The Joys of Laziness
It's true, I haven't been writing as much as I did when I started this blog. For one thing, no one's reading it as far as I can tell. Which is just fine with me, and it takes the pressure off. Without an editor, what seems to come out of this keyboard is mostly stream-of-consciousness nonsense that lets me blow off steam and keep my typing skills in order. I became a journalist because I love to write; this blog allows me to do just that, even if I'm not very good at it (my self-esteem has dropped off since I stopped writing for a living; also I found my thesis that I did at Columbia J-school where the remarks were mostly negative).
But I find myself lately fighting another malady: laziness. Well, I guess most people consider it a malady. I consider it a necessary part of my life. My days are filled with working--making money, fielding phone calls, going to the grocery store, paying bills, running errands to the bank, volunteering, responding to wedding invites, writing checks, etc. All the minutiae of life. Being an adult in a society like this one is difficult. It requires a lot of attention to detail and petty things like buying detergent for the washing machine. Strangely, though I no longer work 10 hours a day (usually) my days are still filled. How was I able to keep the house running when I had to commute downtown? I have no idea.
So I really treasure those moments when I can sit around and do absolutely nothing productive whatsoever. When I can sit around and watch TV with my kittens or read a mystery novel with no literary pretensions at all, or take a really long nap. Honestly I probably indulge in a few more of those moments than I should. But it makes me happy. I blow off all the things on my "To Do" list, which grows longer every day, and lounge in my bed in my PJs. I surf eBay to find toys I played with as a little girl. I put off the laundry so I can watch the Disney Channel. Instead of cleaning my closet, I go lounge by the swimming pool (in the summer).
I work hard. So, though I wouldn't exactly say I play hard, I do like to take my free time--and MAKE free time if I don't have any--and use it with a vengeance. Everyone should do it more often. We get stressed out enough by everything that goes on in our lives, from family relations to work problems. We need time to sit around and do nothing of importance. It's good for our mental health.
Now if only I could stop people from calling me while I'm relaxing, life would be good.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Not Ralph Nader, Again!
Back in 2000, I carefully considered about who I was going to vote for. Ralph Nader or Al Gore. So did a lot of my friends. We debated, we discussed, we really agonized over our decisions. After all, Nader was the one who embodied a lot of liberal ideals--not Gore. And let's face it. Even today, there aren't a lot of high-profile liberal voices out there to counter the whacked-out conservatives that I see every friggin' day on Fox News. Rush Limbaugh has a crazy following that makes absolutely no sense to me. And when I say crazy, I do mean crazy. The liberal voices out there include Michael Moore and Molly Ivins and Penn Gillette and Al Franken. Which is great, except that their appearances in the media are few and far between in comparison.
The point is, we were really itching to have a real presence in the national public debate. Ralph Nader was a good choice. But we were afraid that Al Gore would suffer if we voted Green, so in the end most of us voted for Gore. It's a good thing we did, or else Gore might not have won the election. Too bad Bush took office anyway.
Now Nader is running again, and my first response is surprise. It seems awfully late to jump into the campaign, and he's running without the Green party this time. My second response: Nader, what are you thinking? There are still a lot of voters who might have supported you in other years but are upset because we got Bush in 2000 instead of Gore. They blame you for splitting the vote. This year, there's no question some of us liberals are voting Democratic because it's of paramount importance that we get the Bush out of the White House. I wouldn't even, for one split second, consider voting for Nader. This is too important.
But the possibility of splitting the vote is real, even though I am not taking Nader's candidacy seriously this time. Some critics have called his running a result of his vanity. I don't know if this is true but it seems that way--he has so much less support than before that his candidacy seems laughable. And he's 70 years old. My opinion of Nader has dropped as a result. Stop the madness! We need to focus on someone who can win over the current administration.
Now I'm hoping for another dark horse entry. Pat Robertson, we need you! Join the fight. Bush is WAY too centrist for great conservatives like you. Get into the race. Please.
Back in 2000, I carefully considered about who I was going to vote for. Ralph Nader or Al Gore. So did a lot of my friends. We debated, we discussed, we really agonized over our decisions. After all, Nader was the one who embodied a lot of liberal ideals--not Gore. And let's face it. Even today, there aren't a lot of high-profile liberal voices out there to counter the whacked-out conservatives that I see every friggin' day on Fox News. Rush Limbaugh has a crazy following that makes absolutely no sense to me. And when I say crazy, I do mean crazy. The liberal voices out there include Michael Moore and Molly Ivins and Penn Gillette and Al Franken. Which is great, except that their appearances in the media are few and far between in comparison.
The point is, we were really itching to have a real presence in the national public debate. Ralph Nader was a good choice. But we were afraid that Al Gore would suffer if we voted Green, so in the end most of us voted for Gore. It's a good thing we did, or else Gore might not have won the election. Too bad Bush took office anyway.
Now Nader is running again, and my first response is surprise. It seems awfully late to jump into the campaign, and he's running without the Green party this time. My second response: Nader, what are you thinking? There are still a lot of voters who might have supported you in other years but are upset because we got Bush in 2000 instead of Gore. They blame you for splitting the vote. This year, there's no question some of us liberals are voting Democratic because it's of paramount importance that we get the Bush out of the White House. I wouldn't even, for one split second, consider voting for Nader. This is too important.
But the possibility of splitting the vote is real, even though I am not taking Nader's candidacy seriously this time. Some critics have called his running a result of his vanity. I don't know if this is true but it seems that way--he has so much less support than before that his candidacy seems laughable. And he's 70 years old. My opinion of Nader has dropped as a result. Stop the madness! We need to focus on someone who can win over the current administration.
Now I'm hoping for another dark horse entry. Pat Robertson, we need you! Join the fight. Bush is WAY too centrist for great conservatives like you. Get into the race. Please.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Monday, February 16, 2004
Abstinence? What World Do You Live in?
