My eyes are hurting

Okay i'm pretty pissed because I wrote up this blog entry already, but then the computer froze up and I lost my stuff. Grrr.

Here's my rant for today, or really, the past while...

I have incredibly high standards I think for people I see on tv. Everyone's dying to be on tv, so the very least TV producers can do is pick from the most aesthetically-pleasing of the bunch. I had to stop watching Living Lohan because neither Lindsay Lohan's mom or sister's personalities (oh you new jersey people you!) make up for their ugliness. Lindsay is attractive. Ali? Not so much.

I'm obsessed with this eHarmony commercial: link to youtube because eharmony made them disable the embedded link. I just don't think Lee is good-looking enough to be in a commercial. Now if it were a commercial for weight loss, then yes, he's attractive enough. However this is for something that's based on love and chemistry, which requires some level of aesthetic qualities. Which he lacks.

Then I wonder, would I find him hot in real life? Would I want to date him? But that's not what matters...even in an online dating commercial. No, his face is on MY tv, during MY airtime, during MY free time...I say what should be on, and what I want is an e-harmony commercial featuring Ryan Reynolds. Note that Ann Marie is super cute, so I won't knock her. In fact, she must be incredibly psycho to still have been single 'cause she can do better than that Lee guy. He would have been better looking if he had stayed OFF the tv, without my judging eyes viewing him through a glass panel.

Consider that in the 70s and 80s, producers didn't seem to understand how attractiveness matters. Sure, they had Charlie's Angels...but what about the original American Gladiators? Did they not think that chicks could be tough, strong, AND hot? Compare the original cast vs the cast now...don't tell me they didn't have buff hot chicks in the 80s!


Like really? that's the hottest you could find?! Forget the hair, getting past the trendiness of their appearance, these chicks were fug!

Now that being said, I have the reverse attitude about newscasters. I don't want people that happen to be pretty who learned world news. I want people who were passionate about journalism, didn't have time to date around in highschool and didn't care about their looks to tell me the news. Heck, i don't even trust pretty weather girls. News seems more credible when the person reading the teleprompter is unattractive.

Does this rule apply to sportscasters? That's a tough call. Probably because I don't watch sports. I would watch hockey, but living in SoCal, I'm stuck watching the f*cking Ducks and they can suck it for all I care. GO SENS!! It came to my attention a few weeks ago that Dana Jacobsen from ESPN has super big arms.

Which you'd think, what's the big deal? Well apparently to men watching her on ESPN, this is a big deal. Like really big. I don't think guys have the same feeling as I have for the level of credibility of my news/information versus the attractiveness of the person delivering the info. It seems that she is so crazy big, they are incapable of focusing on whatever sports-related information she has to deliver. But would a thin, big-boobed chick be any less distracting than her alleged upper arm area?

So to see if maybe the guys I received this information were just a little harsh, I did some web searches. And this is what came up on the web (all typos are theirs, not mine)...

The Good:
- On top of all that she is an incredibly gorgeous and sexy woman
- Besides all that,she's beautiful......I think i'm in love
- Dana Jacobson is gorgeous woman. She has an amazing body that she hides well.Beneath all that clothing i know there is a very hott body! Besides that shes into sports as well.
- Even though Dana might be a tad bit on the thick side, I think it kind of makes the attraction to her a little stronger. She's absolutely gorgeous and has an amazing body with great curves. I know I'm not the only one that would rather see her wearing something other than suits most of the time.

The Bad:
- i love her big hands and i'm sure that she has beautiful big feet as well.
- I tolerated her because she had the "big sister" thing going and because I thought she was brave to go on TV looking like she does (bad hair, wardrobe and figure).
- It must be her knowledge of sports cause shes no Kim Kardashian. Shes bigger than most of the male co-host.
- I find it hard to believe so many people would give her a review for being pretty? I mean come on, seriously. She must have family and friends on here giving her those because she is one big hefer.
- If you're going to hire somebody who doesn't have a clue, at least make sure she is attractive
- Dana is a joke...She will be fired soon enough. And she isn't sexy.....Scarlett Johanson is sexy......Dana Jacobson...not so much

The Ugly:
- Some reviews called her Sexy? Sexy? By the looks of that bod, she needs to put down the chocalate bar and actually participate in a sport rather than masquerading as someone credible.
- She needs to be FIRED!! Not to mention she is HUGE!!
- She is fat and unattractive, only knows michigan football.
- moooooooooooooooo....what a cow

I feel like I gotta defend this poor girl...I mean, seriously, she's not THAT bad on the eyes. And I'm very, very protective of not only my eyes, but the images that come through my tv screen. It needs to be decided...do Sportscasters need to be attractive like entertainment show hosts (Maria Menounos level), or do we want them to be unattractive in order to gain credibility?