born.

jenji

Prognostication

Let me take a wild guess, Mr. Family Man: you're a sex addict.

Yes, spin your web of lies and then please, go ahead and join your cohorts in the douche bag suite.

jenji

Living Out Loud

Last night on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Janine Garofalo commented on Twitter and Facebook et al.

She spoke directly to the audience when she said:

"...you young people are living out loud. All this information you're putting out there in perpetuity, but take it from me, I'm a narcissist believe me, but at least I have the decency to hate myself. Young people, you have no grasp of self-loathing and how to censor the output of what you put out there."

Indeed.






Breakfast of champions.

jenji

Smoke and Mirrors

As of late, I have seen and heard many individuals, particularly women, ramble on about how angry they are with Silda Spitzer and her so called pathetic, codependent choice to support her husband during the controversy surrounding Mr. Spitzer’s recent, imprudent behavior; or what I have come to call—Seriously Spitzer, Could You Be a Bigger Narcissistic Moron?

To some degree I can understand this critical assessment of Mrs. Spitzer, as I must admit to my own knee jerk reaction upon first seeing her standing catatonic beside Spitzer at the podium. In fact, for a moment I was livid, yet slightly disoriented as to why I would be so quick to judge another's situation, as it’s not normally within my nature to automatically do so, especially under such an extreme and depraved circumstance. So I was puzzled, if not slightly sickened as to my disparaging response.

Seriously, what kind of bug did I have up my ass that day? Although at the time, I must admit that I was riding out some nasty cold medication.

I mean, justifiably our anger and criticism should be directed toward Spitzer himself, but instead we posture aggressively toward Mrs. Spitzer. It is truly astounding how quickly we have taken our eyes off the ball or in this case—off the bald. After all, Eliot Spitzer is the hypocritical, adulterous, self-centered, narcissist who brought shame upon his family, not Silda. He is the aggressor, while Mrs. Spitzer and her three daughters are the victims, right?

So, why is it so easy for us to blame the victim?
As usual, it’s the media.

Upon reflection and in an effort to think outside the media driven box, I came to realize that I wasn’t at all upset with Mrs. Spitzer’s decision, but in fact with the media’s decision to methodically use and thereby assign a most subliminal term—“Standing By Her Man”—as the end all description for Mrs. Spitzer’s response; presentation of said subliminal term is of course complete with gripping graphic and melodramatic music required to further evoke drone like submission from the masses.

24-hour media loves the literal, injudicious picture. They would prefer not to truly think or deliberate, as both waste time, so the quicker to judge, think and/or deliberate (in fact manipulate), the quicker to air; the quicker to air, the higher the ratings; the higher the ratings, the more money they make. It’s a lava lamp of misleading, agenda driven information; hypnotic and painstakingly repetitive as it creates legions of disciples who are addicted and willing to depend upon 24-hour news as their definitive source for deliberative thought.

This tag: “Standing By Her Man," is an irresponsible assumption; a manipulative suggestion, with a rudimentary connotation that is entirely strategic, primitive and discriminatory in nature, while it leaves little room for interpretive discussion and/or deliberation. I mean as a viewer why bother with deliberation? There she is, demure and dutiful in her unassuming blue suit; complete with silk scarf accoutrement. She looks like an accommodating flight attendant: Can I get you a beverage Mr. Spitzer? Would you like a pillow Mr. Spitzer? Hot cloth Mr. Spitzer? The entire scenario is so 1950’s I could gag.

So I ask. Is she really “Standing By Her Man?”

I’m not blind. I mean I see her standing there, demure and seemingly devoted as ever, but is she indeed supporting him?

Hello? I’m talking to you 24-hour news. Did you bother to investigate the situation before smacking this simplistic, suggestive tag upon her response and presence? Surely you have the journalistic capacity to sniff out a reliable source that might offer some insight as to Mrs. Spitzer’s genuine motivation for showing up to this humiliating conference. After all, you hunt down sources to feed your incessant Britney stories; half a million reporters are strategically posted outside of Heath Ledger's loft waiting to get a shot of the velour covered mound (formerly known as Heath) as it/he is wheeled off into the coroner's vehicle. So what gives? Why this sudden, lackadaisical approach?

This tag: “Standing By Her Man," has become tiresome as politician after politician is compelled to believe that they are beyond the moral/legal law and further, entitled to break it: Senator Larry Craig, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Governor James McGreevey and Senator David Vitter just to name a recent few. And guess what? All of their respective wives could be seen “Standing By Her Man,” albeit looking as if they had just thrown up in their mouths a little bit.

