Profile

  • David
  • Member Since May 19th, 2006

Are you David? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

Makeover Diaries: A Beach Babe Turned Soccer Mom {Stylelist}

Dec 7th 2010 1:26PM Looks like somebody hasn't learned that when you type in capital letters online it looks like YOU'RE SCREAMING AT US, which is really impolite.

And nobody's talking about showing up to a corporate meeting in a bikini. Situationally appropriate attire is obvious, especially in business. But when you start adjusting your attire to fit in socially and getting away from who you are, that's wrong in my book.

Makeover Diaries: A Beach Babe Turned Soccer Mom {Stylelist}

Dec 7th 2010 1:16PM Maybe it's because I'm from South Florida and married to a mother in her 50s who is always thought to be 5-7 years younger, but there was no reason for her to change anything. In our neighborhood or at my daughter's school, there are hot mommies who dress down and those who won't go to the playground without putting their sexy on. Look with unbiased eyes and you find out it has nothing to do with what kind of parent or person they are. One of the nicest and most accomplished mothers I know is in her late 40s, works out to maintain a strong, toned body and dresses to show it off. There's more than a little of our silly idea that sexuality must be toned down once you're no longer young or childless working here. Who says a 40something or 50something or a mother can't be in-your-face sexy? Why must she be sexy in an understated or subtle way? Respect for your son? Please. I grew up the child of a single mother who got her share of appreciative looks from guys when she took me to my baseball or hockey games. I couldn't have cared less.

What Are the Summer Outfits You Hate Seeing Guys Wear? {Lemondrop}

Jul 2nd 2010 6:45PM No. 4 shows why women often totter about in shoes that hurt their feet (but looked fabulous in the store's low mirror!), in outfits that can't be comfortable, in pants with no pockets while carrying purses the size of Buicks. Impracticality too often reigns when it comes to fashion.

I not only wear six-pocket cargo shorts and pants, they're my favorites. When I travel, I always wear the pants. Why? All those pockets in front -- keys, wallet, cell phone, iPod and carried in a place that's easy for me to reach, more difficult for a pickpocket than my rear pockets. Also, the deep lower pockets work well when I have to carry a camera for work or anything extra when I have my daughter in tow.

They're not aesthetically pleasing? Maybe not to you. But when I easily access my cell phone, wallet, keys, change, Band-Aids, whatever at speed while feeling the comfy roominess, hey, they're as beautiful as my Armani to me.

Last 'Survivor' Standing on 'Heroes vs Villains' Finale (VIDEO) {AOL TV}

May 17th 2010 11:36AM All the Russell supporters miss the same point that Russell himself does -- the secret is to do what he does but in such a manner that you don't turn everyone against you when it comes time for them to vote on the big prize. That's always been the end twist of "Survivor:" the people you've voted off have to vote FOR you at the end. Boston Rob hit it on the nose: Russell plays to get to the final two or three, not to win.
Everybody manipulates and deceives to win. That's the game. But if you're a mean petty arrogant bully while manipulating/deceiving people, you're not going to fare well when your fate rests in their hands. Do you vote someone $1 million who viciously calls you a "dumbass" and ridicules you? Do you vote someone $1 million who threatens you with, essentially, "Do what I say or you're gone?"
Isn't Parvati some kind of fund raiser, works in charity or something like that? That's a job where you have to bend people to your will without being able to threaten them and so that you'll be welcome when you come back and ask for more $$$ later. A perfect prep for "Survivor." No surprise she's won once and played the most days. My wife and I wondered why she aligned with Russell at all.
It's like life -- don't stomp on those you climb over on the way up because you might need something from them later. Russell forgot that.

Opinion: OK, Mom, Here's Your Moment of Truth; Quit Worrying {ParentDish}

May 17th 2010 1:00AM There was a great article in the Palm Beach Post about this back in 2006. It pointed out that, statistically, it was safer to be a child today than in 1930 and that what we're doing is raising a bunch of scared rabbit kids who can't do much without Mommy or Daddy. The writer was inspired to research and do the article after seeing her stepchildren, healthy teenagers, afraid to do much on their own more than a few blocks from their parents.

