A Moment of Shame-Faced Self-Flagellation

As a colleague of mine pointed out to me over 70100-proof beverages, my partner-in-thought-crime and I have been bad, naughty bloggers. We have failed you, our legions of readers, in supplying a steady stream of uninformed analysis of world affairs, righteous outrage over the abuses of the rights of man (and woman), and solidarity with what few Enlightenment-type liberals still exist overseas. For these crimes of the blog, we have affixed to ourselves digital cilici, donned html hair shirts, and set to lashing ourselves with rough ropes of code.

My PITC at least has something of a dispensation in that he has been busy travelling to Mexico to pick up a shipment of bootleg Viagra from Tijuana (this blog don’t run on love you know). For myself, I have no excuse, save that I am a sinner and also wont to tipple a little too freely and take on too many obligations that have the potential for actual remuneration. I offer up this humble Guernica blog column as partial expiation.

Explore posts in the same categories: Internal Affairs, Know Thyself

10 Comments on “A Moment of Shame-Faced Self-Flagellation”

  1. Faith Says:

    Nice to see you back attending to your faithful readers. How else are we supposed to get through the work day? Surely not by doing actual work.

    (70 proof beverages, HW? No good bourbon I know worth its salt has a proof of under 100. Even my lovely gin, which you and Derek take such assiduous delight in making fun of, is at least 90. What girly spirits have you been imbibing?)

  2. ERG Says:

    Slander! The Viagra I obtained in Mexico was not bootleg. It was the genuine product. The real deal. How dare you impugn my pharmaceutical standards!

  3. HW Says:

    Not in front of the readers, Evan!

  4. Kate Says:

    ok, i’m going to selectively repost (what bits i can remember) some BMI-related commentary from my previous tirade, b/c i do think this point still needs to be made:

    you’re right that BMI is absolutely inaccurate on the higher-than-normal side of the scale. muscle weighs more than fat, so our immoderately muscle-bound friends have sky-high BMIs and are lumped into categories with rather UNmuscle-bound people. as my high school health teacher used to say, whilst flexing his biceps ostentatiously, “my doctor calls THIS FAT?!?” hmm.

    but i will say that, when you start hedging over the line in the opposite direction and fall on the lower-than-normal side of the scale, you have (BMI meets logic) neither muscle nor fat. while we can’t apply the blanket argument that everyone with a low BMI (including AH) is emaciated or unhealthily skinny, the idea behind banning too-low BMIs is to protect the portion of that population that it DOES apply to. that the fortunately slim are included in that safety margin is the result of an attempt to protect those that are truly unhealthy and at risk.

    but just because people (specifically, Fashion Week designers, per your last argument) are too wussy to confront a few of their more emaciated models to make sure that there isn’t something more serious – and clinical – going on, might not justify imposing a ban

    but can we trust individuals to give up a bit of time to act as whistleblowers, even if that compromises their work/show/chance to show off their new fashion creation? i hope so. if threat of a ban doesn’t push people into action, i don’t have a better solution.

    unless we call on prince charles. he seems to have a lot of authority in these matters.

  5. Kate Says:

    oh, and welcome back to the blogosphere

  6. HW Says:

    Thanks, Kate. It seems the pristine sphere of internationalist comment on this blog has once again been breached, but then again that’s my fault. So, in response to your very cogent points above, I believe we’re in almost total agreement. As I said, the strongest argument for intervention is for the immediate safety of the models themselves. Comprehensive health screening should be part of what is clearly a physically gruelling industry (beyond the weight issue, high-fashion modelling is pretty clearly high stress and long hours). As with professional athletes, there should be standards for participation – as an athlete would pass a physical. A ban, however, especially one motivated by misplaced hysteria, is overly invasive, unecessary and restrictive.

  7. Kate Says:

    isn’t the point of a ban restrictiveness? 🙂

    on a larger note, what is possibly the most sad part about all of this is exactly what you point out – that it’s produced by ‘misplaced hysteria’. it seems like so much of what we hear nowadays is of-the-moment furor over topic X or Y (i’m afraid climate change will also be lumped into this category…something i dearly hope that i’ll be wrong about), but once the media frenzy/honeymoon is over, an amazing lack of anything substantial has happened. what happened to all those immigration bills in congress, anyway?? (besides an unnecessarily large fence)

    so, people may be crazed about some overly-skinny models, but it will pass. the true tragedy is that the ones needing medical help will be similarly forgotten. and that, i think, was the original point of the ban in the first place.

  8. HW Says:

    “isn’t the point of a ban restrictiveness?”

    TouchĂ©. Kate gets a little repartee gold star. Though perhaps she doesn’t want it since she appears to have already awarded herself a slightly mischievous-looking smiley face.

  9. Kate Says:

    FYI, that smiley-face self-awarded itself.

    and now seems to undercut the legitimacy of anything i said.

  10. snowlyjam Says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: