Reader Poll: Change or stay the same?

Mr. And Candy and I have been watching The Marriage Ref. Basically, if you haven't watched it, married couples submit their arguments for dissection and resolution by the host, Tom Papa, and a variety of celebrity panelists. Whoever wins according to the host has to give up the argument and concede defeat, but all the couples get a fabulous luxury holiday just for being on the show, so don't cry too hard for the losers!

I'm sure you will think me a philistine for enjoying it but I do. It is not so hard to recognize oneself in the petty yet deeply felt arguments of other married folk, and of course the smug feeling of superiority when viewing arguments much more petty, ridiculous and or lower class than one's own is hugely enjoyable.

Anyway. One of the recent arguments was a husband who wanted his wife to change her last name to his, and she didn't want to. Part, but not all, of her reasoning was that she worked in radio and was known by her "maiden" name professionally.

The panelists pretty much agreed that it was up to her, except then it kind of veered off into "She should be allowed to keep it professionally but she should change it in her personal life like for checking accounts and so on" - this is exactly what the two female panelists, Kelly Ripa (Consuelos) and Demi Moore (Kutcher) had done, after all. To be honest with you I was sort of shocked that these other arguments were even brought up, especially by women, because to me this is a case where "I don't want to" is an end-of-story type deal.

I just kind of assumed in today's modern world that since we no longer view women as property changing hands from father to husband that it had become a matter of choice solely up to the woman (seeing as her life is the only one affected). I changed mine, because I wanted to. I probably wouldn't have if his last name had been worse than mine, like, Maggott or Fartstein or something.

What do the wise citizens of the blogosphere have to say on this matter?

Namaste, dirtbags.

So the other day I misread Yoga Co-op as Yoga Cop.

Yoga Cop would make a great sitcom.

A big-city detective, retired after some traumatic experience in the line of duty, opens a yoga studio to try to find some inner peace. But after a typo in his newspaper ad, people keep coming to him to solve crimes and he always ends up using yoga to do it. Like maybe he meditates and centers his mind so that the solution can come to him, or he subdues the bad guy by twisting him into some pretzelly position, or discovers the missing bullet casings while doing a quick downward facing dog at the crime scene. Hilarity ensues.

Thomas Haden Church would make an excellent Yoga Cop. He would always be butting heads with the sassy Latina detective who's taken over his old beat. His yoga studio partners would be an elderly burnt-out hippie and a ditzy new-agey girl that would be his love interest.

Would you watch Yoga Cop? Leave your casting and plot suggestions in the comments!

And in another Survivor-related post...

What would CBS do if there was some kind of natural disaster or freak accident in which all of the Survivors were killed?

"Tonight on Survivor: Some Random Island We Hope You've Forgotten We've Already Been To: A freak tidal wave washes away the camp, and all the Survivors are washed out to sea. Ironically, there are no survivors."

I suppose Jeff would just keep the million.

Make sense? Wanna know what you're playing for?

Survivor is about to be back on for its 27th season. I'm pretty sure Jeff Probst can just go ahead & print his own money now. In fact I imagine his last salary negotiation went something like this:

[SCENE: Interior, CBS boardroom.
Executives sit around a table the size of a swimming pool. JEFF PROBST enters. He is wearing chunky gold rings on each finger, heavy chains about his neck and a floor-length fur coat.]

JEFF PROBST: Fifty virgins by tomorrow, or I walk.

CONCERNED EXECUTIVE: But Jeff...

JEFF PROBST: Ah-bah-bah! [peremptorily waves beringed hand] Fifty.


[FIN]

Racist dog food commercial.

I just watched this ad for Cesar dog food and I must say I am appalled.

It shows various large dogs in "hilarious" attempts to do things that small dogs usually do, like sitting on a girl's lap, getting in a bicycle basket, hopping into a handbag and so on.

Like that unattractive girl at your work who wears too-tight, unflattering t-shirts that say "goddess" and "sexy", big dogs just don't get it.

The "punchline" of this propagandist tripe is "not every dog wants to be a Cesar's dog".

Oh really, Cesar? What, your food is too good for big dogs? Big dogs aren't fancy enough for you? I'm sure there are plenty of big dogs out there who would just love to be fancy and eat out of your little gold foil packets. But noooooo, you have to practice doggy apartheid and remind those more generously-proportioned pups that they're not allowed to enjoy your precious Steak Florentine. "Stick to your Generic Chunks in Goo!" you cry heartlessly to our big-boned canine chums.

Racist.


***
Disclaimer:
Of course I don't equate jokey little-dog snobbery with something as serious and hateful as racism. And the commercial is freaking adorable. It's just that I think one's size shouldn't get in the way of one's ability to be fancy. Am I right ladies?

Thesis: Project Runway as Cultural Lens.

WARNING: Highly subjective, opinionated, sweepingly generalized and probably factually inaccurate (not to mention ridiculously long) blog post ahead.
As always, feel free to weigh in with your own opinion in the comments.
Also, this is like my 104th post! Somehow I keep missing the milestones. What luck that they're of no interest to anyone else.

I've been feeling homesick for my people. It started when I was watching the Australian version of Project Runway.

