Twinkle Little Star

Oprah, Revisited

Blogs are wierd.

As I've said before, I get numerous google searches for "I Hate Oprah" because of a post I wrote off the top of my head almost 2 1/2 years ago in which I did not say I hated Oprah, but complained about her fans.

Last week, two interesting things happened in that regard. First, the "I hate Oprah" searches and views of that post skyrocketted. Second, a reporter from the Houston Chronicle contacted me for an interview regarding the post.

I believe the reporter, Corilyn Shropshire, is freelance. She said that the story might be in the Sunday (Dec. 16th) edition of the paper, or it might not. I'm kind of going to use this post as just a place holder for reference. If or when it is published, I will put a link to it here, but thought I would cut and past the whole email interview because I am always afraid in the minor amount of press I get that I will be taken out of context. So, just for kicks, here is the interview:

Hi Lisa, Sorry to keep bothering you, but I figured that if you received an email from my Houston Chronicle email address ( I’m in the office today) you might believe that I’m legitimately a reporter and feel compelled to agree to an interview. Again, I’d like to take a few minutes of your time to discuss what prompted your Oprah posts ( James Frey?) two years ago and what the response and discussion was like for you. Were your commenters mainly Mommy bloggers like yourself? Do you think that there are others – who might fit the Oprah demographic as snuggly as you do – who dislike Oprah and her “minions” as you call them? ( great word by the way). After this, I promise to leave you in peace. But this topic – a story about the often unheard-of Oprah detractors, is timeless and a good one. Thanks so much! Please give me a ring. Best, Cori

Hi, Cori, Oh, the Oprah minions! I'm half afraid that if I do this interview they will come after me! That post was written over two years ago and was basically in response to the Brooke Shields/Tom Cruise couch jumping thing. It was comments I was getting from what I call couch "oprahologists", or people who diagnose other's mental state based on Oprah or Dr. Phill style psychology. The post is still the main google searched and most read post on my otherwise low key, low readership site. "I hate Oprah" are the search terms that I get constantly. Since the Barack Obama thing, the posts views have gone up dramatically based on those search terms. You may or may not have gathered that I am deaf. It would be better for you to email me your questions and I'll see if I can shoot off quick and coherent answers to them. I don't do well with phone interviews. If you want to do it that way, then I will check back in a few minutes and try to get it done in a timely manner. Do you have a specific deadline, timewise? If so, let me know. Thanks, Lisa

Her Questions:

By the way, your missives on why you find Oprah and her fans irritating were a great read.  I figured your blog would be pretty popular. Hopefully, after my story runs, this interview will have been worth your time. 

Thanks, I'll try to answer these as well as I can:

I wonder if that means anything that – the "IHateOprah" search term has become increasingly popular since Oprah's been out stumping for Sen. Obama?  Do you have any figures on the dramatic increase to your site? What do you make of the post views rising? 

I usually have been getting about 1-3 google searches for "I hate Oprah" a week. In the past several days, it has been more like 20-30 a day. I can only speculate that it might have something to do with the fact that she has been in the news as she has been supporting the campaign of Sen. Obama. I personally do not have a problem with celebrities getting involved in politics, but I know that some people do and perhaps this is why the increase in searches occurred. What I did find interesting, regardless of my feelings about the candidates, is that Oprah and Obama could fill up an entire stadium, while the Clinton's could not pull that off on the same day. Oprah obviously has far more pull than a former president.

Can you briefly describe the response you received from your blog post – were there a flood of comments?  It seems like it went on – for two years…

Most of the comments were supportive. Many people made comments like "Oh, I'm so glad someone else feels this way." I finally closed the comments on the site due to comment spam. I have been closing all of the old posts for that reason. But I still sometimes get emails. There have been some emailers/commenters who have been extremely critical of my opinions in regards to Oprah. I find most of these funny because they kind of prove my point. It seems like some Oprah fans cannot handle any constructive criticism about her or her following.

Why were you moved so much to write about it?  Had you always felt that way about Oprah – perhaps a bit leery of her omniscience and the Tom Cruise/Brooke Shields thing compelled you to speak up? 

I never really thought that much about Oprah. I really don't hate her or think she is a terrible person, but sometimes she said things I disagreed with or did things that rubbed me the wrong way. I think that when someone is on the air with as much exposure as Oprah, that is only natural. But then I discovered it wasn't. It seemed like you couldn't get away with disagreeing with Oprah or saying something critical about some of her actions. Increasingly, I found that discussing Oprah in any analytical way was almost taboo among her fans. I had some relatives that didn't seem to be able to think about any issue beyond what Oprah had said about it in her four minute long show segments. And this was irritating to me.

How did you feel about the comments on your blog?  Are there any that stand out as particularly interesting or infuriating or agreeable?  Is this the most popular post of your blog? What about any of the women who commented on your blog – do you think they might have interesting things to say about their thoughts on Oprah?