I'm a parent of a 5-year-old. I'm also an adult with a memory, some knowledge, common sense and a past as a so-called "latchkey kid." Here's the deal, as proven by statistics and even cop testimony: very little has changed. The world isn't any more dangerous. You just hear about it and are bombarded with it.

Sex offender lists and websites now let you know where they are. The sex offenders were always there, though. Now, we know about it and we know about more as there's been a push to report such things where once they were kept a family secret out of shame. The numbers still say you don't need to worry as much about the guy down the block as your "funny Uncle" or family friend.

Kids get snatched, sexually abused, murdered. They always have. The difference now is we have a 24-hour news cycle, CNN or Fox News needs to tell you something and nothing arrests attention more than a beautiful child in peril. So when Baby Jessica falls in the well, the whole nation knows about it. You think she was the first kid to fall in a well? When Jon Benet turns up dead in Colorado, people from Maine to Modesto know about it. Before the 1980s? Could happen in the next state over and you wouldn't hear about it.

Add to that you have kids on milk cartons, on "Have You Seen Me?" flyers in your mailbox, Amber Alerts. You have shows like "Without a Trace" and "Law & Order: SVU" (which I love, BTW) on afternoon reruns and first run at night showing you the grisly stuff weekly that you used to get only on select "Viewer Discretion Advised" episodes of any drama.

So, instead of teaching kids how to deal with possibly threatening situations or how to avoid them while living a regular life as parents used to, modern parents do the helicopter thing. In some states, they're aided by laws that prevent a kid from being left alone if the kid is 12 or under. To those of us who might be alone in a house from age 8 (I got my first house key, to be used in case my afterschool babysitters were unavailable, at age 6) and learned how to do things around the house safely before that, this is laughable. How many of you remember when you weren't only left alone at 12, you might be expected to babysit?

There's a reason so many college kids today can't deal with clashing roommates, tough profs or tough bosses. "Failure to Launch" wasn't coined by Generation X.

A Birth Control Pill for Men? In Your Dreams {Politics Daily}

May 16th 2010 1:28AM Ridiculous theory by the writer.

After pregnancy, I agree, the ball is in the woman's court. As my wife went through a miscarriage, I realized I could feel for her, but I wasn't going through what she was physically, mentally or hormonally. Me having an opinion on abortion is akin to me having an opinion on what it's like to play quarterback in the NFL -- it's something I've never done, never will and I can only guess what it's like.

But before pregnancy? Everybody should have the right to say, "The factory is not open." Not every guy wants to be a father, even if he's doing the do with someone he loves (and if he's not in an exclusive long term relationship, he should be using a condom anyway to lower the STD risk, but that's beside the point). And if a guy doesn't want to be a father or doesn't want to put up with a stunned, pregnant woman giving him major guff, you better believe he'll remember to take that pill.

Hotel fees are on the rise, and so are guests' tempers {WalletPop}

May 5th 2010 12:50PM Skewering the rich? Are you serious, Angie? And the "poor-by-choice" get richer?

In the first place, you need to learn what "high end" means. The hotels they're talking about are frequented by middle class and up. They're talking fees at full service Hiltons, Westins, Hyatts and Marriotts. "High end" to those who have been around the block means Ritz Carltons, Conrads and St. Regises.

I'll skip the ignorance in "poor by choice" -- do you really think most people living paycheck to paycheck or sinking in debt consciously CHOSE that situation? -- and get right to the simple fact that business will do what the market lets them do. Sheep consumers get slaughtered. It's amazing how businesses move to satisfy you when your opinion could cost them real money.

Don't like a fee or feel it's unfair? Let the front desk manager know. Also let them know you'll be telling friends or colleagues. When anything in a hotel angered me enough to complain (and that takes some doing), I used to point out A) my level in their frequent guest program B) that I chose my hotels for business travel and that affected which hotels I chose for pleasure travel and C) that I had work and professional organization peers who traveled often and probably wouldn't like to hear of fee gouging. By the time I got to C, there was often an effort to satisfy the calm, cold complaining customer before them.

If it happens often enough, they notice in the head office. Nobody wants to lose dollars trying to nickel and dime someone to death.

But it was a nice try, Angie, at attempting to make this a grand statement on America



Hotel fees are on the rise, and so are guests' tempers {WalletPop}

May 5th 2010 12:18PM During the decade plus I traveled heavily for work -- 90,000 butt-in-seat airline miles per year, hotel points TNTC across three major chains -- Courtyards and Hampton Inns were "if you have to" choices and Fairfields were Marriott's version of Super 8. Pools? Breakfast lasting until 10:30 (I'm an early-riser who can dawdle)? Good televisions or choice of channels? Anything beyond functional desks and basic internet service? Not until the end of that time. I usually stayed at the full service Marriotts, Hiltons, Sheratons and Westins, which transitioned during that time to include ergonomically sound workstations that could accommodate laptop needs.

Recently, just five years after my road warrior era ended, I found myself staying at a Hampton Inn one night in a medium-sized town and a Fairfield Inn across the street the next night. A few weeks later, I did a Four Points by an airport. And what did I find in each? Rooms that I would've been happy to see in the full service hotel in the chain -- furnished beautifully (heck, the Four Points had a workout treadmill!) with nice big flat screen TVs on swivels and excellent work stations in the Hampton and Fairfield (only good in the Four Points). I wasn't surprised by the Hampton Inn, as I'd stayed in them a few times over the last few years. A few years ago, I upgraded Courtyard to the "fine, that's cool" list. But the other two were total eye openers. As I look at the new Fairfields going up as well as the other lower rung brands of the big boys, I'm thinking "save the full service brands for vacations, when I use the points. Build the points -- and a reputation among the bosses as a cheap date -- on the lower brands."

Opinion: Adoptive Mother Should Be Sent to the Gulag {ParentDish}

Apr 12th 2010 4:01PM No, I don't know the kid's problems. But, I do know this:

when we adopted our daughter right out of the box, so to speak, we became her parents just the same as if she had come from my sperm and my wife's womb. Period. I remember thinking that as I held her three-day-old body in my arms. Which means, you have to deal with all that comes with that kid, the good and the bad, just as you would one who carries your chromosomes. To me, this is not up for discussion. There's no Lemon Law. This is a child, not a Chevy, not a chihuahua.

I'm not saying I'd volunteer to adopt a kid who I knew before adoption was a special needs kid. But if my 5-year-old daughter turns out to be one, I'd suck it up and do what I had to do to be the best parent I could to her. That's the promise you make with adoption. Just like having a kid biologically, nothing is guaranteed so if you're not ready to live up to that promise, don't go down that path and screw up some poor kid's life. Get a pet or hobby instead until you're ready.

When Movie Stars Trash Their Own Work {Moviefone Blog}

Mar 12th 2010 5:23PM Gloria, stop with the halcyon nostalgia that big money has ruined movies. There's always been big money in movies, for the studios and certain actors/actresses, even back in the silent film era. At a time when $5,000/year was good money, Lincoln Perry, "Stephen Fetchit" was making $2,000/month, pay or play. A few films were made for art, most were made for money and in the studio system days, even the biggest stars had little say in what movies they did or didn't do. Bette Davis, for example, had to beg Warner Bros. to let her do "Of Human Bondage," the movie she believes propelled the rest of her career.

As there have been since the demise of the studio system, there are still actors who take less to do movies they like or to work with other actors or directors they've always wanted to work with. Or, just as a favor for a friend.