Well this is awfully exciting, or at least it will be at noon today. Or at least it might be awfully exciting. I heart Al Franken, so at least there's that.

I am too ridiculously tired this morning. But--wait! There were no 6.30 am jackhammers!!! Jesus obviously loves me.

This is pretty interesting. The explication can feel a little long-winded if you're already well-versed in the viscissitudes of political opinion. But it's cool nonetheless.

Apparently, I fall pretty far to the liberal-economic and libertarian-social policy side of things. Not surprising at all.

If this kind of thing were happening in the U.S., I might be more convinced that we were doing something significant to fight terrorism. I doubt that the reason we're not seeing these kinds of arrests is the absence of U.S.-based terrorists. We are focusing our fight on "terror" internationally, rather than trying to protect ourselves at home.

We are doing nothing right.

I can't decide whether Bush's apparent sense of humour irks me or pleases me. That's all I have to say about that.

This lady, however, definitely pleases me.

I'm obviously not at peak performance this morning. Yeah, I got nothin.'

No time to write anything witty or even halfway interesting. But I sure love this picture. I'm not sure why.

And as a little bit of hope before I go off to bed, with thoughts that maybe I, too, will do something with my life some day.

Political stance as brand loyalty? While reading this article on Al Franken and the new liberal talk radio network, I came across this interesting quote:

"...others at the network are less comfortable embracing the L word [uh, liberal]. 'I think it's a brand that needs some revival, because it's been demonized,' [Mark]Walsh, [CEO of Air America] said. 'But it's very expensive to revive a brand, and it takes a long time.'"

Ahh, the mall of political opinion, where the battle between Democrat and Republican ultimately comes down to a question of brand strength. I need to reread Naomi Wolf.

I'm not sure if I really read this. I'm a little frightened. Without a trace of irony! I mean, it is USA Today, but still!

Finally. These hearings should have taken place a long time ago. I've read quite a few things pointing out how much the Bush administration knew about possible Al Qaida attacks, and how little they did with that information, and I've been disgusted that none of this information was being closely examined.

Of course, baseless and ridiculous "rebuttals" are already coming from the White House regarding accusations made by Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official. Here's an excerpt from the Times article:

"Mr. Clarke, who served under Mr. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, says the United States waged 'an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq' that served to stir Islamic militants around the world. He is scheduled to testify before the panel on Wednesday.

The White House has called his accusations 'deeply irresponsible' and on Monday deployed several members of the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to rebut Mr. Clarke's charges. The White House also noted that Mr. Clarke's accusations come during an already heated presidential election campaign, suggesting that the motivation was politics and not policy."

The White House statements somehow perfectly encapsulate everything stupid about the administration. The war in Iraq DID stir Islamic militants around the world, and the extent to which they've been stirred is only becoming more and more obvious lately (Madrid, anyone?). The necessity of the Iraq war has yet to be proved, and, well damn, it certainly was costly. The White House accusation of Clarke's "irresponsibility" invokes all kinds of scary Big Brother-esque feelings in me, the claim being that any questioning of government actions is irresponsible and potentially traitorous.

I don't quite know how Cheney and the other members are going to rebut Clarke's charges--they are kind of un-rebuttable. Even the Washington Post writes: "The campaign's defense strategy was that although Clarke could not be roundly refuted on the facts, enough doubt about the issue could be raised by portraying him as reckless and partisan." Yup, that's the tactic. "Well, we can't actually contest anything he said, because he's right, so let's just make him look bad instead." That's some real strong policy-based decision making right there. Not politically motivated at all.

And oddly enough, it is always the White House jumping up and accusing everyone of being "politically motivated" during this election year. It's like the panacea response to the valid questions being raised: "You're politically motivated." It's a cop out, a veil being pulled across the administration, obviating the need for a real response. It's pissing me off.

I want them out of office. I don't just want them out of office. I want them investigated, impeached, properly accused of distorting democracy and twisting the constitution all around and generally being scary, lying, bad, bad men. A simple request, I think. If Clinton can be impeached for getting head, Bush can be impeached for, oh, I don't know, stealing the election and lying to the American people and threatening our national security. Just for starters.

Last night, at the drag king show downstairs, I was reminded of what a musical genius George Michael truly is (and not just musical; check out his facial hair artistry, too). You doubt the veracity of my statement, but oh, you don't know. You'd think four or five George Michael songs in one night would be enough to send a girl home, but no, no. Instead, I found myself revelling in the sheer pop brilliance. Maybe it was the Maker's and coke I was drinking...

The show itself was phenomenal, as usual. All the King's Men are such a well-tuned and practiced group, it's mind blowing. Seeing them rock the dance from Thriller, in perfect unison and with such intense energy and skill, wow. Yeah. They are hot stuff.

Obsessed with The Decemberists. It's making me happy. I have these songs stuck in my head all day.