The day before Valentine's Day was a "Day of Purity," sponsored by a group of rather self-righteous, bigoted teenagers who think "traditional values" are the way to go. Too bad abstinence just doesn't work. Communication, however, does.
These teens complain that people talk about sex too casually. They forget that this is a good thing. Sex is a natural act and it's naive for me, as an adult, to believe that kids won't do it--even self-righteous, bigoted ones, eventually. I think sex should be a subject that's talked about with comfort and even familiarity between teens. What we need to do is let them discuss it with frankness, openness, and with an eye towards responsible sex. If they're not talking about it, they won't know how to prepare themselves for it.
Abstinence is an irresponsible policy. If these teens who are practicing abstinence get themselves into a sexual situation, they won't be prepared to deal with it because they haven't discussed the alternatives. Meanwhile, a student who has talked it over with parents and counselors will be better able to figure out what it is she wants to do--whether it's to say no or to say yes--because this student will have thought out the situation--the hows, the whys and all of that. If she says no, it will be because she understands the consequences and isn't prepared to deal with them. If she says yes, it will also be for the right reasons. Who am I to say that there aren't any right reasons for young people?
They did a study a few months back that showed that many teens who had taken an abstinence pledge had, ahem, broadened the definition of virginity. They had done just about everything except penetration sex. This shows that they didn't really understand why they were pledging in the first place. And it shows how unrealistic it is to expect young people to stick to such a blanket pledge.
Sex is going to happen between teenagers. Deal with it, and educate them so they know how to deal with it themselves.
The day before Valentine's Day was a "Day of Purity," sponsored by a group of rather self-righteous, bigoted teenagers who think "traditional values" are the way to go. Too bad abstinence just doesn't work. Communication, however, does.
These teens complain that people talk about sex too casually. They forget that this is a good thing. Sex is a natural act and it's naive for me, as an adult, to believe that kids won't do it--even self-righteous, bigoted ones, eventually. I think sex should be a subject that's talked about with comfort and even familiarity between teens. What we need to do is let them discuss it with frankness, openness, and with an eye towards responsible sex. If they're not talking about it, they won't know how to prepare themselves for it.
Abstinence is an irresponsible policy. If these teens who are practicing abstinence get themselves into a sexual situation, they won't be prepared to deal with it because they haven't discussed the alternatives. Meanwhile, a student who has talked it over with parents and counselors will be better able to figure out what it is she wants to do--whether it's to say no or to say yes--because this student will have thought out the situation--the hows, the whys and all of that. If she says no, it will be because she understands the consequences and isn't prepared to deal with them. If she says yes, it will also be for the right reasons. Who am I to say that there aren't any right reasons for young people?
They did a study a few months back that showed that many teens who had taken an abstinence pledge had, ahem, broadened the definition of virginity. They had done just about everything except penetration sex. This shows that they didn't really understand why they were pledging in the first place. And it shows how unrealistic it is to expect young people to stick to such a blanket pledge.
Sex is going to happen between teenagers. Deal with it, and educate them so they know how to deal with it themselves.
Friday, February 13, 2004
The Gay Marriage Debate: Show A Little Compassion, People
Ever since the Supreme Court made its landmark decision that the legal system couldn't punish a same-sex couple for what they did behind closed doors, we've been subjected to decision after decision in states that are stumbling all over themselves to declare their "morality" by banning gay marriage. And now there's talk of a Constitional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman! Well, I say, screw you all.
This is a civil rights issue and a human rights issue. As a heterosexual I'm allowed to move to any state with my husband and receive all the rights that a spouse does. Meanwhile, a couple of women I know in a devoted relationship, who have one child together, would never be recognized despite their love for one another and devotion to their family--both nuclear as well as extended. Somehow, politicians have developed a theory that gay men and women can't have the kinds of relationships that heterosexuals have, and that's just sanctimonious and stupid.
I know that I'm not exactly in the majority on this issue, and I know that there are people (religious idiots, mostly) who would have me burn in hell for saying what I have. In fact, it's religious idiots mostly who have something against homosexuality--it's Not Right. It's Unnatural. It's Just Not The Way Things Are Done. The fact is, they're afraid. They're threatened. I have pity for people who are always deathly scared of everything. Personally, I have faith that the good aspects about our American society are strong enough, and solid enough, that our culture isn't going to crumble because we showed that we are good human beings.
I'd also like to point out that if the sanctity of marriage is so inviolate, why are there so many divorces going around? My husband is a divorce lawyer, and he doesn't exactly sit around twiddling his thumbs on a daily basis.
As you can tell this is an issue that makes me angry. I don't understand how a politician dares to pass judgment on a group of people just because he doesn't understand them. I remember helping a woman come out, and she was in such pain when she did it knowing how society would ostracize her. I remember how women in my dorm shunned our RA when she admitted she was gay. I've seen these things happen, I've seen the hurt they cause. How can we, as a society, justify COLLECTIVELY (or individually, for that matter) harming a group that has never done anything to us? All they want to do is live, and let live. I think that's perfectly reasonable. If a couple wants to take on the responsibilities and duties of marriage, they should be able to. And this commitment should be recognized in all states. Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they're just not enough. Why give gay couples a lower "civil union" status? Their commitment isn't a lower commitment. It's just as strong, and sometimes stronger, than that of a heterosexual couple.
That's not even getting to the political meat of the matter. A Constitutional amendment on something so frivolous is just irresponsible. The Bill of Rights is there to protect individual rights, not to take them away. And recently I've been hearing so many conservatives screaming about "judicial tyranny" because cases like the Supreme Court one on sodomy, which "imposes the will of a few men on the whole country." Well, I hate to point this out but any junior high student who's been paying attention in class knows that the WHOLE POINT of the judiciary is to reign in the abuses of the legislature and to protect the rights of the individual against the "tyranny of the masses." Which is exactly what's going on in these states where gay marriage is being banned.
