April 26, 2005
I hate Oprah Winfrey. I just do-always have. I softened a bit with her book club, but when Jonathan Franzen refused, in his whistledick way, to bow to her throne of literary taste, she reacted like such a petulant child that my hatred went full-throttle again. Her body obsession! Her God complex! Her disdain for the masses! Her boring, boring life! Why suburban moms latch onto this somnolent You Go Girl is beyond me, but it does add to my sport of Oprah-hating. Why so many tears, ladies? Why do you think she can help you? She's an idiot treadmill runner who wears too much makeup. She thinks hanging out with Maya Angelou is fun. Yet like the Queen of TV herself, I'm a busy gal, and I've let my pastime of yelling at Oprah go by the wayside. Lucky for me, last week I tuned in to actually encounter a woman more despicable than Dame O herself: Ayelet Waldman.This darling sex kitty (er, I mean chubby, overdone mystery writer) evidently is Oprah's newest tool in her latest campaign to make suburban moms hate themselves. It turns out that Oprah is concerned that none of us mothers are having enough sex with our husbands. Mom is just so passionately involved with her kids that by the end of the day she's too tapped out for nookie with dad. Dad, the poor soul, must console himself with an affair, which ruins the marriage, and there you have it: the old lady and the kids bringing everyone down.Fortunately, Ayelet and Mr. Ayelet are having loads of sex, and she's here with the secret: She loves her husband more than her kids. Yes. She loves her husband MORE than her kids. (This is in writing, [check it out][1].)Ayelet went on to explain that she could live on if one of her kids died. Sure, she would be sad, but you know, thems the breaks. She could not, however, live without her husband. Seriously. She has that in writing, too. (Oprah, meanwhile, sits and nods approvingly.)Holy sumbitch, is this woman on crack?It must be easy to live in a world as simple and linear as Ayelet's. No shades of gray, no variations in type. Life for her is one steady continuum: must love the big one more, he makes more money. Place the little ones in a line along the yardstick of my love. Simple. Worried I was missing something, I checked in with Mr. Eastside. (Communication! Oprah benevolently smiles upon us.) Sure enough, he was as shocked and disgusted as I was.The thing is, my husband and I realize the point we are in our lives. The love I have for my husband is quite different than the love I have for my kids. Right now I have to love my kids with more immediacy because they are very young, and they need me. It is also clear to me that my husband's love for them is more raw, more intense right now, than his love for me. It does not mean he doesn't love me anymore, or that I'm a consolation prize. Interestingly, this love I see he has for them feeds mine for him: If the kids and I are in a burning building, I know he would save them first. He should. They are our children. (This protection of our brood, by the way, is quite attractive.)Yes, I know the divorce rate statistics, and I'm not so arrogant to think we aren't at risk. These statistics cannot, however, scare me into piling on the makeup and declaring on national television that there is limited room in my heart, and that the kids are losing out. Even if it would give me a prime opportunity to kick Oprah right in the shin.Instead, I feel compelled to implore women across the country to reject Oprah and her minions. Everything will be okay. There's more to life (and love) than losing weight and having sex. But then my selfish side flares up: if we reject Oprah, she will go away, and then I'd be left with my hatred of Katie Couric, which isn't nearly as much fun. [1]: http://www2.oprah.com/tows/booksseen/200504/tows_book_20050420_kmose_b.jhtml
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
The thing that I don't like about Oprah is that so many of her shows are fear-based. Some of them are totally over the top like "what would you do if you were pregnant and fell down the stairs and impaled yourself on a hockey stick" (I didn't make that up), and others are more subtle like "love your husband more than your kids or he will cheat on you," but they all seem to play on some sort of fear or insecurity of American women.
As for this Ayelet woman, I think that she touches on a legitimate subject, which is not losing yourself in your love for your children to the point that you have no life or have a suffering marriage, but you're right that her method, or at least her way of articulating it is a little strange. I think you nailed the reality of the general population of parents much better than she did.
The conservative criticism of Oprah is that here she is acting as a conduit for all this information on how women should live thier lives, yet she won't marry her man and has no children. I have no problem with her lifestyle, per se, but I do wonder if it might expalin why she endorses wacky philosophies such as Ayelet's.
