Me me me!
So you see the headline on this and you think, “Yeah, this is about how we should all be concerned for others. She must have known someone that she should have reached out to more…”
And then you read the thing.
Demi Lovato’s latest words are a reminder that just telling a loved one to reach out for help isn’t enough.
By Lindsay Holmes
Demi Lovato recently opened up about overexercising and wishing someone recognized the signs of her eating disorder on the podcast “Pretty Big Deal With Ashley Graham.”
Demi Lovato is once again talking about her mental health, and her candor ― as usual ― is crucial in confronting stigma. But her latest comments also underscore the important role loved ones play in someone’s life when they have a mental health condition.
Ok, let’s hear what it is.
Depression over death of a loved one? Financial problems? A love affair gone cruelly wrong?
The singer discussed an unhealthy relationship with exercise and how it exacerbated her eating disorder on the podcast “Pretty Big Deal With Ashley Graham.” She told host Ashley Graham that her habits ― which included working out multiple times a day ― weren’t red flags to most, but they were definitely part of a bigger mental health issue.
“I thought the past few years was recovery from an eating disorder, when it actually was just completely falling into it,” she said. “I realized that … maybe my symptoms weren’t as obvious as before, but it was definitely an eating issue.”
She told Graham she wished that someone around her had recognized the signs of a disorder and intervened.
So she’s telling us that people in general need to be more concerned about the mental health of others because apparently no one was concerned enough about her.
Words escape us.
“I was just running myself into the ground, and I honestly think that that’s kind of what led to everything happening over the past year,” she said. “It was just me thinking I found recovery when I didn’t and then living this kind of lie and trying to tell the world I was happy with myself when I really wasn’t.”
The wish that someone would check in or reach out is also the premise of Lovato’s new song, “Anyone,” which she debuted at the Grammy Awards last month. In the lyrics, Lovato sings about feeling like nobody’s listening to her and experiencing empty conversations.
“I almost listen back and hear these lyrics as a cry for help,” Lovato told Apple Music’s Beats 1. “And you kind of listen back to it and you kind of think, how did nobody listen to this song and think, ‘Let’s help this girl’?”
“Mental health disorders are very consuming. … Sometimes you’re not conscious enough to think, ‘I should tell my friends’ or ‘I should call my sister.’ You’re just trying so hard to survive and stay above water.”
Lovato’s words are a heartbreaking reminder that we all need to do more than just encourage people to “reach out” when they’re struggling. We need to recognize unhealthy behaviors and compassionately show up for loved ones ― even if they say they’re fine or generally appear OK.
Heartbreaking, yes. Excessive exercise. But can you imagine the reaction you’d get if you tried to interfere with her working out?
Try it some time on someone with an excessive ego. It won’t go well.
When you’re in the thick of a mental health issue, you often don’t feel like you can reach out. Some of the major symptoms of mental health conditions are isolation, shame and guilt. The very nature of the illness makes it hard to reach out or speak up.
“It’s hard to reach out when you’re struggling and not feeling like yourself,” Racine Henry, a therapist and owner of Sankofa Marriage and Family Therapy in New York, told HuffPost. “Mental health disorders are very consuming. … Sometimes you’re not conscious enough to think, ‘I should tell my friends’ or ‘I should call my sister.’ You’re just trying so hard to survive and stay above water.”
Enough. These people are millionaires with looks. Fuck ’em.
And then claim they aren’t doing such a thing.
When did this little stunt start?
MSNBC is using early poll numbers to try to call the Nevada primary before it has barely begun. No, they’re not projections. They’re just “preferences.”
Uh-huh. MSNBC even played their martial music to announce this “Preference” on their Big Board.
It isn’t just the GOP that’s destroying democracy.
Remember when Burbank forced Tommy’s to close at 11:55 p.m. because the new condo neighbors who had moved in right next door fully aware that this was a Tommy’s they were living next to got absolutely outraged because they realized that they were living right next door to a Tommy’s?
Which had also been operating there for the previous 20 years?
Isn’t it time to revisit this restriction? Maybe too the Rancho neighborhood’s ban on an all-night Denny’s? They were afraid it would attract “outsiders.”
Stan Ross lived in Burbank.
Just the headline alone is depressing.
