The malapert bookworm

Wow, it's been a while, eh? A lot of folks have been getting away with a lot of stuff. Time they were put on notice!

Serotonin:
I realize, now, that I've completely underestimated you. Taken you entirely for granted. I see now; I understand how important you are. I'm glad you're coming back to me. Don't leave again, 'K?

Heat Miser:
I will stop going around and saying that I like your brother better. (I really do think you have awesome hair.) And I promise to watch your new movie -- I've even got it programmed into the DVR already. So can you let it snow? Please? It's been so long!

Facial hair:
I have loved you, and still, in the right context, do. You know I love a beard -- my fella's got one, probably always will. I love it. I love the way the right beard makes a handsome face gorgeous, like the (handsome but) rawboned Viggo Mortensen turning into smokin' Aragorn, or the (handsome but) pointy-chinned Hugh Jackman turning into the temperature-raising Wolverine or Drover. So yeah, I'm with you, most of the time. But mustaches? They're a dodgier proposition, and it's the rare face that can bear up under the hirsute grandeur of, say, the Sam Elliot Special or the Jamie Hyneman Deluxe. It's an even rarer lip that dares the cosmic weirdness of, say, a Billy Ruiz Extravaganza. The recent spate of pornstaches is not to be borne. Facial hair, get off the lips of Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. I don't care what movie they're making; if it's not a sequel to Boogie Nights, they have no business with those things on their faces. While you're at it, facial hair, leave Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom alone, too. You can have Dr. Phil and Thomas Friedman.

Christmas:
Slow down! Everybody always says "slow as Christmas," but you're like a jackrabbit these days.

The Big Three:
No, you can't have any more of my money. I have two GM cars at home, and they replace two previous GMs. The first new car I bought was a Chevy, and it replaced my favorite, a Ford. You have gotten plenty of my money over the years. Fine. But you can't have my taxes. The bankers, apparently, need it all. Seriously, I know people say the economy will collapse if we "let" any or all of you fail, but why weren't you doing something last year, or last decade, when analysts and observers pointed out that your big ol' cars and bloated business models were headed for trouble? Weren't you paying attention when Priuses became a phenom and Coopers became hot? Weren't you watching people check out the high resale value of Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys? You just gave up, didn't you? You thought it was fine to pay laid-off auto workers 90% of their wages, and to crank out many interchangeable big ol' things, supposing that a bunch of trucks and vans, a couple of classics (Mustang, Camaro) and a few fads (the Neon, the PT Cruiser) would carry you indefinitely. Nonsense. Listen, I understand bad financial decisions -- been there, done that. And I guess I can't blame you for trying, but if I went up to Washington and asked Congress for a handout, er, bailout, Capitol Security wouldn't even let me on the floor. And you don't get a handout either. Suck it up, and stop holding the country for ransom.

The University of Tennessee:
I realize money's tight, and maybe in the world of NCAA coaches, a $6 million severance package accounts for belt-tightening. But did you have to rub our faces in it by hiring Phil Fulmer right back, for $12,000 a month? I mean, c'mon -- hundreds of people are losing their jobs all over this city, without a six-figure cushion. Without a four-figure one, either. I know, supposedly Fulmer's new salary comes from private donations, yadda yadda yadda -- you couldn't have found a better way to spend that money? On, say, NOT FIRING TEACHERS? Maybe part of Fulmer's responsibilities can include helping kids figure out to how to graduate without being able to take the classes they need.

Girl Scout Chocolate-covered almonds:
You are too delicious. Go away. Oh, wait, you're almost gone already? How'd that happen?

There is so much punditry and analysis out there already this morning, that I won't delve too deeply into Obama's victory, except to celebrate my relief and excitement and -- yes -- hope. I am hopeful about the economy, about the war, and about things in general this morning, despite my blurry brain from staying up too late and toasting too much.

So instead of nattering on, I give you Peter Baker, from today's New York Times: "But the task awaiting Mr. Obama arguably transcends this economic program or that foreign crisis. He takes over a nation weary of the past and wary of the future, gloomy about its place in the world, cynical about its government and desperate for some sense of deliverance. Nearly nine of every 10 Americans think the country is on the wrong track, the deepest expression of national pessimism in the polling history. 'Obama this year recognizes the country needs to be healed,' said the presidential historian Michael Beschloss."

It is not the president's job to make us feel better. But healing? That, I can get behind.

Yes we can!

So I've been mulling over a piece about the prevalent myth that hard work = prosperity, and how that has deflated (and given the lie to) the "American Dream," and then the lovely and talented wenso went ahead and wrote something over on HER blog! Read it.

This topic is one of endless fascination and frustration for me. Years ago, I remember reading an article in the Raleigh newspaper about some affluent homeowners who were angry about a new development that was within sight of their 400K homes. I don't remember her exact words, but the upshot was "We worked hard for what we have, and we don't appreciate our property values being hurt by people who just won't work as hard as we do." Now, this was a development targeted at homeowners with salaries in the 30-50K range, the idea being that the schoolteachers, police officers and firefighters who served the suburb of Cary might actually be able to live in the town where they worked. These are the layabouts who might besmirch the hallowed precincts of the businesspeople, engineers and whatnot in the pricier homes. And you can see the woman's point: Who'd want miscreants like teachers and cops mucking up the neighborhood?