April 27, 2005 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
WTF!!! I thought this was a joke at first but again, WTF!!!! I too hate Oprah and her "shopping spree to replace food" mentality. The women that sit in on her shows are scary, glazed, and maniacal. And all the while, Oprah with her benevolent catfish eyes smiles serenely as idiots like this Ayelet-person rattle off the new way to improve your life. I think that all this self-improvement could start with turning off the damn TV and screwing your husband or reading a book to your kids (not at the same time, mind you) or something OTHER than watching that fricking show. Piece of shit, walk away.
April 27, 2005 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...
Then she should have stuck with just her husband, and left kids out of the picture. Poor little tykes. And you forgot to add Ayelet herself, at the top by a big, fat margin, on that yardstick. What she meant to say is that her husband will make her happier longer than her children, and since she cares for herself first and foremost. . . well, let's just hope that if they go boating, the kids are smart enough to bring their own lifejackets.
Just goes to show that nobody ever got rich telling women (or anyone, for that matter) that how they felt, did, or looked naturally was OK.
April 27, 2005 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
I think what's most interesting about "Oprah" and the other mid-afternoon TV shows is this: the commercials.
And yes, this has something to do with what you've just written, Leslie.
Do you pay attention to the commercials? All advertising taps into an undercurrent of self-improvement, but this takes it to another level. Just about ALL of the commercials are for tech colleges or something like that, where you can get a cheap education followed by an exciting job as a paralegal. (No disrespect intended to paralegals here.)
The assumption, then, is that anybody who is watching Oprah -- or Dr. Phil or Judge Judy or anything that comes on during the daylight hours -- apparently is dissatisfied with their lives, income, etc. The advertisers are counting on that, or they wouldn't spend so much money during this time of day, and Oprah sure as heck knows that, too. That's why she parades her constant stream of "improve your lifers" with their dubious advice and appearances on the bestseller list.
This isn't uplifting. It's condescencion. And thank goodness, Leslie, you recognize the difference.
April 27, 2005 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
weegee (anonymous) says...
Thanks for confirming for me that there are other women out there who despise Oprah. Even when she does have someone interesting on her show (ex: Barak Obama), she spends the entire show interrupting him to say, " Oh, I believe that too...I REALLY REALLY believe that." For us singles, we get shows like: "He's Just Not That Into You" (written by the experts who brought us Sex and the City--which is written as if every woman is desperate and every man is a Madison Ave. exec). Now, married women get to be told who to love the most. Aren't we lucky we have Oprah to tell us what to read? Isn't it fun to watch Oprah and her self-congratulatory celebufriends yukking it up over some big fundraiser they all got dolled up to attend?
April 27, 2005 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Snoop (anonymous) says...
Damm Carmenilla, a post you and I agree 100 percent on. First Ydog and his Reparations
suggestion and now this. What in the hell is going on!
On the commercials::..
"The assumption, then, is that anybody who is watching Oprah -- or Dr. Phil or Judge Judy or anything that comes on during the daylight hours -- apparently is dissatisfied with their lives, income, etc."
I notice it too. Its pretty pathetic. Which is why I stick to reruns of Dallas.
After this string of comments runs it course someone should forward the link to
Master "O"
April 27, 2005 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
christine (anonymous) says...
I have to admit, I like Oprah, or at least the idea of Oprah!
I like her story of success, I like that she challenges what a woman can/should do with her life, I like that she is a non-white face in the very white world of television, I like that she gets millions of boring suburban women to think about the world beyond their equally boring, sprawling, cooker-cutter windows by reading Tolstoy and Steinbeck and Morrison.
But, I also think that she has created a monster.
She has positioned herself so high and mighty with her crusades and spirituality and philosophies and money, and she has forgotten one important thing...she is no longer one of us. She is so far removed from reality that she could not possibly talk about real issues without sounding condescending.
I think she is better off sticking to her fundraisers and famous friends!
And since when do we have to choose one over the other-our partners or our children? Maybe in the "God forbid" fantasy that Ayelet plays, but how gruesome is that? It just leads me to believe that, like Oprah, this woman has too much time and money on her hands if she can sit around and ponder such terrible things at such great lengths!
