Life Moves Pretty Fast

I am a bit late to the game on this one, but I had to comment on the touching tribute to John Hughes that many of his former actors gave at the Oscars. It coincided with a great article in the March Vanity Fair by David Kamp that attempted to give insight into the reclusive writer and director.

As a solid member of GenX, I can't deny how Hughes defined my teen years. To be honest I can't even fully explain it in some ways, how a man 20 years older than me, could so capture all that I felt, all that I wanted to be, and all that I knew was out of my reach. He simply had a gift.

It was hard watching the Oscar tribute for me. It was emotional and touching, but on a personal front it was also disturbing to see how my idealized visions of youth—Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Matthew Broderick, Anthony Michael Hall, Jon Cryer, Ally Sheedy and even Macaulay Culkin—are older, different, grown up. Because that means I am too. I hope that they feel that they are better now than they were then, as I do. But it is nice to know that when they need to know how far they have come, they have Mr. Hughes movies to go back to and remind them of who they were. Again, thank you Mr. Hughes.

Tex Mess

You know what? All of you Texans who want to secede—go right ahead. I don't want you anymore. Especially if you are going to insist on distorting history and science to suit your agenda. What my child learns in school should be about facts, not whatever partisan side has their knickers in a twist this week.

Apparently, Texas has this ridiculous power to hold the other 49 states hostage in terms of text books because they are one of the largest purchasers of school textbooks in the country. So what they want from publishing companies ends up being what the rest of us get. I guess that goes a long way to explaining why they want our country referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than a "democracy." Apparently they are afraid that 10-year-olds will get the "subliminal" message that because our country is a democracy they need to be democrats. Something tells me that kids are smarter than that, but somewhere between pubescence and adulthood, at least in Texas, those same kids turn mighty dumb.

This board of 15 people have also decided to stress the Second Amendment (gotta make sure that kids know they can carry guns!), and ignore the separation of church and state. We wouldn't want a pesky thing like the Founding Fathers fundamental ideas to interfere with how our Christian conservatives run things, now would we? Next they are going to outlaw sarcasm and then I will truly be fucked.

But let's not make this about me. Let's focus on who is really being screwed here—the future of our country. Because if these Texas board members have their way, our kids won't be learning about capitalism, but instead "free market enterprise." Can someone please explain to me how capitalism became evil (aside of course from the way Wall Street has wielded it to impoverish the majority of Americans so a handful of white men can pull in seven figures)?

Oh yeah, and they of course are stressing religion over science topics such as evolution. You know, I truly believe our country is at a cross roads. If we don't take a clear path forward and focus on the future, by educating our children, by seeking advancements in environmentally friendly power, by correcting the errors in our banking, credit and investment industries, and by offering every one of our citizens the right to healthcare, we will not be a world power when the spawn approaches middle age. The conservatives like to focus on how we are the greatest nation, but right now that is all smoke and mirrors. And tomorrow, if other countries continue to prepare themselves for the future, rather than concentrating on the past, we won't even have the smoke and mirrors anymore. All we will have is a bunch of disillusioned citizens who won't know that the world wasn't created in seven days. What a mess.

Love, Exciting and New

Why someone ever decided that a fat baby with wings was the best emblem to celebrate romantic love is beyond me. Anyone with a baby (or for that matter a kid) knows that trying to get your romance on with a wee one around is a challenge that involves the UN, NATO, some good locks and the ability to get the job done quick. And that is on a good day. But per usual, I digress. Tomorrow is that acclaimed day ala Hallmark—Valentine's Day. And seeing how romance is on the brain, whether you like it or not, at this time of year it seemed an apt time to finally ponder the whole John Edwards debacle.

Maybe it was because I came of age when Clinton took his sax to the airwaves and wooed me via MTV (back when the station played music and not homages to self absorbed brainless twats with tight bums and short attention spans), maybe it is just some genetic abnormality that makes me prone to believe the lofty rhetoric of any earnest liberal, maybe it is even a subconscious rejection of having Jesse Helms represent my beloved state for low those many years. The reason remains a mystery, but the result is that I fell for John Edwards—hook, line and sinker. I don't mean I found him physically attractive, I mean he is fine, but a bit too pretty and polished for my taste, rather I bought all of his "Two Americas," his belief that he could lead our country in the right direction. Sadly, I still believe all of that, and I still believe that he believed it as well. The tragedy is that his political beliefs are not quite enough to balance out his moral depravity, at least not in the eyes of most Americans.

If this were another country, say the oft vilified France, maybe Edwards indiscretions, subsequent love child and his wife's eventual abandonment of him wouldn't have mattered in terms of his political career. Sadly, our American puritanical streak is more evident than the roots on a trailer park blonde. My fellow countrymen can't seem to separate what a person does between the sheets and what they can do in their careers. Right or wrong that is the way it is.