I know I'm just ranting, and I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before. I just get frustrated by the intolerance I see every day now on the news.
Ever since the Supreme Court made its landmark decision that the legal system couldn't punish a same-sex couple for what they did behind closed doors, we've been subjected to decision after decision in states that are stumbling all over themselves to declare their "morality" by banning gay marriage. And now there's talk of a Constitional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman! Well, I say, screw you all.
This is a civil rights issue and a human rights issue. As a heterosexual I'm allowed to move to any state with my husband and receive all the rights that a spouse does. Meanwhile, a couple of women I know in a devoted relationship, who have one child together, would never be recognized despite their love for one another and devotion to their family--both nuclear as well as extended. Somehow, politicians have developed a theory that gay men and women can't have the kinds of relationships that heterosexuals have, and that's just sanctimonious and stupid.
I know that I'm not exactly in the majority on this issue, and I know that there are people (religious idiots, mostly) who would have me burn in hell for saying what I have. In fact, it's religious idiots mostly who have something against homosexuality--it's Not Right. It's Unnatural. It's Just Not The Way Things Are Done. The fact is, they're afraid. They're threatened. I have pity for people who are always deathly scared of everything. Personally, I have faith that the good aspects about our American society are strong enough, and solid enough, that our culture isn't going to crumble because we showed that we are good human beings.
I'd also like to point out that if the sanctity of marriage is so inviolate, why are there so many divorces going around? My husband is a divorce lawyer, and he doesn't exactly sit around twiddling his thumbs on a daily basis.
As you can tell this is an issue that makes me angry. I don't understand how a politician dares to pass judgment on a group of people just because he doesn't understand them. I remember helping a woman come out, and she was in such pain when she did it knowing how society would ostracize her. I remember how women in my dorm shunned our RA when she admitted she was gay. I've seen these things happen, I've seen the hurt they cause. How can we, as a society, justify COLLECTIVELY (or individually, for that matter) harming a group that has never done anything to us? All they want to do is live, and let live. I think that's perfectly reasonable. If a couple wants to take on the responsibilities and duties of marriage, they should be able to. And this commitment should be recognized in all states. Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they're just not enough. Why give gay couples a lower "civil union" status? Their commitment isn't a lower commitment. It's just as strong, and sometimes stronger, than that of a heterosexual couple.
That's not even getting to the political meat of the matter. A Constitutional amendment on something so frivolous is just irresponsible. The Bill of Rights is there to protect individual rights, not to take them away. And recently I've been hearing so many conservatives screaming about "judicial tyranny" because cases like the Supreme Court one on sodomy, which "imposes the will of a few men on the whole country." Well, I hate to point this out but any junior high student who's been paying attention in class knows that the WHOLE POINT of the judiciary is to reign in the abuses of the legislature and to protect the rights of the individual against the "tyranny of the masses." Which is exactly what's going on in these states where gay marriage is being banned.
I know I'm just ranting, and I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before. I just get frustrated by the intolerance I see every day now on the news.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Top 7 Reasons Why Valentine's Day is Stupid (And a comment about Sweetest Day)
1. We don't even get a day off. What's the point of a holiday if we don't get to spend it away from work?
2. Those of us who are single have to worry about a) getting a date or b) whether a current date is even going to do anything about Valentine's Day or c) having something to do on the 14th, at the very least, so we don't feel like pathetic losers.
3. Those of us who are married feel obligated to give presents to our significant others just in case the other person would be offended if we completely forgot about the holiday. Or we wait on pins and needles to see if our SO even remembered.
4. There's all this pressure to make it romantic. If you're in a good, solid marriage, every day is Valentine's Day. You don't need a special day of the year to make things right.
5. Pink. For some reason every year at this time you find a proliferation of pink in all the stores. Pink is kind of a silly, frilly color, don't you think? It's not bold, it's not strong. It's just a pastel and a weak one at that.
6. The traditional presents you give on Valentine's Day suck (for the most part). Jewelry? A frivolous waste of money. That's not to say I'd reject a pair of diamond earrings, but come on. Give $200 to the Democratic National Committee or Habitat for Humanity in my behalf instead and I'll be perfectly happy. Those stupid little heart candies? Ugh. Valentine boxers? Just dumb. Flowers? Leave them in the ground and let them grow so that everyone can enjoy them. You give them to me and they'll just die lonely in a vase on my dining room table. Of course, there's always room for chocolate.
7. The death of Fannie May. I know most of these stores are gone now, but the idea was that they'd close all their stores by Feb. 14 (so as to capitalize one last time on Valentine's Day shoppers). It's very sad, that such a Chicago institution will die for good this year.
Here I'd like to point out that we've also been celebrating Sweetest Day in October. I know the greeting card industry designed Sweetest Day as a completely different holiday, but it's turning into the same thing. I vote that we get rid of Sweetest Day. After all, it's in October (I think) and the last thing we need that time of year is ANOTHER holiday to worry about. The one good thing about Valentine's Day is that it occurs in February, just long enough after Christmas to be a welcome diversion rather than a pain in the butt.
1. We don't even get a day off. What's the point of a holiday if we don't get to spend it away from work?
2. Those of us who are single have to worry about a) getting a date or b) whether a current date is even going to do anything about Valentine's Day or c) having something to do on the 14th, at the very least, so we don't feel like pathetic losers.
3. Those of us who are married feel obligated to give presents to our significant others just in case the other person would be offended if we completely forgot about the holiday. Or we wait on pins and needles to see if our SO even remembered.
4. There's all this pressure to make it romantic. If you're in a good, solid marriage, every day is Valentine's Day. You don't need a special day of the year to make things right.
5. Pink. For some reason every year at this time you find a proliferation of pink in all the stores. Pink is kind of a silly, frilly color, don't you think? It's not bold, it's not strong. It's just a pastel and a weak one at that.