April 27, 2005 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
It occurs to me... many of us seem to agree that Oprah is not cutting it. Leslie mentioned that Katie annoys her. Everybody likes to make fun of Barbara Walters, Martha Stewart scares people. Is there any famous woman out there that anyone actually admires? Or is it that we just don't like famous people and/or the idea of looking to someone famous as a role model?
April 27, 2005 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says...
I have to go to bat here for Martha. I think she's great. Yes, a ball-busting classist bitch, but she wears it honestly. And going to jail--what a brilliant PR move! It was absolute genius. I have no interest in being friends with her, but I think on the cultural landscape she's pretty inspiring.
I could go on and on about what is wrong with Oprah. Christine is right--her story is remarkable, and she was once refreshing. I liked the 1980's big-haired charismatic Oprah. Now, hoever, the Oprah Machine is entirely fueled by pride and money. Have you noticed that often the show's guests are *sitting in the audience,* with Oprah up on stage literally talking down to them. Why do people put up with that?
April 27, 2005 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
citizenx (anonymous) says...
This is funny, because for the first time in years I saw Oprah the other night in a fit of boredom...there was a feature show about what women are doing all over the world, and she had this talk show host from Iceland on. The Icelander revealed that everyone in the whole country is in one phone book...I learned something there...anyway, so Oprah called up the Icelandic ambassador just to tell him she didn't want to eat sheep balls (an Icelandic delicacy?). I found that incredibly strange. But also funny as hell. There were segments on women in Muslim countries that I really enjoyed. I learned a lot from seeing it, but I agree that Oprah's idea of herself is kind of out of control.
As far as your beef with her, and/or her guests I can see the point of not being completely child centered, and I don't think that love is parsed down to money. The reason for loving a husband 'more' is not because he makes the money. It's just a continuation of remembering why you get married in the first place. In her article, she draws the distinction between kinds of love, and simply prioritizes herself and her husband. Which makes sense, I think. But I'm not married and I sure don't have kids. Yes, I am selfish. I for one don't want to have to choose to put anyone over myself. Thank you, vasectomy!
April 27, 2005 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sleepyeditor (anonymous) says...
So, I caught one episode of Oprah two-and-a-half years ago. She was giving out her "Women with Hutzbah" award. The women receiving the award inspired me so much, that I went back to college and am months away from having a degree in journalism.
I didn't watch Oprah again after that, until four months ago when I caught her "Release Your Inner Sex-Pot" episode.
Thanks to Oprah for introducing me to some inspirational women, but my inner sexpot is staying right where it is.
April 27, 2005 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
Okaaaaay...
Maybe it's uplifting AND condescending. I stand corrected, sleepyeditor.
April 27, 2005 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
I am not a huge Oprah fan, but I don't despise her either. I think there is a danger of society either over-idolalzing the rich and famous, or cheering on their downfall. Something about human nature that roots for under-dogs, and then rails against those who succeed... As for this particular topic - I happened (God knows why) to catch a portion of the show (they run it again at night). All I can say about the topic of "should wives love their kids or husband more/first/better" is based upon personal experience (the best kind). My parents made it crystal clear to all 5 of their children that the relationship between them came first and foremost. They did not love their children any less nor skimp on attention and sacrifices on our behalf. They probably didn't even know what date night was, let alone have one. However, woe betide the child that tried to play one parent off the other, or get around one by going to the other. They embarassed us with their obvious physcial attraction to one another, and they never let us forget that if it weren't for their love for each other, none of us children would be on earth. Their love for each other was and is (after 53 years) sancrosanct. I'd like to think that it made us all a little more secure about how much they loved us and how strong love could be. I know for sure that it gave us a shining example of marital love. They showed their children how a good marriage looks and feels. And we all wanted a marriage just like theirs. (Even if we failed at it). It is very tempting to put one's spouse 2nd to a child who is nothing but a bottomless pit needing your love and care. And sometimes you just can't have sex with your mate because the kids took all of your extra energy! But if you really love the child, it is really loving your child too if you can/do maintain and do all you can to always have a healthy love for their other parent. As someone who divorced her child's father, I know that isn't always possible. But I do believe there is a lot of merit in the example my parents set. Putting your marriage as the priority relationship in your life is a good way to love your children in the best way possible.
April 27, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MyName (anonymous) says...
