doctor scott

dr. phil was on yesterday while i was doing some paperwork. i turned on the tv and left it on phil, so i should take responsibility.

i learned a great deal about language. the guests consisted of a calm father, a giant and easily agitated mother, and two giant and easily agitated daughters. the father was being accused of abuse. the guy looked frustrated and a little nervous, as if he were abused. the women were mean. i was intrigued.

i mention the size of the women (not their fault; they are diabetic), because he was accused of abusing them by saying they "grazed" and by suggesting healthier alternatives to potato chips and dip. how dare he.

"it isn't what he says, but how he says it!" each yelled. apparently issues of tone did not apply to them.

in a conversation with the michigan cowboy, he voiced similar complaints about the now negative connotations of the word "manipulate." using verbal skill to convince others is evil. probably abusive.

i suppose the changing and expanding definitions of words such as these (abuse, manipulate, and let me add "control") are natural consequences of a country in which the all-ideas-are-equal-except-the-old "philosophy" is king.

a person is fat. personal responsibility is frowned upon. it is merely a difference. one needn't make fun of it to be insensitive; the mere mention of an obvious condition is abuse.

please do not be swayed by my words. i wouldn't want to be controlling or manipulative.