"Brilliant" Is A Relative Term…
August 27th, 2007
As I was falling asleep last night, I was struck with a brilliant idea for a tagline. So much so, I had to get up right then, go into the other room, and write it down. God forbid I fall asleep and forget this little gem:
We’re here, we’re sphere, get used to it.
Hahahahahaha! Ha! Ahem. I added a couple more this afternoon; if you refresh, you might be able to spot them. But that one is totally my favorite.
Posted by mo pie
Email us
Yay, I refreshed a bunch until I got it–great!
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8417/picture13xq6.jpg
YAY!
Isn’t “We are rethinking Dress Barn” new, too?
Mo Pie my darling, You Jam out With your Ham out baby.
K, it’s not. That’s an old one! It started with this entry, in fact. There are two new ones, though!
And Shannon, that is still my favorite saying ever. I owe you one!
Oh god…I have this picture in my head of the ritual preparation of the ham followed immediately by a loud spate of butt rock, to the satisfaction of all participants. Brava!
I don’t know if “Hold onto your love handles,” is new, but it’s new to me, and I LOVE IT!
I tell you people, my ham is takin’ over the world. For reals.
If I come across another one as good it’s so yours.
BRAVO!!!! I LOVE it!!!!
I LOVE it. “We’re sphere.” hee hee hee. Genius!
That is fantastic!!
“We’re here, we’re sphere, get used to it” is a restatement of Level 4 in the retreating defense lines of fat acceptance theory:
(1) There are no fat people. They just redefined the BMI to make it look that way.
(2) O.K., well maybe there are increasing numbers of fat people, but they’re healthier than thin people according to some study I read.
(3) Well, maybe fat people aren’t really healthier, but it’s nobody’s business. This buttinski and nanny state stuff has got to stop.
(4) Well, even if it’s theoretically other people’s business from a public health policy standpoint, the proportion of the population that is fat is going to be so much in the majority that we’re going to take over and force things to be the way we want them to be.
Those are a bunch of straw men, Mark. Who has ever said “there are no fat people”? I’ve also never said they were “healthier than thin people” (sometimes yes, sometimes no). I do agree with number three. I don’t agree with number four, either, really; not sure what the argument is there. Bottom line: the tagline is a joke. You know, a joke! Like, ha ha! Funny!
I sure get Mark’s point in No. 4:
What he’s saying, in a backhanded way, is that fat people’s health care costs more, so our weight is therefore a matter of “public health policy.” Which is to say the government may legitimately consider itself to have a compelling interest in every damn thing you put in your mouth.
Even if we concede that fatness is a choice and that fat people’s health care costs more than thinner people’s (big concessions), Mark’s thinking can, of course, be used to extend the government’s control over any number of things.
The choice to have children, especially out of wedlock and among the poor, is obviously a huge drain on public-health resources. The government therefore has an obvious interest in who has children and when. How do you suppose it’ll look after its interests?
In fact, pregnancy aside, there are obviously significant public-health costs associated with sex itself. Sexually transmitted diseases are a huge drain on resources. The right policies, properly enforced, could all but do away with those expenses.
If you argue that public-health costs (real, potential, or imaginary) are grounds for government intrusion into private choices and behavior, you’ll soon find there is justification for limiting, banning and mandating all kinds of things.
Of course, some people like that idea.
Oh wait. Yes, I have. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have it in me right now to type it all out again. Besides, it was just ramblings anyway. You didn’t want to hear me go on and on about this, right?