See it's like this:
Oprah tries to be uplifting, and she does a good job of it, but she can't be *too* uplifiting or you'll start to realize that you could probably do something better with that hour of your day than watching Oprah. And then her ratings will plummet. So she has to switch back to being condescending by the end of the show.
That's what happened to me, I only had time to watch half of her show and I never stuck around for the condescension. Eventually, I got so uplifted that I quit watching TV altogether (pretty much). Actually, I haven't watched her show in years, I even missed the episode with the free cars, so maybe she's changed the formula since then.
April 27, 2005 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says...
Last summer I visited Chicago for the first time. I saw the giant building on the shore of Lake Michigan were Oprah used to live. For some reason, I thought of the Death Star.
"That's no moon. It's a space station."
"It's too big to be a space station."
"I've got a bad feeling about this..."
April 28, 2005 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joeynotjoe (Joseph Murphy) says...
My best friend in high school's aunt lived in the building Oprah lived in for a long time. One time he was "so lucky", he got to be on the elevator with her. He was 11 (i think) at the time, so he was like holy crap Oprah in the elevator! She told him "stop staring at me, kid". Now I know this story is true because his mom told me, and I believe her. Anyway, I just really like that story of Oprah. She is the worst human alive (close)
April 28, 2005 at 2:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
Somebody should tell gladfelter that the "Star Wars" discussion is on my blog...
April 28, 2005 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jd (anonymous) says...
I don't know... it's pretty fun to hate Katie Couric. She tries so hard to be serious, cute and condescending all at the same time. And who can forget the trip through her colon on the morning news?!
Free Martha and put an ankle bracelet on Oprah and Katie.
April 28, 2005 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
we aren't given a finite amount of love to give when we're born (if we were, i would have wasted it all on hotwheels cars early on). i wasted love on several psychotic freaks before i met my wife, but i didn't have less love to give her when we met. when our son was born, i had plenty of love to give him, and my love for my wife in no way diminished. i even have enough love for our 3-year-old daughter, and she's a rotten little kid.
intimate time with your mate is certainly an issue worth addressing, but placing sex ahead of your children is idiotic and irresponsible. plus, if a man is playing a part in giving his children a happy chilhood, he's too tired to have sex anyway. And if the mother of his children is playing a similar part, they're doing something together that is more satisfying than sex. But no less moist.
April 28, 2005 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says...
The current edition of WEEKLY WORLD NEWS reveals that extraterrestrial aliens all over the galaxy actually worship Oprah as a deity.
I enjoyed her schtick when she was the little dog going after the monolithic Phil Donahue, and I have a reflexive respect for women who take charge of their public careers the way men do--I've always been impressed by the way Madonna operates in the music biz. Same w/ Martha Stewart, who I otherwise find a tedious wanker; when the gov railroaded her into prison--Hey! now government perjury is OK! Yay!--my sympathy for her zoomed.
I have great respect for Hillary Clinton, even though I'm not especially impressed w/ her politics, and great respect for the First Lady, who unlike anyone else in the GOP actually reads books. And Pat Summit had a baby one day and was on the bench coaching Tennessee the next night; Bobby Knight and Roy Williams will never be able to say that. Impressed the hell outta me.
April 28, 2005 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
Tim, although I contend that men are rarely too tired to have sex, I do think that you (and Leslie) make a good, if bold, point that perhaps sex is not the most important thing in the world and that a relationship in which sex is not the number one priority is not neccesarily a relationship that is failing or hurting the kids.
Somehow I doubt that a show entitled "Sex: It's just not that important" would be sexy enough for Oprah.
April 28, 2005 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Snoop (anonymous) says...
When I first saw this blog I was reminded of the following paragraph below:
"This show jumped when she moved away from lesbian crack mothers and started her book review/soapbox script. A talk show such as hers belongs in the dysfunctional trailer court category. Besides, she does not deal in logic, but rather emotional pathos appeals. This is not a smart way to try to influence policy. White men like myself are appalled at this, and are joining gun-toting militia groups at an alarming rate. We need to destroy this "Soccer Mom" attitude that everything is based on an emotional level, and to be paid for by the few working white men like myself who still happen to make money. The fact that she is a racist makes it all the more repulsive. This woman INFLUENCES POLICY and idiots actually believe in her. This is truly frightening. If there were ever an argument to return to the relative sanity of the 1950's, Oprah is a reminder."
