Yes she's wrong, but Jennifer Lawrence is so adorable!

To reach Jennifer Lawrence's ideal, which, let's face it, is to make sure that no impressionable child is ever called fat, you could simply criminalize the word "fat" as an adjective.

Or you could simply allow people to grow thicker skins.

There are a dozens of ways to call attention to someone's body size without using the word "fat."

"Yo, Liposaurus Rex!"

The Harry Potter approach, "Yo momma's so big-boned, her patronus is cake!"

The World of Warcraft approach, "You momma's so plus-sized, it takes three warlocks to summon her!"

"Nice dress. Which reminds me, Ringling Brothers called. They'd like their big top back."

Just another here-today gone-tomorrow young bimbo with a pretty face. They're a dime a dozen in Hollywood, and I suspect few people care what they think. She'll be replaced in two years, tops. Does anyone remember what Megan Fox thought about anything?

Jennifer Lawrence likes to work the "down-to-earth everyman" persona, and this is now part of her bag of tricks. In EVERY interview, she talks about how she's considered "obese" in Hollywood (her word) and therefore not leading lady material and how that's a challenge for her. Basically it's all horse shit. A handful of trolls on the Internet snark that she's too fat, but box office numbers indicate that this is not the opinion of the overall population. She says this stuff because her fans eat it up.

Mike, I believe you are mistaken about Lawrence's career prospects. She is an A-list actress who just won an Oscar and will be nominated again for 2013. She is the star of a multi-billion dollar movie franchise. She has both popular and critical appeal. She sells the hell out of magazines and brings high ratings to talk shows. She has a durable career ahead of her.

Can't we just disagree with her without making an uninformed generalization about her as a person?

Megan Fox has ducked out the limelight to have a couple of kids--she is pregnant again--but we'll be seeing plenty more of her too, in the upcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and in Judd Apatow comedies forevermore. Fox has staying power.

Just another here-today gone-tomorrow young bimbo with a pretty face.

I'm not so sure about that. She is being silly here, but whenever I see her on screen, I'm struck by how luminous and appealing she is. She appears to have a true star quality and is a very good actress.

Yeah, this interview was cringe-y, but Jennifer Lawrence is quite awesome. "The Hunger Games" and "Silver Linings Playbook" aside, she was absolutely stellar in her breakout role in "Winter's Bone."

Yeah, this interview was cringe-y, but Jennifer Lawrence is quite awesome. -- sofar at December 18, 2013 9:47 AM

Well what do you think of this trailer?

That aside, advocating limiting speech is a loser idea. Just like the N word and the restriction on saying someone is a worthless bum -- they're the "tragically unemployed, homeless person."

> The bottom line: The First Amendment is more
> important than anybody's feelings.

Oh, relax. The authoress and readers of this blog are as guilty as anyone about converting their judgments to intrusive federal statute with electric haste.

A pretty girl, one in the business of liked by people, said something nice about fat chicks.

Back when I used to watch TV it struck me that actresses appearing on late-night talk shows usually steered the conversation to their fabulous bodyparts and/or sex within moments of greeting the host.

Same thing here. Just keeping the product in the spotlight.

I wouldn't compare Jennifer Lawrence to Megan Fox. Lawrence can actually act; Fox is a talking blow-up doll.

Anyhow, yeah, her comments were stupid and not well thought out. Generally, I think people who love to assert that, "there ought to be a law against that!" don't engage in much critical thinking.

> the "down-to-earth everyman" persona, and
> this is now part of her bag of tricks.

It's a "persona"! It's not a teenage human being talking to casually to others, it's a persona. It used to work one way, but "now" she does it this way, as only a "part" of her array of "tricks." It takes real cunning to be not merely "down-to-earth," but also to be a "down-to-earth everyman". [sic] [i.e., quotation marks in original]

Especially when it's only a "persona."

Hollywood is a pitiless realm of contrivance and subtle manipulation. Tell no one you saw me! Remember the handshake! Complete your ablutions before the first light of the fourth dawn… For under that magnificent flaming daybreak, all prisoners will be freed, and truth will be revealed to all! Be ready!

PS-  Did yooguyz see that one movie
where she played a young prostitute 
from a Tennessee country church 
traveling through Estonia during 
the U.S. invasion of Grenada where 
she had a chance meeting with a 
chemist from Mozambique who'd 
found a cure for AIDS and was 
targeted for murder by a secret 
agent played by Willem Dafoe?  In 
that one scene at the hotel, you 
could look down her blouse and 
see her nipples.  It was epic.

