A portrait of me, before I had to sell this fur coat and buy something shitty from the Gap.

Finally! Someone has recognized our plight. The NYT piece, “You Try to Live on 500K in This Town,” shows the proles just how much it takes to be an Upper East Side (liberal) elite. For me, it’s gotten so bad that I have to paint my nails at home and make a pot of stew to last the week. We’re about to start making bathtub Cristal here at the loft, too.

I mean, do commoners really understand that it’s imperative to have a chauffer who can also double as a bodyguard (two for one price, isn’t that money saving)? And its not like you can lump your progeny in with the tattered-clothes juicebox-slurping kids at a public school. After all, if the education is free, it just can’t be that good.

So I’m thankful that our troubles have been acknowledged. It’s just not easy to buy a living duck and force feed it, attempting feebly to make foie gras at home.

Notorious baby-eater Richard Dawkins

I’m going to take it upon myself to update this old thing a little more regularly… not every day, let’s not get crazy here. But let’s just say I spend a good chunk of my day reading the news in an attempt to look productive at work (it almost is). I suppose there should be a good deal more to write about, then.

So anyway, my favorite story on NYT today was about the fundraiser to post glib atheist ads on the sides of buses in London, spurred by a blog post by humor writer Ariane Sherine.

After all, everyone knows that if you are a liberal, then you must hate God, burn babies and piss on flags daily. I do these three things every morning whilst I put on a pot of tea (do you see what reading articles about Britain does to me?).

But really, it’s a funny little discourse on the semantics of the way we are allowed to advertise things. You have to use the word “probably,” because there is no way to prove or disprove that God really does exist, but at the same time you can quote the Bible without any sort of footnote that says, “Hey, this hasn’t been factually proven.”

Either way, I appreciate that it is something to get people in a frame of discussion. I also appreciate the sly wording — even if I may have a problem with the forced usage of “probably,” I still can’t help but love the way it craftily pokes fun at blind faith. Just that one word says, “Hey, I’m open-minded. I’m willing to be proven wrong. But let’s get real here.”

Well, I guess everyone doesn’t see that, though. The Times article says:
“I think it’s dreadful,” said Sandra Lafaire, 76, a tourist from Los Angeles. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t like it in my face.”

I’m not sure if I quite liked the threats of eternal damnation if I uttered a curse word or didn’t show up on time to Sunday School, much as was my Catholic upbringing, but that’s another story altogether. And therein lies in the beauty to believe whatever you wish, outside forces be damned (ahem). No one has an answer either way. You know, probably.

There's always Oprah.

I’ve been wrestling a little with how I feel about Caroline Kenndy’s bid for Hillary Clinton’s empty Senate seat. You know, on one hand, she’s a brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer, she comes from a family that epitomizes American politics, she’s promoted so many non-profit causes, but most importantly, she is also a total babe.

But sometimes it’s hard to read interviews with her. It pains me to make this connection, but the words that come out of her mouth sometimes just can’t help but recall the vapidity of one long-gone Sarah Palin (miss you). She’s talking, but she isn’t really saying anything.

Now, I’m sure she stands for certain issues… I just wish I knew which ones. Herein lies the problem. Maybe it’s too early, maybe this is her strategy, all I know is that I don’t think it’s working. Everything I’ve read about her bid for the seat says, well… exactly what I’m saying.

Still, she has my support in winning the position. See, the podunck newspaper that I work for has an online section, and one of my greatest joys in life is seeing what the common people from the ‘burbs and sewers of New Jersey have to say about the issues. I read this today, and it sort of cinched the deal for me:

“I for one think that Caroline Kennedy is the ideal junior senator from New York. She’s a liberal, she’s elitist, and she has a sense of entitlement to something that she has not earned.”

I know you are being facetious here, MorrisJim, but you’ve summed up all of my hopes and dreams in life in one sentence on an internet forum. Congrats! She’s got my vote (in spirit).

The Liberal Elite is generally split on who to support in the Middle East. The supporters of Israel include Jewish-Americans, mainline Democrats; as well as most conservatives. The supporters of the Palestinian Resistance include American Muslims, most anti-war protesters and many minority groups. Although all parties involved have valid points, no one is right. No one is right in the conflict and a solutions will only happen when all parties involved agree to this. 

With Israel bombing the Gaza strip and preparing a ground invasion- it helps to look at the past. 

During its inception, the state of Israel was an underdog, surrounded by hostile Arab states who seek its destruction. When Israel declared independence in 1948, it was immediately attacked by Egypt, Jordan and all of the usual suspects. The Israelis won- and won again 1967, 1973 and 1982 in wars with Arab neighbors. Israel can no loner be seen as the underdog. It now occupies Arab land for self-defense in the Gaza strip and the West Bank (of the river Jordan), which are traditional homelands of the Palestinians and the Golan Heights in Syria. 

The United States outfits the Israeli Defense Forces(IDF) with almost all of the same arms, vehicles, planes and munitions that the US Army enjoys. For this and many other reasons most Muslims (and Europeans) see this as indisputable proof of American bias towards Israel. 

