I am robbing myself blind!!/the whole "metro" thing

I originally thought that setting up multiple savings accounts/investments was a really good idea, because I set it up so that money from my paycheck would go directly into those rather than my checking account, where it would promptly go towards dinners out/booze/shoes/boutique items. I guess it was a rare moment of clarity on my part, where I actually thought about the long-term consequences of my actions and pre-empted my own bad habits.

Um, what was I thinking?

Any economist could tell you that the perception of wealth is as important an indicator of spending vs. saving habits then actual wealth. Well, why doesn't it work for me? Before setting up these accounts, I would always have several thousand dollars in my account, taunting me, thus prompting various splurges. I would never get close to approaching the big red line, or even dwindling my assets, as it were. Now all of my first paycheck goes towards my rent and bills, and more than half of my second goes into savings, leaving me with about 1/4 of my whole paycheck (after taxes) every month of disposable income. That sounds like a lot, but with my "materialistic" side I end up screwed. I still spend the same amount, but now it means that I end up living paycheck to paycheck, although not really, because I have all this money I put away. The thing is, I think I spend more since I know that everything in my checking account is there for me to play with, rather than thinking that I should be prudent because everything in that paycheck represents all that I have.

I think it's reflective of a (well, probably several) larger issue: bad habits, and how to break them. I have never handled this, depsite several readings of Bernstein Bears and the Bad Habit when I was small. In order to break a bad habit, you have to have something with which to replace it, correct? It's not that I don't have hobbies that fulfill me, or I guess it is that. Well, how does one develop fulfilling hobbies? Why does it smell like something's burning? My coworker's candle? Why is her voice so fucking grating? I digress.

An even larger issue, I suppose, is that there are many people colluding to make you not save, resulting in America's saving rates being much, much lower than other industrialized (rich) nations. Beyond advertising and branding everywhere you look, which is notriously tempting in a city with shops everywhere, not to mention "convenience costs" such as eating out instead of in, there are credit card companies, always trying their damndest to make sure you don't pay off your whole bill. There are evil loan consolidation companies trying to convince me that paying less every month for 20 years will somehow cost me less than paying them off in 10 years, at a slightly higher rate, and shows like CBS news trying to convince you that if you don't consolidate now you're screwed! (Particularly bitter, since everyone keeps telling me consolidating is better, even though I've done the math and know that it will cost me more in the end.) There are housing markets driving up housing costs, creating a need to live in Adams Morgan and pay an exorbitant price because, well, that's what you do in the city. It's sad that with a pretty good income for a young single person, I have to consciously work to stay debt free and still come out with substantial savings, let alone people with much lower incomes and less access to information about saving.

Wanted to comment on this:
(from Salon)
"I love to dance. I love my body, and I love to take my clothes off." -- Brian, 28, of VH1's "Strip Search" explaining his life's passions

This guy's a freak, right? Wrong. Let's call him a smoothie, the modern version of a pretty boy, a waxed-chested breed that's far more prevalent and far more high-maintenance than those dabbling urban metrosexuals. The smoothie transcends the scope of "Queer Eye" and is centered not in the big cities, but in the small towns where decades of boy bands and hair products and Chess King fashions have filtered into the cultural groundwater, until most young men have a grasp of personal hygiene, style and flamboyant behavior that the older, crustier and less hygienic among us can hardly fathom.

If the heavily primped contestants of VH1's "Strip Search" seem to constitute a particularly skewed sample, take a gander at MTV or the WB or other young channels, where the men not only look uniformly cleaner than they have since the '50s, but their bodies are totally hairless, their hair boasts triple-processed highlights, and their behavior wavers between prancing, posturing, exhibitionism and Madonna-style outbursts. Next, check out VH1's "Kept," where a gaggle of smoothies competes very sincerely and fiercely for the chance to become Jerry Hall's arm candy, enjoying her wealthy and fabulous lifestyle while presumably accompanying her to events, following her orders, and servicing her engine in exchange.

If that doesn't convince you, flip over to "Blow Out," where each week we witness a stiffly gelled yet demonstrably straight hairstylist don the James Dean white-T-and-jeans look that was once a gay club boy staple, start catfights with business partners and stylists in his salons, then retreat to therapy to cry his eyes out while the cameras roll. Or, check out Wes of "The Real World: Austin," whose audition tape included footage of him dancing in a G-string, and a confession that he's always had a secret dream of becoming a male stripper. And if these examples don't convince you that a sea change in the definition of masculinity is reaching the masses and not just the cloistered urban elites, look around your average college campus. These kids keep themselves so trimmed and ironed and clean and buff, even sprawling state campuses have the preening, swaggery feel of a huge outdoor gay nightclub.

I have often taken issue with Salon's portrayal of the most elite, generally white Americans and their "culture"/"issues" as being representative of the country, or at the very least, representative of the kinds of issues their readership considers important and worthy of reading about. For instance, that stupid article about a white, upper class woman feeling jealous of her domestic worker, for which they got HELL from readers, and rightfully so. Not that it's not valid for the woman to feel jealous, but if she's going to write about it for Salon, maybe next time she can include some analysis of what it means to be in that position of power and participate in this form of exploitation? At the very least...

Anyway, back to the "smoothie" article. I love how they say, "well, not that a few people competing on reality shows are representative of a whole generation of males" and then go on to say, "well, I looked around some college campuses and therefore, my assumption is accurate."
This raises a few questions in my mind:
1.) Isnt it kind of backwards to observe something on TV and then suggest that this behavior is an indication of change already wrought in society? TV creates trends, and then the media chooses which "phenomena" to label as such, which then get recreated once stores in major malls start making the necessary goods to participate in them. So, my question is, why is she acting like TV is just an innocent reflection of the country?
2.) Why is everyone so obsessed with this whole "metro" thing? I mean, what substantive cultural difference does men shaving their chests indicate, other than new markets for clothing designers? What proportion of the population is this really affecting? I mean, I guess it's subverting dominant constructions of gender, but only in that it's now forcing men to spend more money on their appearance, thus underlining the vapid, materialistic current in pop culture, which is alive and well. I thin to really tweak any notion of gender, you'd have to do so in such a way that really questions constructions of gender to begin with, and this whole "metro" thing is just reinforcing them by saying "men waxing body hair is mirroring women's behavior and therefore radical that men are doing it".
3.) Whoever thought that chest hair was bad, anyway? I'll be damned if I ever sleep with a hairless man. EW.

My new favorite TV show!

Since I don't own a TV, I only watch it at the gym. Well, last night I was introduced to the wondrousness of the show, "Dancing with the Stars." It's amazing! I was captivated! It has all the heart of the Contender, which I saw with my joyous, but none of the blood. I'm hooked!