6. The traditional presents you give on Valentine's Day suck (for the most part). Jewelry? A frivolous waste of money. That's not to say I'd reject a pair of diamond earrings, but come on. Give $200 to the Democratic National Committee or Habitat for Humanity in my behalf instead and I'll be perfectly happy. Those stupid little heart candies? Ugh. Valentine boxers? Just dumb. Flowers? Leave them in the ground and let them grow so that everyone can enjoy them. You give them to me and they'll just die lonely in a vase on my dining room table. Of course, there's always room for chocolate.
7. The death of Fannie May. I know most of these stores are gone now, but the idea was that they'd close all their stores by Feb. 14 (so as to capitalize one last time on Valentine's Day shoppers). It's very sad, that such a Chicago institution will die for good this year.
Here I'd like to point out that we've also been celebrating Sweetest Day in October. I know the greeting card industry designed Sweetest Day as a completely different holiday, but it's turning into the same thing. I vote that we get rid of Sweetest Day. After all, it's in October (I think) and the last thing we need that time of year is ANOTHER holiday to worry about. The one good thing about Valentine's Day is that it occurs in February, just long enough after Christmas to be a welcome diversion rather than a pain in the butt.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Bjork and Fashion Sense
On Sunday night, I was watching E! Entertainment Television. I had actually decided I would sit through the red-carpet pre-Grammy stupidity just to, well, keep up with the industry, I suppose. I mean, I did report on this kind of crap for years, and it's a hard habit to break. But about five minutes into the event Joan Rivers said something derogatory about Bjork, referring to the swan dress she wore to the Oscars a few years ago, and I turned the TV off instead.
Every so often I'll hear a reference to Bjork's dress, usually in the form of a crude joke. It almost always raises my ire, because to my mind Bjork's originality was the only interesting part of a self-congratulatory, egotistical, boring, long, overexpansive, excessive and overpriced event that just keeps getting worse over the years--and not just because the movies nominated are usually crap. These beautiful celebrities walk in with their Dolce & Gabbana, their Prada, their Anna Sui, their Louis Vuitton, their Vera Wang, their Versace, their designer-of-the-moment rags. And their outfits are considered daring and gorgeous as long as they're not black, but only if they're also not unusual or tacky in any way. Granted, some celebrities simply don't know how to dress. Christina Aguilera, for example, tends to border on the edges of the wacky. But even she, in her boldness, tends to strike upon an innovative piece of fashion every once in awhile, if only because she's out there. At least her clothing choices are interesting.
When Bjork was asked about her outfit, she said something like, "My friend make this dress for me." She didn't mention that her friend was actually a pretty well-respected designer. But how refreshing is that? To come out there, completely artless, to an event where everyone is trying to outdo each other with their wardrobe choices, and just say something so simple and silly about a dress that's simple and silly. I respect that. I respect that more than the hundreds of name-designer dresses that Sarah Jessica Parker sports in a month, even though everyone thinks she looks so poised in them.
See, Bjork was bold. Jennifer Lopez's dress at the Oscars, which was so transparent they couldn't show J.Lo on TV--that's not bold. That's risque, but selling sex has never been an innovation. It's been around forever. Now selling yourself in a swan dress--that's bold.
It just goes to show how bizarre the world of fashion really is. You put a plunging neckline or a hole in the right place and suddenly everyone freaks out. You wear a swan, and suddenly you're reviled as an Evil Fashion Disaster. At least Bjork was original. At least she's shown more courage than any of those actresses in wearing what she wants to wear, without reference to the best-dressed lists of stupid gossip rags. That's the kind of boldness I respect--the desire to be an individual. Go, Bjork. Keep wearing knee socks with your thongs. There are those of us who love your crazy eccentricity more than the smooth coifs and silicone breasts of Hollywood.
On Sunday night, I was watching E! Entertainment Television. I had actually decided I would sit through the red-carpet pre-Grammy stupidity just to, well, keep up with the industry, I suppose. I mean, I did report on this kind of crap for years, and it's a hard habit to break. But about five minutes into the event Joan Rivers said something derogatory about Bjork, referring to the swan dress she wore to the Oscars a few years ago, and I turned the TV off instead.
Every so often I'll hear a reference to Bjork's dress, usually in the form of a crude joke. It almost always raises my ire, because to my mind Bjork's originality was the only interesting part of a self-congratulatory, egotistical, boring, long, overexpansive, excessive and overpriced event that just keeps getting worse over the years--and not just because the movies nominated are usually crap. These beautiful celebrities walk in with their Dolce & Gabbana, their Prada, their Anna Sui, their Louis Vuitton, their Vera Wang, their Versace, their designer-of-the-moment rags. And their outfits are considered daring and gorgeous as long as they're not black, but only if they're also not unusual or tacky in any way. Granted, some celebrities simply don't know how to dress. Christina Aguilera, for example, tends to border on the edges of the wacky. But even she, in her boldness, tends to strike upon an innovative piece of fashion every once in awhile, if only because she's out there. At least her clothing choices are interesting.
When Bjork was asked about her outfit, she said something like, "My friend make this dress for me." She didn't mention that her friend was actually a pretty well-respected designer. But how refreshing is that? To come out there, completely artless, to an event where everyone is trying to outdo each other with their wardrobe choices, and just say something so simple and silly about a dress that's simple and silly. I respect that. I respect that more than the hundreds of name-designer dresses that Sarah Jessica Parker sports in a month, even though everyone thinks she looks so poised in them.
See, Bjork was bold. Jennifer Lopez's dress at the Oscars, which was so transparent they couldn't show J.Lo on TV--that's not bold. That's risque, but selling sex has never been an innovation. It's been around forever. Now selling yourself in a swan dress--that's bold.
