The elegance of Michelle Bachman

Michelle Bachman is a rare gem of narcissism and deluded insanity. Like A. Hole Coulter, she has crazy eyes. She looks possessed. As a bit of a scientist, I'm wondering if this is more than a correlation: does this amount of crazy need to escape through the eye sockets to keep the head from exploding?

Ironically, she probably believes in exorcisms. She should probably have one. Soon.

I don't know if it's plastic surgery that keeps her eyes open like that or what, but it's creepy. No one should ever look this good flanked by hellfire.

This, um, "look" that Michelle Bachmann cultivates, is what makes the video unbelieveable

Let's dissect this, as I like to do.

To begin with, I love how vague this is. "They're after you now - she's this, she's that, bup bup bup."

OH NO THEY DI'INT! This?! That??! BUP! Three BUPS! How dare they.

What in the hell does this mean? Well, what little Billy here is so delicately dancing around with the "this" and the "that" and the "BUP" is that the liberal media are saying Michelle Bachmann is certifiable - for good reason. She runs around saying things like, "we're running out of rich people in this country", tells people to take up arms against Obama and his proposed legislation, she thinks that filling out the census is dangerous and won't do it (and that this has something to do with ACORN?), and asserts that Obama is going to open "youth re-education camps" where people are indoctrinated with liberal government philosophy. In case there was some doubt as to how much my liberal bias is colouring my judgement of Michelle Bachmann, let's look to psychiatry's definition of a delusion from the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders):

• A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

I think the beliefs that we're running out of rich people in America, that the census is dangerous (well, maybe if you're a census worker), and that Obama is running secret re-education camps all qualify as delusions. Combine this with her conviction that MSNBC has it out for her and she's halfway to schizophrenia. This woman is off the reservation.

BUT WAIT. These delusions are irrelevant because:

• She does not throw spaghetti
• She doesn't use bad language
• She will "make nice with*" black people, like Al Sharpton, if she has to.

Given these three facts about Michelle Bachmann, it couldn't possibly be that anyone is criticising her based on what she actually says. She DOES NOT throw spaghetti, people! She must be a reasonable human being. So why are they out to get her?

It's because she's happy and she doesn't need government! It's because she has a husband and kids, and let's be real here, that's rare in politics (just kidding: 85% of congressmen/women are married). Michelle Bachmann doesn't need government like all of these childless, single, hairy-pitted socialists - oh, well you know, not for most stuff, but she does need it for um, every job she's ever had. Oh, and for paying to teach creationism to her kids and others. She needs it for that, but she doesn't need it! She's happy, you guys! Why are you all so jealous of her government-dependentfree happiness?

Break it down for us, Billy O'Reilley: it's because she's young (-ish, thanks l'il Billy, we wouldn't want to flatter the woman too much) and attractive. Her and Sarah Palin just incite catfights with their mere shiny haired, wild-eyed existence. Because, OBVIOUSLY, it's women who can't stand attractive, successful women. Nancy Pelosi keeps hassling poor Michelle at her locker outside the Hall of Congress because she gets all the boys, and Nancy is jealous - she's seen how Michelle looks at Joe Biden, and she is having none of it. She called her rough gang of friends over at MSNBC and now IT'S ON. It couldn't possibly be that MSNBC picked up on one of a million incendiary and delusional things Bachmann says. Michelle is just being hassled by people because she's so pretty and happy, why can't you just let her be great?

The lesson in all of this, people, is that if maybe democratic women like Nancy and Hilary and Barbara would just be prettier, Billy and his friends wouldn't have such a problem with them.

The fact that someone can say something so obviously dripping with sexism, and cloak it as if it's not an opinion or projection, but just a description of reality, is nauseating. In Billy's addled mind, it's not that he's sexist, it's that it's such a shame that women in this culture can't handle how HOT MICHELLE BACHMANN IS!

Thank god these people are a little further away from being in charge.

*make nice?! What are you, 5??

UPDATE: By the way, by the magical hand of internet search algorithms, the video below is the #2 related video the O'Reilley/Bachmann linked earlier.

Fitting, somehow.

Priceless.

Oh. My. God. I don't even know what to say about this. The crazies are coming out of the woodwork BIG TIME. Let's go at this methodically.


Some of the major points, and associated rebuttals:


1. Everyone in the country is really upset that Letterman made a rape joke about someone at a basketball game.

• Wrong, wrong and wrong. Most people don't care about this. Most people don't even think it was a rape joke. Also, they were at a baseball game. What kind of American are you, you can't even remember our fucking past time? You don't even know which scandal you're talking about. Go home.

2. Letterman called A Rod a pervert

• Fair point. Let's take a minute to think about what a victim A Rod was in this situation, and thus, the Yankees. Has Letterman apologised to them? Noooo. I could get behind a protest of Yankee slander.
  