I'm generally happy about comments on the blog. It was nice to know I wasn't alone in this. As far as some of the negative comments, I mostly got a kick out of them because the people that commented in support of Oprah were exactly the ones I was referring to. And I'm happy to take criticism, that is only fair on a blog complaining that Oprah fans can't take criticism. The only one that bothered me was the one that wanted sources and references for some of my complaints. It bothered me because I should have done that and didn't, yet never had time to go back and do it. It would have made it a stronger and more accurate post.

Why do you think that Oprah's so-called "minions" need a television figure to act as their spiritual guide, sister-friend, Mom, cheerleader and confidant?  And why do so many women in "your demographic" as you describe it, white middle class mothers, respond to it? You don't? So, why do they? 

I'm not entirely sure why she has such a devoted following of white, middle class mothers. If I were to take a guess, I think it is because people in our society (and especially mothers of young children) have become increasingly isolated and lack community and any real respect and value for the work they do. Mothers are often shut inside all day without the network of support that women had in the past or that many women enjoy in other cultures. Oprah is like a girlfriend that comes into your home and has coffee with you while you fold laundry, but unlike a girlfriend, she is filtered through TV PR and imaging, so she seems infallible and above reproach. And lately she has imaged herself into some kind of "spiritual angel mother high priestess" thing. I guess she doesn't affect me that way because I see the PR job for what it is and I think everyone has strengths and weaknesses and no one is perfect or should be immune from accountability and constructive criticism.

It's not sour grapes, it seems that compels people like yourself to speak up – it's something else – what is it?

It's not sour grapes. I admire her success and I think she has talent and does many good things. But I think it is dangerous for anyone to obtain the amount of power and influence where they are no longer questioned and held accountable for things they do or say that might be hypocritical or possibly of questionable ethics. I think  this amount of money, power and influence may insulate her from being in touch with the real needs of the people she supposedly advocates for. I think that anytime anyone is followed without question as if they can do or say no wrong, the followers lose--or voluntarily give up--some form of their own self-determination and free thought. That is never a good thing.

Did you coin the term "Oprahologists?" It's brilliant; I'd like to quote you on that in my story. As well as quote your blog posts in my story. 

I might have! I don't know if I've heard anyone else say it. It's the study of Oprahology, a branch of Psychology.  This came from listening to [family members that I based the story on] way of putting people down by taking small bits of gossip and extrapolating it into some kind of psychiatric diagnoses based on Oprah's latest favorite guru or troubled guest.

I have ideas about the answers to these questions, but I'm just the reporter, it's up to the opinions of people like you to make a difference. 

I will say that I am NOT a reporter and that blog entry was really written with very little "professional" planning and no research. I would not vouch for the accuracy of everything in it. I just wrote it off the top of my head.

Please forgive my ignorance. I read your bio and as you mentioned it's clear that you have hearing and vision impairments – I'm not familiar with the technology – so how do you watch Oprah?    Thanks again for your time.

I can watch TV using close captioning. The TV I use is about 19 inches and I sit probably within two feet of it. I can not sit back on a couch and watch a wide screen TV or anything. And to tell you the truth, I don't know if I've watched Oprah in over a year or two. Although I did watch the James Frey interview. (This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. When she supported James Frey on Larry King, my relatives who I kind of based this on were all supportive of him. Then when she changed her tune, so did they.)

I don't write or speak in nice sound bites, so hope this is of some use to you. Let me know if you need anything else and when the story might come out.

Thanks, Lisa

Oh, if you are interested, here is another funny anti-Oprah post by a Texan:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2005/07/26/chucking-oprah/

Cecily? Are You Out There? This is a Post Where I Admit I Might Be Wrong!

Fifty thousand people told me to watch or asked if I had watched the Oprah Special the other night about her South African School for Girls. I did watch it, because you all made me. Okay, first of all, does Oprah have to repeat every sentence someone says (including her own) twice? I haven't watched her in a long while. Did she always do that? I was about to slap her repeatedly. I use close captioning and it does confusing, weird stuff to the close captioning when she repeats everything twice. I was like, whose talking now? Who said that? Anyway.

Not only because of that show, and not only because many of you beat me profusely when I recently criticized Oprah's school as being too extravagant, and not only because I've done my own independent research since that post: all together I've come to a different conclusion about Oprah and this school. It isn't so much that I was wrong in stating my opinion. It is actually still my opinion that if I had the means that Oprah does, I would have opened as many modest but quality schools as I could to get the most students possible in them. But I can see where Oprah is coming from better now. I think we are taking two valid approaches to meet the same goal.