Audrey Lee Young’s fascination with Disney started out like that of most kids. She grew up on the classic animated films, the memorable characters, and the inspiring storylines. But it wasn’t until years later that her fondness would blossom into an obsession, one that inspired her to found a DisneyBound community and visit the theme parks regularly. Flash forward five years, and her sense of community and creativity would extend to a group of women set on changing the way we see Disney princesses. Thus, AfricanPRINTcesses became a reality
These are adults btw. With their values and expectations obviously trashed from an early age.
I first saw Audrey when she and her fellow royals popped up on my Instagram explore feed. Fourteen women, 14 outfits, 14 new ways of looking at princesses, from Snow White to Vanellope. Over email, Audrey told POPSUGAR she’d been trying to get this idea off the ground for a number of years. “It was important to see this through because when I came up with the idea, it was literally because our group had run out of black women Disney characters to portray,” she explained. “After only TWO projects we had depleted the extent of black female Disney characters (the Muses and Princess Tiana). I said, ‘Well if there aren’t any more black Disney girls, let’s make the Disney girls black.'”
Did we mention that these were adults?
Why too does anyone want to be a “princess”? Isn’t that a terrifically demeaning and infantilizing role for a woman?
For anyone? It’d be like adult males running around playing dress-up and wanting to be cowboys. (Yes we know — just go to a local gun shop!)
Corporate imperialists like Disney are crudely smashing everything up; they’re successfully thinning the world down and wantonly destroying most people’s sense of the possibilities of life. It used to be a noted problem way back when.
Nope. Not with this.
It was a really terrible Academy Awards ceremony, and it’s also questionably schizophrenic to have films in the “best international” category be allowed to enter into the best film one as well. Otherwise why have the first category but for cynical marketing purposes?
It also gives an unfair competitive and promotional advantage to foreign films. They get two “best picture” slots while everyone else gets one.
This almost happened with ‘Z’ in 1970, too, but that made no sense either. Unless you’re trying to compete with the Golden Globes there’s nothing wrong with Academy voters having to limit their voting to Academy membership films and allied production companies. Otherwise this AA ceremony has gone from one of industry recognition to that of popularity contest.
Or is it like the Golden Globes now? It used to be industry based. That was the whole idea. The major Academy Awards are supposed to be an industry recognition of their own. In fact, the “best foreign” category was begun in 1956 precisely in order to provide a place for non-industry films to get special recognition for their merits. It was an adjunct. And they don’t go to a person or creator, they go to a country.
Even more to the point, Parasite wasn’t the best film of the year. And considering all of the reactionary anti-white male sentiment going on now, its choice was just that of simple pandering. Tokenism is the better word.
Liberals need to realize how offensively wacky these cheesy, fashionably anti-white identity politics are right now. And face it, that’s what this is all about here. Recognition’s one thing, domination and repudiation is another.
These three headlines today are about Glendale?
Meanwhile, in Burbank…
In regards to the first item above, Burbank does have a limited form of lobbyist registration. This requirement was proposed almost 20 years ago. But just look at the bad reaction our then City Attorney Dennis Barlow got from some of the local regulars whom he apparently thought he needed to run to before settling on an answer…
In order to provide the Council with as much information as possible I have provided drafts of this report to numerous individuals and organizations which might be impacted by such an enactment, seeking their comments.
Although it is my assumption that the Council would not extend the requirements of such an ordinance to religious or non-profit organizations, several of the already adopted ordinances could by their plain reading apply to such organizations. As expected, many of the local leaders of such organizations have questioned the application of such an ordinance to them.
I also spoke to representatives of some of the studios. They have endeavored to be good corporate citizens of the community and have responded often to requests from the City to provide both financial and in-kind assistance to the City and local non-profits. The concern was expressed that they would feel uncomfortable in continuing to do so if they were registered lobbyists. The perception might be that they were providing the assistance with the goal of
obtaining some other benefit.
Funny. Since these companies of course always are looking for something in return– witness the recent Warner Brothers “donation” of a projector that was contingent upon the city “agreeing” to announce their beneficence at every screening — they might indeed be lobbyists in this regard.
In addition, it was noted that in drafting language excluding those covered by a collective bargaining agreement from the purview of an ordinance, outside unions should be carefully considered. If the studios themselves would be covered by such an ordinance, the studio representatives argue, so too should their unions. Lisa Rawlins of Warner
Bros. agreed that sunshine in government is a good thing and offered to work with the City to help resolve whatever concerns might exist in this area. She suggested that the ordinance should not extend to situations where they are invited by the City to provide testimony, as opposed to the studios coming to the City on their own accord.
