Well, as you may have noticed I've been on a blogging break for a bit. Perhaps it's because I am experiencing a September Slump. I believe that almost everyone* goes through some level of September slumping every year as the summer fades from view, kids have to go back to school, adults say goodbye to casual Fridays at work, and flip flops no longer refer to shoes but instead to politicians. Argh!
How do you know if you too are experiencing the September Slump?
You know you're in a September Slump when:
5) You spent the last week night fine-tuning your DVR/TiVo selections
4) Games of choice include: name your hurricane and how low can the Dow go?
3) You keep walking by your bank to make sure it still exists
2) Even Back To School sales aren't enough to lure you back into stores
1) Making fun of Sarah Palin just isn't that fun anymore**
So, as I try to get through my own September Slump, let me offer up a handful of suggestions/thoughts to get through these trying times:
1) Remind yourself that bad politics=great comedy (aka Bill Maher, SNL, The Daily Show etc)
2) Get out your monopoly money- it might finally be worth something!
3) Climate change at this rate means snow days are just around the corner
4) Although loyalty in men is not innate, it can be taught! So, girls, you better reconsider the teaching profession (See more here: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-mating15-2008sep15,0,5766094.story?page=2)
5) Flip flopping is endlessly entertaining so we can always return to making fun of Sarah Palin!
* Okay, maybe just New Yorkers but it's way more fun to exaggerate
** These indicators are valid only for September 2008 and are subject to change at a moment's notice
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sticking to their Guns
Well, I took a much needed break after the RNC to take in all that I heard and quite frankly, just simmer down. Of course, I could repeat the many criticisms of the RNC already published in newspapers and discussed on political talk shows over the past few days but I'm not going to for now. Instead, I am going to try a slightly different approach. While there are numerous policy and philosophical differences I have with most of the politicans that spoke at the RNC, I was the most concerned with a general concept underlying the entire convention: the idea that unwavering beliefs and unchanging policy endorsements are the pinnacle of good leadership.
Although the idea of "flip-flopping" was turned into political death during the last President election, I wonder why the idea of holding steadfast to your position no matter what is seen as the opposite- aka political perfection? I am not speaking here of actual flip-flopping which regardless of party is a routine practice. Rather, I am speaking of the common references at the convention to the "idea" that John McCain and Sarah Palin are virtuous leaders as evidenced by their solid commitment to one thing or another. On the face of it, I see why this sounds good- and at times, may even be a positive trait in our leaders. However, this almost sounds like "blind faith" in which one takes something as a given, regardless of facts. I am by no means suggesting that I think a good leader should constantly be changing their positions. However, reevaluating one's positions isn't inherently bad, is it? For me, the question would be why did someone reevaluate or even change positions? Is it because they learned new facts or is it because some lobbyist "paid" them off to change positions? These are two entirely different scenarios that would necessitate two very different reactions in my book. So, why then are we told over and over by the Republicans that sticking to one's position, regardless of popular opinion, is the character trait de jour? Is it merely because the subtle reference to flip flopping may sink Obama like it did Kerry? Or is it because Bush's approval rating is so low that one needs to suggest that going against popular opinion is actually a good thing?
I realize that no one is going to please all U.S. citizens all of the time- not even close. But must we choose instead to elect a President that by definition suggests that we are voting for him because he will stand against public opinion but stay firmly committed to it? This is even more ironic given the McCain-Palin firm belief in the INability for Government to actually improve the lives of citizens. So, if they don't listen to public opinion and they don't trust the Government, who do they trust? Only themselves? I certainly don't have the answers but I have lots more questions.
And in honor of Bill Maher, I leave you with this:
NEW RULE: If you claim to be pro-life, you must support stem cell research and oppose the killing of innocent civilians worldwide!