I had a boss once--she was actually a boss of a boss of a boss--who really got on my nerves in a similar regard that Oprah does sometimes. This woman was brilliant, and disabled, and--in private--quite radical in her thinking about disability oppression and civil rights. But then in public, she schmoozed, and made big compromises with "the enemy" and did little creative accounting things to get money from different sources to do what she wanted it to do while telling them it was for something a bit different. I admired her, but her public persona seemed hypocritical to me and sometimes literally made me want to puke. Once, she was at a press conference with President Bush (no, I was not there). He was announcing some lame-pansyass-compromise-for-the-sake-of-extinction-throw-the-annoying-disabled-people an-itty-bitty-bone type policy change for homebound Medicare recipients. He announced it like it was some big, huge major thing he was doing for all disabled people and like the original problem was solved. (The original problem is that many Medicare recipients considered "homebound" were virtually kept prisoners in their homes in order to receive in-home services. Thus, leaving people the choice to either go to a nursing home, or stay inside their homes at all times except for doctors appointments. Even people who got caught going to funerals lost their "homebound" status and their care sometimes. His new, great and wonderful policy was that now homebound people can go to religious events and a few other little things that he laid out. Like now they could go get a haircut once every 3 months or something stupid like that.) So this whole thing really pissed me off, right? Well, my colleague provided for this event a group of disabled youth leaders to stand behind the president and smile and clap during the press conference like some kind of lovely politically correct prop. I became nauseated about the whole thing.

But, her rationale was that in doing so, she and several other disabled people got face time with the President of the United States. Like he ever--on his own--would bother to ever have a conversation with actual disabled people about actual stuff. I guess some of the people actually were homebound and had to get special permission to go. This was my colleague's version of direct action to make a point. She would say that if you rant and rave like I do, you will never get your foot in the door with the elite unless you can play the game. She was very good at playing the game and was very good at being able to look at itty, bitty baby steps as successes. I am admittedly god awful at playing the game. And I hate little baby steps masked as big victories. I don't want someone telling us when we can get fucking haircuts, I want freedom! NOW! But I see her point.

So, I can see now that this may be where Oprah is coming from with this school. You could have these girls with their amazing talent and leadership and academic skills sitting in an average (by U.S. standards) school. And although that might be very helpful to them, it is probably not likely going to get them into elite society and give them the power to make positive change at the government/policy level. At her school, they are rubbing shoulders with Sidney Portier and Spike Lee and Diane Sawyer and various aristocrats, senators, political leaders...and Mandela himself for heaven's sakes. Maybe Oprah is like my boss. Maybe she luvs up to John Travolta (who always strikes me as an egotistical materialistic pompous ass) and caters to all of his big spending like she is all into that, and in private talks about what a pompous ass he is. But she's playing him because he has money and influence and power and she can touch a conscience in there somewhere and make him give lots of money to her causes. I'm just projecting this, here. I have no evidence to support this. But I'm trying to look at her from different angles and give her the benefit of the doubt. This is just one scenerio, but possibly that is the way she is playing it. And like my boss, she is a great player of the game. If she lived in a modest house and gave all her money to charity rather than her million dollar houses and birthday parties, would these elites feel comfortable associating with her? Probably not. She would expose them for what they really are and then they would shut her out.

My SIL, the one who hates me but who I actually have always liked because she is smarter with me than she ever lets on in public, said something interesting to me once about O. She said that if Oprah cut out her fluff shows, then people like [insert shallow nitwit here] would never watch the more compelling shows that she does try to do. I'll buy that. Maybe what she is trying to do is to bridge these two worlds. The oppressed, the world she knows because she's been there, and the elite--who hold so much power but can so easily insolate themselves from anyone else's needs but their own.

So Oprah, who has X amount of god knows how much money, undoubtedly still can't educate all the girls in Africa. So, there are always going to be kids left behind, at least in her lifetime. And where do you stop and say I can't do anymore? Say she gets most of the girls in South Africa. Well, what about Zimbabwe? If she gets all of the sub-saharas, what about the Sudan? It is much like when adoptive parents go to orphanages and adopt a child. Yes, you just want to adopt all of them, but you can't. So you have to limit yourself and do the best you can with the resources you've got. So, Oprah is going to give these girls a world class ticket into the elite. That is what this is about. I don't know how much this has to do with academic superiority of the school itself, although I'm sure it is quite high in quality. These girls are going to be pushed not so much by the school itself, but by the Oprah connections and status. If they can get into the elite club and go to Harvard and Oxford and become involved in politics and high end social justice work, well then maybe they can be the ones who get schools for all the families they had to leave behind. We hope.

So, it still rubs me the wrong way because I hate elitist shit. I hate power for no other reason than who you know and where you went to school and how fancy your school is (if only to make celebrities more comfortable to visit there.) It shouldn't be that way. But it IS THAT WAY. And while I want to deal with the bottom line, the uncompromising destination, the future and how it should be. Someone has to be making the little baby steps into the suck-ass world of how it is. My boss was working that end. And perhaps, so is Queen O.