It just goes to show how bizarre the world of fashion really is. You put a plunging neckline or a hole in the right place and suddenly everyone freaks out. You wear a swan, and suddenly you're reviled as an Evil Fashion Disaster. At least Bjork was original. At least she's shown more courage than any of those actresses in wearing what she wants to wear, without reference to the best-dressed lists of stupid gossip rags. That's the kind of boldness I respect--the desire to be an individual. Go, Bjork. Keep wearing knee socks with your thongs. There are those of us who love your crazy eccentricity more than the smooth coifs and silicone breasts of Hollywood.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
I Would Like to Urge You All to Invest in the Future
How can you ensure that your descendents will be prepared for a bold new world? Here's what I suggest. Go to lunarembassy.com and buy a piece of property--on another planet! That's right. For just $19.99 in American dollars, you can own your very own piece of the moon or Mars or even Venus (I personally plan to buy some Mars property--that planet has a lot in common with Earth, such as the length of a day).
Now I don't exactly understand how the folks at the Lunar Embassy, who are now forming the Galactic Government, actually have the right to sell land on other planets. Something about a United Nations declaration decades ago, and a loophole somewhere, a guy making a declaration of ownership...I've looked on the Web site and it's not that clear, unless I'm missing something. I've heard the Head Cheese, I think it was, say something about how he got the rights to sell property on other planets but it's still a bit murky to me. Personally, I think he's full of crap and has seen one too many episodes of "Star Trek"--if that's even possible. How in the world can he enforce his ownership against, say, a government?
But that doesn't matter. Hotels have done it, investors have done it, little stupid people have done it. Even if these little deeds of land mean nothing, if we actually ever do settle humans on the moon, you can bet there will be a class action lawsuit by the millions of folks who have bought $20 worth of land there. Even if we have absolutely no leg to stand on, something's going to happen. So what the hell. Buy a piece of real estate on Mars, and watch your great-great-great-great grandchildren play on their own little lot up in space (make sure it's not on the dark side of the moon if you possibly can). It's only $20, the price of a somewhat decent meal at Lone Star. So go on--invest in a planet.
Then, get involved in your government. Apparently there's a bill of rights and a constitution being written (or, for all I know, have already been written). Now here's our chance to be founding fathers ourselves, and to do our government right. Come on! What have we got to lose, other than face? Be part of the future. Even if it's 500 years from now. We can dream, can't we?
Yes, it's probably a scam. But it's a rather fun one, don't you think?
How can you ensure that your descendents will be prepared for a bold new world? Here's what I suggest. Go to lunarembassy.com and buy a piece of property--on another planet! That's right. For just $19.99 in American dollars, you can own your very own piece of the moon or Mars or even Venus (I personally plan to buy some Mars property--that planet has a lot in common with Earth, such as the length of a day).
Now I don't exactly understand how the folks at the Lunar Embassy, who are now forming the Galactic Government, actually have the right to sell land on other planets. Something about a United Nations declaration decades ago, and a loophole somewhere, a guy making a declaration of ownership...I've looked on the Web site and it's not that clear, unless I'm missing something. I've heard the Head Cheese, I think it was, say something about how he got the rights to sell property on other planets but it's still a bit murky to me. Personally, I think he's full of crap and has seen one too many episodes of "Star Trek"--if that's even possible. How in the world can he enforce his ownership against, say, a government?
But that doesn't matter. Hotels have done it, investors have done it, little stupid people have done it. Even if these little deeds of land mean nothing, if we actually ever do settle humans on the moon, you can bet there will be a class action lawsuit by the millions of folks who have bought $20 worth of land there. Even if we have absolutely no leg to stand on, something's going to happen. So what the hell. Buy a piece of real estate on Mars, and watch your great-great-great-great grandchildren play on their own little lot up in space (make sure it's not on the dark side of the moon if you possibly can). It's only $20, the price of a somewhat decent meal at Lone Star. So go on--invest in a planet.
Then, get involved in your government. Apparently there's a bill of rights and a constitution being written (or, for all I know, have already been written). Now here's our chance to be founding fathers ourselves, and to do our government right. Come on! What have we got to lose, other than face? Be part of the future. Even if it's 500 years from now. We can dream, can't we?
Yes, it's probably a scam. But it's a rather fun one, don't you think?
Monday, February 09, 2004
Weighing in on Nipple Shields...and A Note of Confusion About the Grammys
A week after the Super Bowl, and people are still talking about the .5 second revelation of Janet Jackson's breast and "nipple medallion." Personally, I turned my head for a second a missed the whole thing. So, despite my better judgment, I've decided to jump in and throw out my two cents's worth. Here are the main things that I've learned about society this week. Not that I didn't know them already, unfortunately.
1. It just goes to show how amazingly out of touch celebrities are with what goes on in regular people's lives. It didn't occur to either Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake what a horrible idea it was to reveal someone's breast on a nationally televised, "family-friendly" show.
2. It just goes to show how out of the mainstream the Jackson clan has gotten. 'Nuff said.
3. Our society has this stupid double standard. It's okay for little tiny kids to watch big guys get concussions by bashing each other for hours on end, but it's not okay to peek at someone's boob, even if the nipple is covered. Violence, blood, gore, hitting people and injuring parts of their bodies are things are okay for kids to watch; sex and the human body--completely natural parts of our lives--are not. What a bizarre way of looking at things.
4. We're so litigious we don't even have to make sense with our lawsuits anymore. I'm so glad that the first person to throw out the gauntlet is trying to be reasonable by saying that the amount of the award should not exceed the intake of Janet, Justin, MTV and CBS combined. That's moderation itself! Just because a little child saw someone's knockers--something they ought to be used to if they were ever attached to their mom's nipple as a baby while breast-feeding. If it weren't so idiotic, I'd laugh. We're getting this sense of entitlement built into our society, like we deserve money for being morally better-than-thou.