Although the idea of "flip-flopping" was turned into political death during the last President election, I wonder why the idea of holding steadfast to your position no matter what is seen as the opposite- aka political perfection? I am not speaking here of actual flip-flopping which regardless of party is a routine practice. Rather, I am speaking of the common references at the convention to the "idea" that John McCain and Sarah Palin are virtuous leaders as evidenced by their solid commitment to one thing or another. On the face of it, I see why this sounds good- and at times, may even be a positive trait in our leaders. However, this almost sounds like "blind faith" in which one takes something as a given, regardless of facts. I am by no means suggesting that I think a good leader should constantly be changing their positions. However, reevaluating one's positions isn't inherently bad, is it? For me, the question would be why did someone reevaluate or even change positions? Is it because they learned new facts or is it because some lobbyist "paid" them off to change positions? These are two entirely different scenarios that would necessitate two very different reactions in my book. So, why then are we told over and over by the Republicans that sticking to one's position, regardless of popular opinion, is the character trait de jour? Is it merely because the subtle reference to flip flopping may sink Obama like it did Kerry? Or is it because Bush's approval rating is so low that one needs to suggest that going against popular opinion is actually a good thing?
I realize that no one is going to please all U.S. citizens all of the time- not even close. But must we choose instead to elect a President that by definition suggests that we are voting for him because he will stand against public opinion but stay firmly committed to it? This is even more ironic given the McCain-Palin firm belief in the INability for Government to actually improve the lives of citizens. So, if they don't listen to public opinion and they don't trust the Government, who do they trust? Only themselves? I certainly don't have the answers but I have lots more questions.
And in honor of Bill Maher, I leave you with this:
NEW RULE: If you claim to be pro-life, you must support stem cell research and oppose the killing of innocent civilians worldwide!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
RNC: The Regressive National Convention
In an editor's letter entitled "What Ever Happened to the Future?" in the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter spoke to the trouble facing America today. He explained, far more articulately than I'm about to, that the genius of America historically was its emphasis on the future as opposed to the past. He argued that while Europe was busy looking backwards and celebrating the good old days, America was investing in its future, always looking to seize new opportunities. Unfortunately, he pointed out, those days have fallen behind us and instead of America leading the way, we have staggered recently (more precisely during the last 8 years of the Bush administration), falling behind Europe and others. In issues ranging from global warming to technology, we have hesitated or regressed entirely. To me, watching and listening to the Republicans over the last few weeks epitomizes this type of backwards-looking mentality.
Less than 1 hour into the RNC, images of the crumbling towers and references to September 11th are center stage ("Let's not forget George Bush has kept America safe" -Laura Bush). While September 11th is undoubtedly a day of siginificance to all Americans (and many across the world), it can not and should not be a political call to live in fear and govern through military might. Not only will this type of rule continue to drag us further and further behind the rest of the world, but it also doesn't work. According to a recent RAND corporation report, "the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts." They support this argument with DATA (I know, data can be SCARY, especially to those who believe in creationism and don't believe in global warming). Cory Doctorow describes the findings in the Boing Boing blog: "By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended . . . " And yet, Day 1 of RNC seemed to be an ode to the military and particularly the failed Iraq War. To me, Day 1 could be summed up something like this: religion, religion, religion, military, military, military, PAST, PAST, PAST!
I get it- we have a war hero presidential candidate and let's not forget that we are in the middle of a war. War hero+war=Elect McCain= put our country first! It amazes me that somehow war, and in particular the Iraq war (despite its waning popularity) still manages to garner so much positive attention and somehow equates to putting our country first. Even more shocking to me are military families and veterans, who have suffered continually from a lack of true support from the current Republican regime (unless you count repeated deployments and a lack of adequate health care for veterans as support), still seemingly enthusiastic about the Republican party and war in general (but admittedlly, I haven't actually looked at the statistics on this - YET). Shouldn't those the most likely to end up in harm's be the most war-phobic? Excuse the slight digression- now back to my original point . . .
I realize that Day 1 focused on the biography of John McCain and with 72 years of history, there is a helluva lot of "past" to discuss. I also am aware that during the DNC, we also took a brief tour into Obama and Michelle's past. But overwhelmingly, the sentiment at the DNC was excitement and encouragement for our future. And I have yet to hear anything forward-looking at the RNC. So, here's looking forward to hearing more from the Republicans in the days ahead. I only hope that that they too decide to look forward instead to continuing to dwell on the past.
And so, on to Day 2 . . .
P.S. Joe Lieberman seriously needs to stop calling himself a Democrat!!