But, I strongly do believe that it needs to be worked from all angles. O can possibly sneak these kids into the power elite, in a nice tidy way that makes the elite comfortable with them. Others still need to be doing the work of the radicals on the ground. Oprah's special showed absolutely nothing about the girls left behind. They only have one life, and one childhood, and there is still such a great need for people to go out and do whatever little thing they can day to day to make these girl's lives better. And radicals, who may not get face time with the president or a 50 million dollar school, still need to be there and be heard. For it is the voices of the extreme who provide the checks and balances for the powerful. The extreme voices pull the moderates closer to the true middle ground. Extreme voices weaken the elite in the way the game players like Oprah cannot. We need both Oprah and Al Sharpton and all the black women who bitch about the stuff they deal with in no uncertain terms on a daily basis on blogs or in writing or in direct action. We need both my boss, and me and the disabled folks who go out and lay themselves on the steps of the courthouses and capital buildings that they don't have access to. So, I still don't think my opinion was totally wrong. But I see more now how Oprah's approach may be one way of being right. Since I'm not an accountant who is well-versed in international affairs or the elite culture, I have no idea if what Oprah spent is too much or too little. I guess only time will tell.

Oprah still bugs me. I mean--fine--they can have the hair salon, but do they really HAVE to wear Oprah's name on their uniform every day? And does she really have to walk around with her high priestess body language and persona as if she is not only the only one who can see the hallow around herself but she herself created it? She still is a bit too in love with her own goddessness than I am comfortable with. When you get power like she has and have that many yes women around and are trying to balance between keeping your membership card with the elite while doing social justice work, you have to be very careful to not become what you are fighting against. I hope she doesn't loose too much more of her perspective (because she seems on the brink to me at times). I hope she can enlist and educate people (and I'm not discounting that one of them might be me) and continue to find other ways for the girls left behind to survive.

For the girls in the school, I wish them the best and actually am quite excited for them to be going to that school. I do really, really hope that they do become high ranking people of power and even international leaders in Africa or around the world, and then I hope they go radical and kick some ass.

I'm Never Going to Get "My Wildest Dream" Fulfilled If I Keep This Up

As I've mentioned before, my one or two posts on Oprah are far and away the most googled, most read, and most linked posts on this entire site. Every once in a while I get an email or two from some former Oprah devotee thanking me profusely for helping them define and articulate that uncomfortable, not so fresh feeling they were increasingly developing each time they sat in front of the O and got a Big Gulp of hypocrocy rather than their nice Starbuck's Chai Latte of self-help they ordered. So, now some folks have asked me what I think of Oprah's school for girls in tones that are like, "What bad thing can you say about that? Huh? Huh?"

Well, to be honest, as I keep reminding people, I actually am a white, somewhat middle class, stay at home mom who doesn't watch Oprah! (Maybe I'm not depressed enough?) So I don't know all that much about it. Nor do I plan to do a ton of research on it. However, a couple of weeks ago, I got this email that sent off some alarm bells:

Just read your "It's Not That I Hate Oprah" blog, thought I was so alone. What turned me off to the nice rich lady was Gayle King on the View promoting Oprah's good deeds in Africa.Gayle says Oprah is personally handpicking the girls for her newly constructed school. A clip is shown of very poor girls having to tap dance in the hopes of pleasing this person so they can gain entrance into school. Oprah sitting back comfortably in a chair looking so regal and confident, the child's skinny, small frame sitting on the edge of the chair in a humble gesture of graceful begging. Answering questions from The Oprah " What does family mean to you?" How dare anyone make any person of such poverty and survivor of travesty dare ask anymore of them! Cannot Oprah continue building schools so everyone can just go to school? What does she say to the ones she doesn't hand pick? Sorry, your not tragic enough. Next........

   

Respectfully,

Former WWOD

Name Withheld

I have not seen this or anything about the school, but if this representation is accurate, then I think it is reprehensible what she is doing. In a nation with issues of poverty, segregation, AIDS, oppression, abuse against women and lack of quality schools for all students...the very first step would be to fund and advocate for access to a free, equal and quality education for all students. Perhaps even Oprah's wealth is not enough to accomplish this, but the question becomes...is what she is doing with the money she does contribute the best way to educate and empower underprivileged girls in South Africa? By providing an elitist school that includes a library filled with celebrity-autographed books, state of the art yoga studio and beauty salon for a few arbitrarily hand picked girls? I'd have been much more impressed if Her Majesty would have provided new textbooks or computers or facilities or transportation or teacher training and support or some such other needed necessity that would improve the quality of education for all marginalized students across the country. I'm sure if she would cut the expenses for just one of her multimillion dollar birthday extravaganzas that she could make a serious impact. I guess that isn't as ego-gratifying and sexy as your own school, built like everything else in your empire, in your own image. But I guess the question is all about where your motivation lies. Is it really the girls, Oprah? Or are you just jonesing for your "joy headache?" What happens to the girls who didn't tap dance fast enough for you? I guess they deserve their oppression? What she is doing is showing these girls is that if you aren't good enough to do whatever Oprah wants you to do to make a tearful TV soundbite, you've missed your opportunity at a quality education and you deserve the poverty, segregation, oppression, and other social harms that society has puts upon you to endure. It's your fault, little poor AIDs orphan, you weren't good enough for books or three square meals or the very essential hair salon in Oprah's school--stylish hair being the obvious key to being a success like Oprah. Even for the girls selected, what message is being sent here? That education, leadership and success is about living in a 5 star resort setting surrounded by material riches and "living like a movie star?" I'm sure these 150 girls will get an excellent classical education and will benefit greatly from the school vs. not having this opportunity, so it isn't that I think this is a terrible thing in and of itself. It is just that sometimes people become so rich and out of touch with what really needs to be done that they put together a beautiful circus side show of exploited people to make themselves feel better and think they've done something to deserve that 50 million dollar birthday party.