Jack O‟Neill of the Hope Family Estate, noted that he was aware that this question had been previously reviewed by other City Councils which finally did not see the need for such action. He commented that “this potential ordinance appears . . . to be a solution in search of a problem.” He finds it difficult to ascertain any benefit from such an ordinance. He also noted the difficulty of defining what a lobbyist is. Finally he stated that one of the great advantages of doing business in Burbank is the chance for open dialogue without having to maneuver through a bureaucratic minefield.
Michael Cusumano of the Cusumano Real Estate Group responded that he had a concern that such an ordinance would have unintended consequences. He noted that over the past year he has met with City officials in regard to the Family Service Agency, “Cool Blue,” and the downtown P-BID, as well as various ground leases, a parking lease, affordable housing agreements, etc. and first of all wondered if under such a proposed ordinance, would these contacts be subject to regulation and disclosure, and secondly, noted that:
“Clearly the burden here would be enormous and might create a situation where civic minded leaders might find that it is easier not to participate in some of these community functions, rather than bear the burden of having to track and disclose all potential contacts that might be subject to such an ordinance.”
I have attached Mr. Cusumano‟s letter for your review.
Jack O’Neill’s reaction was amazing. Burbank has been so easy to deal with, and he sees no need for such a registration-identity ordinance.
Let us continue to lobby without anyone knowing that we’re lobbying, or lobbyists. It’s so non-collegial!
Or better put, cool, casual competence and understatement vs. self-seriousness, outrage, and mounds and mounds of personal resentment.
So we happened to stumble upon an old mid-70s copy of the Moosewood Cookbook a little while ago and couldn’t believe the calm rationality of the last paragraph of its introduction:
There is no specific dogma attached to the Moosewood cuisine. Moosewood cooks prepare meals which are nutritionally-balanced and aesthetically pleasing, using — in addition to vegetables — cheese, eggs, nuts, beans, grains, bean curd, and fresh fish (served on weekend evenings). Perhaps most of Moosewood’s customers are not strict vegetarians (or vegetarians at all), but they are drawn to the restaurant for the experience of a meal cooked with skill and care.
Looking through the book it’s like, “Yeah, these kind of are vegetarian recipes…” But it creeps up on you. There’s no hype attached to their introduction, no malice, no egotistical virtue signaling or self-promotion, no righteous pontificating about the morality of certain cuisines over others, and no angst.
Compare a beautiful paragraph like the above to a typical one from today, aside from its lucid prose style. People in the late 60s and early 70s took some things very seriously of course– like their politics — but they kept both their sense of outrage and their blood pressure down when it came to livability issues like food and sex. Nowadays it’s cant and outrage all around.
Who goes to Monterey from Burbank?
Small jet service to connect Monterey with Burbank and Orange County for $99 each way.
Not long after the announcement of new airline service northward to Seattle, Monterey Regional Airport’s reach is also expanding southward with a new “hop-on” jet service that will take passengers to two airports in Southern California.
JSX, which bills itself as a “hassle-free,” simple and “joyful” jet service announced on Feb. 11 that it will begin seasonal flights on April 17 linking MRY’s private jet terminal to Burbank and Orange County airports. Each way will cost $99 Flights will be scheduled for Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Mondays.
Students go, possibly. But it’s been over 40 years since we’ve heard of a Burbank-Santa Cruz express. It’s long been out of style.
Passengers can arrive just 20 minutes before departure and are able to check up to three complimentary bags. JSX boasts “business-class leg room along with free snacks and drinks, including cocktails,” according to a press release.
People actually have the money for these sorts of regular weekend jaunts?
Look at those faces.
There are no worse East Coast elitists now than the young ones. They know nothing.
And they think it’s their century. They can have it.
US entertainment giant Warner Bros is negotiating to establish family entertainment centres in Indian malls.
The firm has already been seeking 20,000–30,000sqft of mall real estate for some time now in the hopes of setting up branded spaces to show off its popular brands such as DC and Harry Potter.
Observers of the proposed move have speculated that the business will use the centres to assess the Indian market for its entertainment brand, considering the success of its expansive Warner Bros World indoor theme park in Abu Dhabi.
Warner Bros has not released a public statement about its Indian expansion plans.
Those poor countries. All this crap spreading outwards.