Point being she has great influence on a great number of white middleclass women.
Its where the dollars are. She hates white men and anybody associated with on the right.
She is surrounded by a virtually all white female staff. She dominates that demographic. So she does and will continue to rub that in the faces of those that hate her.
April 28, 2005 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
What a paragraph! Who wrote that anyway, Snoop? Almost makes me like Oprah after reading it. I never gave her that much credit for stirring up the pot.
The thing that still pisses me off about her is that I don't appreciate being patronized. That is what Oprah feels like to me. It feels like a friend who is a little too calm and "there for you" but in reality is silently judging you and trying to mold you into her little plaything because she has seen your weaknesses. She just empathizes so insincerely sometimes. I hate that.....
But I like the idea that she is shaking up the white male establishment. Those old dudes don't like to see women screaming and jumping around with "empowerment".
April 28, 2005 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
Thank you for the opportunity to rant about Oprah. I respect her, yadda yadda (that is, I agree wholeheartedly with liking 'the idea of Oprah' as christine put it above), but I think she'd at least partially responsible for upholding the kind of bizarro-world American-dream ideology that makes poor people vote for rich people in the deranged hope that they, too, will be rich someday, and that if that happens, somehow, it will be because they are DESERVING. I hold her responsible for Dr. Phil and Suze Orman--the latter a crazy rich f---ing @#$* (make up your own 4-letter word) who has the gall to tell people that they are in money trouble because of their psychological relationship to money. Um, yeah, that's right, Suze. Poverty is about people thinking they don't deserve money, not about any sort of structural economic privation, or a culture of discrimination against the poor, or educational system failures, or any other tangible problem that people with power and money might have just the TINIEST bit of responsibility for. I am not rich because I don't love myself enough to be rich! Yay! Now, I just have to go buy that book of hers and I'll be able to get in touch with my inner rich person. And maybe if I love myself enough, I'll get to be on Oprah and she'll give me a car. Or maybe I could be on that Extreme Home Makeover show for the 'deserving poor.' Yay! A lot of Oprah's "uplifting" messages simply reinforce the ideology of the wealthy. I don't see a whole lot of difference between her show and the 'prosperity gospel' bastardization of the Bible you see on preacher shows--some weird mix of personal healing and financial success with a dose of spirituality thrown in. I mean, great that suburban moms are reading literature, but the book groups are like encounter sessions and the story they come up with is always the same. It's all about individual development and about fitting your story into someone else's--nice, as far as it goes, but disturbing in its absences. Yes, I too have a personal problem with money! Yes, I'm just like Toni Morrison's character in Beloved, for I too have suffered loss (slavery's just the setting, after all)! Yes, I too have problems releasing my inner sexpot! Yes, I too love my husband and resent my kids! Yes, I too have suffered the grief of self-hatred, just like Angelina Jolie! Yes, I too have felt isolated and alone, just like Nelson Mandela! All problems are the same, and they're all mine! If I just take responsibility for MY version of those problems, I can be great! Yay! And by extension, if I don't identify with these people or their problems, they aren't worth identifying with!
Phew. I had no idea I had such problems with Oprah. I better get back to my inner sexpot now.
April 28, 2005 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Snoop (anonymous) says...
Carm: There are several sites devoted to hating Oprah I saw that one awhile back, I just happened to save that particular quote.
April 28, 2005 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
PS: Tim said MOIST.
April 28, 2005 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
edie_ (anonymous) says...
Great blog, Leslie. I have been infuriated with Oprah for years for incubating the whole phenomenon of today where you make people feel inferior so that they eventually "empower" themselves with their credit card in the name of some self-help pyramid scheme bullshit crap.
I personally hate Oprah also for the fact that every time she gives her upper class bullshit nod to something it's considered by the masses that her thumbs up equals some kind of woman-positive seal of approval...simply because SHE is a woman who at one time made a name for herself off of hard work and struggle. Just because Oprah initially started off on good terms doesn't mean that she didn't lose her filter enough to prevent the megalo-morphosis into a sold-out bitchery who feeds her empire off of hoping people buy her inferiority trip enough to pretend she has the answer.