5. We love to be offended. Come on. How much air time and newspaper space has been wasted on this entire thing? Seriously. If it hadn't happened, we would have gotten annoyed by something else just so we could get on our high horses and attempt to whip the rest of the country into shape. Being offended seems to be our national pastime. Personally, I like baseball better.
One final note, because I'm confused. This isn't about the Super Bowl, it's about another much-hyped event, the Grammys. I hate awards shows. They're so self-congratulatory about industries that are egocentric anyway. I'd just like to point out that in the best new artist category they listed one of my favorite bands, Fountains of Wayne (who did not win). I was shocked to realize that Fountains of Wayne qualified at all, seeing as how they've put out three albums over something like seven years. The band is a side project of the band Ivy, and they work on that in alternate years. They're not exactly new. So, what's the deal here? And, by the way, why does the record of the year category actually feature songs, not albums? Am I being moronic? Somebody enlighten me...
A week after the Super Bowl, and people are still talking about the .5 second revelation of Janet Jackson's breast and "nipple medallion." Personally, I turned my head for a second a missed the whole thing. So, despite my better judgment, I've decided to jump in and throw out my two cents's worth. Here are the main things that I've learned about society this week. Not that I didn't know them already, unfortunately.
1. It just goes to show how amazingly out of touch celebrities are with what goes on in regular people's lives. It didn't occur to either Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake what a horrible idea it was to reveal someone's breast on a nationally televised, "family-friendly" show.
2. It just goes to show how out of the mainstream the Jackson clan has gotten. 'Nuff said.
3. Our society has this stupid double standard. It's okay for little tiny kids to watch big guys get concussions by bashing each other for hours on end, but it's not okay to peek at someone's boob, even if the nipple is covered. Violence, blood, gore, hitting people and injuring parts of their bodies are things are okay for kids to watch; sex and the human body--completely natural parts of our lives--are not. What a bizarre way of looking at things.
4. We're so litigious we don't even have to make sense with our lawsuits anymore. I'm so glad that the first person to throw out the gauntlet is trying to be reasonable by saying that the amount of the award should not exceed the intake of Janet, Justin, MTV and CBS combined. That's moderation itself! Just because a little child saw someone's knockers--something they ought to be used to if they were ever attached to their mom's nipple as a baby while breast-feeding. If it weren't so idiotic, I'd laugh. We're getting this sense of entitlement built into our society, like we deserve money for being morally better-than-thou.
5. We love to be offended. Come on. How much air time and newspaper space has been wasted on this entire thing? Seriously. If it hadn't happened, we would have gotten annoyed by something else just so we could get on our high horses and attempt to whip the rest of the country into shape. Being offended seems to be our national pastime. Personally, I like baseball better.
One final note, because I'm confused. This isn't about the Super Bowl, it's about another much-hyped event, the Grammys. I hate awards shows. They're so self-congratulatory about industries that are egocentric anyway. I'd just like to point out that in the best new artist category they listed one of my favorite bands, Fountains of Wayne (who did not win). I was shocked to realize that Fountains of Wayne qualified at all, seeing as how they've put out three albums over something like seven years. The band is a side project of the band Ivy, and they work on that in alternate years. They're not exactly new. So, what's the deal here? And, by the way, why does the record of the year category actually feature songs, not albums? Am I being moronic? Somebody enlighten me...
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Space: The Final Frontier
George W. Bush's recent announcement that he wanted to put humans on Mars jarred me a little. What a horrible idea! Now, don't get me wrong. I love the idea of humans in space. Until I was about 19 the only books I ever read for fun were science fiction. I even subscribed to Amazing Stories, one of the few pulp SF rags left, and I took a science fiction writing course at Harvard. I am reading an SF novel by David Weber right now in my spare time.
I loved Star Trek growing up, was obsessed by Star Wars--read everything put out by Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, attended Dr. Who conventions. To this day my favorite films are big sci-fi epics. I much prefer those to almost any other movie genre. To me, outer space was--and is--an exciting promise that we'll transcend our current pettiness and move forward and outward.
But here's the thing. Look at all the problems we have here on Earth. We use too much oil. We think nothing of harming our environment. We still deal with racism, with sexism, with all sorts of terrible -isms. We see human rights abuses everywhere. In the U.S., an icon of democracy, we can't even elect a president properly. Animal species are dying off at an alarming rate. The weather cycles are changing and we don't know what to do about it. There are people who don't even believe we've ever been to the moon. See, the thing is, we have plenty of problems on earth. I'm not saying we need to solve them all before we get back into space, but we should at least make some headway into improving the situation first. The last thing we need to do is bring our conflicts and stupidity into space.
There are plenty of amazing, beautiful things right here on Earth. We don't need to go looking elsewhere to explore our universe or to find new things. And we certainly shouldn't do it just because we can (although I'm not convinced of that either). I fully believe one day humans will go to Mars. I'd love to see it in my lifetime. But I don't support our current effort. We have too far to go here on Earth first.
George W. Bush's recent announcement that he wanted to put humans on Mars jarred me a little. What a horrible idea! Now, don't get me wrong. I love the idea of humans in space. Until I was about 19 the only books I ever read for fun were science fiction. I even subscribed to Amazing Stories, one of the few pulp SF rags left, and I took a science fiction writing course at Harvard. I am reading an SF novel by David Weber right now in my spare time.
I loved Star Trek growing up, was obsessed by Star Wars--read everything put out by Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, attended Dr. Who conventions. To this day my favorite films are big sci-fi epics. I much prefer those to almost any other movie genre. To me, outer space was--and is--an exciting promise that we'll transcend our current pettiness and move forward and outward.
But here's the thing. Look at all the problems we have here on Earth. We use too much oil. We think nothing of harming our environment. We still deal with racism, with sexism, with all sorts of terrible -isms. We see human rights abuses everywhere. In the U.S., an icon of democracy, we can't even elect a president properly. Animal species are dying off at an alarming rate. The weather cycles are changing and we don't know what to do about it. There are people who don't even believe we've ever been to the moon. See, the thing is, we have plenty of problems on earth. I'm not saying we need to solve them all before we get back into space, but we should at least make some headway into improving the situation first. The last thing we need to do is bring our conflicts and stupidity into space.
There are plenty of amazing, beautiful things right here on Earth. We don't need to go looking elsewhere to explore our universe or to find new things. And we certainly shouldn't do it just because we can (although I'm not convinced of that either). I fully believe one day humans will go to Mars. I'd love to see it in my lifetime. But I don't support our current effort. We have too far to go here on Earth first.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Things I Like
Since I spend a lot of time on my blog discussing things I don't like, or things I think are stupid, I thought I'd spend today's talking about things I really do like. It's a nice, positive way to get me through the winter. I don't want to depress myself too much; the weather can do that for me with no problem.
Bands I Like
1. Weezer--they're just fun. At their concerts everyone else is at least 10 years younger than me, but I just love how catchy and groovy they are.
2. Super Furry Animals--I just saw these guys last night. What a great show! I still wish they'd played "She's Got Spies," but they did just about everything else I liked.
3. The Beatles--Everything has been said about these guys already. My favorite as a teenager was Paul. Today I'm not so sure. My husband's is George. I think we may not be compatible.
4. The Polyphonic Spree--I just saw these guys last year. Imagine 25 people on the stage all wearing white robes and jumping up and down singing "Follow the Sun." It was absolutely brilliant.
5. Papas Fritas--I wish they were still together. They sing my very favorite song about geodesic domes, "Vertical Lives." It's impossible to get bored at one of their shows. Clever songwriting and great hooks put them above the rest.
Books I Like
1. The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann. I read this one almost every year during the winter. The atmosphere is magnificent, the story is so beautifully nuanced and I love the motifs of illness and music.
2. Candide by Voltaire. This book is just so funny, I laugh the whole way through.
3. Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. This one has it all--adventure, romance, revenge, a plan gone wrong.
4. Possession by A.S. Byatt. I love poetry, and anyone who can make a suspenseful story out of academics searching for the truth behind a poet's affair is okay by me. The author does a great job of creating two separate poet characters through their work as well as their lives.
5. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. I'm not a big fan of Rand's philosophies and I think the end of this book is just a bit too pat, but it's a fine read about a huge personality.
Animals At The Zoo That I Like
1. Green iguanas. Reptiles get such a bad rap but they're really cool animals. Iguanas just look neat.
2. Poison dart frogs. Amphibians are totally fascinating, because they change from animals who can only live on water to animals who live on land. These guys are awfully tiny and brightly colored.
3. Tawny frogcatchers. These are the coolest-looking birds on the planet.
4. Dolphins. Of course. Who doesn't like dolphins?
5. Asian small-clawed otters. They just look so darned cuddly, I want to pick them up and hug them. Not that I would.
Since I spend a lot of time on my blog discussing things I don't like, or things I think are stupid, I thought I'd spend today's talking about things I really do like. It's a nice, positive way to get me through the winter. I don't want to depress myself too much; the weather can do that for me with no problem.
Bands I Like
1. Weezer--they're just fun. At their concerts everyone else is at least 10 years younger than me, but I just love how catchy and groovy they are.
2. Super Furry Animals--I just saw these guys last night. What a great show! I still wish they'd played "She's Got Spies," but they did just about everything else I liked.
3. The Beatles--Everything has been said about these guys already. My favorite as a teenager was Paul. Today I'm not so sure. My husband's is George. I think we may not be compatible.
4. The Polyphonic Spree--I just saw these guys last year. Imagine 25 people on the stage all wearing white robes and jumping up and down singing "Follow the Sun." It was absolutely brilliant.
5. Papas Fritas--I wish they were still together. They sing my very favorite song about geodesic domes, "Vertical Lives." It's impossible to get bored at one of their shows. Clever songwriting and great hooks put them above the rest.
Books I Like
1. The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann. I read this one almost every year during the winter. The atmosphere is magnificent, the story is so beautifully nuanced and I love the motifs of illness and music.
2. Candide by Voltaire. This book is just so funny, I laugh the whole way through.
3. Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. This one has it all--adventure, romance, revenge, a plan gone wrong.
4. Possession by A.S. Byatt. I love poetry, and anyone who can make a suspenseful story out of academics searching for the truth behind a poet's affair is okay by me. The author does a great job of creating two separate poet characters through their work as well as their lives.
5. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. I'm not a big fan of Rand's philosophies and I think the end of this book is just a bit too pat, but it's a fine read about a huge personality.
Animals At The Zoo That I Like
1. Green iguanas. Reptiles get such a bad rap but they're really cool animals. Iguanas just look neat.
2. Poison dart frogs. Amphibians are totally fascinating, because they change from animals who can only live on water to animals who live on land. These guys are awfully tiny and brightly colored.
3. Tawny frogcatchers. These are the coolest-looking birds on the planet.
4. Dolphins. Of course. Who doesn't like dolphins?
5. Asian small-clawed otters. They just look so darned cuddly, I want to pick them up and hug them. Not that I would.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Which Candidate Is for Me?
With the Democratic primary coming up in March, one of the thoughts constantly running through my head is, "Who should I vote for?" I know one thing for certain--I don't like George W. Bush and I want him out of the Oval Office. I'm tired of being angry at my government, and I just can't keep up all this righteous indignation for another four years.
I've looked at all the candidates closely--at least all the ones that have a chance in hell of winning. I like Al Sharpton. I met him once when he spoke at Wellesley College. He was there discussing Egyptology, and though I wasn't sure his view of classical history was the correct one, he did make a lot of sense and his passion was crystal clear. What are the chances that the residents of Egypt, the northeasternmost country in Africa, were completely white? But let's face it, Sharpton's not going to win. For one thing, he's a black man. And let's face it--there's still racism going on in this country 24/7. For another, he's a very polarizing figure.
Then there's Joe Lieberman. I've never liked Lieberman, although I never hated him either. He was an okay choice for Al Gore in 2000. He's too hawkish for me, and his stated positions against modern pop culture are just idiotic. I'm no lover of Hollywood, but I'm also a fan of the First Amendment (despite whatever stupid reality shows it may bring us). And, to be honest, I think he's too religious to be logical.
I like to think there's a world in which Dennis Kucinich Could Be President, but it's not this one. He is a candidate with integrity, although he surely has had his problems as well. I think he's a little too out there to battle Bush effectively. But I'd like to meet him someday.
I think John Edwards might be a great president--in about eight years. He's photogenic and engaging, but he's also kind of generic and a bit inexperienced. He's a centrist, and part of me wants to vote for a centrist because that person will better appeal to the American public. The other part of me doesn't want to settle, because I want someone who is not anything like George W. Bush. It's like when you've been in a bad relationship--the next commitment you enter tends to be with someone completely unlike who you were with before. You're looking for something different, not more of the same. He sounds good, though.
Now we come to John Kerry. I was a student in Massachusetts while he was a senator, and he was pretty well-respected. I got a pretty good opinion of him. And if I'm going to vote for a centrist, Kerry will be the one. I think his priorities are good, his military service is a plus, and even better was his speaking out against Vietnam when he got back. The thing is, he's a consummate politician. I see him as this guy who's been aiming for the White House for quite some time. I could vote for him. But could I get excited about him? This is what I don't know.
Howard Dean has been my first choice since the beginning. I was actually kind of shocked to realize that he was the front-runner. But I can understand why. After all, he's passionate and he's angry. These are good qualities as far as I'm concerned, not bad ones. As for electability--well. Yes, I want someone who can beat Bush. But I also want someone I can truly be enthusiastic about. There's got to be some middle ground, and Dean is the closest I've been able to get. On the issue of electability, by the way, a woman on the Tavis Smiley show last week reminded me that our current president did cocaine, got C's at Yale, didn't have any military service and there's that whole shady thing about drinking and driving. So who's to say what's electable?
The last one I'll mention is Wesley Clark. I like him. But I think he's inexperienced in politics and this could be a liability for a four-star general who is used to a very different structure. Then again, there's something refreshing about that.
So I'll say I'm leaning in a certain direction but I need a little more information before I can make my choice. But I will repeat what Al Sharpton, in numerous debates, said, and then Howard Dean repeated. Any of these candidates would be better than George W. Bush.
With the Democratic primary coming up in March, one of the thoughts constantly running through my head is, "Who should I vote for?" I know one thing for certain--I don't like George W. Bush and I want him out of the Oval Office. I'm tired of being angry at my government, and I just can't keep up all this righteous indignation for another four years.
I've looked at all the candidates closely--at least all the ones that have a chance in hell of winning. I like Al Sharpton. I met him once when he spoke at Wellesley College. He was there discussing Egyptology, and though I wasn't sure his view of classical history was the correct one, he did make a lot of sense and his passion was crystal clear. What are the chances that the residents of Egypt, the northeasternmost country in Africa, were completely white? But let's face it, Sharpton's not going to win. For one thing, he's a black man. And let's face it--there's still racism going on in this country 24/7. For another, he's a very polarizing figure.
Then there's Joe Lieberman. I've never liked Lieberman, although I never hated him either. He was an okay choice for Al Gore in 2000. He's too hawkish for me, and his stated positions against modern pop culture are just idiotic. I'm no lover of Hollywood, but I'm also a fan of the First Amendment (despite whatever stupid reality shows it may bring us). And, to be honest, I think he's too religious to be logical.
I like to think there's a world in which Dennis Kucinich Could Be President, but it's not this one. He is a candidate with integrity, although he surely has had his problems as well. I think he's a little too out there to battle Bush effectively. But I'd like to meet him someday.
I think John Edwards might be a great president--in about eight years. He's photogenic and engaging, but he's also kind of generic and a bit inexperienced. He's a centrist, and part of me wants to vote for a centrist because that person will better appeal to the American public. The other part of me doesn't want to settle, because I want someone who is not anything like George W. Bush. It's like when you've been in a bad relationship--the next commitment you enter tends to be with someone completely unlike who you were with before. You're looking for something different, not more of the same. He sounds good, though.
Now we come to John Kerry. I was a student in Massachusetts while he was a senator, and he was pretty well-respected. I got a pretty good opinion of him. And if I'm going to vote for a centrist, Kerry will be the one. I think his priorities are good, his military service is a plus, and even better was his speaking out against Vietnam when he got back. The thing is, he's a consummate politician. I see him as this guy who's been aiming for the White House for quite some time. I could vote for him. But could I get excited about him? This is what I don't know.
Howard Dean has been my first choice since the beginning. I was actually kind of shocked to realize that he was the front-runner. But I can understand why. After all, he's passionate and he's angry. These are good qualities as far as I'm concerned, not bad ones. As for electability--well. Yes, I want someone who can beat Bush. But I also want someone I can truly be enthusiastic about. There's got to be some middle ground, and Dean is the closest I've been able to get. On the issue of electability, by the way, a woman on the Tavis Smiley show last week reminded me that our current president did cocaine, got C's at Yale, didn't have any military service and there's that whole shady thing about drinking and driving. So who's to say what's electable?
The last one I'll mention is Wesley Clark. I like him. But I think he's inexperienced in politics and this could be a liability for a four-star general who is used to a very different structure. Then again, there's something refreshing about that.
So I'll say I'm leaning in a certain direction but I need a little more information before I can make my choice. But I will repeat what Al Sharpton, in numerous debates, said, and then Howard Dean repeated. Any of these candidates would be better than George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)