What is so disappointing about the Edwards case is not so much that he cheated, then lied over and over again to his wife who has had enough bad news to last several lifetimes, it is that he had the hubris to think that it wouldn't matter to the American people and that if he had won the Democratic nomination that he wouldn't have been handing the election to the Republican candidate (in this case McCain and his brainless bimbette, Sarah Palin). That is truly inexcusable to me. If he loved his country, he would never put us in that position, especially not after being put through eight years of Dubya whose high jinks nearly tore our country apart.

Don't get me wrong, I am horrified about what Edwards did to his family, and for what? Vanity? Surely he didn't love that woman? But if he did, wouldn't it have been better to be upfront with his wife than try and deceive her? But speculating about all of that is futile, it is private and up to the Edwards' to handle amongst themselves. Andrew Young's book The Politician exposed not only Edwards' indiscretion, but also indicated that Elizabeth Edwards learned of the affair and then proceeded to encourage her husband to continue his then-presidential run. I have always been a big fan of Elizabeth Edwards and was saddened when her cancer reoccurred and even more upset that her husband would do this to her, but if Young's claims are true, she is in her own way just as culpable as her husband in potentially leading our country astray. And dang, that just makes me sad.

I will still wake up tomorrow and naively believe that people are good and that somewhere out there a politician exists who can be honest and who will work hard to do what is best for his/her constituents. But I would be lying if I said that my optimism isn't bruised.

Insult to Injury

In case you have forgotten, I recently took the time in New Year, New Rant to blog about an unfortunate doctors visit I had the first of January. Well, the other week I got a bill for a pathology test and then last week I got a bill from the doctor's office. The grand total was $133.41. I ignored them because I figured that something had been billed to my insurance incorrectly and it would be straightened out. After all, I shouldn't have to pay more than my $25 copay for an annual well visit, right?

WRONG.

I called the lovely folks at Blue Cross/Blue Shield this morning to find out what the dealio was (because I also had to find out my copay for a little upcoming hand surgery I am having). I was told that I have to meet a $150 deductible before my doctor's visits, etc. are covered beyond my copay. So not only did I get shitty treatment at the doctor's office, but I am now paying for that privilege to the tune of $158.41 (the $133.41 I have been billed and the $25 copay I laid out at the office the day of). Nice, really nice. And what makes this all so much more galling is I don't go to the doctor except for annual visits usually. So basically I have met my deductible first thing this year and it will do me no good, because if I were to stay with this insurance, it would all start over again come 2011.

Now let me break this down for you gentle readers in plain, ole dollars and cents. Currently, the spouse and I are paying a reduced Cobra amount for our insurance of just under $400 a month. The spawn's insurance policy is $125 a month. The spouse's prescription costs are $300 a month and he is still paying for his colonoscopy in 2008 and back surgery in 2009 to the tune of $200 a month. Grand total—$1,025. Bear in mind this does not include a copay should any of us have a doctor's appointment in the month. Our mortgage is under $850 a month. That, very simply, gentle readers is FUCKED UP. If we didn't qualify for the reduced Cobra that total would be $1,725.

But we don't need insurance/healthcare reform, no, not at all . . .

Oh No You Didn't

So last night the President gave the State of the Union speech, and trust me I have more to say about that (among other things) and plan to get off my duff and post them (really!). But for this moment I would like to concentrate on the actions of one Samuel Alito last night during the speech.

While I think it is nuts to make the Supreme Court (and for that matter the major military brass) attend the State of the Union since they can't indicate any partisanship that however, is the way it is. Except last night when it wasn't. For Justice Alito decided to add his editorial head shake to President Obama's disapproval for the recent Court ruling that allowed corporations to contribute to political campaigns without limits. In effect the Court gave corporations the right of individual citizens saying that it was a First Amendment issue of free speech. Not only does this reverse a hundred years of Court rulings, but it is just plain bad. Corporations do not always, or even some of the time depending on the business, have the best interests of our citizens or our country at the heart of their enterprises. Rather they are often interested in only what makes them profitable. For every Google who pledges to "Do no evil" (which you can feel free to believe or not) there is an Enron that knowingly fleeces its employees and stock holders for the benefit of a small minority. Or an Exxon who allows a natural catastrophe to occur, decimating an environment and a legion of wildlife.

So when President Obama said the ruling had "opened the floodgates" and would allow special interests and even foreign countries to hold sway in our elections, Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed the words "not true."

Wow. In a world where even which big box store you buy from can be a partisan decision, I had hoped we could cling to the allusion that our Supreme Court still had a veneer of impartiality and could rise above the fray of democrat/republican bickering. Apparently like much these days when it comes to our political leaders, I was disastrously wrong. My bad, but Alito's worst.

37 Candles

I have made no bones about my long and illustrious fascination with Molly Ringwald. From her red locks to her two piercings in one ear to the grunge-era ode to her by the band Sponge, I love me some of the Brat Pack Princess. I thought the closest I would ever come to being like Ms. Ringwald would be a result of a box of Ms. Clairol and my mother not buying me a birthday present when I was 17 until I cried at the local fish restaurant and guilted her into taking me to the video store for a VHS copy of Help! starring the Fab Four (John, Paul George and Ringo, will never, I repeat NEVER let you down).

