- ---_____---kj&riCiMCEin £.z, -ljj/ m uniLii iiCiCxwvbrain m raun j
)
Living large
Discrimination of overweight people ignored
BARB CHURCHILL is a
graduate student in wood
winds performance and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist.
This week’s People magazine
couldn’t have come at a better
time. The headline trumpets “larg
er size people,” who are attractive,
including Oprah Winfrey, the
model Emme, Carnie Wilson, and
other singers and actors. This
headline could prove to be the ,
most positive story told about
“bigger people” in years, as it
pointed out that “thin has not
always been in.” It is gratifying to
read that most are starting to
understand that we are not all the
same size as Cindy Crawford.
However, not everyone is as
enlightened as the writers for People
magazine. Some people fail to recog
nize “larger size people” as impor
tant, interesting, or even as human.
This was emphatically pointed out to
me a few days ago. I was out playing
video games, just trying to unwind.
However, I was about to get a rude
awakening. Some kids, ages 10 and
12, decided that I was too heavy, and
they made fun of me. It’s frustrating,
when people judge you solely on
your appearance. It is doubly frus
trating when the people doing the
judging are small children.
At 5 feet, 11 inches tall and more
than 200 pounds, I have often faced
this problem. If I were male, this
would be no big deal, as the stan
dards for male beauty are not “set in
stone.” Men can be tall and big, or
short and skinny, and women will
consider them attractive.
Unfortunately, the standards for
female beauty do not vary as much.
What seems to be desired is thin,
cute, “feminine” (whatever that
means) and busty. Usually, I try not
to let it upset me, because there is
very little that I can do about my
appearance. The only time I get upset
is when there are people who are
declasse enough to judge me for
something that I can’t help.
Some of you might be thinking,
“OK, Barb, why don’t you just go on
a diet?” Oh, I wish. I’ve tried every
thing - SlimFast, Healthy Choice
dinners, low-fat meals, exercise, you
name it. I’ve consulted doctors and
nutritionists, who say there is no
medical reason that I am my current
size. I do the right things. I eat a
well-balanced, low-fat diet, and
exercise daily, walking more than
two miles per day. Although the
exercise does help my asthma and
endurance, it hasn’t dropped my
weight. However, even at my imper
fect size and with my asthma, I
recently passed a cardiovascular fit
ness test. How many of you people
at more “normal” weights can say
the same?
There are so many misconcep
tions about “larger size people.”
Most people think that we eat too
much, which may not be the case.
Most people think that we don’t
exercise, when most of us do. Some
people, like these ill-bred children,
think that just because you are a
“larger size person” you are fair
game for verbal abuse. Finally, many
people think that we “larger folks”
don’t deserve to have good love rela
tionships, because “who wants to
date a fat person?” This is absurd and
nonsensical. We “larger size individ
uals” deserve the best that life has to
offer, just as our more-fortunate thin
brethren do. Why does my weight
have to dictate whether or not I can
be your friend (or more)? My worth
as a person has nothing to do with
how much space I occupy on this
earth.
Fortunately, there are some peo
ple who can look beyond the fact that
I am not a perfect size. However, the
question remains: Exactly why is it
OK to make fun of a heavier person?
And, why is it OK to be rude, and
disregard our feelings by pointing
out problems that we surely already
know about (and are working on),
just to feed your own egos? People
magazine showcased Emme, the size
14-16 model, as also having this
problem. One photographer told her
that he would be a “laughingstock” if
he photographed her because she is
“too big” by his standards. She has
been told by Armani and Donna
Karan that if she wants something
designed for her, she had better lose
weight.
Why was this indisputably
beautiful woman - who is in good
shape and health - told something
so ridiculous? The answer lies in
the fashion monopoly, which
would prefer that we women be
model-thin, leggy, tall and “cook
ie-cutter perfect.” However,
Emme, at her size 14-16, is a “per
fect size” for today’s woman. She
is comparable to Marilyn Monroe
and Jayne Mansfield, who were
(and still are) considered sexy, fit
and beautiful.
I am not a perfect size. I admit
this freely. Neither are many of the
women who were profiled in the
recent People magazine. However,
just because I could play linebacker
for the football team if I were a bit
younger and so inclined, does not
mean that I have no feelings. I am
doing the best I can with the body
that God gave me, just as Oprah,
Emme, and others are doing their
best with their bodies. “Fit” means
more than fat. And anyone with half
a brain must realize that we are all
born different - some fat, some thin,
some short, some tall, some dull and
some bright. Maybe, someday soon,
people will grant us “larger size indi
viduals” the respect that we are due
as fellow human beings. We need to
be free of unnecessary verbal abuse.
And as for those intolerant children
out there, may they learn that our
value has nothing to do with how
perfect (or imperfect) we are on the
outside. True beauty, after all, comes
only from within.
Digital wasteland
High-definition TV promises high-definition garbage
TODD MUNSON is a
junior broadcasting
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
I went down to the local
Laundry Lunacy a couple weeks
ago for my third and final laundry
excursion of the year, and came
away scared of the future. But
before we get to my stunning real
ization, I’ll answer a question you
might be wondering. Why does
Todd only do laundry three times a
year? It’s simple arithmetic friends.
I own 121.75 pairs of underwear.