So, who's Megan Fox? And who is this Jennifer Lawrence? (or does she go by the hip nick-name Jenny Larry?)

No need to answer folks, I couldn't care less as they don't seem to have any impact on MY life at the moment.

Or you could simply allow people to grow thicker skins.

Yeah, but then they'd be fat

Feel free to give an example of that.

Crid? Back up an baseless assertion? Isnt that one of the 7 seals broken during Armageddon?

Well, f'r instance, let's say you wanted gay marriages honored by all parties, public and private, across the land...

...Until, just as whimsically and baselessly, you changed your mind.

Totes unfair, right? That discussion has only been going on for ten years.

So let's keep our eyes open, and see how long it takes for some mundane issue to appear for which you're by-golly-just-certain the solution is policy…

…Backed by enforcement.


We'll be watching closely in the days ahead! Won't take long!

It's my experience that media people firmly believe that the First Amendment applies only to them. That's why the Internet pisses them off so hugely. This is just another example.

Well, f'r instance, let's say you wanted gay marriages honored by all parties, public and private, across the land...

Really? Is that about us "converting [our] judgments to intrusive federal statute[s] with electric haste"

Or is it about expecting the law as it stands to be applied equally to all and not have minority status be reason enough to deny civil liberties?

That's right, Crid. She has cultivated a celebrity persona that is relatable and self-deprecating. Those qualities may be a part of her actual personality, sure, but her INCESSANTLY volunteering to the press topics like her fatness, her awkwardness, and her need to pee and pass gas is contrived.

When she makes fun of her own ass, she gets an adoring reaction. When she implies that most movie stars are too thin, she gets an adoring reaction. When she says she will never exercise and only wants to eat junk food....etc.

Her sound bytes make headlines. Female fans think "she is one of us" and feel unthreatened.

Megan Fox has talent and still has a big career ahead of her. She's a great example of a gorgeous woman who DOES make other women feel threatened.

Exactly! Right? I know.

Amazing that an attractive young woman would manipulate people's feelings... By tweaking their perceptions!

Incessantly! We can't look away!

J Law is the flavor of the moment, but her Oscar was no fluke; she has the chops.

She's 23, she's allowed to be stupid in public, and her larger message is a worthy one.

☑ DaveG at December 18, 2013 2:43 PM

[Less "chops"]

Speaking of "civil rights". As I predicted, marriage equality Is now moving down that slippery slope to Polygamy.
The New York Times, is on board.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal

Well what do you think of this trailer?

I LOVE "Honest Trailers."

Have you seen the "Bad lip reading" version?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjGk_jU6t5A

Speaking of "civil rights". As I predicted, marriage equality Is now moving down that slippery slope to Polygamy. The New York Times, is on board. -- Isab at December 18, 2013 3:29 PM

Two questions:

• Did you notice the URL included the "roomfordebate" in it?
• Please explain why you care if your neighbors are polygamous?

I'm not saying you can't be morally offended. But if your neighbors came by and said you had to attend the Roman Catholic church down the road instead of your normal Baptist church because they don't like Baptists; what would you do?

Now if the gays want special rights or the polygamists want special tax benefits, I will object strenuously.

But as it stands -- there is nothing to complain about.

Did you notice the URL included the "roomfordebate" in it?
Please explain why you care if your neighbors are polygamous"

Answer to question number one.... Click on the link and read the article itself which advocates for polygamy being recognized.

Question number 2. I dont care if my neighbors are polygamous, or gay or straight, or Black or Hindu or Asian or Jews or Christians or rednecks as long as they pay their fucking property taxes and follow the covenants.

What I do like to do, is laugh at the naiveté of those who loudly proclaimed that there was no slippery slope, and that two people, one marriage, was absolutely the end of stretching the government approved definition of marriage. ( I think Amy emphatically stated this, a couple of times)

It clearly isn't, because the same arguments for same sex marriage work for polygamy, and incest. It is all about personal fufillment people, don't you get it? THAT is the only thing that matters. (And social acceptance and validation of course)

"I'm not saying you can't be morally offended. But if your neighbors came by and said you had to attend the Roman Catholic church down the road instead of your normal Baptist church because they don't like Baptists; what would you do?"

People have told me to do things at least as odious as this, several times, in my life, and I would do what I always do, ignore anyone or any "request" that does not have the force of law behind it.