But alas, as James Bond so helpfully reminds us, Never Say Never Again. Thirty seven years and about 1 hour and 45 minutes ago on a Monday evening I entered the world, if my mother's recollection is to be trusted. Then again, she could have me confused with my brother's birth. Regardless, this birthday I was forgotten. I got calls from my brother, my mother-in-law, my step-daughter, my step-step-son, my grad school friend, and my next door neighbor. That doesn't include the countless greetings from people I barely knew in college who I am friends with on Facebook. But my mother—nothing.

So kiddies, when it comes time for your grown-ass children to hit their 37th, 57th or 87th, if you are still walking the Earth, I prey that you do not forget them. Because whether you are 16 or any age, having your mom forget your birthday SUCKS BALLS.

Word Jumble

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

I am alternatively amused and fascinated by the different meanings we imbue on a word. God knows that I love and make frequent use of my share of obscenities and profanities.

"I had heard that word at least ten times a day from my old man. He worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium; a master."

Someday, perhaps the spawn will speak so lovingly and eloquently of me.

I honestly think I could make some sailors blush if given the opportunity and I managed to snag the spouse largely as a result of my salty tongue, but I digress. Word meanings—isn't it crazy how we decide that "fuck" is a bad word and that "flock" is not. They are merely letters and sounds put together that we put our meaning on.

Then there are those words that mean different things in different places. One favorite of mine is shag. Here in the good 'ole U.S of A it is a rip, roaring dance made popular on the beaches of the southern states back in the 1950s and 60s. But you cross the pond to our intrepid neighbors in the English language and shag is a less than romantic form of copulation. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe . . . that sort of thing, you know?

So I am intrigued by the hullaballoo that the Right has made about President Obama's lack of the use of the word terror. Does it matter what we call it when someone decides that their ideas and opinions are more valuable than the lives of other innocent human beings? Or does the fact that those human beings don't hold those same values or opinions dear, make them somehow guilty? I guess in the eyes of those terrorists or bombers or extremists, those who aren't with them are against them. Gosh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In the end, terror is just a word that tries to contain the horror of one person or one's group decision to cause harm, unexpectedly and without warning, to another person or group. It is the action and meaning behind the word that we need to focus on, not the word itself.

New Year, New Rant

Pardon me gentle readers as I digress from our typical topic of politics, although god knows I haven't exactly been verbose on the topic of late. There has been so much back and forth, most of it mindless about the health care debate for the past several months that I have been only too willing to tune it out. Today's little ditty touches on the healthcare topic, but not quite in the vein that our beloved politicians have been tossing about since before Santa squeezed his fat ass down the chimney.

So, today's post is going to get a bit personal, I promise to not get graphic or icky, after all some of you may be delicate. I am going to talk about my yearly visit to the lady doctor. For those of you who aren't female, we of the xx chromosome persuasion are expected to visit the lady doctor on an annual basis and get our girly bits checked out. While I know you men have to go groped in the giblets, trust me, it ain't the same. But I promised not to be graphic.

When I called several weeks ago, after realizing that my normal time of year for this appointment had come and gone with no note from the lady doctor to remind me, I was told that my doctor of the past five-ish years had left the practice. So I picked someone who I saw once during the rotation during my pregnancy with the spawn. This doctor had seemed pleasant enough and I figured it was no big deal.

I arrived 15 minutes early as requested. I waited. After about half an hour, the nurse called my name and took me back to get my blood pressure, height and weight. Ms. Personality asked me no other questions and took no other information. This took maybe five minutes. She then asked me to wait in another waiting room. Almost 45 minutes go by this time and I am finally escorted to the examination room. I don my lovely little gown and sit beneath my paper sheet, eager to share my private parts with someone new. At least another fifteen minutes go by. Finally the doctor enters, shakes my hand, says nice to meet you. She asks me a brief question or two and then begins the exam. She finishes, asks if there is anything else, hands over my chart and leaves. In all, she saw me for five minutes.

Listen, I get that doctors are busy. And she apologize for keeping me waiting. But when the lady who does my bikini wax spends more time in my nether regions than my gynecologist, something is seriously wrong. I had met this lady only once, she obviously didn't remember me (which is fine and to be expected), but to not take the time to a) meet me with my FREAKIN' clothes on and b) to ask me a bit about me and my medical history is flat wrong.

The spouse asked, "Did you expect her to take you out to dinner, like a date?" Well, no, but back in the day when I was dating, a dude had to do a bit more than just make me wait almost two hours and ask me how my birth control of choice was working for me. Admittedly my standards weren't super high back then, but I had some self-respect.

So I think I will be shopping for a new doctors office. I mean, if you are going to stick your head in my crotch, I at least expect you to make a bit of small talk first. I don't think that is asking too much.

Et tu, Newsweek?