But should we be surprised with this rush to tag behavior?

No. As usual, 24-hour news has failed society. It has failed to consider that Mrs. Spitzer’s presence may be indicative of anything other than spousal dedication; that “Standing By Her Man” may not at all be about devotion, but strategy. For all we know she has already hired an assassin to settle all this cheating nonsense—although Silda, I wouldn’t recommend the extermination route, as I’m sure that your husk of a husband is friends and/or plays poker with the majority of NYC hit men, I’m just sayin’.

Yet this 24-hour assessment of what is indeed assumed accurate should be expected, as deliberate manipulation or at least partial omission is a symptom of the sexist, agenda-driven, one-dimensional society that we live in, wherein the news presents what it is we are allowed to see, dictates what it is we are allowed to think and therefore learn about our roles in society. They are corrupt and far from impartial, as they are in bed with cooperate entities, and therefore, riddled with sexism, ageism and racism. As a convenient source for news, 24-hour news takes advantage of their viewers by providing subliminal anti-group-of-the-moment rhetoric, which we (or most of) society will perceive as the valid truth. We don’t even realize that we’re being discriminated against and molded into thoughtless drones; drones who are taught to recognize that a woman should indeed “Stand By Her Man,” no matter the indiscretion because that's what we do. Put on your best 2-piece tweed, accessorize and smile lady because that’s what you do. Rub your feet, Mr. Spitzer? Would you like another blanket, Mr. Spitzer?

So, as I listen to women criticize Mrs. Spitzer’s choice, I think to myself, huh, nice job 24-hour news, you’ve managed to blame the victim and thereby turn women against women, wherein they cannot come together and give Mrs. Spitzer the benefit of doubt, support, or even consider that she may have her own agenda as to why she’s “Standing By Her Man.” It’s a divisive, strategic tactic indeed, meant to keep the masses from thinking, bonding, forming, gathering and revolting against the cooperation and it works like a gem.
To see the true off her rocker jenji rant click here.

Look, I'm sure she has her reasons for standing alongside him at these press conferences, be it religion, her children, whatever. Perhaps she is a passive product of a patriarchal society, I don’t know. I’m not nearly as psychic as Sylvia Browne suggests each one of us might be. My point is that we truly can't predict what it is that Mrs. Spitzer may be feeling and going through during this particular crisis anymore than we might be able to predict her favorite flavor ice cream. However, we might consider that there may be more than one explanation for her behavior; even Neapolitan has three flavors.

So, let's deliberate for a moment.

Here’s a question: Has anyone stopped to consider that Mrs. Spitzer is merely protecting her children who have been emotionally abandoned and traumatized by their father's disgraceful indiscretions? That as a matter of protection she may in fact be determined to keep their world as consistent as possible by postponing the feminist solution—to publicly scorn and vilify their father—as it would only serve to further exacerbate these abandonment issues for her children; is that possible? Could this be a Mama Lion at work?

This is just a theory, but it is entirely plausible that Mrs. Spitzer might be gathering all of her energy to provide a stable constant; a parent that her vulnerable children can actually depend upon and trust.

So what’s the solution, jenji? You must have some sort of alternative title/tag up your sleeve that 24-hour news can implement in an effort to describe her response, one which might somehow remain neutral, while still presenting the situation?

Oh, it’s not a tag at all. The solution is that he/she who has deceived, wandered and/or strayed should be holding these conferences solamente, sans the spousal distraction so that we may then concentrate all of our energy upon the true jackass of the moment.







<---true jackass of the moment

Then I should think the tags would be quite easy to create--literal even. The problem for the 24-hour graphics department is that these tags would constantly change, as do the deceitful aggressors. What a kick in the pants for graphics.

Still, I should think that these tags would read something like this:

Governor Spitzer Will Now Talk Out Of His Ass and Admit Felonious Activities

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick Admits to Boning His ex Chief-of-Staff

Governor James McGreevey Admits Homosexuality and Buys Property on Fire Island

Senator Larry Craig Admits Incontinence, but Insists That His Bladder Is Not, Nor Has It Ever Been Gay

Senator David Vitter Admits DC Madam Is On His Christmas Wish List

Do you see what I’m saying? Now that’s simplistic and literal! The graphics department can thank me later.