But she wasn't thinking of teachers and cops. She was thinking of those criminally low salaries. And low salaries must mean low motivation. Bad attitude. Lack of ambition. Perhaps it never occurred to her that someone might actually choose a lower-salary job because they feel called to help others, or because they have an affinity for that type of work, or whatever. And I'm sure it never occurred to her that someone might "choose" a lower-salary job because they grew up in a family that never assumed they'd go to college, a family where the head of household had that kind of job.

In this country, one of the best predictors of a young person's lifetime income is the income of the person at the head of the family they grew up in. In plain language, the kind of job your father or mother has plays a major role in determining what kind of job YOU will have. (This correlation is strong enough that litigators use it to determine a young person's lifetime potential earnings in damages lawsuits.) The class lines we deny that we have are much more tenacious and harder to cross than most of us suspect.

This is one of those cases where anecdotal evidence lines up with the scientific and statistical evidence. Look around you: Are the richest people you know the best people? Are they even the hardest-working ones? In some cases, yes -- a person has a great idea or immense drive and pulls up from hardscrabble conditions to the pinnacles of financial (and, thereby, in our country social) success. These examples are visible enough to keep the "American Dream" alive, but is it a realistic or even likely roadmap to financial success? I suspect that the odds of a lower-income person becoming one of the wealthy are even less than the odds of a high-school football player becoming an NFL superstar.

Do you really need statistics on this? Again, look around you. Do you see nurses slaving through 12-hour shifts, carrying not only the physical demands of the job but also the intellectual and emotional demands? Do you see school teachers showing up for 6 a.m. bus duty, then grading papers at night until  9, then taking second jobs in the summer to cover their mortgage? Do you see technicians and factory workers on their feet for hours at a time, doing dirty backbreaking work in poorly heated rooms?

I could go on and on. If you are tempted to counter by saying, "Well, those people don't *have* to do those jobs; they could have gone into another line of work," then ask yourself: "But then who would do those jobs?" They have to get done by somebody!

It is so obvious to me that personal merit does NOT equate in any kind of way with financial success (Ken Lay, Leona Helmsley, on and on) that it is difficult for me even to have a conversation about it. I feel as if I'm speaking a different language, one with no common ground. I imagine it's like trying to discuss theology with a Scientologist.

There is much to be said about our nation's mortally dangerous ignorance about economics. That supply-side economics retains any credence, for instance, despite all evidence to the contrary. That hegemony, not financial wisdom, dictates economic policy. Perhaps this is another post for another day.  On this day, this election day, I know a lot of people are voting for an American Dream that doesn't exist for them. They're voting out of fear that somebody will take away their hard-earned money and property. And they are blind to -- or are ignoring -- the lie that runs beneath those fears.

Those are the three topics that Linus has learned never to discuss. Since I talk about the first two all the time anyway, I might as well venture onto the third one. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown aired on Tuesday, in a double feature with You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown. The Peanuts Christmas special is a true gem, a perfect little tragicomic narrative that manages to be satirical AND heartwarming. These seasonal specials don't quite rise to those heights, classic though they are.

( In the most sincerest pumpkin patch... )( A timely Peanuts election )
.

The economic bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is, the White House suggests, supposed to be called a "rescue" plan. I've been hearing the candidates use the new term. By this morning's radio news, I noticed that the reporters and anchors were using the tern "rescue" exclusively. Because a rescue is good! A rescue helps people! A bailout is a desperate act, throwing a lifeline to somebody who, likely as not, got themselves into it.

A bailout would be bad. A rescue, we like.

Orwell much, anybody?

No, really -- not some paranoid fantasy that recommends your putting aluminum foil on your head, but a sharp (and, yes, hilarious) examination of very real techniques that the crafters of opinion (e.g., marketers, bloggers, advertisers, campaign managers, et al....) use to shape the debate in our society.

With the result that there isn't really anything like real "debate" in our society, in the mainstream.

Read the article: 6 Brainwashing Techniques They're Using On You Right Now by David Wong. (Thanks for the link, cvirtue ; someday, I promise, I'll actually post something of my own again, and not something I nicked from you!) The article uses strong "adult" language and has pix that not be SFW (depending on where you work, I guess).

( more thinkin' here )
edited later 9/24 because I realized the cut line referred to the original article, not my cut!
</lj>

Today, Leonard Nimoy was the guest on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, and he said that he saw Barack Obama at a political event, and Obama gave him the Vulcan salute.

I think we can trust him with any First Contact situations.

There is very little I could add to the reams that have been posted already remembering George Carlin, who died yesterday. He was a national treasure, and he would have denied the appellation at the same time that he appreciated the irony. His virulent, intelligent puncturings of our political and cultural imbelicity and ridiculousness made him one of our most important voices.

And he was one of those rare people who was as entertaining and funny as he was important.

But why am I writing about him, when you could be listening to him?