I know that I need to hear both sides of the issues. I should want to hear both sides, and while I have still not resolved my lack of love for Newsweek's redesign from earlier this year (WHEN will people learn that sometimes things are left well enough alone—yeah I am looking at you Facebook), I get their efforts to present a somewhat balanced approach to news and politics. Of course I am admittedly partial to their leftist-leaning writers—sue me I am an unabashed, unapologetic liberal.

But I had to stop and post something in response to the article by Yuval Levin I just read in their latest issue (November 16). And who you might ask is Mr. Levin? (It's ok, I had to ask that question myself.) Well, according to his byline he is the editor of National Affairs. A new publication, National Affairs is a quarterly journal, launched this year, "that aspires to help Americans think a little more clearly about the challenges of governing ourselves." Well bully for them.

Being not entirely sure what it means to "think a little more clearly"—I have found that generally liqueur is involved, or at least it should be—I decided to read on. Another journal, The Public Interest and its former editor Irving Kristol were credited as the model for Levin's new publication. Kristol, Kristol . . . any chance 'ole Irv is related to Bill Kristol of the conservative rag The Weekly Standard? Well a quick little jaunt over to Wikipedia confirmed that yes indeedy, Irv was the proud papa of Bill.

So with just a few quick search statements Levin's credentials as a conservative were established, but I kinda new that from the tone of his article. Titled "What Coattails? Why right-of-center candidated are succeeding in the age of Obama," Levin details why last week's off-year elections were a good thing for the GOP and should be a wake up call for the Dems.

Obviously, I am not convinced that an off-year election, when people are focusing on their own local issues, is really qualified as a referendum on the current president and the entire Democratic party. I will grant you that a mid-term carries a bit more weight, but I think we are jumping the gun to say that 10 months into the Obama administration, people are already fed up and looking to the benevolent Republicans to save us from the savage atrocities of the lefty liberals.

But what got me going about the article came down to two things. First that Levin said "Republicans are not in the midst of a destructive civil war, any more than the Democrats were when they kicked out Joe Lieberman in 2006." Lieberman was never kicked out of the Democratic party; rather, he chose to leave when it became obvious that he was facing a serious challenge during the primary from another Democrat. Last I checked it was certainly allowable for a member of someone's own party to challenge them during the primary season, thus the reason for a primary in the first place. Lieberman likes to whine, that is painfully apparent, but he created a situation in Connecticut where Democratic voters were no longer enamored of him and were leaning toward giving the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont. So Mr. Levin, if you want me to give ANY credence to your musings, I suggest you get your facts straight.

Second, Levin ended the piece by saying "liberals in Washington would do well to let go of the Republican breakdown narrative, take a real look at the mood of the country and the state of their own party's prospects, and pull back to the center—or suffer the consequences." As some one who freely admits to being left of center, I can assure you that I in no way consider the current administration or the Democratic party in general to be left of center, if anything, the Democrats have become center in many cases with the Republicans veering more to the right. I wish the Dems would behavior as bigger lefties (dare to dream), but sadly, that is just a boogie man created by the right to scare those few Americans who sit on the fence and to reinforce the ideology of the right.

Oddly enough I agree in a way that the Dems aren't taking a real look at the mood of the country. In fact, in my opinion, if they were taking a look at the country's mood they would be doing a lot more left-leaning things, i.e. getting out of Afghanistan, funding a public option (otherwise known as "Medicare for everyone,") and sticking it to Wall Street but good.

So Mr. Levin can live in his fantasy land that the GOP is on the rise and the Dems are causing it. But I don't think that is the case. Not to say that the Dems aren't mucking things up, but I don't think the country is thinking the Republicans are the answer. At this point, I would hazard a guess that most Americans agree neither party has an answer.

Taking Stock

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi can be vulgar, crude and beyond incendiary and usually I love him all the more for it. Especially with the piece he wrote in the October 15th issue (RS 1089). Dude might want to relax on some of the heavier drugs though because he is getting super paranoid, and yet frankly I fear he may be on to something.

He addresses the unknown figure who gambled on March 11, 2008 that Bear Stearns' shares value would precipitously drop and was right. Taibbi calls it as insider manipulation, an effort on behalf of this mystery figure to cause Bear Stearn's demise. Adding to the general X-Files aura of the whole thing, there was a meeting that same day of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY which was attended by Both Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and all the major Wall Street investment banks EXCEPT Bear Stearns. And the plot thickens.

It isn't known exactly what happened at the meeting, but by the time it ended Bear Stearns' fate was sealed and investors started banking that the company was going down. Apparently it all has to do with a practice called naked shortselling. Taibbi explains it and I almost understood it which says a lot of his powers of explanation, because banking ain't something Broad gets. I won't bore you with the details or try to explain it myself, but suffice it to say it is dirty and underhanded and generally kind of illegal (you can check out the link to the article above to get the scoop yourselves).

But it doesn't stop there. Apparently someone later tried this with Lehman Brothers and it of course worked again. Vanity Fair addressed the topic in an excerpt from Andrew Ross Sorkin's upcoming book in its November issue. Of course Sorkin is more deferential, polite, etc. than Taibbi and he also doesn't have the paranoid "they are all out to get us" ideas behind his article, but he adds that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs feared they were next. From the tenor of Taibbi's piece I would say that just ain't so, that those two were in on the death of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, but I don't want to fall into complete conjecture.

The takeaway for me is that the banking and investment worlds are dark, murky places and the inside folks like it that way. They don't want the average American to know or understand what they are up to because once we understood it, we would be appalled. It appears that much of what is going on Wall Street is legalized stealing and lying in many ways, but I guess that shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to any of us anymore.

What I can't help but wonder is if we had allowed these banks and investment companies that were deemed "too big to fail" to actually fail, how much would the average American have been hurt? Or would if have just wondered those people who will be fingering their six figure bonuses come this Christmas?

Home Sweet Home

It ain't just something Vince Neil sings about anymore. I guess you have to be a child of the 80s for that one.

Moving on. For the past 15 years, it would appear that everything we have done as a society is to insure that we can live and work anywhere, anytime. From faxes first then cell phones and finally to email and the Internet, we have created a world that makes work something that is always with us, keeping us moving constantly, both literally and figuratively as we chase the latest and greatest job.

But oddly enough an article back in the October 19 edition of Newsweek talked about how grounded Americans are in their local neighborhoods and how unwilling they are to move. And I get it. I have had to apply for jobs outside of my city, and even outside of my state, because there just aren't that many jobs out there that are both interesting to me and that I am qualified for, but that doesn't mean I want to move. I like that the baristas at my local Starbucks know not only my name, but what I drink (and I refuse to dwell on the idea that this might mean I spend altogether too much time in said coffee shop). I like that we know the name of our postman and the guy that owns the restaurant in the heart of our hood. I like that I have a "hood."

I have even dared to dream in my current state of "Funemployment" that I might be able to eke out an existence via freelance work. It would mean a change in lifestyle, somewhat, but it would also mean not working for "the man" again, something that I never excelled at in my heart.

So no, I don't want to move. While the idea seems intriguing sometimes in the frustration of a boring day or when I am longing to have money to spare, it is not one that holds much water when I really start to think about it. So while all of our technology might have first been seen as a way for us to be more mobile, more fluid in our ability to move around the world, it is in actuality allowing us to do just the opposite and stay at home.

I'm On My Way
Well, I'm On My Way
Home Sweet Home
Tonight Tonight
I'm On My Way
I'm On My Way
Home Sweet Home

Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Ass and Other Musings on Insane Elected Officials

How in the world have we arrived at a point where that sniveling little Droopy Dog Joe Lieberman thinks he can lord over the fate of every American's health care? I get that many experts thing it doesn't matter and presumably they are right (dear lord I hope so), but it still chaps my backside that Lieberman can pull this stunt for the attention and to give him a false feeling of power. It makes me long for the Democrats missed opportunity to bitch slap him when he switched parties and became an independent because he knew he would lose the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont. I hope the people of Connecticut give him a good swift kick in the tuckus next election.

Meanwhile, my own state's Virgina Foxx (a personal fave as my regular readers most likely know) opened her trap again and said something that almost surpasses her earlier outrageous statements about heathcare.

I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

She later added: “It is a bad bill and the American people should be frightened of it.”

Well thank you for that little nugget of wisdom Virginia. It almost makes me wish that the Democrats really were going to institute death panels, because I know of someone I would like to volunteer to go before them first for some "end of life" counseling . . .

That DID NOT Just Happen

A couple of weeks ago, the spouse, spawn and I were cruising down one of North Carolina's major highways on our way to visit some friends from yore. My car still sports its Obama 08 sticker. As we went down a six lane road, we were in the center lane of our three. A car pulled in front of me and seemed to slow a bit. It was covered in copious amounts of anti-Obama stickers. I thought nothing of it, but the spouse remarked that the person probably deliberately slowed down in front of us because of my Obama sticker. Several moments later I moved into the far left lane and proceeded to pass the car. The driver of the car (a middle aged white woman) proceeded to flip me off when we got parallel to her.

Needless to say I was stunned and outraged–I had done nothing to this woman other than disagree with her politically via a BUMPER STICKER. Have we lost all of our ability to agree to disagree with civility?

The incident had really faded from my memory until this afternoon when the amazing level of hostility and animosity some have towards our current president came roaring back in an even more in my face kind of way.

The spouse and I were out at a small local hot dog restaurant that shall remain nameless. I was at the counter ordering when an older man got in the line next to me. As he ordered he remarked that he wished we could go back to the day of five cent hot dogs. As he said this I turned toward him and smiled, but that all changed with what came out of his mouth next. He said that it wasn't going to happen with Obama-laden in office and that he wanted to kill old people like him.