Twisty has more on this also. As do many others around the 'sphere.

ETA: Okay, kids. I'm so totally getting killed with the emails on this. And I'm going to concede to you all. Okay? Here is the deal: I realize I do not know all the ins and outs of the barriers involved in donating and providing aid to Africa. And I don't have time to research it. And so, because I am unable to debate without extensive time and research on my part, I'm going to bow out. The whole thing still rubs me wrong, but my politics are decidely bordering on socialism and as such my perspective is going to be different than many. Here is the thing I've always said about Oprah. It isn't that she is a bad person who does bad things. It is that she does her little things here and there for her own little reasons, none of which are all good nor all bad. But people take what she does at face value and don't look at it critically just because she is Oprah. It is the minion thing to which I refer that drives me nuts. Disabled people tend to have a love/hate relationship to charities, and tend to look very critically at the motivations and methods of charities since they've been the "victims" of so many, where most people are just happy to see that any charity work is done at all--and maybe that is fair in this case. But I still believe that it is important to look critically at charitable contributions to underrepresented groups and will continue to do that. Perhaps I can come back and visit this with you all (with citations!) when I have more time. I'm tempted to delete the post, but I won't...because, hey, if I screwed up, it is only fair that I'm honest about the fact that I screwed up instead of hiding it. You are welcome to put your comments in the comments section, and email me. I value your opinions even if they differ from mine, but I can't guaruntee that I can reply to all of them. All thoughtful comments are welcome, though.

Et tu, Rachel Ray?

Most people who know me know that I'm very undomesticated and rebellious as far as doing my 'womanly duties' of cooking and cleaning. I abhor Martha Stewart, the Barefoot Contessa, and that other annoying chick that wants you to keep it upper-crust, keep it snobby, and ALWAYS keep it semi-homemade.

However, in the last few years, since D's first skin illness when I had it beat into my head from Craig Hospital about whole, organic foods and nutrition as one of the main keys to beating his skin/osteomylitis problems, and from having kids of course, I've tried to do much better and have learned a lot and become a better cook in the process.

One of the the only cooking show I really liked was Rachel Ray's 30-Minute Meals. It was practical, down-to-earth, doable from the standpoint of having a full-time job and then coming home and having to cook for a quadriplegic. Most of all, it was unpretentious. She was all, "yeah, get the store bought dough," and "just get the already grated cheese if you don't have time to grate it yourself," and "if you don't have fresh parsley on hand, just use some parsley flakes." I could deal with that. I do have to say that she sucked at the desserts, though. I'm sorry, but canned peaches with almonds and spray whipped cream in a dish does not a dessert make. A dessert must include chocolate, usually required baking, and can't have fruit as it's main ingredient. Those are just the rules.

In any case, since I hate cookbooks and Rachel really didn't measure anything, I could just watch a show, write down some very general notes about it, and cook it the next day. Only in my case, they were always 45-Minute Meals. But then I never had all the ingredients and pans and everything perfectly lined up and ready to go like she did, I didn't have her knife skills or her $300 knife, and she didn't have two little creatures wrapped around her thighs every five minutes.

I think it is funny that so many people like Martha Stewart harshly critiqued Rachel Ray. It almost made me like her more. They said she took too many store bought shortcuts. That she was the stale beer in the Food Network's fine wines. Stuff like that. That is why I hate Martha Stewart. It isn't because of what she does or how she does it, if you want to cook and stuff like Martha does, fine. It was that she acted as if your life wasn't worth living unless you lived like Martha.