Less than 1 hour into the RNC, images of the crumbling towers and references to September 11th are center stage ("Let's not forget George Bush has kept America safe" -Laura Bush). While September 11th is undoubtedly a day of siginificance to all Americans (and many across the world), it can not and should not be a political call to live in fear and govern through military might. Not only will this type of rule continue to drag us further and further behind the rest of the world, but it also doesn't work. According to a recent RAND corporation report, "the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts." They support this argument with DATA (I know, data can be SCARY, especially to those who believe in creationism and don't believe in global warming). Cory Doctorow describes the findings in the Boing Boing blog: "By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended . . . " And yet, Day 1 of RNC seemed to be an ode to the military and particularly the failed Iraq War. To me, Day 1 could be summed up something like this: religion, religion, religion, military, military, military, PAST, PAST, PAST!
I get it- we have a war hero presidential candidate and let's not forget that we are in the middle of a war. War hero+war=Elect McCain= put our country first! It amazes me that somehow war, and in particular the Iraq war (despite its waning popularity) still manages to garner so much positive attention and somehow equates to putting our country first. Even more shocking to me are military families and veterans, who have suffered continually from a lack of true support from the current Republican regime (unless you count repeated deployments and a lack of adequate health care for veterans as support), still seemingly enthusiastic about the Republican party and war in general (but admittedlly, I haven't actually looked at the statistics on this - YET). Shouldn't those the most likely to end up in harm's be the most war-phobic? Excuse the slight digression- now back to my original point . . .
I realize that Day 1 focused on the biography of John McCain and with 72 years of history, there is a helluva lot of "past" to discuss. I also am aware that during the DNC, we also took a brief tour into Obama and Michelle's past. But overwhelmingly, the sentiment at the DNC was excitement and encouragement for our future. And I have yet to hear anything forward-looking at the RNC. So, here's looking forward to hearing more from the Republicans in the days ahead. I only hope that that they too decide to look forward instead to continuing to dwell on the past.
And so, on to Day 2 . . .
P.S. Joe Lieberman seriously needs to stop calling himself a Democrat!!
Monday, September 1, 2008
What a Piece of Work is Man
Apparently this is the summer of mad men. And no, I'm not talking about John McCain. I decided to take a bit of a break from politics this weekend and enjoy the last few days of summer in NYC. Instead of high-tailing out of the city for labor day weekend, I decided to stay in town, catch up with friends, and find low-cost/free cultural entertainment. I actually began my summer fun free (and some cheap) festivities a bit earlier than normal this year and managed to sneak in quite a bit of NYC's fine summer happenings including:
- Shakespeare in the Park's performance of Hair: Absolutely worth getting up at 6AM on a Saturday morning! And yes, anyone that knows me knows that almost nothing is worth that kind of sacrifice. It looks like they have extended the run through September 14th- if you haven't already gone to see it, do whatever you can to get tickets. You won't be sorry!
- Lincoln Center out of Doors "Sounds of Africa" Performance with Extra Golden, The Ex, Mahmoud Ahmed and Getatchew Mekurya. See NY Times Review here.
- Public Farm One (P.F.1) Exhibit at P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center
- Gorilla Repertory's Production of Hamlet at Fort Tryon Park/The Cloisters
Ah, but this is a bit of a diversion. Why am I speaking of mad men? Well, it is true that Hamlet is certainly a story of madness but this is not the story that I am referring to. Today's story centers on a friend of a friend's boob job!
So, I was hanging out with a friend yesterday and she was telling me that her friend recently got a boob job. Okay, this is by no means unusual or especially shocking. What is shocking is how she paid (or rather didn't pay) for her surgery. Apparently this girl could not afford the surgery but was extremely eager to find a way to enhance her otherwise great body (which she seems to have no problem flaunting on a semi-regular basis). So, she did what every smart person in trouble does- she reached out to her best friend - The Internet! I can't say I know the details of her internet research, but my guess is it didn't take too long before she found the charity of all charities - a place where flat chested girls everywhere (or future porn stars) can reach out to generous philanthropic souls and ask for pity, compassion, and yes, a boob job!! Apparently, while nonprofits struggle to find money to rebuild homes after hurricanes, feed hungry children during a famine, and provide life-saving drugs to those with H.I.V., girls everywhere can find a true way out of poverty, insecurity and most importantly, those loose fitting strapless dresses. I know that I feel much better knowing that this girl, and so many others, will never again have to struggle to choose between putting food on the table and inflating their lives and egos with silicone! Rest easy, dear friends, free boobs are here and here to stay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