My first instinct was to inform the impolite geezer that we were all dying regardless, some of us faster than others. Then I wanted to yell at him that I was unemployed with no full time position in sight and unsure of my future insurance prospects thanks to the previous administration's negligence and that Obama's administration was trying to help that situation. But a combination of ingrained politeness and distaste for public confrontation (I know you are shocked that I avoid confrontation, but bare with me), led me to just stare straight ahead, ignoring him and stewing. Obviously saying something to someone like that would solve nothing and most certainly not change his mind. Maybe it was weak of me to not address is misinformation and blatant racism, but I also couldn't help being amazed at the sheer gall that this man thought it was not only appropriate to say that sort of thing to a stranger, but that I would agree with him.

And of course it reminded me of the incident on the highway. We really seem to be regressing as a society. I don't have an answer for this, but I am certainly in possession of a full cup of outrage and I guess that will have to suffice for today.

An Elegy for Elegance

Lo these many years ago, 13 to be exact (my how the 'ole broad is aging . . .), I was privileged enough to land a job at Elegant Bride magazine. It was not located in New York, as it is now, nor was it like the depictions of magazine publishing you often find in entertainment today ala Ugly Betty or The Devil Wears Prada. But it was thrilling. There is something thrilling about magazine publishing in general in my mind. In my career, I have done just about every kind of magazine publishing there is, newsstand, business-to-business and custom, and who wouldn't be excited to see their name on the masthead of a magazine that can be found in Seattle or Topeka or Boston?

What did I love about Elegant Bride? I loved learning the rules of getting married, my anal retentive soul gobbled up the do's and don'ts, the etiquette for how to be an elegant bride like a drunk on a bender. To this day I can still tell you how to properly address an envelope to a household with two last names or what time of day requires formal attire, not that many people care any more about such rules, much less obey them.

I loved seeing my name of course, but what I loved more was the idea that thousands of people were reading my words. Since first grade I knew I wanted to write, and although writing about how to handle including step parents on your invitation may not have been my seven year old self's dream, these were still real people reading my writing.

But most of all I loved the people I worked with—they continued my education on how to be more of a girl, adding how to be a lady and how to be a professional. That is not to say that I achieved those goals while working there. Nor have I necessarily achieved them at this current moment in time, but those women (and man) gave me the ideals I will forever strive to obtain. They showed me style, savvy, fortitude, humor, compassion, adaptability, charm, grace and that sometimes it is best to quit while you are ahead. I was honored to work with them and grateful that I still call so many of them friends.

Several years after I left the magazine, things were changing and not looking promising for me career-wise (and as I mentioned my co-workers did teach me to quit when I was ahead), the publishing company who owned it sold it to Conde Nast. The publishing giant already published Brides and Modern Bride so I never quite understood why they would want a third magazine, although style-wise Elegant Bride was head and shoulders above those two books, and apparently I was right. It would appear that in a recession one does not in fact need three bridal magazines. So Conde Nast is shuttering both Modern Bride and Elegant Bride (apparently we no longer need to distinguish between brides, just any old bride will do during hard times), as well as the parenting magazine Cookie and the venerable Gourmet.

I don't like change and I most certainly don't like goodbyes, but then I guess most don't. And while no one I know works for Elegant Bride any longer, it is still a prized part of my past that is being razed due to the almighty dollar. I wonder what else I love will be lost because of the transgressions of men in suits who control the purse strings?

Atonement

You know how it happens, you get busy and distracted and the next thing you know weeks have gone by and you meant to call that friend, clean that closet or finish that project. But it doesn't happen, it slips through the cracks and then you start to get to the point where so much time has passed it almost seems harder to do that thing than to just continue on and pretend that it no longer exists.

Unfortunately that is just what happened to me and the blog. It isn't that I haven't had ideas, I have steadily accumulated a stack of magazines with pages dog-eared with topics I wanted to expound on. And yet.

I am consistently amazed at how easy it is for the day to slip away when you are unemployed. Mind you, I have been somewhat busy with some freelance work, possibly something that will even turn into more of an ongoing, long-term gig (fingers crossed), and I am extremely grateful, but that is no excuse. I have been out of the work force for almost six months now and in that time my book shelves have not been alphabetized like I have dreamed of (I blame the spouse who helped me move in low these many years ago—10 to be exact— and who put the books on the shelf with little rhyme or reason), the spawn's toys have only been organized once, months ago, and now the blocks are living with the toy people and the trucks with the puzzles and in my head it is a mighty clash of civilizations that keep me up at night (okay not really, but it does bug me to my anal retentive core), and that dream of scrubbing the baseboards is still just that. And yet.

I do dream of suit shopping with Bill Maher (paging Freud for the meaning of that one), I did a marathon nine hour day of proofing and I attempted to run a 5K. So I have not been idle. And yet.

Earlier this month, one idea I dog-eared corresponded with my boyfriend Jon Stewart mentioning on his show Yom Kippur, the Jewish holiday of atonement. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham wrote his weekly editor's letter back in the September 28 issue (told you I was thinking of you gentle reader, all along . . .) about the consequences of words. I know the power of words to wound and heal and yet I am endless careless with them, waving them about like a cocked and loaded gun. It is shameless really, so that is why Meacham's essay struck me so I think.