Do you have friends that are Martha followers? I've had some. Do you find yourself dreading going to their house for dinner parties? Me, too. It's uncomfortable and not relaxing. Everything is "just so." Everything is overdone. Everything is a big deal. My main fear as a blind person is that I'm going to set my crystal goblet down a little too close to the 4 million votive candles lit on the table and set the origamied-out-of-recycled-from-the-tea-party-doilies doves on fire. I just want to sit back and have a nice meal. I don't really care that you spent five hours embroidering fall leaves on a linen tablecloth. I probably won't even notice. Now, there are Martha Stewart hobbyists out there. Extravagant entertaining is their hobby. It is a nice hobby because you can share it with others. That's great. But it is when the hobby becomes a way of life and you have to spend the whole dinner party complimenting the homemade centerpiece and asking for the recipe instead of talking about anything real where I draw the line at RSVP-ing in the affirmative. I'd rather eat my dinner through a feeding tube in a coma than talk at length about the dried flowers crumpled in a bed of lavender oil and paper mached into your napkin rings. Oh, maybe I already am in a coma from talking about it.

Which brings me to another reason to bitch. Really, I am okay with the fact that some people like to cook, decorate and entertain. But why, WHY do I have to partake in discussions about Martha's latest good thing based on the sole fact that I am female? How many family gatherings have you been to where after dinner, the men sit around and talk about interesting things and the women go into the kitchen and do all the cleaning up (after doing all the cooking) and jabber about Martha Stewart, Oprah, and their menstrual cycles. I don't mind helping to clean up, but I'd pretty much rather stick needles in each of my orifices than have to talk about the appropriate womanly things. The other thing I tend to do is to get irritated at the three hundred ways I could have made the job easier and more efficient. I guess that isn't the point, though. In the past ten years, I've stopped doing it. I sit with the men. (Gasp!)  It actually is partly because it is very difficult for me to be of any use in someone else's kitchen. I can't see where to put things, I can't hear what the other women are saying as they run around and clean up. I mostly just end up standing in the center of the kitchen looking confused. It is much more enjoyable to sit with the men and talk politics. So that's what I usually do, but I know that merely because I am a woman, I've made the wrong social choice.

Anyway, back to Rachel and what I was getting at. In watching 30-Minute Meals, I knew Rachel was, uh, perky. Perky is fine. I can handle perky when its just positive, high energy people. But when it gets frenetic, that's when I need to limit my time with the Perkies. You know when perky people are so beyond perky that they've absolutely sucked all the energy out of the room? I remember once D and I went to Costco with a friend who is a very nice person, but can be frenetically perky. Watching her in Costco was like watching human pong. She was literally bouncing from isle to isle, proclaiming her love for every item in the store. Everything was Wonderful! Amazing! The Best Deal Ever! I've Never Seen Anything Like This! Literally, it was like, "Oh My GOD!! Look at these BALL POINT PENS! I have to HAVE these!!! I can't stop jabbering about the miracle that is costco without using Lots! Lots!!! and LOTS!!!! of Exclamation Points!!!!!!!" D said something about how his chair was going low on batteries and how he was going to wait for us. We both ended up walking out without buying anything. D asked me why I didn't buy what I came in for, and I said, "Oh, I don't know. I think I lost my will to live in about Isle 3." "Yeah," he said, "it wasn't my chair who was losing power, it was me."

But I forgave Rachel Ray for saying "Rice OVERBOARD!!!" every time a grain of rice veered out of the stir-fry. And all of her other pithy comments and constant running chatter because, hey, it must be hard to fill up a half hour of airspace when you are only talking to vegetables. And she was doing something useful. So, Rachel and I went on with our happy, little relationship of her telling me shortcuts to mostly whole foods cooking, and me ignoring her little "Oh, deLISH!!" commentary.

And then I saw some of her new talk show.

Rachel Ray, I've tried so hard to like you. I can actually do a real patriarchically approved girly activity like like cooking and watching cooking shows because of you. Now you go off and think you can have a talk show? Don't make me hate you.

Have you seen it? She just needs to chill the fuck out. I mean, I might have to go back and rethink my position about ADHD diagnoses and Ritalin. She is annoying as all get out. She says she has more to say than to talk about vegetables, and I can understand that, but so then don't have Diane Sawyer on and start talking about slut shoes. It just may be that women can handle a variety of other topics besides how to dry salad without a salad spinner. (Put it in the washer on the spin cycle? Oh, you're so funny Rachel, but I don't see me picking lettuce out of the washing machine just so I can put the dirty diapers in happening anytime in this universe.)

Why does everyone have to have a talk show anyway? Why is being good in something like basketball (Magic Johnson) or being on a TV show as a kid (Tempest Bledsoe) suddenly mean you get to have a talk show? Why is it always a talk show?

You all know I'm very depraved about the whole talk show thing. You know I don't do well with any of them (Although I like Ellen occasionally. She is not trying to change my life by giving me a  makeover. She just wants to make me laugh.) I get at least one or two hits a day from people who have googled "I hate Oprah." That will probably end up being the legacy of this blog. It is the most read post I've ever written. So, Rachel, please, take the giddy desperation down to under 11 on the hysterical meter. Don't make me have to write an I Hate Rachel post.