DC can change moods quickly, part 2.

Coexisting with such a number of people, all occupying different planes on this shared reality, all with varying grasps of said reality, is fascinating and trying, but most of the time, it's just hilarious. For instance, take this morning: on the bus, I was amused by simultaneously watching a man with a cane explain how the state coins came about to the bus driver and the meaning of "Starbuck" in Moby Dick to a fellow passenger;and discussing prospects for marriage with my seatmate who told me that he could marry me today, if I wanted to go to city hall. I respectfully declined. Getting off the bus, I encountered a handful of leaning men, that is, men leaning on the wall, talking. These were the same men that had told me, "We need to start a revolution!" the morning of the election. Today's subject: women's asses. "See, she's got an ass, for a white girl," one of them said, which prompted a lively debate on whether or not I was white or "Puerto Rican or something". Then, and I am just adding this, the best part: a tiny, tiny man (definitely less than five feet tall) literally kneeled down before the Dove poster on the bus stop. Have you seen their new ad campaign, the Campaign for Real Beauty or whatever? I always have a two-pronged reaction to it. First, I'm excited to see people that look like me on posters, but then, I'm kind of sad that it's for a special ad campaign that is basically congratulating itself for putting non-thin people up there, especially an ad for skin firming lotion. But I digress. The man kneeled down before it, saying, "What a peach! What a peach!" to no one in particular. (The funny thing was, I couldn't tell if he was saying peach or saying "bitch" with an accent "beetch", because it kind of sounded like beach. Which is funnier?)

I would try to make scathing remarks about Bush's speech last night, but really, it just makes sad. Sad that he has such little respect for the people dying for his stupid policies to even offer any form of reason, other than just repeating that it's all about 9-11, as if that were the original rationale, as if that were at all valid, and as if the only way to convince people that a failing policy is a success is to act as if they don't know anything at all. I also think it's interesting how Iraq becoming a breeding ground for terrorists was the centerpiece of his speech: is he claiming that this is happening just randomly, that our policies have nothing to do with it? Oh, right, I forgot, they all subscribe to an ideology that "hates freedom", so of course the logical thing is to a) go to Iraq and b) become a terrorist. Right.

DC can change moods quickly.

Walking around in a funk last night stuck in my "what is going on with my life" quandary, I realized that walking around can actually remind me of things in the world outside of my head. I saw a dog in his "last throes", as Cheney would say, and was brought to tears; I passed a young punk couple cuddling on the benches in Dupont, and then a boy with whom I had a three second romance of smiles and nods; I passed that brass band that always plays in the Circle on summer nights and, impressed by the crowd that gathered in their business suits and summer "biz cash" sandals, I felt somehow exuberantly uplifted; I got on the bus and was surrounded by zombies listening to IPods and staring into space and felt numb and isolated, like I was in the middle of that Tom Cruise futuristic sci-fi movie I never saw. Went home and talked to my mom for hours, who was not as helpful as I'd like (no one can tell me what I want), entertained a late night visitor who was kind of in his last throes, only of despair and not passion as I'd wish. It's so strange when sex is just two lonely people holding on to something rather than nothing, and not about connection. That's all it seems to be for me these days.

photobloggers...

Also, can I just say that I have so much blog envy for photobloggers? My Life As A Contact Sheet, you rock my world.

One year in DC.

Before I start my introspective drivel, I'd like to say, what the fuck is up with all of the arrests on Columbia Road? I've seen an extraordinary amount of people getting arrested there as of late. I've heard there have been some immigration related arrests, is that what they are? The snooping begins...

Well, I said goodbye to my roommate this morning, the second one to depart in the past few months. I am dizzy with loneliness already at the prospect of facing life in the District without her, and with the recent news that I may be departing for Central America for two years at the end of the summer, I've found myself caught in a strange, confusing limbo. If I get the program, I think I will take it, but two years seems like forever, and are there other things I'd rather be doing? Is life too short to do it or too short not to? Have I done what I wanted to in this city, or have I just begun?

This first year post-college has been overwhelming. I have obtained a wonderful job with a lot of responsibility and power in the field(s) that I thought I wanted to work in, have decided to pursue journalism to some degree and have had a few articles published, have volunteered to help workers know their rights, have made some friends, but not as many as I'd like, have had some lovers but no lasting connections, and have taken classes in dance, glass making, and writing. Yet with all of these things, of which I am somewhat proud but still regretful, I still feel like so much is missing. Could it be that this "young professional" life is not for me, or have I not found the right community? How does one find or make the community that most reflects who one is and who one wants to be? How do you go about your life feeling that you are doing enough and that there aren't a million better things to be doing waiting beyond some invisible curtain? Do the people that I consider accomplished feel complete, or is that incompleteness that keeps them going?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I haven't exactly been unhappy, but I have felt extremely unsettled. It's helpful that most everyone around me has felt the same way this whole year, and probably will for an indefinite amount of time.

Last night, as my roomie and I said goodnight to each other for the last time probably in our lives, a really cheesy image montage swept through my mind of all of these "getting used to living together in the nation's capital as recent college graduates full of big dreams" memories: having "house" meetings, going to roof parties, talking about our jobs, our many disappointments with romances, our many disappointments with frienships, our trips to try out clubs and bars, our dinner parties, etc.. I could go on, but it's not interesting. How will I look back on this year when I'm old and all of the things that are about to happen have happened? What does that matter, since I don't know it now?

I guess what's been bothering me is the feeling of being stagnant and transient at the same time. I've been having a good time, but it's hard to differentiate my feelings about this stage in life with what I'm doing and where I am, and hard to know how much it's appropriate to try.

Yuck.

HAHA

Have been insanely busy the past 2 days, but this was too funny to not mention:
from Moveon:

email #1:
P.S. Your Congresswoman, Rep. Norton, voted the wrong way on NPR and PBS funding. You can call her at 202-225-8050.

email #2:
Dear MoveOn member,
Our email earlier today incorrectly said D.C.'s delegate to the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, voted wrong on the measure to restore $100 million for public broadcasting. Of course, we realize Norton has been denied a vote in the House.
Our sister organization, MoveOn PAC, has worked hard to ensure voting rights for all Americans. Part of MoveOn PAC's voting rights agenda is full enfranchisement for the citizens of the District of Columbia.
We apologize to Del. Norton and to you for the database error.
Congratulations again on this incredible victory!
Sincerely,
–Noah T. Winer and the MoveOn.org Team Friday, June 24th, 2005

Haha, apparently they forgot that oh, right, we don't have the right to vote in DC! Foot + mouth=insult+injury. Glad to know we're part of their agenda, when they think of us. True, I've never seen any emails that actually address DC's voting rights, but you know, we're in there somewhere.