With 365.25 days in the year, that
means I only have to wash my draw
ers three times a year. As for the rest
of my wardrobe, it’s earth-tones all
the way. They hide dirt and stench
like no other color in the spectrum.
Also, when it’s time to wash them,
there is no separation of whites and
colors, since they’re not exactly
either.
The neat thing about Laundry
i Lunacy is that it’s so much more
\ than your average Laundromat -
wall-to-wall televisions, a fully
loaded snack bar, and a vintage
“Defender” game machine tucked
away in the corner.
You all know where I was, only I
won’t say it. I have this hang-up
about gratuitous name dropping,
unless of course you are my good
friend Katie Turpin of Jefferson,
Iowa, who kindly bought me a pint
of Guinness in exchange for appear
ing in this space.
Five rolls of quarters later, I sat
down, weary from loading my
Underoos into half the washers in the
joint. From my bag, I pulled the
night’s reading, a book by Nobel
Prize winner Noam Chomsky.
Five pages into it, I felt my brain
and eyes wander to the television
tucked neatly into the counter.
Glorious, lifelike color; 45 chan
nels, and mind-rotting pleasures
only six inches away. The past two
years of my life have been cable
free and as a result, my grade point
average has launched into the
stratosphere of the upper 2.7 range.
Except for my addiction to “The
Simpsons,” I now try to stay away
from the tube in general. I think this
is because, as a first generation
latchkey child, television was my
friend and baby sitter for most of
the ’80s. Tonight, as if I were a
recovering crack addict delivering a
pizza to the local crack house, resis
tance was futile.
Flipping on the television, I
surfed with reckless abandon, and
stopped at my good friend, the
wrestling show “Monday Night
Raw.” Only this wasn’t die rasslin’ I
remembered. Where was Hulk
Hogan, The Junkyard Dog, George
the Animal Steele? I was shocked
and appalled. The great heroes of
yesteryear were replaced by jackass
es like “Dudelove,” a fat, toothless
Hessian in a tie-dyed outfit wrestling
under the guise of a hippie. This fool
made “Leaping Lannie Poffo” look
cool. A few choke-holds later, I
turned the channel in sorrow when
Vince McMahon had the audacity to
compare Dudelove to my idol Jimmy
“Superfly” Snuka.
I stopped at MTV, ready for
some mind-expanding music
videos. Instead, it was “Oddville,” a
program of truly stupid people
doing truly stupid tricks. I did find
it mildly amusing when a woman
blew her chance at fame*by failing
to recite the first 10 lines of the
Canterbury Tales while standing on
her head. Maybe there were videos
onVHl.
Not only were there videos, there
were “Pop-Up Video,” the epitome of
info-tainment. I later learned that
this is VH1 ’s highest-rated show. My
respect for Duran Duran grew
immensely when I found out that
Simon and the boys suffered through
• seasickness to make “Rio.”
I turned off the television.
Stunned by the utter cesspool televi
sion has become, I had my revela
tion.
In only a few short years, the
crap you see today will become high
definition crap, as America makes
the switch to high-definition televi
sion.
In a nutshell, HDTV is essential
ly regular television with a quadruple
shot of espresso. Instead of the con
ventional 525 lines of resolution of
conventional television, HDTV has
1,080 lines resulting in an almost 3
D picture. The sound is supercharged
to THX levels. And you can surf for
days on end without hitting the same
channel because the digital signal of
HDTV allows for almost limitless
channels. This a TV junkie’s pie-in
the-sky.
So what’s the problem?
Cost. Because HDTV is broad
cast on a digital signal rather than
today’s analog signal, every piece of
broadcast equipment must be
replaced. More than $2 billion will
be spent iust replacing TV towers.
Local stations fear HDTV, because
they have to purchase all new equip
ment by the year 2006. That’s when
the law says the digital signal will
take over for good.
Did I mention your brand-new
television is incompatible with
HDTV? Trying to piclc up HDTV
with your current set would by like
trying to play a compact disc on a
record player. Don’t worry. In a cou
ple years die cost of HDTV will have
dropped from $14,000 to a paltry
$2,000 for your average set. Save
some money for a new videoc assette
recorder too. If you’re like me, and
only watch a small amount of televi
sion, you can shell out money for a
price-to-be-determined converter
box to at least make your set HDTV
compatible.
The most appalling aspect of
HDTV is that there will be no
improvement in the quality of pro
gramming. Even the Advanced
Televisions Systems Committee says
there are certain things in life even
computers cannot be expected to
accomplish. Imagine the fun of pay
ing thousands of dollars to see high
definition Urkel.
When the time comes that you
are forced to go to HDTV, refuse it.
Read a book, ride a bike, meet your
neighbors, do anything but succumb
to that high-definition TV wasteland.
a»-.Y.w.-.v.v.v.v;; Ay»v.v.v;i. i—..v.-i-.v. -y.i;-,-, .w.v..v.v.:.,-. ■ »
Matt Haney/DN
If enough people hold out, network
execs will be forced to-create worth
while programs as a last ditch effort
to lure us to HDTV.
To make that happen, I want to
brainwash you with a quote from
Bartholomew Jo-Jo Simpson, “TV
sucks.” *
• i- ;■?