First of all, Aussies swear a lot. And swearing is much less restricted not only on network television but also on cable* TV. The Aussie Project Runway contestants were swearing their hearts out constantly. We're simply not that offended by it. I'm not saying preschoolers and old nannas are telling each other to eff off, but we just don't take it as seriously as Americans do. Particularly blasphemy, which is barely considered swearing at all, at least in terms of television censorship.

Not only that, simply the way Australians interact with one another is different. The difference is almost indefinable but I think this is what it is:

1. Aussies don't like putting themselves forward.
This is why the Australian version of Survivor failed and why the Aussie Project Runway contestants were dreadful at team challenges - no one wanted to tell other people what to do.
The Aussie Tim Gunn replacement didn't say "You have to pack your bags and leave", he said "I'm going to need you to pack your things and leave", thereby distancing himself from what was essentially an order. He made it sound like he wasn't telling them to leave, he was just letting them know that it needed to happen.
Americans tend to like trying things and are not afraid to take charge. Australians don't want to be seen as thinking they are better than you...

2. ... but they will never let you think you're superior to them.
American politeness involves a kind of deference that most Australians would choke on**. Americans tend to expect it should you be perceived as their social inferior in some way (like a waitress or a younger person). As a simple example, here in the South they are particularly fond of calling people "sir" and "ma'am", whereas in Australia you will often be called "mate", "darl" or "love" by people you've only just met (especially old ladies in fish & chip shops for some reason).

Aussies aren't rude exactly, they just don't kowtow to the idea of a class system. The working-class man is the idealized cultural icon of Australia, which probably has something to do with the current culture having been created by people from the lower echelons of the British class system... Oh crap, I think I just contradicted myself. I think what I mean to say is, there is some sort of class system inasmuch as there are different socio-economic levels in society but we place less importance on those levels in our interactions, and the highest level is definitely not the most respected.

We are appropriately polite, respectful to our elders and in professional situations, but there is an inherent understanding of equality as people that I believe flows through all Australian interactions.

One of the greatest sins in Australian culture is to be "up yourself" or arrogant, and if you are suspected of this great crime you will be mercilessly cut down - the downside of which is that often if you want to achieve great success you have to move somewhere like America where self-confidence and self-assurance are considered valuable and you can get a lot more arrogant before it starts grating on people.


*There are 5 free-to-air networks and cable TV exists, but is nowhere near as prevalent as in the US. Satellite TV is more or less unheard of, or at least was when I left.

**This may be why hospitality service in Australia seems to be a bit crappier than the US. Australians do not enjoy being in a position of servitude to other people, and compensate for it with a snotty attitude. Also they get paid a decent wage, so they don't need to kiss your arse*** for tips.

***I'm spelling it the Aussie way for this post; it seemed appropriate.

To Boldly Go...

Captain Kirk: We don't know what terrible dangers may lurk down on this strange new planet. We'll need to assemble an away team. Let's see... of course I will go, my second in command Spock, Chief Medical Officer McCoy, Lieutenant Sulu... and you there, in the red shirt, what's your name?

Ensign: Jenkins, sir.

Captain Kirk: All right, Ensign Jenkins, you're coming with us. You too, Ensign Kowalski.

Ensigns: Aw, crap.


As soon as you saw some poor schmo in a red shirt (who you'd never seen before) in the away team, you knew who was going to get crushed by styrofoam rocks or atomized by unconvincingly plastic lizard-people. My mum and I coined the name Ensign Expendable for these unfortunate fellows. I wonder if Starfleet Academy had a course on Not Getting Picked For the Away Team, aka Survival 101.

"Blech! Euwwww... Mountain Dew?! I'll take a crab juice."*

So we watched the season finale of Survivor the other night and as per ushe they revealed at the end of the reunion show where the next season will be located.

***Spoiler Alert****





Samoa.

Oh my gosh how exciting, a South Pacific island loca... no, wait, they've done that about seven hundred times already. Not to say I won't be watching it anyway, but still.

Husband said he wished they'd totally switch it up and go somewhere completely different, which is when we came up with:

Survivor: Manhattan
The survivors have to spend 39 days in the dank, fetid subway tunnels of Manhattan Island.
They must build their own shelters out of indigenous materials like cardboard boxes and discarded Wall St. Journals, and avoid native hazards such as sewer alligators and that really smelly steam that comes out of manhole covers.

Challenges include:
Asking a New Yorker for Directions
Interpreting a New Yorker Cartoon
Building a Trashcan Fire
Eating a Sewer Rat Before It Eats You
Not Being Stabbed By a Hobo





*A million points to whoever can correctly identify this Simpsons quote, and a bonus million if you can figure out how the heck it relates to this post.

Just quickly...

Is anyone else watching Dollhouse?

I feel like my husband and I are the only people watching it, and I will be very cross if it gets canceled, because I really really love it! Pretty much anything Joss Whedon does (Buffy, Firefly) is awesome and Dollhouse is no exception so far.

So if you aren't watching it already, please get caught up on Hulu and start watching it...

...I promise, that whole "Watch FOX and be damned for all eternity!" thing was just a joke!