Finally!

This news is exciting: researchers at the University of Kansas and the University of Kansas Medical Center are working to develop a similar contraceptive for men.

It's about time! The politics of research development around sex-related drugs are interesting: why so much funding for erectile disfunction but not for female sex-related problems? Why did it take four decades to develop a drug that would give men the same level of contraceptive (is that an adjective?) responsibility as women? Well, I guess it'll take a while to break down the gendered notions of pleasure and responsibility in sex. I guess, now that I think about it, the politics around it are same old, same old.

I think Carolyn Schwartz's stunt yesterday was actually pretty brilliant, despite my position on the smoking ban. She introduced an "alcohol ban" using the same arguments that smoking ban proponents use. I doubt it will really have any effect on proponents of the ban, but it made her point extremely well: it's not within the government's bounds to prohibit people from taking part in legal activities on private property. I also like how it makes a mockery of the vitriolic posturing that the debate is encouraging both sides of the argument to take, such as the disingenuous "health of workers arguments" (which is only disingenuous because very few workers themselves have publicly taken this side...), especially as she is the sponsor of some moderate, compromise bills. I haven't changed my position, but I also can't say I'm about to get out in the streets with signs for the ban either. No matter what happens, I'll keep going to bars, but it's amusing to see how worked up everyone (if by everyone I mean my friends, the writers of a few blogs I read and people I talk to drunkinly in bars) is about this. Carry on!

The social significance of coffee.

Every day, when I come back from lunch with my customary gallon of coffee (as sonja would say), at least one of my co-workers comments on how I'm oppressing third world farmers, supporting corporate greed/gentrification/insert hyperbolic bad thing here. Well, that's fine and dandy, but what has Starbucks and its smaller sized brethen (in this area, Caribou) done to the cultural symbolism of walking around holding a cup of coffee?

I thought about this today when I went to Caribou, randomly, and they were having a free coffee giveaway, but only of one of those really sugary drinks. (It used to irk me endlessly when people would refer to a caramel mocha latte with whipped cream and sprinkles as coffee, but I'm kind of over it. It still made me fucking sick, though. How many calories are in that shit? What incentive do companies have to encourage people to load up their bodies with all of that sugar in addition to caffeine? I guess they can charge more, and they're cheap to make since they're made with dehydrated milk. Ew.) I'm not sure why, but I felt incredibly self-conscious about walking around with a $4 drink, the same way I feel after I go shopping and am walking around with bags with huge brands on them. Maybe it's the Crash "overcaffeinated white people" reference and this post (courtesy of DC blogs) that contributed to my overall feeling that buying a needless drink to make me dizzy with pulsing energy is a bit obstentatious and, well, unncessary. I may snicker at yuppies drinking starbucks, but I'm a yuppie drinking coffee from a quasi-independent coffeeshop down the street, still served with lots of third world oppression (and paper waste) to boot. The difference between those is negligible.

I wonder about this column. How effective are campaigns such as FAIR's, when they generate e-mails to newspapers that said media sources deem "...prompted by a write-in campaign sponsored mostly by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal, self-described media watchdog organization." ? Especially if later the Post can make the e-mail senders seem less credible (or, maybe attempt to squirm out of responsibility) by saying FAIR "neglected to tell its subscribers that this was clearly marked as a "Washington Sketch" and not a news story"? Is it effective in that the campaign forced the Post to make a comment on it at all, or did the fact that all of the comments were coming from one group with an obvious agenda detract from the force of numbers? Also, I'm not sure if the fact that it was a "washington sketch" made it okay to clearly ridicule what was actually a fairly remarkable protest of elected officials raising legitimate concerns, but I think FAIR's covered that. Also, which side "wing nuts" were the ones terrorizing milbank? Just curious.

I was thinking that when I actually get around to having internet access at home, I can take the time to write well written posts with details/analysis to back up my bold statements, but nah, I doubt I'll get less lazy.

trauma. (note: not well written; I am still shaken)

Wow, after my last post about my horrendous bus experience, I thought I had experienced the worst. Not so, apparently. Last night, after coming home from AFI on the S2, the bus ran over some guy that was trying to hop on the back. Have you heard the sound of bones being crunched by an automobile before? Have you been in a bus full of traumatized people, all calling 911 at once? We all rushed out and saw him, barely holding on to life. Luckily the ambulance came soon...

The worst part was, some people on the front of the bus started arguing about whether or not certain people had paid to get on the bus, whether or not they needed transfers, and other such ridiculous things. Picture this: while half of the bus was rushing to try to help this guy, about a quarter were standing around looking and the other quarter were arguing over whether or not random people had a right to be on a bus that was clearly not going to be moving.

Well, I'm sentimental.

This is really lame, but I was actually brought to tears by this article. There's something strikingly beautiful about his courage to accept his wife's death and confront child rearing on his own. okay, wiping tears from eyes, going back to work...

Also, Conyers rocks.

Milk: it does a body bad?????

On the bus yesterday, I saw a very, very strange poster (the image is on this website.) It featured a multicultural group of people all competing for the bathroom, with extremely pained looks on their faces. It said that 75% of people are lactose intolerant, especially people of color, and if you are one of those people, you may have a lawsuit on your hands. What the fuck?

Well, it turns out that the ad was run by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a veritable group whose major campaigns concern animal testing and other standards for medical research. Apparently, the dairy industry's milk mustache campaign is misleading, attempting to convince consumers that milk is unequivocally necessary for a healthy diet, when in reality, it seems to be making lots of people sick. It also states that most of the stated benefits of milk drinking are overstated. (It doesn't help with weight loss, calcium is better absorbed through eating green leafy vegetables than dairy, etc.) They don't get into the hormones that much, but I'm pretty sure those aren't so good for you either. I guess it doesn't seem so crazy, after all, although I'm wondering what it is about residents of Washington, DC. Is the milk industry pushing especially hard here? PCRM has been pushing its "Get Real About Milk" campaign (www.getrealaboutmilk.org) for a while. Well, I'm generally pissed about various food industries controlling our perceptions of nutrition, so it seems a commendable effort. (Can we say "food pyramid", anyone?) I have to say, though, that their poster was pretty horrible. Can't you be a bit more subtle about "people of color" being "lactose intolerant"? Jeez. Oh well. I wish them luck with their lawsuit. (Do I have to be vegan now?? Damn it.)