Her whole Ayelet worship assumes so many stupid fallacies I can't stand it. For one, a man should be the center of a wife's universe, even if she's not the center of his. FUCK THAT! Second, she assumes that if people are co-parenting together there' s no sexual attraction. On the contrary, I know several male-female parenting couples who have a ton of sexual attraction to each other. Just because there's no time or energy to copulate every single night of the week after a 16 hour day of working and parenting don't mean the electricity ain't there, or that it's not playing itself out in other daily affections and interactions. You mention that your fella's loyalty to the brood as a hot thing and vice versa, and it's a shame there's so many people out there believing Ayelet-Oprah crap who can't manifest love in any way besides intercourse. YAWN!
April 28, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Snoop (anonymous) says...
Man I can't believe I'm reading all of the stuff about Oprah, I feel like such a girlie man,
Speaking of which::.Harpo pimped herself out for a supposed good cause in Caliefornenia for Arnold last year:::..
"Women as Architects of Change -- Within Ourselves, At Home, In the Workplace, In Our Communities and Around the World" reflects the vision of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's and first lady Maria Shriver that the growing challenges women face are balancing and integrating their varied roles.
I'm thrilled that Oprah has agreed to join our remarkable group of women at this year's conference," said Shriver. "Oprah is an example of the power that women have to influence change in today's society"
BUT THEN, according to a quote in his autobiography, Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder, Schwarzenegger explained that: "I used to feel that women were here for one reason. Sex was simply another kind of exercise, another body function. I was convinced a girl and I couldn't communicate on equal footing because she wouldn't understand what I was doing. I didn't have time to take one girl out regularly and go through a normal high-school romance with all its phone calls and notes and squabbles. That took too much time. I needed to be in the gym. For me it was a simple matter of picking them up at the lake, and then never seeing them again."
As this person put it "a whole conference on Arnold's vision for women--sounds like a great idea."
Apparently Oprah does not read EVERYTHING!
April 29, 2005 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flamingo21 (anonymous) says...
Yes, we get it ya'll HATE Oprah. You HATE how the barista makes your latte with non-fat without asking. You HATE that you love to watch reality TV. I HATE people who throw around the word HATE. I did not see Ayelet Waldman but she is married to Michael Chabon, so I understand the loving your husband first and foremost thing.
April 29, 2005 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
Yes, flamingo, you're right. We're all too shallow to realize that Ayelet Waldman is married to a really good author ... thus making her unquestionably wise.
April 29, 2005 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says...
I knew that. Although I find Michael Chabon rather tedious, I do LOVE you, flamingo21.
April 29, 2005 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
godjilla (Jill Ensley) says...
Chabon had an affair? That's it, I'm never reading his books again.
April 30, 2005 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beck (Beck Wilson) says...
I don't know from Oprah, but the response to Waldman's NYT piece and Salon columns was pretty entertaining:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/...
May 1, 2005 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
Hilarious! Strangely, I follow a very similar schedule.
May 1, 2005 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dazie (Aileen Dingus) says...
Just stumbled across this little tidbit on cnn.com:
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Oprah Winfrey admits she sees a hairdresser every day, a situation she considers "hair heaven."
Speaking Saturday on her "Live Your Best Life" inspirational tour, she warned white fans not to ask their black friends about hair issues because they couldn't possibly understand.
"Don't go into it, because there ain't no telling. It's a strong cultural thing. We're all alike in our veins, except for our hair," Winfrey said.
Winfrey, who drew 5,000 to the Denver Convention Center, advised fans to work hard at being themselves.
"If you are not speaking your own truth, you will never be able to be all you are meant to be. You cannot be pretending to be somebody else," she said.
Her key advice to beleaguered job seekers? Find a way to do what you love and get paid for it.
*********************
Soooo... White chicks don't have bad hair days? And gee Oprah- thanks for the job advice, it never would have occured to me to do something I actually LIKE. *rolls eyes*
May 2, 2005 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scoville (anonymous) says...
I've been saying this for years: Oprah is the Antichrist.
May 3, 2005 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shelby (anonymous) says...
That racist baby-killer.
May 3, 2005 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beck (Beck Wilson) says...