Carlin on Countdown, 2007

There is, of course, lots more to enjoy. Any google or YouTube search will turn up a treasure trove, and The Daily Show is doing a full-on retrospective tonight (11 p.m. Eastern with various repeats through the night and tomorrow).

Goodbye, you profane and profound gadfly. You will be sorely missed.

 We as a nation seem pretty blase about what's happening in Pakistan right now. A strongman in charge of a nation with weapons of mass destruction? Scary enough -- especially considering all the rhetoric surrounding our current war-without-end.

 I really don't get it. Why would a man with the sterling reputation of Michael Mukasey, a reputation touted by those on various points of the ideological and political spectrums, refuse to answer such a basic question. There is obviously something going on here, and I'm increasingly convinced it's something sinister. (Was Mukasey asked to refrain from this one hot-button answer in order to protect his prospective new boss? Legal experts seem to agree that, had torture been illegally -- ! -- carried out, a valid case could, conceivably, be made to lead all the way up the chain of command.

... why Dana Perino gets on my nerves so much: She repeats herself. Rather, she restates things. Example: Today, on the tensions with Turkey over the PKK, she said, "We have a joint desire, a joint need to make sure that the PKK is eradicated, that they are stopped." 

I think that's why she's so hard to listen to. Well, that and the lying. That, too.

 It is an interesting conundrum that we have had trouble deciding whom to make our Day of the Dead shrines to. We haven't lost any family members in several years, nor did we lose a pet this year. I am having trouble thinking of a famous person to dedicate one to -- there are so many possibilities, that it seems a shame to choose, say, Elvis, and not honor, say, Janis Joplin. Wikipedia has a picture of a shrine (in Southern California, where else?) to dead TV shows, which is less ridiculous that it seems at first glance. After all, some of the deaths that have been the most profoundly saddening to me occurred in books (thanks a lot, J.K. Rowling!).

And somehow it seems wrong to honor the deaths in Iraq in this way -- I guess I can't make cheerful skull pictures for a tragedy so immense and horrifying. This may mean that I don't have the right spirit of the holiday, but then, it's a holiday I'm adopting, not one I actually grew up with.

I love Halloween -- I'm a total nerd about Christmas, too, grooving on all the corny stuff, but Halloween is my favorite. Probably because of my birthday, which meant that all through my youth, the appearance of my mom's light-up plastic witch-on-a-pumpkin meant time for birthday cake, presents and parties as well as trick-or-treat and jack-o-lanterns.

I do not like being scared, and I hate horror movies. But I love Halloween. Maybe it's a paradox.

I hate economics. Economic statistics must surely be the most be-damned of all statistics, because as near as I can tell, they can be made to prove anything or to support any side.

With all due reverence to my beloved Stephen Colbert: I am hereby establishing my Notice Board (virtually, of course)

That's what Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) called then-President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky sex scandal. Now those same adjectives seem uncomfortably apt of Craig himself.

I'm still not sure whom I'm going to vote for in the Democratic Primary. Was a time, I wouldn't have been too worried about that in the August of the year before the primaries actually begin, but this is already shaping up to be one hell of a pre-election election year. And since we vote on what they are calling (somewhat tastelessly) Tsunami Tuesday (Feb. 5), I guess the vote isn't as far away as I think.

It is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy [NonConformance], most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of private property [InterDependence] in the means of production and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution

</div>

Link: The Moral Politics Test written by humder on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

</div>

Watched WAY too much TV over the weekend, including a Mythbusters marathon (the kids were at Nana & Grandad's, so I didn't need to feel too guilty about it. In my defense, I finished one book, read another, and started a third, plus worked on the Baby Sampler that Would Not Die. So there.

Let the killing of brain cells begin. Part one is Real Time with Bill Maher, Friday 4/20.

I am, obviously, thrilled overall with the results of the midterm elections. That neither  George Allen nor Rick Santorum will be serving in that body is altogether a good thing; that Dennis Hastert will no longer be Speaker is truly a delight. That many of the new Dems in both houses are much more conservative than me doesn't bother me that much at all ; nobody as liberal as me could elected from Massachusetts, much less from Tennessee.

Which brings me to the cloud in front of my silver lining. As pleased as I am, as excited as I am for some of the progress that the new Congress will surely make, the inroads I hope for against the regressiveness of recent years, I feel emotionally hollow about the results from my own state. I don't want to analyze the Corker victory too much, but I hope that his dishonesty in the past will continue unabated and that he will be caught out, that people who fell for the pack of innuendo (and in some cases outright untruths) in his attack ads will have cause to be sorry. I don't want to see financial ruin visited on my own state, but I hope for an unmasking at least.

And as for Rep. Harold Ford Jr., I am somewhat cheered by what a few of the pundits were saying: He's young, he's smart, he's charismatic. (Heck, he's younger than I am, and I'm changing careers.) I hope he will go into politics. My husband said he could see a Ford-Edwards ticket, sort of a coalition of the handsome. :)

Locally, the two towns nearest me will be adding some liquor stores based on their referenda, and that will have to console me until Harold Ford's day comes.