I Might Need to Make a Separate Category Just For Oprah

It's still the same hour I wrote the last post. I'm still not in bed yet. But this bloggers job of Oprah Hating (found through a link to me, my number one method of getting readers remains in google searches for "I hate Oprah) just cracked me up enough to allow me to forget all my own previously listed domestic drivel of hell. God, how I wish I could write like that. Enjoy. And check out some of the articles in the trackbacks as well, they look promising. I'm really going to bed now.

Again, Oprah's Not My Issue...It's Her Stepford Children

So Oprah changed her mind about supporting James Frey's Memoir "A Million Little Pieces" after it was exposed that it was mostly fabricated. She admitted she made a mistake in her call of support on Larry King, and took the author to task on today's show. So, yay, Oprah. She made a mistake, she admitted it. She took steps to make amends.

Since I've been somehow addicted to this little story for some reason. I've been reading some message boards on her site and elsewhere from her viewers and fans about this issue. It is fascinating to me how, when Oprah supported James Frey on January 11th, so did most of her fans. Now, when Oprah withdrawals her support and changes her opinion, so did they. It's better than Scientology what she's got going. I wonder what she thinks about it? What an awesome responsibility to have legions of women who can't think for themselves hanging on your every word.

I think mostly she uses her Goddess Powers for at least neutral causes rather than negative. I mean, there is nothing wrong with her supporting African non-profits per se, but it ignores the larger issues of world trade, resource equity, exploitation of third-world countries and the like. How would I shepard my flock if I were Oprah?  I could get all these women to call for the impeachment of Bush? Demand a no tolerance stance on human rights violations? Demand fair trade? Or demand decent health care or childcare everywhere?  Equality for women? Minorities? Fix foster care? The possibilities are endless. Do you think I could write to her and ask for that as my Wildest Dream?

Heh, heh, heh.

My stats show that the number one Google search that leads strangers to this site is the phrase "I hate Oprah" which points them to this entry, where I explain that I don't hate Oprah, I just can't stand her followers.

Anyway, I still don't hate Oprah, but I had myself a little chuckle today. I hardly ever watch her, but I watched her several months ago when she had guest James Frey on who talked about his Oprah Book Club pick, "A Million Little Pieces." I didn't watch the whole show, mainly because when I listened to James Frey, my internal bullshit meter alarm was sounding. Oprah and her staff and audience were crying over this guy's memoir of his drug addicted and crime ridden life. He came off to me as a guy who was trying to be a drama king and was a lying liar that lies. I had no evidence, of course, but I have a very talented and adept bullshit meter. In my humble opinion, I have killer instincts about some things.

So I got curious and managed to find an excerpt of his work online. After reading some of his book, my bullshit meter read off the charts. Something about the way he wrote and what he was writing was just to grandiose and self-promoting to be true. My favorite was where he embellished a story about serving time for a felony when in fact he was picked up for a misdemeanor and served no time because he had chicken pox and they didn't want to have him in with the other prisoners at all so they just let him go. You wouldn't think a guy would lie to make himself sound horrible, but that is the best lie of all. Then people can marvel at your miraculous will and determination to turn your life around.

Well, wouldn't you know it, The Smoking Gun has done a six week investigation into Mr. Frey's memoir and found much of it to be exaggerated or just outright lied about. It's gotten so much press that the guy has had to hire a lawyer and he took his website down. Heh.

I guess I wouldn't be this self-congratulatory and amused if this story didn't involve Oprah. But, uh, don't her producers, like, fact check???

Update 1/11/06: Great Queen O has spoken. She trusts the publishers to categorize a book as nonfiction or fiction (Hey, she's right, I'll give her that. Didn't the publishers fact check??) She stands by the author and doesn't care if some details in the book are made up. Okay. So now I predict that the controversy will be over in the next ten seconds and Frey's book will sell better than ever and his career will hit an all-time high.  I still say Ah Ah Aaaah--bullshit--CHOO!!

Gesundheit!

It's Not That I Hate Oprah, It's Just That Her Minions Give Me the Heeby-Jeebies

So, as I hear it,  the scuttlebutt according to some women in front of me in line at the grocery store who decided to ask me about twins and post partum depression, is that tomorrow is the big day in the Church of Oprah. Brooke Shields is going to be on, and we will get to see if the big O dresses her down for having a kid, becoming afflicted with a documented mental illness that affects thousands of women, and then doing something about it. Or can she go all sycophantic as per usual on Brooke, and still get Tommy to bow down to her whilst simultaneaously bitch slapping her all around because he's so in love with Dawson's girlfriend? What will O do? We have to find out so we know whether to be on Tom's side or Brooke's. We wait with anticip.....ation for her to tell us what to think.

Please hold for a minute while I collect my tact.

It's not that I hate Oprah. Really. I don't. She seems like a pleasant enough woman who tries to do positive things with her celebrity. Obviously her resume is impressive. Her rags to riches story is a great one. She sure beats Jerry Springer. But every time a woman (mostly its women) comes up to me and starts talking about Oprah I start looking for the nearest exit out of the conversation, or the room, whichever is quickest.