I really am getting tired of condemnations of lookism from women who benefit from that same thing. Jennifer Lawrence is just the latest example.

Just recently, the model Kate Upton recently complained that she kept meeting men who saw her as a toy and not a human being.

Last year, the actress Ashley Judd spoke out about media scrutiny of her appearance after she gained weight in her face.

In 2010, Jessica Simpson went on the Late Show to talk about her TV show, "The Price of Beauty," and how fat women were prized as wives in Uganda.

In each of these cases, a current or former hot piece of ass complained about being treated like as such, or judged harshly for having lost her hot piece of ass status. Of course, none of them seemed to show the slightest bit of self-awareness, as none acknowledged that they would not have gotten anywhere in showbiz with plain faces and chunky bodies.

Answer to question number one.... Click on the link and read the article itself which advocates for polygamy being recognized. -- Isab at December 18, 2013 5:24 PM

What if a group of adults had a contract that said we are going to create a farm and a general store, and as part of the contract:

• All members of the contract are guardians of all children of members of the contract.
• As part of the contract you are expected to live at a colocated site with the rest of the contract members.
• All members have a full Power of Attorney (medical, financial and general) over any of the fellow contractee's decisions.
• If anyone in the contract should expire there assets are dissolved among the rest of the contractees.
• No member of the contract can have an individual contract with any entity external to the contract.
• Any external contract has to be approved by all members.
• If you want to leave the contract the departure agreement has to be arbitrated among all contractees, or arbitrated by outside legal authority.
• You are expected to limit any intimate contact to only fellow contractees

Would that be an illegal contract?

What if the same contract was made between two guys or girls? How about between a man and woman?

Just saying. I'm going to ignore the religious part for now.

"Would that be an illegal contract?"

Yes, But you would need a couple of classes in contract law, government law, and family law to understand why it would be an illegal contract.

But here are a couple of problems. You cant bind minors legally through this type of contract. This is why family court ignores marital agreements, or pre marital agreements about children and follows state law, in determining best interests of the child in a divorce.
Also,
Contracts that go against public policy, or are a result of coercion, or lack consideration, also cant be enforced. Your proposal ticks potentially so many of those boxes, there isn't room to discuss them all in a blog post.

I'd said Isab sees the paradox clearly:

> personal fufillment people, don't you
> get it? THAT is the only thing that
> matters. (And social acceptance and
> validation of course)

Isab understands that shallow judgments can spin on a dime, as they did for this very blog last week. Amy herself had moved on to shimmering new Taylor Swift hairstyle of "freedom and self-determination"... But her tragically unhip readers were still rocking a Brittney Spears quaff for gay marriage. Oooooops!

Total blog-fashion wipeout, right? Embarrassing!

Y'know, it's kind of a metaphor... Like how so much of America has presumed that concentrating authority at a central federal level, specifically the Executive, would allow us to overpower individual choices and make the world a more cheerful and "Hope!"-y place.

And now we can't afford to insure our health.

I really did enjoy Winter's Bone myself. It captured growing up in the Ozark backwoods pretty accurately for some clans.

I could not care less what the actress had to say about, well, anything. Last I checked, being an actress made you an expert about zilch.

Here is my observation:

Jennifer Lawrence has nerds eating out of her hand because she is pretty but awkward!

Tons of Old Hollywood actresses were awkward in their personal life, hell I've read Angelina Jolie is pretty awkward in person (a loner too).

But they don't show it to the public. Why is JLaw showing it?

Fuck you nerds for littering Reddit with JLaw posts.

Also all the "ass" pictures of celebrities you show, fuck you.
I don't want to see Olivia Wildes bony ass in yoga pants.

Yes, But you would need a couple of classes in contract law, government law, and family law to understand why it would be an illegal contract.,/i> -- Isab at December 18, 2013 7:26 PM

That pretty much sounds like the normal marriage contract. But I am more than willing to to go look up the related laws to find out why it wouldn't work. Or if you can point me to courses so I can find out why I'm wrong, I would appreciate it.

I'm always interested in learning.

Thanks.

I'm not saying you can't be morally offended. But if your neighbors came by and said you had to attend the Roman Catholic church down the road instead of your normal Baptist church because they don't like Baptists; what would you do?

Now if the gays want special rights or the polygamists want special tax benefits, I will object strenuously.

But as it stands -- there is nothing to complain about.

Yes there is: parity error. Google "lost boys".

The thing about the Rights™ we all know and love is that no matter how many other people exercise their opportunity, it doesn't deprive you of yours.