The modest mouse concert was awesome! They played mostly songs from Good News..., which was unfortunate, because I didn't like that cd as much as possible, but they were so hot! The crowd was kind of funny, half high school students and half people in their 30s, with a smattering of pseudo hipsters. Plus, it was in the DAR hall. It's kind of weird to think about the creepy plots happening in the place where I was, but such is DC. Also, I doubt it's coincidence that their address is 1776 D St. Ew.

ah, the beauty of gentrification (possibly part 1 of a loooooong series)

I love how developers come into an area, drive up housing prices thereby driving people out, completely change the character, and then attach a new name to it to make it seem like it was yuppy-"hip" the whole time. This is the conclusion I came to during this email conversation:
friend (who hopefully won't kill me if she sees that i posted this)
He [owner of st ex and bar pilar] said they are trying to make bar pilar more of a neighborhood bar than st.ex, which i think is a bit funny, since they are still charging $9 for a salad. i guess by "neighborhood" they mean "residents of the ellington". regardless, im not hating, i love st. ex despite its recently limited menu. we should definitly try happy hour at pilar.
me:
yeah, and before bar pilar, wasn't there a salvadoran bar? i seem to remember one...oh well. neighborhood is a relative term i suppose in this gentrifying u st. corridor (although i guess 14th st. is now given its own designation by the developer crowd, given the number of condos going up on it, which is kind of unreal). you should tell mike to recommend a veggie burger or portabello sandwich to st x's lunch menu
friend:
i agree, they need to lure us veggies in with more than a plate of asparagus and a bowl of arugula.
have you heard about the plans for development on 14st, north of U? condos on "union row" are being planned. how many names can shaw have?
me:
haha. well, i guess a new crowd of residents demands a new hip name for each tiny area. "i dont live in shaw, i live in (insert trendy name here)." what cracks me up is that they are completely made up by the developers. it's just so funny that you can have developers that say, we're going to create a "hip" area, and they put a bunch of stuff in, and then it actually becomes "hip". it's kind of orwellian and creepy. oh well.

In other news, I'll have to think about how I feel about Wonkette's "musings" about the sexual abilities/styles of various type of journalists as compared to my limited journalist-sex experiences. (Note: she definitely left out independent media makers. Too hard to come up with a clever quip? I thought so. So marginalized!)

Why is ANSWER so lame?

For some unknown reason, I am on ANSWER's mailing list. I got this email today:

"Formation of September 24 National Coalitionfor the March on Washington DC
All Out to Stop the War in Iraq -Bring the Troops Home Now!
End Colonial Occupationfrom Iraq to Haiti to Palestine and Everywhere
On September 24, we will show the deepening opposition that is leading to the political isolation of the warmakers. As during the Vietnam War era, the people of the United States from all communities are actively entering the political process through the mobilizing efforts of a genuinely broad and mass antiwar movement.
(blah blah blah)
September 24 is a day when people from all over the country will be joining together to speak with one voice against war and racism. Marching together we will show the growing power of the antiwar movement. Join us in spreading the word in the weeks and months ahead."

Um, growing power? Not if all you're doing is organizing marches to end all "colonial occupation". I'm all for ending colonial occupation, especially in Haiti, Iraq, and Palestine, but I'm not sure how these random protests that everyone else ignores are doing anything. I think the most promising anti-war activism I've seen these days takes the form of local protests of military recruiting and public education about the lies recruiters tell. It may not be stopping the war, but it is keeping at least some kids from dying needlessly.

Funny how I've changed since the RNC protest, which I felt was really meaningful. That was at least cathartic, seeing all of those people out in the streets to protest Bush. At least we felt like we had a chance.

you got served!

sonja, I am posting this link just for you. The post itself is about jessica cutler (boring!), but I thought you'd appreciate the "you got served" reference. (For those of you not in the know, the joke is that I got a LOT of mileage out of saying that in a party recently. Sonja appreciated it. I think a few "oh wow"s were uttered.)

Last night, on my way to the employment justice clinic, I passed a group of guys milling around outside capitol hill records, one of those hardcore record stores that only djs go to. (Yes, i know how dorky that makes me seem.) They told me that there was an art show upstairs, so I thought, hey, I'll check it out. Well, it turns out that it was all grafitti artists, which was pretty awesome. It's funny, because all of it is very public art: painted on tunnels, on signs, and on the sides of buildings, but seeing it in a gallery validated it as art somehow. At the same time though, shouldn't art be valid for the sake of being art? And isn't it being shown in a gallery giving heed to the idea that art should be for the elite people that go to galleries? Well, no, because it was in a record store, not a schmancy ass gallery, and because they were selling it, meaning that it was probably necessary to make a living off of it. Anyway, I enjoyed getting a glimpse into a new (to me) subculture, because DC seems so staid sometimes. (Probably like all 5 taggers in DC were in that one little space.)

Went out with F afterwards. Blehhh, that's a confusing situation.

Conservatives are hypocrites?! Who knew??

I guess four people sending me that article was a sign that the echo chamber would be completely abuzz about the stupid NYTimes Heritage Foundation article I mentioned yesterday. (Jesus Christ people, how predictable are you??) Is it just me, or is Matthew Yglesias' discussion of TNR's treatment of the topic almost silly? Wow, Heritage is investing a lot of money in instilling this ideology into young conservatives, but amazingly, they also happen to be the ones with all the money and connections! Wow, do you think that has something to do with why they're conservative? Do you think "conservatism" in that sense has strayed from its original free market fundamentalist roots and just gone on to mean, "I want to hold on to my $ and power at all costs so I'm all for a system that lets me do that"?? Shocking. I guess the glaring contradiction is too irresistible not to point out, but still, having hung out with a few people that work at Heritage (you don't want to know), I can tell you that it's not really that suprising or entertaining to me. But maybe I'm just being overly cynical again. I guess it goes to show how adept the right has gotten at cloaking greed in ideological terms. Well, good for them.

Okay, enough with all of this left/right bullshit, I'm boring even myself.

MSN links

I've always thought that you could make some kind of postmodern poetry out of MSN links. For example, today's:
Boy, 4, dies after Disney ride
Single-woman survival...
Is your teen on drugs?
When kissing 'invades her...

I especially love the quizzes. Are you really into him? Are you needy? Are you happy? I should actually take some, find out about myself, do a little "personal exploration".

In other news, one of the pandas may be pregnant! I always feel bad for them. So much pressure to reproduce! (I could add that to the MSN link poetry.)

Tooting my own proverbial horn! (well, that of my paper)

So, the Spark broke the Downing memo in May, way before anyone else. I should start writing those kind of articles...but I am one of the few neighborhood editors. So should I keep defining that category for the paper, or move on to write exciting breaking features? Haha, no, I don't really think of myself as that important.

Here's the link to Ray McGovern's mention of it on Democracy Now.

Someone has to go with me to the Silverdocs Film Festival! I love documentaries...

Smoking ban on its way!