I have three days off. This is unheard of. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do with myself, but I think I should stay far away from the MW. I feel like I live there.

I was reading this article in Gourmet magazine the other day about Montmartre, and my urge to live abroad was born anew. My urge to live in Montmartre specifically. But more than that, the article made me realize anew something about myself: how strong my desire is for pattern, for familiarity. I go to the same cafe, the same bar, the same restaurant, day in and day out. And I always give myself shit for being so unspontaneous, so predictable. But there are some places (like Montmartre) where this is the way people live. And knowing that, I feel less shamed for my own predictability. So you'll see me tomorrow at the June Bug, drinking my double short americano, sitting in my chair and reading, just as you saw me yesterday. And don't give me shit, because it's fine with me. And I'll be doing the same thing in Montmartre. But I'll be speaking French.

Adventures in cable modeming. Is modeming a verb? I think not.

After minor trials and tribulations, I think I'm officially up and running. And daunted, once again, by my sheer lack of tech-knowledge. It's sad, really. After having been raised in a family of computer junkies and technerds, I should know much, much more than I actually do. Maybe dad was right, and I should have studied computer engineering.

Um, no.

This page looks really appalling, and I apologize to my potential two readers, because it will likely be a little while before it looks somewhat decent. I am one of those people who feels the need to know everything before I can start working in a project. Hence, I have this drive to learn all I can about graphics programs and web design before I really do anything major with this page. I'm trying to get over it.

This morning I get to host a field trip. A group of students coming to the restaurant at 11 am to learn about restaurants and eat pizza. I have to go to work early, I have to deal with 30 kids, and I'm not likely to get much of a tip. Sweet.

On the plus side, this is really amusing.

Plan for today: more website shtuffy shtuff. It's a frustrating project. I don't know enough. About anything.

I had about a million ideas for short stories last night, and seem to have forgotten them all by the time I woke up this morning. Damn drug-induced creativity.

More attempts at redesign, and the realization that I have no image editing software on this computer, as my trial versions have all run out. Does anyone have Photoshop I can recklessly and shamelessly steal from them?

I have to work for about 75 hours today. I hate Saturdays.

Attempts at redesign. Realizations that all prior knowledge of html has, again, disappeared. Patience required.

PS - It's still snowing.

I've been thinking a little bit about jealousy this morning. Specifically, the kind that tends to appear in the twists and turns of a sexual/romantical relationship. Specifically, the kind that tends to appear when you're not supposed to feel jealous, because you're not supposed to feel anything at all.

Is the first appearance of jealousy a sign that you're starting to have real feelings for someone? Or is it just a standard human response, something akin to dogs growling over bones, a base, selfish possessiveness that should be ignored? How can jealousy fit into a relationship that is supposed to be open, uncommitted, unemotional? What do you do with it when it rears its head?

A friend once told me he could never date me because he couldn't deal with the fact that I'm always "seeing other people." Jealousy doesn't often enter into my dating situations; it wouldn't be fair of me to feel jealous because Boy X is talking to some chick, when I'm over in the corner talking to Boy Y, would it? I think not.

So now that it's here, suddenly, this jealousy thing, what do I do with it? Where do I put it? Do I pay heed to it, as an indicator of my feelings? Or acknowledge that it's probably nothing more than that dog growling, and blithely ignore?

And was the FHM quiz right? Am I not a real woman? I've been hearing it lately: "You're not a girl, you don't act like a girl, you don't think like a girl." And then it's confirmed! By the obviously women-knowledgeable men at FHM! They must know! I'm not a girl. I knew there was something fishy going on.

Hm. I just read this article in the New York Times, a lengthy profile of a high school girl headlined "For a Promising but Poor Girl, a Struggle Over Sex and Goals." It's kind of scattered and unfocused, and not the most well-written thing I've read in the Times, but definitely interesting for what it says about poverty, about education, and about sexuality.

Just two things I found interesting: for all the discussion about teenage pregnancy, and the way it can completely derail lives and plans, there were only two mentions, both oblique and unexamined, of abortion. Teenage pregnancy wouldn't derail lives so much if those pregnancies were terminated more often. I'm a staunch supporter of abortion rights, and I think we need to be much more open and unafraid of abortion as an option. Unplanned pregnancies can fuck up your entire life, but they don't have to. I think it's interesting that the tone throughout this article paints pregnancy as some kind of looming monster waiting to attack if you let your guard down for even a moment, with no hope in sight once it does. When you realize abortion is an option, when you realize that you have control over your own body, pregnancy ceases to be such a threat. The entire tone of the article would have changed were abortion more frankly addressed. And I'm off my soap box now.

Oh, the other interesting thing, getting much shorter mention by me, but worth pondering: most teenage pregnancies are fathered by men much older than the pregnant girl. That is referred to in this article as "predatory." Maybe it is. It's also an historical precedent, and it's interesting that it hasn't changed much. Yet. Viva la revolucion!

Curse this cursed place. Yesterday, I sat out on the porch in bare legs, basking in the sun, sure that an early spring was ours. Today: snow. SNOW!!! Everyone warned me that it would happen again, but I refused to completely believe them. I was a fool!

Last night we had a fantastic DJ down at the MW, and I danced until 1 in the morning. It was exactly what I needed after what might have been the most stressful and confusing week of my life, and I woke up this morning feeling like a new person. Or mostly like a new person. Feeling better, at least. The DJ rocked the 80s hits in the best way, and when he wasn't behind the turntables, he was on the dance floor, impressing everyone mightily with his hot moves and his hot, hot pants. Or something. We wanted him.

now reading: A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr. Very fascinating, with lots of interesting lawyer stuff, and I love all the references to Boston.

(A note about linking to Amazon.com: yes, Amazon is a big corporate monster, endangering the little independent bookstores we all know and love. But look! You can buy books from independent booksellers through Amazon, and usually much cheaper! Wow!)

Media treatment of the Bush administration has been on my mind lately (blame Al Franken), so I found this Columbia Journalism Review article pretty interesting. Chris Mooney examines the way six American newspapers editorialized Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq, and asks why there was so little skepticism regarding his claims of Iraq's nuclear programs and "imminent threats."

In discussing Powell's speech to the UN Security Council justifying a U.S. preemptive attack, Mooney writes:

...without appearing to weigh such contrary evidence, the U.S. papers all essentially pronounced Powell right, though they couldn’t possibly know for sure that he was. In short, they trusted him. And in so doing, they failed to bring even an elementary skepticism to the Bush case for war.

Why did the papers trust and defer? For most of them, notes Todd Gitlin, a Columbia journalism professor, “the default position seems to have been that the administration was well meaning — and that there was a tight logical connection between admirable purpose and clear fact.” Gitlin thinks the papers should have known otherwise at least from the time, in mid-2002, when it became clear that central players in the administration like Vice President Dick Cheney were devoted to war no matter what — and advocated proceeding without even bothering to win United Nations approval.

As a group, the papers failed to exercise skepticism at this exacting a level. It’s not that they should have magically intuited that Iraq didn’t have any weapons at all. They simply should have demanded more proof that they could verify with their own eyes.

In large part, I think this is the problem with media handling of the Bush administration in general. Too much blind faith, too little doubt. And perhaps, in this age of neo-McCarthyism, too much fear of appearing to attack a "war president."

Newspapers are supposed to be our watchdogs. At least, I always assumed that was their most significant role. Journalists are supposed to research, ask questions, blow whistles and ring bells and notify the American people when things are not quite right. So why are they all laying down and begging like good little doggies?

This column from the New Yorker helps explain it a little bit, although the article by Auletta that they refer to is much better. I can't find it online (curses!), but it's worth tracking down.

I think I'm going to go read Al Franken. At least that makes me laugh.

now playing: Radiohead, "Hail to the Thief" (the title of which always makes me think of our esteemed president)

It's not a big surprise that Kerry is now assured of the Democratic nomination. I think that's been clear from the first caucuses and primaries, and personally, I think he's an excellent choice. Of course, the reasons I think he's an excellent choice are not necessarily reasons that ensure he'll beat Georgie in November. But I wish they were.

One of the biggest complaints I've heard about Kerry is that he's "wishy-washy." One of Bush's greatest "strengths," of course, is his "integrity," his tough and unchanging stances on just about everything. Bush knows he's right from the start, and won't change his mind for anything. The saddest thing is that that kind of integrity is the last kind a national leader needs.

I like Kerry because he's intelligent and rational. He is willing to look at all sides of an issue, and willing to admit when he's wrong. The Bush team holds up Kerry's founding of Vietnam Veterans Against the War as a character flaw, showing that his service in the war was ultimately meaningless. They miss the point entirely. I think it's admirable that after seeing the pointless destruction in Vietnam, he had the courage to come back and oppose it. If anyone had the right to protest that war, it was those men sent to fight it.

Those who say Kerry is wishy-washy are not acknowledging that legislation and politics require debate, negotiation, and compromise. Our current President doesn't get it, and I think that is his biggest flaw. We need a leader who is willing to be diplomatic, willing to recognize that sometimes the other side is right, and I think Kerry is that person. Whether that means he can beat Bush is debatable. Apparently, Americans don't want an intelligent president.

In other news, I am still being a lazy bum.

Some good books I've read lately: Against Love: A Polemic by Laura Kipnis (everyone should read this immediately; look for a more lengthy review soon), Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man by Susan Faludi (again), The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon (very unique and quite excellent), Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken (I heart Al Franken. I heart this book).

I will be attempting to tackle Jameson's Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I might become a communist threat to the nation, so please, beware.