Polygamy doesn't work that way.

That pretty much sounds like the normal marriage contract. But I am more than willing to to go look up the related laws to find out why it wouldn't work. Or if you can point me to courses so I can find out why I'm wrong, I would appreciate it.

I'm always interested in learning.

Thanks.

Posted by: Jim P. at December 18, 2013 9:10 PM

Everyone thinks contracts are simple until they try and write one and enforce one. However this is what the top tier of law school graduates do. The bottom tier chases ambulances.

A marriage contract is a very simple one between two people. What happens when the contract is dissolved is pretty cut and dried also.

Multi party contracts even in business are so complicated as to be thousands of pages in length spelling out the obligations of each party under the contract, which is why most contracts are two party contracts, with big contracts usually being between two main contractors, and lots of sub contractors on one or both sides, The sub contractors only have responsibilities and obligations to one of the contractors they work for, and of course, really big projects have thousands of sub contractors, and often many sub sub contractors.
Really want to learn about contracts? Start with this book,
http://www.amazon.com/Calamari-Perillos-Hornbook-Contracts-Edition/dp/0314181431

Once you have read it, bounce your new found knowledge against your long list of things that you want your contract to do, and provide for simple effective enforcement mechanisms, and dissolution mechanisms that will pass constitutional scrutiny.
(You can't contract away your constitutional rights, or a third party's rights either (like a minor child) . This is what I mean by against public policy)

"Please explain why you care if your neighbors are polygamous?"

Because it's bad for society. Without fail, in the modern world cultures that tolerate it are dysfunctional. That's why people are so fascinated with the Mormom polygamy sub-subculture (Big Love, etc.), because it's such a train wreck. Jeff hits on one of the big points: most men have to leave the culture in order to find mating opportunities.

"Please explain why you care if your neighbors are polygamous?"

Because it's bad for society. Without fail, in the modern world cultures that tolerate it are dysfunctional. That's why people are so fascinated with the Mormom polygamy sub-subculture (Big Love, etc.), because it's such a train wreck. Jeff hits on one of the big points: most men have to leave the culture in order to find mating opportunities.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 19, 2013 7:04 AM

I am in agreement, that polygamy, especially the form practiced in the Muslim world is generally bad for society, however, it is one of those lifestyle choices the degrades society and our value system when it reaches a tipping point of acceptance. The effect is on the society as a whole, and not per se, my neighborhood, which is why I personally don't care if my neighbors are polygamous, but I do care whether or not government endorses it.

Jim, I detailed the constitutional law behind not contracting away the interests of children - it's the second half the the blog post at the link/ my blue name.

The tome Isab recommends is the industry gold standard but it's also a beast. Cornell Legal Information Institute is a great online resource that might offer a engaging foothold.

http://www.law.cornell.edu

Jim, I detailed the constitutional law behind not contracting away the interests of children - it's the second half the the blog post at the link/ my blue name. -- Michelle at December 19, 2013 9:07 AM

I hope that Kansas DCF wins the court case to collect child support from William, rather than leaving the people of Kansas to foot the bill for his foolishness.

The problem with this argument is what if he had died? Who would pay?

An additional argument is that if the father is judged to be incompetent or otherwise unfit is obligated to pay? So essentially he is going to be held responsible while he isn't allowed to be responsible?

Does the the non-custodial parent have automatic visitation rights? Or is that a separate issue? So they have to pay but can't see the kid?

Although laws vary by state, children who are adopted have the rights and responsibilities of a parent severed only after legal proceedings regarding what is in the child’s best interests.

Why does any two people have to talk to a judge (the government legal system) before they do anything? Why can't I have two other people see us sign a document to make it binding?

Why does any two people have to talk to a judge (the government legal system) before they do anything? Why can't I have two other people see us sign a document to make it binding?

Job security for lawyers

"The problem with this argument is what if he had died? Who would pay?"

Social security.

Why does any two people have to talk to a judge (the government legal system) before they do anything? Why can't I have two other people see us sign a document to make it binding?

Posted by: Jim P. at December 19, 2013 8:40 PM

You can, in certain very limited instances, like buying or selling a house or a car. but until you understand that there are certain things that cant be contracted away, and until you understand, how fraught with peril contract interpretation, and enforcement is, you wont be able to write a good contract that covers something complex.

Heck, most lawyers, can't do it. Just look at the track record on prenuptial agreements. Even written by lawyers, many, have been overturned by the courts.