Yay! I am glad to see that the Council is leading towards enacting the smoking ban. There's been a pretty good discussion on DCist about it. For the record, I do acknowledge the "nanny government" argument as being valid. However, I do think that there are choices we make about the extent to which government should mettle in our lives. I do also think that it will be difficult for restaurants and bars to adjust to having so many people going outside. (Does Adams Morgan really need more people clogging up 18th St?) I also think, though, that a lot of "social smokers" will just not bother smoking, and people will smoke a lot less outside. I don't know, if smoking weren't so abhorrent to me maybe I'd be more sympathetic, but I do want to say that I see their arguments, I just think the benefit of a smoking ban far outweighs the costs. I think both sides are acting in their complete self-interest; more people see it in their interest to ban smoking than not.

This is interesting though:
More than 130 witnesses signed up to testify during yesterday's hearing, including bar owners, restaurant managers, bartenders, waiters and customers.

"I mean, really, you're treating us like children," testified writer Christopher Hitchens. He recalled the conviviality of Herb White's bar on P Street NW, where writers would get discounted drinks. Hitchens, a British citizen and enthusiastic smoker, said a ban would be un-American.

Is that the Christopher Hitchens, the Vanity Fair columnist? My mom used to subscribe to Vanity Fair. I've had a crush on him ever since. Well, I can't really have a crush on an "enthusiastic smoker", so I guess that's over. And "un-American"? It was a completely grassroots movement that brought it to the Council and gained support for it. Looks pretty American to me! (Sorry, now I'm just gloating.)

yes, young republicans are scary

For some reason, exactly four people have sent me this article today. I wonder why it doesn't mention the Everett program, although those perks sure as hell aren't as good. At the same time, though, the left has a generation of leaders too, even if we aren't all doing internships and staying in dorms. So, let's not get too scared...yet...

The funny thing is, all of my friends that are so caught up in looking at the right for an example of how to gain power in so many years keep forgetting some simple differences between the left and the right. First of all, the right kind of wants to take over the world. And to do that, you want to consolidate power. The left wants to make the world a better place, and how the fuck do you do that? Well, there are lots of different conceptions of what a better world would look like and how to get there. See, that's one difference: we don't have a blueprint for what we want to see, but that's not necessarily a weakness, simply a result of valuing nuanced views and an egalitarian society. Could we use a more streamlined vision? Sure. But let's be careful about what we're emulating. Secondly, the right feels perfectly comfortable going in lockstep and explicity brainwashing members; on the foundation level, this is perfectly clear (right wing foundations are incredibly efficient, because their decision making processes aren't as collaborative), the left feels the need to be inclusive to the point of inefficiency. Still, I'd rather value equality than efficiency, and that's what makes me a liberal. Yes, this is a crass analysis, but I also think it's crass to say, "look at how effective these people are at consolidating power". What does it matter if your objectives are in ideological and tactical oppostion? Just a pet peeve of mine.

To argue or to ignore?

Matthew Yglesias' post yesterday got me to thinking: there are some things that, in which the republican noise machine or whatever you want to call it, have invested hundreds of millions to promote as true (see below). Right wing foundations are all about idea generating, as has been noted by seemingly everyone (I would find some links if I were less lazy/busy) in the past few months: they pay for posts at universities, for media and "public education" projects, for think tanks to sponsor "studies" and books, etc. The problem is not just that these ideas are disagreeable, often so much that they're outright offensive; rather, it's that they become so pervasive that they frame the debate. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new here. What would it be like, though, to make lists of conversations that are tempting to me to have, but I am not going to indulge them, because even talking about them, even to refute their points, is acknowledging that they are valid and worthy of discussion? I already do this with the media, because even thinking or talking about Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson, or that "runaway bride" to me is conceding that these are valid issues worthy of media attention, more so than, say, uprisings in Bolivia, the war on Iraq, and pretty much anything else going on that actually has any discernible effect on peoples' lives. A few months ago, the "crisis" of SS and Terri Schiavo would have been on the list; I feel that letting the ridiculousness around Schiavo ensue was helpful in that no one thought it was worthy of an emergency session of Congress. HA ha. And Social Security was surely DOA, although that did take a lot of energy from the Dems, so that can't be added (we had to talk about that one!). Howard Dean's comments? Does Mehlman get the same press? Culture wars? Do other pressing social issues get the same airtime? It seems similar to other questions that keep me up at night (only half kidding): is it better to start off refuting abhorrent premises or ignoring them altogether; or, is it conceding to accept the basic premise and argue the points, or is it conceding to allow the right to continue making noise about issues without a rebuttal?

I don't really understand Cheney's strategy around Guantanamo. I mean, I guess it's not really different from the Bush administration's strategy around everything else: keep insisting on your version of reality until it sounds true, and do it so authoritatively that after a while, it seems to be true. (And, you know, collude with a bunch of major media conglomerates so that they keep spewing your version of truth as valid...) After reports in major newsmagazines, major investigations, and a bipartisan group of Senator's calling for it to be closed, wouldn't it make sense to say, well, "it served its purpose, but it's not yielding any new information, let's shut it down?" Or, "I had no idea that stuff was going on in there, let's do something about it". Wouldn't that make him look like he had some respect for, say, if not the Geneva Conventions than at least the US Constitution? Does he really think it's in his best interest to keep people detained indefinitely? I mean, I know you can't admit that you've done terrible things, but can't you at least admit that it's not worth continuing, or that you've made some mistakes?? All right, all right, I know that you can't say any of those things, and really, he doesn't have to. I just wish that either truth or decency (note I said either; I'm not asking a lot) was somehow involved in the discussion, that the Bush admin had to at least pretend they cared...These people scare me!

On a similar vein, meaning the "frame" issue, I feel uncomfortable with NARAL's strategy, or at least Saletan's reading of it. As much as I really want the pro-choice movement to adapt a comprehensive analysis of abortion rights, and address access to contraception as a root of the problem, I am not sure about the issue framed in terms of responsibility, because as he points out, it necessarily implies that those women that get pregnant are irresponsible, which then leads to some abstract distinction between the responsible ones and the irresonsible ones, a distinction which can only be defined and reinforced in a way that will benefit the pro-life side, because they can still use their "abortion is another form of birth control for women" argument. To me, it's similar to immigration: once you start making distinctions between illegal and legal immigrants in social issues, you're focusing entirely on finding a group to blame for their problems rather than looking at the root of the problem. Thus, while I think focusing on access to contraception, especially for low-income women, and education, is important, I don't think it's safe to use responsibility as a buzz word. I also think you can do that while acknowledging, like saletan states, that every abortion is tragic, etc. The whole point of wanting to expand access to contraception is to prevent abortions because they are tragic. I have never argued that abortion is not tragic, and I don't even believe that life begins at conception. Some of us still believe, though, that there will be times when they are necessary, and that forcing women to raise children they cannot afford, or do not want, or who are the product of rape or incest is also another tragedy. (Some of us only value life prior to conception or when it has existed in a vegetative state for a long time. Some of us, though, actually respect living people as well, and think that everyone deserves rights...oh yeah, we're the communists, i forgot. Speaking of Howard Dean, he made a great comment about that this week: “There is more to being pro-life than just debating whether a woman has the right to choose. If you want to be pro-life you ought to talk about children after they are born, not just before they are born.” stolen from cpmc.) Anyway, can't their slogan be something about preventing abortion, while keeping it safe and legal?