Palestinians are basically on their own against Israel since neighboring Arab states now know they cannon defeat Israel militarily. The Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas in Palestine and the Hezbollah in Lebanon have since waged their fight through terrorist attacks, rocket attacks and kidnapping against Israel. It is the stated goal of these organizations to wipe Israel off of the map. No one suggests that these tactics are excusable, but the Israeli response has been equally inexcusable. 

The Gaza strip and the West Bank are isolated from the rest of the world, with their food, water and electricity regularly rationed or cut off. Unemployment at 50% and most people living in poverty have led to a radicalization of the population. When Hamas or Hezbollah fighters fire rockets at Israel, the IDF bombs schools, warehouses and mosques. When a bombs goes off in an Israeli town, all Arab men are rounded up and questioned. Essentially, Palestinians have no rights in Israeli controlled areas. 

One group denies another’s right to exist. Both groups are killing each other and innocent civilians.

Both groups are wrong and no one will ever win.

Fellow Lib Elites, I’m sure you’ve been creaming your pants all day over that video of the Iraqi journalist chucking his shoe at President Bush today. If you haven’t seen it, well then, I advise you to watch the slow-mo version. Oh, and don’t worry, HuffPo has got a slideshow, too. Of course.

If there is one thing I love about Bush (and there really only is one thing), it is that self-assured asshole swagger. It rules. After the incident, he responded to a reporter:

So what if the guy threw his shoe at me? Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe. It’s one way to gain attention. It’s like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It’s like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers. It’s a way for people to draw attention. I don’t know what the guy’s cause is. But one thing is for certain. He caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn’t feel the least bit threatened by it.

Really?? Not at all? Because, oh, I don’t know, I may have been worried about there being bombs, or fire, or anthrax, or weird leeches in that shoe. But if you weren’t worried, that’s cool. That’s some balls man. That’s why you’re president. Sort of.

I can’t decide how I feel about this story, though. I mean, it’s no secret that I’m an Obama-loving, granola hippie / wannabe-lesbian and should still hate Bush for all of the terrible, terrible shit he’s done, but… but wait. There’s just something so charming about that dopey oaf now that he’s just about out the door. He’s like the weird drunk father that walked out on you when you were a baby, but has recently come back into your life, trying to buy your love with a new Nintendo Wii. You can’t really stay mad at that.

I also can’t help but appreciate his puma dodging reflexes.

Sorry about the lack of updates around here. I recently started a new job at a newspaper (a newspaper that publicly endorsed Obama nonetheless!), and while I would update from the office, I’m not sure the old Windows 95 computers can withstand me using WordPress. No wonder the printed press is dying out!

So we haven’t really commented on this whole Illinois-governor-scandal buttshit yet. Gov. Blao-whatever is supposedly going to make an announcement on Monday on whether or not he will resign. Really? It’s a question? Yes, of course you should resign, you are a douche.

Besides having a stupid unpronounceable name and an obscene lack of forehead, numerous arrests, taking money for his own home renovations, BRIBES out the ass… well, I guess that’s probably enough to be able to form a pretty solid judgement of the guy.

Back when he was first apprached about having his phone tapped and his conversations recorded and all of that, he said, “whatever I say is always lawful and the things I’m interested in are always lawful.” Oh yeah, that sounds completely innocent. I mean, I’m always lawful, too, except you know, when I am stealing music and movies from the internet and  dropping silverware into my bag at diners. I guess.

“I don’t believe there’s any cloud that hangs over me. I think there’s nothing but sunshine hanging over me,” the governor said. Okay, dude. See you in prison.

They sound like a broken record. If you ask any conservative the answer to anything about economics they will either start foaming at the mouth trying to profess their love for President Ronald Reagan or they will tell you to cut taxes. Cutting taxes, putting money in the “hands of the consumer” sounds like a good idea to me. Hell, let’s not pay taxes at all! Then we can starve the government of money and let the private sector solve everything! Deregulation! Oh wait…. that’s what got us into this mess. 

Look it up! He makes this creepy pose for all his pictures.

Oblivious to that fact, a visionary from the GOP has come to that very conclusion as a way out of the mess we find ourselves in. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) wants the federal government to have a “tax holiday” for the first two months of the year. That’s right, no Federal taxes, no Social Security- nothing. If you make the median$50,000/year (yeah right), you’ll get $2000 instantly.  He estimates this at $325 billion- less than the original bailout for Wall Street! I’m sure Mr. Gohmert believes this will stimulate the economy- he has to, it’s all conservatives know how to do. Besides the obvious fact that top line tax rates have been lower for the last eight years and Chinese held treasury notes paid for them, here are a few more reasons his proposal makes no sense. 

1) We already tried this last year. Giving people money when they are too scared to spend it only results in savings accounts growing and credit cards bills shrinking. The American consumer rode high on the hog for the last decade, and the bill has come for payment! 