Maybe it is me. Maybe it is because I associate Oprah watching with illness and unemployment. For most of the brief phases of my life that I've turned on Oprah at 4:00 on a regular basis, it has been when I was sick, unemployed, or depressed--usually about being sick and unemployed. Oprah watching is for when you are recovering from kidney surgery and you are too tired to reach for the remote. Oprah watching is for when you've been up all night with 2 two-week old children and you don't want to fall asleep because you'll just have to get up again in an hour, so you turn on Oprah so you can let your mind and body completely check out and go as far into a coma as possible while still technically being awake. Oprah watching is when you spend all day at job interviews where people say you're credentials are the best they've seen but they just can't afford a liability risk on a disabled employee, so you actually NEED Oprah to tell you that you are a phenomenal woman. Oh, yes, you are. No, really, you are.

Maybe it's that theory of mine that when humans reach a level of too-much power, they actually undergo psychological transformations in the brain that make them insufferable, narcissistic fools that have their own likeness on every cover of their own magazine bearing their own name.

Maybe it was the time she said that to research her role in "Beloved," she had someone blindfold her and then leave her in a forest so she could better feel what it was like to be a slave; thus insulting both the skills and resourcefulness of every blind person in the world as well as her entire race of fore-bearers in this country that had to suffer slavery.

Maybe it was the time when she tried to go to an upscale department store in France after it had already closed and they would not open the store especially for her and she cried racism and said it was the most humiliating experience of her life. I guess the blindfold experience didn't really teach her that much about slavery.

Maybe it was the time she said that her new multimillion dollar mansion in Santa Barbara was a gift from God because when she was young she dreamed someday she would live in a house with trees out the window and this property had 4 million trees or something. But then I found out that God intervened and gave her this gift by having her kick out the existing owners who were not selling until O waved a shitload of money their way.

Or, maybe its because her magazine tells you on one page how to save $1000 dollars a year by cutting costs, but then on another page tells you that you HAVE to Have a $800 blouse.

Maybe I'm just jealous and I wanted a new car and didn't get to shit my pants on her show to get one.

In any case, Besides whatever I might think of what Oprah does, she's free to do it and I support that. So I think my real problem with her is not so much about her, but it is that freak show of an audience she has and all of the other followers in the congregation at large.

I'm not talking about your occasional Oprah viewer here, the ones who watch out of laziness like me or who can take her or leave her. I'm talking about the ones who have found Oprah as-their-Lord-and-Savior. You know you know what I'm talking about. The ones who have managed to climb so far up Oprah's ass that they are now roaming her brain so they can quote her chapter and verse. The ones who jump up and down in tears when she walks in the studio and if they are lucky enough to get Oprah to touch their hand out of the pile of manicured nails coming at the poor woman--well, they might as well have been blessed by the Pope. (Actually, this is my favorite part of the whole show. It's like a Benny Hinn healing every episode. I am waiting to see someone fall backwards and be caught be Gayle and start speaking in tongues.) I also like how they almost piss their pants when they get told their getting a free T-shirt that is designer label (a MUST HAVE) and costs $67. I'm sure if you gave them an equivalent $6 T-shirt, it would say, "I stood in line for 5 hours so I could act like a demented, bat-shit crazy banshee on the Oprah Show and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

Why do so many women need an Oprah to self-help them into any sort of self-esteem? Why do they need an Oprah to tell them that it's a good thing to donate money to African relief charities? Why do women need an Oprah to tell them that even though they have the career, family, car, house, etc. that they still aren't happy and need to "self-actualize"? Why don't women see the contradiction between an episode where a woman goes to Africa and breaks down in front of a dying woman with AIDS who received no treatment; then comes back to the States and throws a multimillion dollar birthday party for herself. I know that even Oprah can't singlehandedly save Africa...but doesn't that seem odd to anyone else but me?

Why do some women need Oprah to tell them what to buy, eat, read, watch, and think? Don't they see that she, like Martha Stewart and the Olsen Twins, is a queen of cross promotion and consumerism dressed up like friendly advice. She is telling you that X is the best product and she's getting paid a load to do it. So go buy, buy, buy because that is in her job description: making you buy stuff you don't need and didn't want before she told you that you did.

And please, if we are sitting down to chit chat about our emotions or whatever, I have a rule: There is a one mention maximum of reference of what Oprah (or Dr. Phil for that matter. I DO hate him.) might say about our emotional states. I'm being liberal by giving you the one, now. Any continuous constant references to WWOD, and I'm hitting the door and leaving you with the tab.

So I don't hate Oprah herself, I mean, thank God she is a basically good person and not offering out the special kool-aid. It's her beautifully coifed and manicured, stepford-style cult that has me a'feared.

And for the record, I'm on Brooke's side, and I decided that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING what O will say about it. I'm not planning on watching to find out.