I'm just sayin', take a moment to truly deliberate, to think outside of the media driven box and resist the mesmerizing, hypnotic, 24-hour lava lamp of complacency; consider as many sides of the issue as possible before you harangue and blame the victim. Make an effort to wade through the thick, 24-hour bisque of the day and whether vituperative or supportive in the end at least you’ve taken the time to interact before you react.

A bit of advice for Eliot Spitzer: although Mrs. Spitzer has been victimized she still has the capacity to react as anything other than a victim, for most mothers would agree—betray me and we may be able to work this out, betray my children and you’ll find yourself wishing you had never been born.

jenji

Rewind

You know what annoys me?

Actors who play retards.

Hold on, don’t get your undapants in a knot—hear me out.

I use the word retard, when in fact I would normally use the term mentally/physically challenged and/or the actual name of a particular condition. Look, I have volunteered with Special Olympics, Meals On Wheels, as well as various other organizations and like most people, I know individuals who are mentally/physically challenged, yet I have never had a single interaction with any of these individuals wherein I walked away and thought to myself, “Wow, what a retard.”

In fact, whenever I hear the word retard I will often think of the actor; the actor whose interpretation and subsequent portrayal of a mentally/physically challenged individual will somehow ironically manage to evoke the thought, “Wow, now that’s a retard!”

So, when an actor signs on to portray the mentally/physically challenged—Down’s Syndrome, Autism, blind, deaf and the lot, as well as those who have been tragically forced to live within the isolated, claustrophobic walls of a giant, plastic bubble—there should be an added proviso within their contract; that in doing so they are thereby automatically eligible to receive a public flogging, as we the viewer will hold the unconditional right to bestow upon said actor should they manage to muck up any plausible depiction of the aforesaid challenged and thereby, through their negligent performance, produce a complete retard.

I believe that a pretentious and opportunistic Hollywood all too often perpetuates and produces this stereotypical retard through their formulaic, melodramatic interpretation of the mentally/physically challenged, which provides a distorted image for the uninformed viewer and fuel for the discriminatory, bigoted viewer.

I don’t mean to imply that all performances are irresponsible, as some are quite accurate, dignified and considerate.

Still some are not necessarily based upon a particular condition, but an amalgam of various conditions. I’m okay with that. As a filmmaker I can appreciate the creativity involved in writing, constructing, becoming and successfully delivering a challenged, complex character.

A few examples--these individuals have been pardoned from said flogging:

Jodie Foster in Nell (but just barely)
Billy Bob Thornton-Sling Blade
Marlee Matlin-Children of a Lesser God (then again, she really is deaf)
Tom Hanks-Forrest Gump
Dustin Hoffman-Rainman (but I never want to see him play a savant again)
Eric Stoltz-Mask (yet I must say that Cher ruined this film for me)
Robert De Niro-Awakenings

To be flogged:

Leonardo Dicaprio-What’s Eating Gilbert Grape
Rosie O’Donnell is highly offensive in Riding The Bus With My Sister

Giovanni Ribisi-The Other Sister
Juliette Lewis-The Other Sister
Ernie Hudson-Hand that Rocks the Cradle
Laura Dern-Mask
Sean Penn-I Am Sam
John Travolta-Boy in the Plastic Bubble (b/c frankly, Travolta isn’t even near as riveting as the real Bubbleboy)

You should know that Kirstie Alley sparked this blog entry through her ridiculous portrayal of a mentally handicapped individual in the Lifetime Original Movie Profoundly Normal, or what I’ve come to call, You Must Be Kidding Me, Kirstie.

Hollywood needs to get over itself; there are plenty of mentally/physically challenged actors available who are capable of representing and portraying the intricacies related to their own conditions.

For example, the actor Max Lewis has Down ‘s Syndrome and portrays the jovial son of a troubled young woman (Cate Blanchett) in Notes On A Scandal, yet the condition does not define his character nor his abilities as an actor; that is, Down’s Syndrome is something he has, not who nor what the character/Max is.








Max and his mother Sandy

When a non-challenged actor portrays the challenged condition it is the challenge that all too often becomes exploited, exaggerated, overanalyzed and gratuitous, wherein the spirit and essence of the challenged human being becomes secondary and superfluous.

We get it Hollywood, you’re diverse—you can be anything you want to be—your talent transcends all logical boundaries; you can drool, drag and limp with great skill and dedication.

But please, enough with the theatrics; stop playing retards and start playing human beings.

Don’t get me started on adult actors who play children.
Yes, I’m talking to you Robin Williams!

jenji