2) As much as conservatives try to say otherwise, the federal government needs tax revenues to operate. The economy teeters on the brink of collapse and Mr. Gohmert wants to stop funding programs that help people who cannot take care of themselves (you know, disabled people, poor single mothers) and give that money to people who work to take care of themselves. Besides the fairness of this proposal, it’s also unrealistic with two wars going on and everything else we spend tax money on. I know, I know we can borrow this too, but China can’t keep us afloat forever. 

3) Finally, however you dress it up, Mr. Gohmert’s proposal remains a thinly guised attempt at a flat tax. He knows we cannot sustain a 0 tax rate forever, but in the short term, the conservative dream of everyone, regardless of income, paying the same tax rate would be realized. The flat tax appeals to business conservatives because it appears fair, but in reality, places an unfair burden on the working and middle classes while saving the top 5% millions and millions of dollars. 

Success come with a price, the more you make the greater your responsibility to your neighbor. Rich white guys will never get that, they just want more money.

President-elect Obama is making pretty good strides insofar as promoting women to his cabinet. Possessing lady parts myself, this has been something that I’ve been following with a bit of interest. The first to get me really excited (and this is old news) is Ellen Moran, to be Communications Director. Moran was previously the executive director of EMILY’s List, an organization that supports pro-choice Democratic women in bids for office. And now (again, still not breaking news), Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will be homeland security secretary, Susan Rice will be ambassador to the United Nations, and yep!, Senator Hillary Clinton has been chosen the post of secretary of state.

Now, while I still think Clinton would be better suited to another position in the cabinet, having her as secretary of state will be infinitely better than Condoleeza Rice, I imagine. Which brings me to my second point here: just because we support women in power, does this mean we have to let them off the hook, or hold them less accountable to do an excellent job? OF COURSE NOT. These women were chosen because they were the best choices for the new administration. Does this mean that they will be the best choices for the well-being of the majority of the country (or even the minority)? That’s what we will soon find out.

I love to celebrate the victories of women everywhere (especially as those who are chosen to head up Obama’s security team — a typically male-biased group), but by no means should we hold them to less than a standard of excellence. No easy routes! This is not what feminism is about. I applaud these women for their hard work, and I only hope they do great things (along with the men in the administration) for this country.

Is that some Adam and Eve allegory we've got here?

Dear God I hate this “Twilight” business. Not just because I’m an aspiring novelist, and this trash gets published and put on bestseller lists when it reads like twelve-year-old-girl-fanfiction. But ugh, the misogyny! The weak female lead! The notion that you have to obsess over the person you are with and give up your entire life to them! Not to mention that whole weird violent sex scene in the last book that I keep hearing about.

One of the reasons I set out to write a YA novel last year, was because I was tired of the new literary heroines being stuck-up, cliquey girls who only cared about fashion and boys. At the time I hadn’t heard of the “Twilight” book series, but I kind of wish I did. Maybe it would’ve given me an extra resolve to write a character who was a strong young woman. Definetly not a Bella Swan.

Bella is the main character in these heaping piles of trash books, and the story is told through her perspective. She is new in school, and very pretty, but she doesn’t know it (of course), because she is weird and fragile and trips over things a lot. Now, she meets this vampire dude, and she falls in love with him because he is “sparkly” and has chiseled abs. Seriously, this seems to be the only reason. He is always saving her from trouble, because she is just a silly girl after all, and constantly needs help. Not to mention that, but he is controlling, a stalker who watches her sleep, and he even took the engine out of her car so she couldn’t go see her best friend. But she’s soooo in love with him. I’m really not making this up!

So yes, this is what the young generation of females is gobbling up, for some reason. And oh, don’t get me started on the author, Stephanie Meyer. She tosses off the sexist allegations with the same weird bastardization of feminism rhetoric that Sarah Palin was known for.

John McCain doesn’t know how to send an email. Barack Obama has set up change.gov, an interactive site where citizens are let into the inner workings of the transition team and are encouraged to submit their ideas for change. For anyone who is interested in technology (this is a blog, you know), we seem to have made the right choice for president.

Liberal elite's will undoubtedly notice the Mac.

The website is a great step in the direction of connecting the people with the government, though it has yet to be seen whether it will have any real effect on the new administration. Still, it’s cool. There’s a blog, there’s Obama’s own version of the “fireside chat” — YouTube style, of course (they can also be downloaded via iTunes to your iPod or iPhone, as any true elitist would have it).

And then there is the new position of Chief Tech Officer, whose job it will be to “ensure the safety of our networks” and with other tech officers, “to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.” It’s still a question of who Obama will choose for this post, though names being tossed around are Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Google Vice President Vint Cerf, and former FCC chairman Reed Hundt (Did you see that? We linked to Fox News!).

Whoever is chosen, this is a great step in the direction of bringing our government into the 21st century (we’ve only had seven years here). I’m excited to see what comes of these changes. Yes, hurrah! “Change” the almighty buzzword is actually being implemented! Will we have a more transparent government? Will the fireside e-chats become more PR than they are citizens connecting with their President? We’ll have yet to see, but I am optimistic.