Social security. -- Isab at December 20, 2013 7:50 AM

So it is a fed program v. the state? What is the real difference?

You can, in certain very limited instances, like buying or selling a house or a car. but until you understand that there are certain things that cant be contracted away, and until you understand, how fraught with peril contract interpretation, and enforcement is, you wont be able to write a good contract that covers something complex. -- Isab at December 20, 2013 7:50 AM

So I can't say that I don't think I'm going to be a fit parent and cede my rights to the child to people who appear to be nice people without a judge being involved.

But at the same time I'm not a fit parent and I know it and can only be forced to cede those rights by a court?

So I'm 22 year old that fucked someone never expecting to be a parent. Then she meets a nice partner who wants to step into the role and I like the person and I'm still subject to the legal system?

Shorthanding: I had a co-worker that dated/ engaged to a single mother and was the "stepfather" for five years. Paternal father in Chicago and never seen. Two years after marriage he had to ship her body home from vacation in NOLA.

Paternal father still collecting the SSI. Stepdad living on "the edge" trying to support his loving stepdaughter who doesn't give a fuck about her Paternal father.

So where the fuck is the judge in this? The way the law is written -- the judge has no requirement to cut the Paternal father off and award full rights to the nominally adoptive father. But at the same time the Paternal father technically has no responsibility to the child.

So the problem that I constantly run into is that everyone has rights. Do they have no responsibility?

Jim, I'm just seeing our questions now. Each of the hypotheticals you mention would trigger different analysis from the court, and child welfare law varies in each state.

I don't have experience in soc. sec. or divorce/ family law (despite the overlap, child welfare law is a distinct field). That said, I would expect minor children to have access to a portion of the soc. sec. payout of the deceased woman's benefits, but my expectation is based on the experience of a friend who was still a child when his father died.

The adoption process provides protections for children and for the adults who want the privilege of providing for and raising them, to the exclusion of other people. "Nominally adoptive" is not a legal term, the way "a little pregnant" is not a medical term.

Also - what Isab said.

The adoption process provides protections for children and for the adults who want the privilege of providing for and raising them, to the exclusion of other people. -- Michelle at December 20, 2013 10:24 PM

So I can be the most fucked up, total bitch, stupid, retarded, psychotic person on the planet, but not have the right to cede my rights to parent a child without a court decision.

But when I kill that child because I'm so fucked up I'm going to jail? Where a moment of sense would have allowed me to let someone else to have given the child a good life?

Meanwhile Mary Poppins has to go through 50K hoops to adopt the same child?

Ceding rights requires a judicial declaration.

Abandoning or selling your child does not.

Choose.

Ceding rights requires a judicial declaration. -- Michelle at December 21, 2013 10:06 PM

Why does the court need to be involved? Tell me what the legal system really brings to the this?

You mean like the foster system helps children -- that is why they need to be involved?

Need to be?

Plenty of people handle parenting and child care arrangements without involving the government. The ones who make the press are usually the people who haven't managed well and seek government assistance, or whose children come to the attention of mandatory reporters (such as teachers and doctors).

Anyone who looks to a government agency for support - be it welfare support, seeking social security benefits, enforcement of a contact, police protection - has involved the government.

So an adoption needs to have the judicial system involved to the roots of the action.

But a parent can give a full Power of Attorney to someone else to raise their child and it would only take a notary?

I'm just trying to see how you think that the government works for the best welfare of the children?

"But a parent can give a full Power of Attorney to someone else to raise their child and it would only take a notary?"

No, not in my experience.

"I'm just trying to see how you think that the government works for the best welfare of the children?"

As well as it can. And there's not much it can do. There is no adequate substitute for a strong and resilient network of family.

No, not in my experience. -- Michelle at December 22, 2013 8:41 PM

If I was a single mom going to France for degree training while my child is under 18 I'm restricted from granting general POA to a neighbor for the unforeseeable future?

If I;m going on missionary work to <African country> I can't grant a general POA to a neighbor for the unforeseeable future?

So I'm a druggie and am headed to prison and can't give general POA to a neighbor for the unforeseeable future?

Why does DCFS have to be involved?

I'm looking for an actual reason that a POA wouldn't work?

I'm now not talking adoption. I just want to know why the court system has to be involved.

I know that I can file with the IRS as Head of Household without the court or legal system being involved. The IRS might be able to penalize you for not having a court order. But they will generally acknowledge a POA.