3. Jay Leno is the epitome of class and elegance, and he has better guests!

• NO. From a point well made by HuffPo:
  From two different Tonight Shows: "Governor Palin announced over the weekend that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant. Oh, boy, you thought John Edwards was in trouble before, now he's really done it!" AND..."All the Republicans are heaping praise on Governor Palin. Fred Thompson said, as an actor, he could see them making a movie about Sarah Palin and her family. Didn't they already make that movie? I think it was called 'Knocked Up!'"--Jay Leno
• Right now, he has no guests, since he isn't actually hosting anything.
  

4. Vote against the fascists and communists.

• Unrelated. Also, go ahead, if any of them are even running.
  

5. Letterman had a son out of wedlock!

• Unrelated, and who gives a shit?

6. Letterman had a daughter out of wedlock!

• Who gives a shit, and no, I don't think he did.

7. Letterman had a son out of wedlock!

• Objection: Relevance. Who gives a shit?
  

8. Letterman's son is a bastard and his wife is a slut!

• Who. Gives. A Shit.
  

9. Socialism is evil! - I'll say that again while snapping and bobing my head because you're black. Get it?

• What?....????
  

10. Close the borders and clean your house.

• ?????
  

11. Letterman will rape your children with his mouth.

• I highly doubt that, literally or figuratively. Children don't watch Letterman. And if they do, they've got bigger problems.
  

12. Go home and take care of your kids!

• I hope this woman has no offspring
  

And these are the crazies in NEW YORK, while undoubtedly always more colourful, they usually aren't so...FUCKING NUTS. Christ on a rocket I don't want to know what the red states are like.

As Frank Rich points out, no one can say this wasn't staring us in the face when a right wing crazy finally does something really extreme (because apparently shooting an abortion doctor and opening fire in the Holocaust Museum isn't enough).

This just in: Sarah Palin continues to be dumb.

Ah, Sarah Palin. The intellectually vacant loud-mouthed bullet we all dodged last November. For some reason, I thought that while 'book dumb,' if you will, she was a bit politically savvy. But it turns out she's an all-rounder when it comes to being inept. And, she's still here, around in the blogointermediaspheres saying and doing halfwitted things.

The Letterman scandal is the latest (from nydailynews). All of this hullaballo about the Letterman comment has brought something to the fore: I'm not sure people even know what being sexist is anymore.

What Letterman said, in the context of Palin and one of her daughters attending a Yankees game:

"during the seventh inning, [Palin's] daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Pailn's reaction:

"Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is ... disgusting," the Alaska governor said in a statement.

The former GOP veep nominee's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, was the only Palin child to attend the game at Yankee Stadium.

Alaska's First Dude, Todd Palin, said "any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable."

Woah. First of all, it's a terrible joke. But I think there's a bit of a straw man being built up and burnt down by the Palins here. Yes, 14 year old Willow was the only one at the game - but this is clearly a joke about the other Palin daughter who got pregnant at 17, and about the Palins' parenting. It's also a joke about ARod, aka StrayRod. And sorry Todd Palin, no one said anything about rape but you. It was a disgusting joke, and reacting by saying they found it offensive and inappropriate would have been a good move. Calling David Letterman a "62 year-old pervert", more or less insinuating he's a paedophile and a rapist is going a bit overboard.

Joy Behar mentioned that this is just Sarah Palin "going for the jugular" when someone goes after her kids. Can't you go for the jugular in another way? Palin had the right idea in responding to Letterman's flight attendant comment as "pretty pathetic" because that's what it was. This was a pathetic joke in poor taste, and they should react to it as such - not as if they'd found pictures of little girls on David Letterman's computer. Not that I'm a fan of sexual jokes about teenage girls, but I'm afraid they're made all the time - and it's a slippery slope if every time the comedian involved becomes a paedophile. The same joke about Jamie Lynn Spears would have gone unnoticed.

When it comes to savvy re: sexist comments, Palin might do well to take a page from Hillary's book (she should take quite a few) - don't say anything. Leave carefully crafted responses to your machine - the media will get outraged enough for you - and if they don't, that's the breaks. Keep on moving forward. I'm not saying its feminist paradise, but it's how it goes, and if you want to actually get anything done, you're not going to be able to keep up with the sexist comments.

More than this, the idea of the Letterman comment being sexist is slightly misplaced, mostly because a lot of people seem to think it is sexism towards Palin. Don't get me wrong - people have said plenty of sexist things about Palin, the flight attendant comment being one of them, but at some point saying anything negative about Palin was all of the sudden sexist. Letterman's comment is sexist in a general sense, in that the term 'she got knocked-up', as if it's something a woman did to herself with a man as an unwilling accomplice, is sexist in and of itself. The comment as a whole smacks of misogyny. Applied to a teenager, well, it's in very poor taste, as Letterman himself later pointed out. But it's not what the suddenly wounded republicans are making it out to be - it's not about Palin as a woman.

