?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Springtime isn't an excuse.

May. 13th, 2009 | 09:05 am

Ok, so spring is one of my favorite seasons. I love the smell and the daffodils and the sun rising earlier in the morning and even the birds that twitter outside our windows as the sun rises.

AND I love the clothes! Dresses and skirts and cute shoes and not everyone shrouded in shapeless blobs of down coats (p.s. DC - winter is not cold around here, you could try a little you know).

But all this beautiful weather does not give you an excuse to wear outrageous things in public & in broad daylight. Some tips:

1)Now that you're not wearing a hat all the time to keep your poor head warm, you have to wash your hair. If you do not use a metric ton of product, this may be as little as once every 2 to 3 days, if you are using a metric ton of product, either step it up, or use less product yeah? When you toss your hair behind your shoulder, it's not supposed to make a sloppy squishy "thwack" sound ok?

2)Now that it's warm enough to bear some skin, keep this in mind: nudists often take napkins or something to sit on when on buses, etc. If your skirt makes me think that maybe you need such a napkin when sitting in a resturant or on the train, it's too damn short for public consumtion. Really. If you can't manage to keep your pelvis to yourself, leave the short skirt at home.

3) Take care of your skin - this means sunblock. And not impermiable-to-air-sun-UVradiation-and-gamma-raysm applied-with-a-trowl, makeup. I mean a nice SPF20 moisturizer. Your skin will thank me.

And finally,

4) Look into pants. No, seriously pants. For your reference in this matter, I have a handy list of things that are not pants and thus, should not be worn as they are, including leggings, tights, leggings, stirrup pants (the word is there, still not pants), leggings, anything with more than 25% spandex &/or lycra, and, oh yeah, leggings! Remember, leggings!=pants. Trust me, it's not a good look. For anyone. Heidi-f-in'-Klum looks bad in leggings. You will not succeed. Call it a day and look into pants.

Thank you.
S

Link | Leave a comment |

*headdesk*

Apr. 30th, 2009 | 10:25 pm

So I just read NPRs reporting that Justice Souter is retiring and I, I honestly thought:

"Oh great. He gets to appoint anoth... OH WAIT! President OBAMA gets to pick! Oh holy hell. Please. Please do not let me down. I barely got through the non-sense with President Bush - just think of my poor nerves!"

Yeah, I momentarily forgot that Bush wasn't President anymore. And then, as it dawned on me that it was my guy picking the successor, I reached Jewish Grandmother levels of anxiety AND guilt-tripping. I recommend stretching before such mental acrobatics. At least I'm not swearing at the newspaper this time.

Link | Leave a comment |

I wonder if condoms protect against this?

Apr. 24th, 2009 | 01:06 pm

Because "teh stupid" is apparently sexually transmissible. Since there's presently a g-d measles outbreak in my city, is it appropriate to tell Mr. Carrey that while his rhetoric will prevent exactly NO cases of autism*, it will cause several untimely deaths of children (whose parents don't know any better), those with egg allergies, those with immune deficiencies and possibly anyone who hasn't had a booster shot in the last 20 years?

*I say that with confidence because the one study that linked autism with vaccines was from fabricated data. He made it up! (This is based on reporting done by the London Times 2 months ago that found that the GI disorders the same physician linked to the vaccine were never identified by another physician.) You've been had by a shyster! I understand that's embarrassing, but as I have found myself in several embarrassing situations, I can tell you that what you don't want to do is go on Larry King about it. Keep your head down, apologize once, and let it blow over. Your ego will recover. The people you've put in jeopardy may not.

Furthermore, what the hell do YOU think you're doing, Mr. King? You're just as bad as Ms. McCarthy. At least I can explain that she psychologically needs someone to blame for the hell her kid has to go through, but what's your excuse for enabling such non-sense? Are ratings really that bad that you'd rather put people's lives at risk to gain some sensationalism? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Link | Leave a comment |

I see what you did there!

Apr. 21st, 2009 | 01:55 pm

So I was all up in arms yelling at the TV this weekend while watching This Week with the Snuffaluffagus (note to A.: I did not throw anything at said TV, even if you weren't there. Aren't you proud of me?). Now, the guests were Rahm Emanuel and Rep. Boehner, but I was being all bipartisan and yelling at the both of them! Of course, it was for totally different reasons, one of which as become clear to me, and one of which hasn't.

The first, Mr. Emanuel, took all the things that Obama made me mad with last week and ran with them. We aren't going to prosecute CIA officers that committed torture and we're looking forward, not backward on the sins of the previous administration. Basically, we're not torturing any more, so no harm, no foul. What? WHAT?! DUDE! I believe I swore at the TV so loudly I think I might have been heard on the street outside. That was categorically uncool (both my swearing and Mr. Emanuel making me swear). But then, on Monday, what happened? The Justice Department went and said 'Uh, yeah, we totally haven't ruled that out yet, boys, perhaps you should stop making promises you can't keep?' This is brilliant! Here's why:

1) The Justice Dept. proves it's thinking independently of the administration, unlike the previous administration. Take that Gonzalez!
2) If convicted, the torturers can't cry partisan foul. The pardoning of Uncle Ted was also important to this aim. Because if they do the automatic reply is 'We said we weren't interested in prosecution. But, see, you actually broke the law.'
3) The intelligence community is appeased and on the administration's side. The Justice Dept. doesn't really need them to do it's job too often, so it's no big loss for them.
4) Pretty much everyone loves karma. The idea that the very department that was abused is doing the cleaning is very... cathartic. The Justice Department gets to clean up it's image and the country gets satisfaction in the meantime.

Slick, Mr. Obama, very slick. I'll admit I didn't see that one coming, but I totally should have. The steel trap needs some oil, I'd say. Now, for me to stay satisfied with the whole kit & caboodle... Mr. Holder the ball is in your hands. Please don't drop it.

Anyway, even though I pieced together the above, the second guest, Rep. Boehner, continues to confuse me. I think this is because the man is confused himself. Greenhouse gasses as a carcinogen? Huh? Honestly, the more I hear this man talk, the more I think he's an idiot. I mean, there's 'teach-the-controversy' a couple of years ago, the budget with no numbers, the budget with numbers unveiled on April Fools Day, the magic dust of tax cuts and now climate change denial. This man is not smart. I'm not saying that he needs to know everything about science or even not get confused about greenhouse gasses (rather than other pollutants) being carcinogens, I'm saying the Gentleman from Ohio needs to recognize that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and we can tell. Please, Rep. Boehner, you don't have to agree with me, but stop pretending you know what the hell is going on and listen to someone who knows more than you about specific topics. Your balls won't even shrink. I promise. I've checked. Taking advice (even from a woman! gasp! horrors!) has no effect on testicular mass. Try it sometime. I bet you'll start sounding smarter in no time.

As for men with no balls, George F. Will as turned into a crabby old man in a right hurry, no? This week, there's more people to add to the list of people that should be allowed to vote. Joining traditionally Democratic districts (like DC) are otherwise adult productive members of society that play video games. Well, hell, Mr. Will. You've already said I shouldn't be allowed to vote once. Did you really need to oust me a second time? You do know the vast majority of us don't live in our mother's basement covered with Cheeto dust, right? That we're cops, lawyers, doctors, accountants, nurses, and IT professionals (that's just the people I know)? Should I get off your lawn while I'm at it? Seriously, you wrote a whole article about how people wear jeans too much when you have absolutely no room to talk on the fashion front. Most of the time you look as if you haven't seen a competent tailor in 35 years (Still with the pleat fronts that show 6 inches of sock when you sit down? A plain white shirt, striped tie AND a winged shoulder one button jacket? YAWN!). You haven't found a solution, you are part of the problem.

Anyway, to end on something that made this wannabe member of the ACLU happy: depite Alito and Roberts the current court is turning out to be quite the small government body isn't it? Flipping the car as a matter of course during an arrest is at best a fishing expedition - end of story. It's like saying 'Oh I arrested you outside your apartment building so now I get to flip your apartment'. No, that's illogical and therefore illegal. Now, if Justice Ginsberg can just stay on while we get that strip search one taken care of, then we can really start on the inane 'war on drugs'.

I may need to be pinched as I am currently pleased with the government. I may be dreaming.

EDIT: I was so happy I forgot that the DC voting rights bill is still stalled out. Del. Holmes Norton is getting so tired she said she'd take the gun legislation tagged on. That is sad. Rep. Ensign, you are a poor excuse for an American. Just sayin'.

Link | Leave a comment {2} |

An Open Letter to President Obama

Apr. 19th, 2009 | 04:51 pm

Mr. President,

Let me first say, I have the utmost respect and admiration for you. I think that photo of you running down the portico with the new White House dog may have given me palpitations. I have to say, it was mice seeing your children play with a new puppy the week my old puppy died (ok, he was 13, but he was my puppy). It made me smile. And want to get a dog. Alas, I am thwarted by a rental agreement and a by-the-books fiancee. I suspect A's lack of moral relativism is a good thing, considering the following...

Mr. Obama, despite all the good will I've felt for you & your administration over the pirate thing, and the economy and taxes and sound science legislation, you kinda pissed me off on Thursday. The more that comes out of the cozy little CIA/Attorney General think-tank former President Bush had going on, the more I'm convinced that someone needs to go to jail. I understand why you have pardoned those that 'were following orders that were backed with legal justification', in that it is probably the most expedient and prudent course of action at the present time, but... following orders has never, NEVER been a justification in the commission of war crimes. Because that's what I understand these things to be - waterboarding, sleep deprivation for 11 days, cramped confinement with an object of a phobia - they are torture and thus constitute war crimes. You have pardoned war criminals.

Some of it I understand. There have been plenty of soldiers and officers who have expressed deep regret, remorse and have spoken out against such practices. I'm sure there are plenty more that I don't know about. Those men and women understand that what they have done supersedes the usual fear of war. There is a reason torture is a war crime. An opposing soldier is likely at greater risk of death or permanent harm than a tortured POW, but the key to the matter is that the opposing soldier retains his freedom and power over his personage. The truly frightening and damning aspect of torture is that the tortured have absolutely no power over their pain, suffering or death for an extended period of time. If the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan is about freedom and democracy, then why must we so blatantly abuse those whose freedoms we have taken away? It's hypocritical at best and heinous at worst.

I said at your inauguration that your pragmatism was likely to piss me off at some point. As that completely predicable occasion has come to pass, I ask now how you will deal with the rest? Jay Bybee and John Yoo are the two most prominent names on those documents - if you will pardon those that followed such inanity, what will you do with the authors of the inanity? Will Mr. Bybee (I know I should address him as "the Honorable", but I cannot bring myself to even type such a cognitive dissonant phrase) be allowed to continue as a Federal Judge? These two men have shown themselves to be incredibly poor scholars of the law if not outright social cancers of the worst kind - promoting a social ill as if it were for the common good.

Someone or something needs to be done about this, Mr. President, lest precedence be set for future generations. I know we must borrow upon my children's financial future for the sake of everyone's right now, but please do not borrow upon their moral future as well. "[W]ith malice toward none and charity for all" did not mean ignoring the rules of war.

Sincerely,
S

Link | Leave a comment |