District schools are closed because of the heat? Damn children. I want my office to be closed! Well, we have a/c. I'm just being a tool.

The City Council is debating the smoking ban today. I hope it passes!

Um, how is Craiglist soooooooooo full of freaks?

Oh right

Yay for debt cancellation! It took years of a concerted campaign, lots of celebrity showings, and some really good points grounded in moral, accessible language, but it's an important step (i learned this from the meeting today...). Impressive.

On the darker side, looks like the patriot act is going to be renewed...I wish I had more time to rant...

ew!!

I'm covered in sweat. That's what you get from walking back from dupont in the middle of the afternoon when it's 95 degrees out. Damn. By the way, is there a name for the stretch on Mass Ave (why does everyone always insist on calling it that? I like saying, "massachusetts" but if you say that to a washingtonian, they narrow their eyes and say, "mass ave?") where brookings, carnegie endowment, and SAIS are? It should be international affairs area or something. Well, I guess that's what foggy bottom is, theoretically. damn government.

Speaking of government, I liked this article. DCRA has really been giving me the runaround for this research that I'm trying to do for one of my articles, on stuff that should be public record. Do all government bodies necessarily have to be clogged with bureaucracy to the point of inanity? Is that a really naive and obvious question to ask? Not that I'm asking anything as easy as who their board members are, but they keep telling me to file a FOIA request also. Um, don't FOIA requests take up a lot of time for both me and everyone else, a lot more than simply telling me would be? Maybe they have self preservation syndrome, which is what foundations always fear nonprofits have, i.e., being ineffectual to continue needing to exist (which, by the way, I don't really believe nonprofits do, although I'm sure somewhere out there there is one that has that problem). Not that government will cease to exist like nonprofits, but I guess they do create a lot of artificial needs by being so inefficient that keep people employed.

I like the word "chortle". Does anyone use it? Joy?

Sone kid was terrorizing me at the bus stop today. He kept circling me saying, buzz buzz. Was he implying that he was a bee about to bite me?!?! Damn kids.

Speaking of random interactions, some man told me today that I have "sexy big legs". I was wearing a skirt that is pretty long, so he couldn't actually see them, but still, big legs?!

good news!

Yeah, it's lame to post links to the Post. But here are two promising supreme court decisions:
media ownership
death row conviction overturned

Although this is really a shame. The Padilla case and the issue of enemy combatants is one of the defining cases for how our country thinks of civil liberties and due process in relation to protecting "national security". arrgh.

Why I hate clubs, and riding the bus, and fuck buddies

Taking a break from uber-productivity this morning (I came in at 8; have a meeting with disarmament and other peace and security orgs at 1) to mention some highlights from this weekend...

• Friday night: one of those nights when things just didn't work out. Met up with S and her bud(s) at Oya, one of those oh so schmancy downtown restaurants where we each had one, and definitely only one $15 drink. (yeah, for a lot of people that's not a lot, but hey, for me $7 is outrageous...) That was fun, if only because everything with ms. u is...we headed out to meet up with isabel and co at her house, but they were on their way out, back at what fernando calls midtown (meaning we went from chinatown to adams morgan back to dupont...ugh). Anyway, because of my discomfort with trying to please too many people and inability to make decisions, I decided that rosalie and i would go to five, while they were going to meet up with us (long story). Five is one of those ultra cheesy clubs that make me hate clubs, and by extension, people/life (maybe a big leap, I was in a bad mood from all of that traveling). Why? Because it's all so fucking contrived: the club music with the same fucking beat for all 4 hours that we were there, that makes everyone "dance" in the same fucking back and forth awkward way, the guys in their club shirts that I detest to no end (please men, stop wearing striped button down shirts to clubs, it's lame), the girls gyrating on stage while men stare blankly at them...(really, is this what we've come down to as a group of people where we want our sexuality packaged in such a recognizable, easy-to-consume-but-not-quite-because-you're-not-actually-engaging way? I mean, millions of bodies and minds moving together but all you can do is gawk at women imitating cheap ass strippers, or maybe, if you're feeling brave, rub your crotch against someone's ass for a little bit?) The whole thing made me tired of being part of whatever subculture it is that offers this up as entertainment.
• Saturday, day: library. got Gilead, Kafka on the Shore (who said the library doesn't have new books??). By the way, the library is really cool...they had some sort of community event when I went, lots of speakers, well attended...who the hell pays for books anymore? MLK Jr library all the way! gtown: indulged consumerist urges. hot new kc sandals!
• Saturday evening: r and I went to this event, tearing at the seams, a celebration of alternative forms of beauty and subaltern identities or sum'n. Well, the CP had listed the event as starting at 7; we got there at about 7:45 and it hadn't yet begun. We looked at some photos on display and waited for a "fashion show" performance art thing. By 9:30, after waiting in the non airconditioned gallery for way too long, we decided to skip the show and make our way back to A-M for nicole's party. It seemed like it would have been cool, but we just weren't planning on making it our whole night. Oh well, at least the proceeds go towards something good, although I can't remember what it was.

The bus ride, from Capitol Hill to Adams Morgan, was a traumatic experience. When we got on, we noticed that there was a lot of shouting going on between the people in the back and those in the front. We figured that they knew each other and were just joking around. Well, it turns out that there was a mentally ill woman in the front screaming profanities at passengers in the back. The entire bus was laughing at her, bating her, and one girl even threatened to fight her. The bus driver stopped the bus and called the police, who escorted the woman off the bus. (Side note: this was the night of the Tyson fight in the MCI building; many people were alternating laughing at this woman with talking about how tyson was going to beat the shit out of whoever it was he was boxing.) The savagery of those couple of minutes was startling. Not just the people on the bus, although it would be wrong to absolve them of responsibility: I don't believe it's beneath anyone to know not to participate in the humiliation of an obviously vulnerable person. Perhaps some of those people were at the bottom rung of the social ladder (don't want to make assumptions) and it is a situation where the only way to feel empowered is to beat up on the only people more vulnerable than you. If that is the case, it's an astonishing reminder of the sheer cruelty of a system that pits people against each other, that humiliates them so much that it's been reinforced as the only means of survival. Yet the pocket of inhumanity that the bus ride illuminated was much more profound and disturbing: This woman had nothing to protect her from a bus full of people ready to pounce on her. She was escorted off the bus, and left to fend for herself. I could add this to my list of why I hate cities. All of these people being thrown together, and yet it seems there is no sense of commonality.