Ayelet's been at it again:
http://schmeiser.typepad.com/the_rage...
June 20, 2005 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaygen1 (anonymous) says...
I think the term antichrist to describe Oprah is very accurate.
As the bible says in 1 John 2:18
"Little children, it is the last time, and as you have heard that the antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."
Oprah, with her powerful pulpit, is a "minister of darkness" and is preaching the gospel of "humanism". The gospel of "just try and be a good person, and God will receive you",
As she has said, "I think there are many ways to the same god" This is a total LIE. There is only ONE WAY to be accepted by God, and that is by receiving the FREE GIFT of Salvation, by humbling yourself (like a little child) and falling and being broken upon the ROCK (Jesus Christ), and asking for His forgiveness for your SINS , and BELIEVING that He died and bled on the cross for YOUR SINS ("for without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins") ! When you do that, He will answer you ,and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Yours eyes will be opened, and the presence of God the Father will flood into your spirit, and you will KNOW FOR SURE that you have been Saved, because you will be BORN AGAIN.
Don't believe me ? Try it.
I am sure that if you asked Oprah, she would say that she believes in Jesus Christ. At the same time, that SAME Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father (God) except through Me".
Jesus will say to many in that day "depart from Me you who practice iniquity for I NEVER KNEW YOU"
Is Oprah "antichrist" ?
You better believe she is, and hers is one of Satan's favorite T.V. shows.
In the wonderful name of JESUS Christ (the KING!),\
j
May 11, 2006 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
starchild84 (anonymous) says...
Well first off I'm not suprised that McOprah would even promote garbage like this as she has no children her self (and for good reason) The woman that wrote this book is no true mother, she's putting her own damn hormones before her responsibilities. If she cares so much bout her husband than her own children than why did she even have any ? I believe from what I read about her that she suffers from low self esteem, obviously because shes loves her husband more than her own children, think about it this is her own blood line, her own genetics, in a sense children can be seen as another version of those that have them (while still maintaining their own identity/ies) but if one can love her own husband or significant other more than her own children it's because she her self suffers from self esteem issues and has more hormones than brains and is just too dependant on her own husband, I have children and a fiance so I know what I'm talking about, I love my children and I love my fiance, all equally but if the day came to and I had to chose I will most definatly choose my children, as much as I love my fiance especially with the way the divorce rate is among marriages why put your children on the back burner for someone who isn't guaranteed that they will love you back for life or for a marriage thats not guaranteed to last even the next 10-20 years, especially one thats based more or less on sex and hormones whereas your life and relationship and love for and from your children is guaranteed to last forever, guys (more importantly penis's come and go -no pun intended) but your children ARE there forever. I dont understand why so many people think with the organ between their legs and not the head the have, there is no brain in your sex organs only your head and why does it have to be such extremes? Why is it so hard for people to find the middle ground, it is possible to love your husband or whatever as much as your own children and vice versa if you really love yourself you will discover that you can love others as equally as well and you dont need to go to such stupid extremes like 'I love my husband more than my children becuase he gives me a few minutes of pleasure' or something retarded like that but once again McOprah is promoting bulls**t like this and I'm not suprised at all and I just hope she doesn't brainwash anyone into neglecting their children for their own damn hormones ! damn these women disgust me
June 29, 2007 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johnfrost123 (anonymous) says...
OPRAH EXCLUDES WHITES, LATINS AND ASIANS, ONLY BLACK BOYS AND GIRLS ARE IN HER NAZI AGENDA:
In September of 2006, TMZ.com had an article on their site that was entitled "Oprah Lords Over White Folk, Talks Poop on XM."
In this article it talks about how Oprah brags with her friend Gayle King on XM satellite radio about how she has an almost all white staff, and calls them "good white folks."
More recently, it seems that the Oprah's racism is demonstrated through her girls school that was opened in Africa which is almost exclusively an all black school.
When asked about this she claims that she does not have to appease the white people in the country.
Yet, in another news clip she declares that she will not rest until every 'black boy' and every 'black girl' has had a chance to prove their worth.
Did Oprah convert to Islam while in Africa and Obama was with her and she took her shahasada into Islam?
a.- Yes, she's a muslim now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAS SATAN'S SON ARRIVED AT THE ARENA YET?
December 7, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )