Greek Tragedy: life observation

Personal, more than political reflection--one of my favorite bloggers offers insight about how women love, what we think we want. It's not a partner's imperfection that frightens us; it's ours. From Stephanie Klein's Greek Tragedy blog:

"Insecurity is our worst abuse. Women prefer imperfection because it makes us feel safe. It's false security, but it does its job at soothing us here and now. We don't want more women to notice him, and we don't want him to want beyond what we do. But when we turn it inward, we know our desire to become more tone has less to do with him and more to do with our ability to be outgoing, personable, happier when things button without sucking it in.

When my MID broke up with me, at sixteen years old, I phoned him months later to tell him I was thin. I thought he'd love me again if he knew. We can't control who loves us or who will cheat on us if they get extra attention. Love handles more than love handles; it handles washboards, ripped triceps, and plunging necklines. "

t r u t h o u t - Maureen Dowd | Woman of Mass Destruction

Maureen Dowd has got Judith Miller's number. From The New York Times, Saturday 22 October 2005:

"I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp. "

Buying the News is Bad- Who knew?

The problem with about this story is that the public is so scandal fatigued right now, I don't think it's possible for us to grasp the extent of the outrage. This one may have to take a number...

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal - New York Times:

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said
on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news
coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the
conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations
company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party."

Network TV Gets Real?!

EW.com and Salon. com are shining a light on the one thing that has partially restored my faith and interest in television news. They focus mainly on Anderson Cooper (deservedly). Personally, I was blown also away by Carl Quintanilla's sincerity and bravery on the Today Show this morning of all places:

"Understandably, many reporters have abandoned their pose of objectivity. (You'd be on edge too if you needed armed guards to protect you on the streets of an American city.) CNN's Anderson Cooper
(left) got so angry that he berated a U.S. senator during an interview. (Read the transcript here.) Yet this subjectivity could be just what TV news needs to restore its reputation. If nothing else, Katrina could be the event that gets viewers to stop seeing TV journalists as out-of-touch elitists, if only because the reporters have been forced to stop acting like out-of-touch elitists."

A Can't-Do Government - New York Times

As usual, Paul Krugman asks all the right questions below. You can read the editorial in full at Truthout.org.

"Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. 'The New Orleans hurricane scenario,' The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, 'may be the deadliest of all.' It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening. So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.

First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive? Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response you'd expect from an advanced country never happened. Thousands of Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to evacuate, but because they were too poor or too sick to get out without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any help at all. There will and should be many questions about the response of state and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response."

Time.com - Why You Can't Ignore Kanye

Time takes on hip-hop with a package that includes an in-depth cover story on Kanye West and a history of the roots of rap. Springboarding from Damon Dash's assertion that Kanye blends the sensibility of politically conscious rap with a more modern bling bling bravado, Time points out:

"That the 'urban demographic' needs 'superficialness' could be read as two euphemisms away from racism. But Dash, an African American who thinks exclusively in shades of green, is merely letting the world in on what's accepted as social fact by much of the record industry.

Hip-hop was born in the '70s as party music and evolved in the '80s into that rarest of pleasures--socially relevant party music. But in the mid-'90s, the genre came to be dominated by people like Snoop Dogg (sample track: Murder Was the Case), the Notorious B.I.G. (Ten Crack Commandments) and Jay-Z (Rap Game/Crack Game)--excellent rappers with a shrewd eye for journalistic detail but, to put it bluntly, ex--drug dealers.

'Rap changed a lot in the last few years,' notes comedian and hip-hop fan Chris Rock, who says he listens to The College Dropout while he writes jokes. 'In the early days, the best rappers weren't necessarily from the hood. Run-D.M.C. was from Hollis [Queens, N.Y.]. Eric B and Rakim were from Long Island. They lived next to the hood.'When the hard stuff sold well (hard stuff, in any medium, always does), the record labels, never bastions of original thought, asked for more. Soon rappers who had never got a speeding ticket were referring to themselves as pimps and hustlas, and what had started as ghetto reporting with a touch of caricature metastasized into caricature with no tether to reality. The result was a torrent of albums about the joys of acquisitiveness (bling, if you must), consequence-free violence and compliant women."

Half Moon

One of my favorite views - Sunset, Falmouth.

Favorite Beaches 

A loss for true conservatism

This is from shortly after the election, but worth revisiting...
Without sarcasm or malice, David Schuster (Hardball) provides a strong critique of anti-gay marriage initiatives. Essentially he points out that almost no one in this modern world can live by the literal word of the Bible. The question is, where should a civil but still strongly Judeo-Christian society stray from this word, how generous or inclusive do we want to be in our interpretation, and who decides?
In his words:

"when it comes to morality, consider this: While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward. And the best way to move any society forward is to strengthen the family. I adore my family and consider them to be the greatest best part of my entire life. And I'm absolutely convinced that 'marriage' fosters social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. That's why I'm baffled as to why we would keep such an institution away from anybody. (I'm not talking about 'religion-sanctioned marriage,' I'm referring to the civil institution of marriage the kind that involves a 'state-sponsored' license.) "

Worth reading in its entirety.