The party, on a happier note, was fantastic. I drank way too much. I am somewhat frustrated with myself, however, for going home with my fuck buddy, who sent me a text message at 2 or so. I met some cool people at the party. Not that I was going to hook up with any of them, per se, but it seems lame to close myself off from the opportunity just to have sex with someone who I know isn't going to care about me. I like him a lot, but I fear the age difference would really be too much. Sunday: gay pride festival! Erin is awesome. Yay for new friends, yay for pride!

Note to people in nyc: my sister will be there so soon, going to natural cooking school! Make friends with her! I think I'll be going there a lot this summer...

And...

Congratulations to Jerdawg for obtaining a fantastic job!! You rock. (not that it's shocking to anyone, but still...)

American Apparel

As much as I'd love to be a dedicated anti-sweatshop activist, I am also a clotheshorse, and truth be told, DC is lacking in affordable thrift stores (we do have lots of pricey consignment and vintage stores, however).

For this reason, I was excited to hear the news that American Apparel will be opening up a store here this summer. (They're expanding like crazy! Apparently, they are trying to move beyond the "sweat free" label and be known for the quality and style of their apparel instead...) But, I remembered conversations with UNITE! when I was in college about a possible campaign against them. See, although they rely heavily on their "sweat free" image, they actually are pretty exploitative of workers, and have pulled out the stops to prevent workers from organizing a union. (See this press release from UNITE!)

It brings up a dilemma, which is what I think is preventing UNITE from organizing an all out campaign: is it better to encourage a successful company that is at least recognizing the issue of workers' rights to keep trying, in the hopes of the "ripple effect" the example could have on other garment companies (obviously, a lot of organizing and pressure is necessary to get those companies to act on workers' rights, but it'd be great to have an example company to point to), or is it better to urge companies, even the better ones, to be accountable, and to expose deceptions for what they are? As a movement, should anti-sweatshop activists push for all or nothing, or accept the "better than nothing" steps that happen along the way? As an individual consumer, is it better to spend my dollars there than at any other store?

I think that my preference would be to hold AA to the fire. To encourage them to continue using the sweatshop free label, but to be accountable so that the label means something. It's a win-win situation: they can use unions as a big marketing plus (although maybe with their new marketing direction, it's not in the cards...), anti-sweatshop activists have a poster child, and the workers get the benefits of a union along with the much touted AA conditions that already exist (which are not quite as great as they'd like you to think, I'm sure).

So,what am I going to do when AA comes? Boycott? Write an article? Organize? Shop? I'll keep you posted...

damn it!

I always miss DN when it's hot!

www.democracynow.org

First ecuador, now bolivia...que se vayan todos! the only question that remains is, what is going to come of all of this in the end?? us intervention like in haiti? more neoliberals utilizing coercive/clientelistic means to secure power? more shady quasi leftist populists a la chavez? although jim scultz made a good point:

"...this is not over because the demands that sent people into the streets beginning three weeks ago was never just 'We want a new president.' The demand has consistently been 'We want the country to (b) nationalize the gas and oil, and we want this constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution.' And so, while the country, I think, is less tense this morning because we have been relieved of the possibility of this potential dictator, essentially, coming in and taking over, these two demands are still the demands from the street, and I don't think you are going to see a let up in the pressure until we see some sort of commitment by the government, some sort of an agreement that those two issues are going to be resolved in one way or another."

If that is not democracy in action, what is? Call me naive, but this gives me hope.

i could subsist on this stuff alone...i want to go back to south america!!

interesting cafta debate also...

Ozomatli is hot!!!!

Last night I went to the Ozomatli concert in Falls Church. SO FUN! I hadn't seen them in a long time, and I forgot how they, without fail, get the entire audience on their feet. They even make us hug each other at one point. Something about it is almost transcendent--not even ozomatli in particular, but in sweating and dancing so joyously with such a large group of people, and this was fairly diverse considering DC and a $17 cover, maybe because it was from the suburbs. I left feeling so great!

last post today, i swear.

Don't know where all of this blogging energy is coming from, but what the fuck is up with the post's feature on the world bank?

One gem that left me startled in its journalistic integrity and sophisticated writing style:

The staffers in Washington (and there are another 3,000 in more than 80 offices around the world) come from 141 different countries -- 22 percent of employees are American -- but they have more in common with each other than with the Washington outside their walls, where people tend to toss back their $3.50 Starbucks without feeling the guilt.
World Bankers feel the guilt. The institution itself owes its existence to the collective guilt of rich nations, along with altruism or self-interest, depending on which evolutionary philosopher you believe.

Let the cock sucking commence. jeez.

pro ban on smoking.

Even the most progressive people I know get caught up in opposing the smoking ban, saying, "We can't let the government decide this for us," "it's a return to the prohibition era politics" etc. Um, so when did you become libertarians? Now, I am not the biggest fan of government doing everything, even though I do support a strong government role. I have lived in several places where smoking bans have been enacted and have noticed that, WITHOUT fail, there was little difference in the amount of business bars got, and going out was a much better experience. Oh, and for the whiners complaining about going outside, I am from MAINE.

Also,why would anyone considering themselves progressive want to get in bed with tobacco corporations? (Sure, i am one of the alcohol industry's big fans, but still.) Smoking not only makes the smoker sick, but everyone around them. It's disgusting. Sometimes evolution happens for a reason, i.e, enough people realize that old habits are stupid and hurtful and force others to change their ways. Sure, I wouldn't say this about, say, placing a ban on drinking in bars or something. Why? Well, if you don't get in a car drunk, then you're not hurting anyone other than yourself. And I am a HUGE proponent of not driving, such as shutting off 18th street completely from automobiles. Stop parking problems, stop drunk driving deaths. I realize it's still inconsistent, but I'm biased. Shoot me!

How do I feel about Adrien Fenty?

Adrien Fenty announced his candidacy in a dramatic ceremony yesterday, the first one! How do I feel about him? I liked his stance on a lot of criminal justice issues earlier, and he was pretty hot during the stadium discussions, but I've heard recently that he's capitulating. Does DC really need a mayor that will be as bendable as gumby when the pressure is on? Are there any alternatives? I guess what it comes down to is that it will happen inevitably. A street sense vendor told me recently not to vote for him; he is going to collude with the developers that are planning on closing yet another homeless shelter downtown to make way for a high rise condo. My sophisticated analysis is that that shit is fucked up. Is DC really going to drive all of its poor people out? I heard LAYC is opening up an office in Langely Park, because really, how many Latino immigrants are moving into CoHi anymore? Not many...