Meacham talks of how we delude ourselves when we think that there was once a golden age of bipartisanship. Like the unicorn and yeti, bipartisanship is a myth, a fantasy that we delude ourselves with when times are particularly hard like they are now (despite those bankers on Wall Street raking in their millions). But where I felt truly called to the carpet was when Meacham talks of Obama supporters saying the hostility towards our President is unprecedented. And he is right, my hostility to Dubya was legendary (at least in my own mind) and was, dare I say it, wrong and misguided. The people who demonize President Obama are just as wrong as I was to demonize Dubya, doesn't mean I like him or that my opinion of him has changed or will ever change, but I should have been able to keep my level of discourse on a more civilized plane. And yet.

The level of hostility and hatred that is leveled at President Obama does strike me as different in tone than that aimed at Dubya. Our current president is being judged, by many, for the color of his skin. In my opinion, George W. Bush was being judged by his lack of intelligence and his gung-ho, cowboy attitude toward diplomacy. Many may think I am splitting hairs, but that strikes me as apples and oranges.

So while I am a tad behind, today I will celebrate my own day of atonement and I will try to do better in the future—not only in keeping a civil tongue when it comes to my disagreements with the conservatives in politics, but I will not let things slide in my life. Like this blog.

Poetry Time

“Personal” by Tony Hoagland

Don’t take it personal, they said;
but I did, I took it all quite personal—

the breeze and the river and the color of the fields;
the price of grapefruit and stamps,

the wet hair of women in the rain—
And I cursed what hurt me

and I praised what gave me joy,
the most simple-minded of possible responses.

The government reminded me of my father,
with its deafness and its laws,

and the weather reminded me of my mom,
with her tropical squalls.

Enjoy it while you can, they said of Happiness
Think first, they said of Talk

Get over it, they said
at the School of Broken Hearts

but I couldn’t and I didn’t and I don’t
believe in the clean break;

I believe in the compound fracture
served with a sauce of dirty regret,

I believe in saying it all
and taking it all back

and saying it again for good measure
while the air fills up with I’m-Sorries

like wheeling birds
and the trees look seasick in the wind.

Oh life! Can you blame me
for making a scene?

You were that yellow caboose, the moon
disappearing over a ridge of cloud.

I was the dog, chained in some fool’s backyard;
barking and barking:

trying to convince everything else
to take it personal too.

R*E*S*P*E*C*T

It ain't just an R&B song so expertly belted by Ms. Franklin gentle reader, it is unfortunately something, along with civility, that is all to lacking in our society today—at least American society, I won't presume to speak for the other nations around the globe.

I have been ruminating on this for a little over a week now, starting with the nonsense surrounding President Obama's speech to school children and the way so many on the right lost their shit over the idea. 'The very idea of the President wanting to tell our kids to work hard and stay in school! How dare he!' Alrighty. I may catch some grief over this, but I stand with many of the more outspoken commentators on the Left who believe this all boils down to simple racism and nothing else.

During a broadcast of the Stephanie Miller show on Air America this week, a guest (I apologize I didn't catch who the guy was, but it was a show when Miller was on vacation and had a guest filling in) stated something along the lines of a lot of this garbage we have been hearing about President Obama is coming from the South and that many Southerns seem to take pride in being ignorant.

At first I was offended. I am a Southerner and I certainly take no pride in ignorance, my own or anyone elses'. But then I started thinking about it more and while this may not be exactly what the guest meant, from my final take on it he may have a point after all. Thirty years ago, before 24 hour media, before the Internet, before bloggers, people got their news from the major three networks, newspapers and some magazines. And while this may be a rosy, glow, Ozzie 'n' Harriet view of things, I have this gut feeling that they were better informed than the average American today who has WAY more access to information. I think this is a particular problem with self-identified Rednecks, who while a vast section of the Southern populous, also exist any where across our nation. My point is people don't seem to care today that they aren't informed, many do take pride in not knowing about politics and history and geography, if it doesn't directly impact them, they think it doesn't matter.

The reaction to Obama's speech I think falls in this domain to a certain degree, while I disagree that it comes exclusively from the South. I believe that a fair amount of blame can be laid at the feet of the media. As Bill Maher said on his show this week, "The Media is supposed to be the teacher." And when the Media gets their knickers in a twist over a Coast Guard training episode, even though it occurred on the anniversary of September 11, before finding out the hard facts, then they are doing a disservice to Americans and are not teaching us anything but that they are not to be trusted.

One of Maher's guests, Paul Rieckhoff (Director, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) also said of the Media, "They confuse balance with accuracy." All too true. Having talking heads from both sides screaming at each other does nothing to educate the general public, it is merely a Jerry Springer-esque way to hold too easily distracted Americans' attention. That isn't news, it isn't educational and it is surely not accurate.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention how that wing-nut from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, figures into all of this. While I often, in my Anglophile heart, long for America to be more British, we are not in fact British. Therefore, it is not acceptable in our Congress to heckle our leader. What Wilson did during Obama's speech before Congress was not only unacceptable, it was juvenile, ridiculous, uncouth, racist and disRESPECTful.

Yep, there we are gentle readers, full circle back to Ms. Franklin's ode. If I had a dollar for every time I had to endure people saying during Dubya's eight years of lunacy that he should be respected because he was president, I would be a rich woman right now and not living off the government's dime and looking for work. But alas . . . . Now those same people are the ones applauding this dipshit who acted like a drunk frat boy at a comedy club. Well turn about is fair play folks. Obama is your president now, and you need to show him the respect the office deserves, even if you don't like him or didn't vote for him.

I made no bones about my dislike of Dubya, still don't, but for all my blustering, I would have been just as dismayed and outraged should someone had acted towards him in that manner. Aw, who am I kidding I would have loved it, just as I loved it when the guy in Iraq threw a shoe at him. My real problem with Mr. Wilson's outburst is less that he made it and more the reason behind it—racism. I bet you dollars to donuts that he would have never done that had it been a white democrat standing up there as president.

Finally, I know this is a bit lengthy and rambling, but I want to close with something else that Bill Maher said on his show last night (I know I need to develop a new news crush) that liberals aren't taking to the streets to protest the way the right-wing crazies are, instead we sit on our sofas and yell at the TV. Well, maybe it is time we get off our asses and show our country some R*E*S*P*E*C*T.

Defining the Times

A lesson today for all of you who might be confused by the rhetoric being tossed about so liberally in the news of late.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Communism
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Nazism
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

Now many pundits and talking heads have been spouting that President Obama is a socialist, a Nazi, a fascist. Well I will admit that in some people's eyes the socialist label might have some sticking power to the current administration, not that I have any problem with that personally, I am all for there being less of a yawning gap between the haves and have nots. Plus Sweden doesn't look so bad and they are socialists.

But the latter two labels really rub me the wrong way. Obama and his administration are not fascists or Nazis and while the two groups may both espouse authoritarian rule, their goals for that rule were different in my eyes, as were their ideology of why such rule was necessary.

Now listen, I didn't major in political science, so maybe I am missing some small nugget of correlation between the two, but in the broader range of things, all these people on the right aim to do is frighten the beejesus out of people by invoking Nazis and Fascists and the like.

So far as all this hullabaloo about the President indoctrinating school children today during his speech, well give me a break. President Obama is not the first president to address schools and he won't be the last (Remember Dubya reading My Pet Goat? Anyone??). It appears to me that a speech about personal responsibility, staying in school and trying to get ahead is not even remotely rooted in socialism or any ideology that is centered on the government owning the means of production. No in fact, those all seem like tools that might come in handy for this kind of society:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Yep, CAPITALISM.

Peggy Get Your Gun

What is there to say about Mad Men? I am quite frankly obsessed—with Don Draper's classic depiction of a troubled asshole, which despite just how unfeminist it is, fascinates me to no end; with the idea that the 1960s were not all Ozzie and Harriet, that people were cruel and manipulative and most of all fucked with abandon; with the way you can see glimmers of change and strength in all the characters, but particularly the women. Big things are afoot this season I believe and with a show that is replete with female writers, it is no wonder that so many of the female characters are as rich, if not richer than their male counterparts. Hello Joan, Betty and Peggy, I am talking about you.

Which leads me to Sunday's episode, where Peggy tokes up, asserts herself with the boys in a way that wins not only the smarmy adulation of the Princeton pal selling the pot, but of her coworker Smith. You could see the wheels turn in that boy's head as he began to rewrite his opinion of Peggy. For that I say hell yeah! You go girl—who is smart and quick and who the boys seem to dismiss specifically for those reasons.

But what I loved most of all is the following, her conversation with her new secretary Olive, that the women at Salon's Broadsheet extrapolated:

And in her loopy, stoned, sweet way, Peggy suddenly gets it: “But you're scared,” she says. Olive isn’t scolding her, per se, she’s scared for her, and worried about the consequences to a young lady who breaks the rules that governed women in her own day. Leaning in, Peggy says, “I am going to get to do everything you want for me. I'm going to be fine, Olive.”

How I have dearly wanted to say just that very thing to older, female figures in my life who have doubted me or worst of all been jealous. 'I am going to get to do everything you want for me, and while you may hate me for it in the end, I will be fine. I am fine.'

In Other Words, an English Major

Just another reason to love Garrison Keillor . . . the September 2009 Vanity Fair features him on their end page Proust Questionnaire. Mr. Keillor was asked—"What is the quality you most like in a woman?" He responds:

High-spiritedness, wit, a love or repartee and wordplay and allusion and jokes—in other words, an English major.

As a former English major, I say God Bless you Mr. Keillor, if only more boys I knew had held you same esteem for wit and wordplay in my impressionable teens and twenties . . .