I have been incredibly busy at work recently. I haven't been going to the workers' rights clinic, haven't been working on any articles...one person can only do so much...

My boy has been extremly unreliable recently. It brings up an important question: how soon should I give up and decide that it's not worth the effort? How can I mantain my independence and avoid being naggy at all costs, even when he is doing things that I would find annoying and inappropriate in a friend?

And what about Dean's comments...I haven't decided about him, either. Is he alienating people, or saying what is needed? Does it matter, or is it just the republican noise machine shaping the agenda again?

On to make some grants!

cyber stalking. blehhh.

The internet is a wonderful thing, except when it comes to things that allow you to quite easily find lots of information about someone you may be interested in. Not that knowing this info itself is a bad thing; rather, taking your time, thoughts, and energy to search for it is somewhat pathetic, especially considering the fact they're probably not doing it for you. Also, it's always awkward when you see them, because you have to ask how they're doing and pretend you don't know.

For this reason, it's a bad thing I'm into the post reporter for instance, who had a loooooooong feature on the front page of one of the sections recently (yes, purposefully vague), or a certain activist friend of mine who i've been known to google more than once...just to see what he's up to. They both have so much to google, and it always makes me feel like they're doing so much more than what I'm doing, and sad because if they were to google me, they would come up dreadfully short. The worst is when I get obsessed with people I don't even know, such as the Foer brothers...

so, how about that Downing street memo? Which of these items is more shocking:
a) lack of media attention
b) lack of congressional action
c) lack of denials on part of bush admin (yes, there have been some, but kind of half hearted in a smarmy kinda way)

I mean, honestly, with everything else going on, I'm not that worked up about it, which is always more shocking to me than whatever it is that is worth being worked up about.

Got this e-mail on the DC Indymedia listserve: Pacifica is in the top 1% of non-profit fouhdationsfor both assests and revenue. There are newdevelopements that indicate a worsening stituation,with Ambrose now ED and women planning a march against sexism im Berkley. These issues, if not dealt with, will shatter the institution.

Don't know what that's about. Are they saying women marching against sexism is a good or a bad thing?

It's interesting to me that so many left, progressive, liberal, and radical organizations and movements end up imploding because of internal tensions due to race, gender, and other unequal power dynamics. I know that these days those orgs tend to have millions of dismantling oppression trainings and workshops, but are there other ways to move beyond it? (Will I ever stop looking at contemporary progressive activism and being frustrated with its staleness and my own feelings of helplessness?) Will empowerment stop being a buzz word and actually mean something?

Almost finished with House of Leaves, finally. Anyone that wants to say "that's so 2000" or whatever can suck it. I actually enjoyed it.

Gotta get back to work...

Sidebars are cool!

Well, I figured out how to make a sidebar. Now I have to make blogger friends to "blogroll"! Although I kind of feel like maybe I should write regularly before I try that...

Pretty much everyone I've met with that goes on the Hill to talk about CAFTA seems to think it's dead. I would be happy, except the Andean trade agreement is right around the corner. It is not an insignificant win, however. I definitely feel like people are starting to get it that free trade is a) not free and b) not beneficial to anyone other than corporations, especially not constituencies that most politicians care about. You could frame it as a big win for the triumph of the people over profit or something, but it's not. It's a temporary fix of who can shout the loudest happening to not support this particular agreement. I become less optimistic all the time that any real change is going to happen in the realm of trade agreements and big heads of states. I look around at our allies: hippies, anarchists, social justice groups, unions, environmental groups, etc. and I just have to think that we're all gasping at straws in a sort of pathetic way. I mean, of course we can't let stuff like CAFTA go on without doing anything, but what are we really doing?

On being goal oriented.

What kinds of goals do most people set for themselves? Is there some type of personality type by which you set more or less realistic goals?

I'm wondering this because every day at work, I make myself a to do list with lots of goals which are never attainable for the day. The end result is that I usually push myself pretty hard, but I never get everything done. I either feel okay or feel guilty and pledge to do more the next time, but hardly ever do. In recent conversations, I've been realizing how pushing myself to work really hard is going to backfire at some point, because I end up tearing myself down in the meantime. There must be some perfect amount of pushing that isn't tearing. I would like to find that.

I should push myself to read Woodward's piece.

On the average day, I learn about so many fascinating things: Washington state welfare system, racism in Denver public schools, immigrants in the Carolinas, street vendors in New York city. Damn I'm a lucky woman.

There's this creepy guy I used to hook up with who loved to jerk off till he came on my tits. He keeps emailing me about it, then disappearing, then acting as if no time has passed. Why? My 40 year old is resurfacing also. This is all insurmountably confusing.

sorry about the absence!

I say to my imaginary blog audience...

What has happened since I've been gone?
world/politics:
-AI compares gitmo to gulag; bush calls it ridiculous
-deep throat reveals himself; lots of people are abuzz
-cafta is delayed one year and counting!
-yvon neptune in haiti clings to life by a thread
-freeze on military recruiting; recruiters corrupt
-LA elects Antonio Villaraigosa
-real ID act passed...scary....
-gutierrez ousted from ecuador!
-lopez obrador almost arrested, impeached, not allowed to run for president; all charges were dropped and he's going strong!

my life:
-sent off an application for witness for peace in mexico city
-working on an application to a program in brazil
-am studying for my drivers' test
-had two board meetings, one out of fucking control, the other one relatively sane
-have published two articles in the spark
-have become somewhat serious with fernando, a goofy, ditzy, but really sweet and fun guy i met at 1223, of all places
-signed up to take the lsat in october; may take a study course
-said goodbye to some friends; hello to new ones!

I haven't written largely because of my ambivalence with the whole idea of blogging, which sounds pretentious and obnoxious, but it's true. I am very busy; is blogging an effective use of my time? What does it say about our generation that the majority of blogs, including my own, are merely collections of links and other reflections of things being said by other people, and self-indulgent ramblings/"diary entries"? I don't know, and can't say I've thought about it when I haven't been blogging. It does fit into with the basic question I've been asking myself for the past year, however, which is what exactly do i want to do with myself? If I want to be a journalist, it's because I want to be telling stories that aren't told that often to people that don't hear them that often; I really do believe in community media, and even if I am writing boring stories now, it's worth it to see how excited people get about having their stories told. Thus, even if people were reading my blog, at this point i'm not injecting anything into the discourse that isn't already there. Is it enough to be written well or nominally interesting? I doubt it. Enough for whom?