Where the outrage over this goes wrong is that this has nothing to do with Palin's gender. If anything, she should take this as a compliment she's being treated like a real politician. David Letterman is making fun of her like he would any other serious contender. If Lindsay Graham or Harry Reid had a daughter that had gotten pregnant at such a young age, obviously unintentionally, you bet your ass Letterman would have made that joke - and it still would have been in bad taste.

If Chelsea Clinton had turned up to the DNC in 1996 with a bun in the oven, comedians (and EVERYONE) would have had a field day. Stop it with the constant whining of: Why is Chelsea Clinton untouchable and Sasha and Malia Obama are untouchable and we get to go to town on the Palins, and sometimes the Bush girls? Well, because Chelsea Clinton didn't get caught throwing tequila back at 19, and the Obamas haven't had the pleasure of a teenage pregnancy. If the Obamas are visited by a little unexpected blessing in the future, people are kidding themselves thinking no one would say anything about it. The lesson here is that the Clintons and Obamas have controlled their children's images better, as opposed to parading them at the RNC with their "fiance" and trotting them out as an abstinence spokesperson...and new mother!!

Letterman isn't making fun of Palin because she's a woman or a republican, he's making fun of her because she's a politician with a scandalous family situation. Moreover, this isn't new - tasteless jokes about Palin's family have been around for awhile. One of them even featured John Edwards - because guess what - he's a politician who messed around on his wife - so comedians rip on him and his personal situation.

People are misunderstanding sexism, and thereby misrepresenting feminism, by jumping up to call any negative behaviour towards a female sexism. Whoopi Goldberg pointed out that if we're going to be angry about this 'at large' sexism at the heart of the Letterman joke, where is the outrage at the comments constantly made about young female celebrities? The mob screaming about the constant objectification of women and girls in the media? Shockingly, they're nowhere to be found.

And even going after Palin's intelligence is sexist. The attitude is that any criticism of what is supposed to be a successful female is sexism - and supporting a female no matter how dumb she is or how completely she represents the opposite of feminist ideals, is what a feminist should do. I'm sorry, but Elaine Lafferty stating "Sarah Palin is smart", and citing as evidence that she sat on a plane with her and says so, doesn't amount to any actual intelligence. She has to actually do something in complete sentences. She can be smart on the plane with Elaine Lafferty all she wants, but male or female, if you act dumb everywhere else, people will call you out on it. Dan Quayle anyone? George W. Bush maybe?

The joke was gross, and more than anything I want Sarah Palin to go away. I'd like for her to be irrelevant - obviously, she'd like the opposite, which is why she's on about the Letterman comment. She's angling for 2012 in her way, and I'm sure we're not getting rid of her anytime soon.

Let's just hope that by 2012 people realise that it's not sexist to insult a woman when she's being dumb, and its not 'feminist' to vote for an idiot just because she has a vagina.

WAKE UP

So I've written about this before, over at my friends blog. The stupid, lame-ass argument that gay people can't get married because we can't change the meaning of the word! It means a union between a man and a woman! It's not that people against gay marriage are nosy bigots, they're just grammar nazis!

Anyway, this has recently been taken to a new level. This video is patently hilarious:




WAKE UP!!!!!! GET WITH IT PEOPLE. Did you know that they edit the dictionary??? There are people that actually study language use, and then, get a job with Miriam Webster, and make the dictionary reflect how people use words! It's atrocious!

WAKE UP PEOPLE! WAKE UP! They edit the dictionary to reflect usage. Regularly. I'm surprised its taken them this long to change the definition of marriage - in fact, I'm surprised they still have two separate definitions. Entirely unnecessary. Most hilarious is the insinuation that they added this definition as part of a gay liberal pinko vegetarian political conspiracy. If there's one thing that's dumber than thinking that you can prevent people from doing something because it doesn't jive with your definition of a particular word, it's thinking that when that definition actually changes it's part of a conspiracy and you're "losing".

When you scramble to prescribe grammar to keep your sad little world from falling down around you, the battle was lost loooong ago.

Some thoughts on the Evolution Wars

As a nerd, I often traipse the internets for writings on evolution (and yes, I read up on creationsim and intelligent design too, and yes, it's still laughable). One of my favourite stops is Pharyngula, which is always witty, snarky, and correct in its assertions. Pharyngula is great for this - it's a blog, and it's meant to be a place for like-minded people to gather, not a PR firm for the atheist/evolutionist cause.

However, in general, it's this same snark that makes the creationism/evolution battle more difficult for us evolutionists. The more arugula they can throw at us in the absence or any actual facts or evidence, the further their cause gets.

People like Richard Dawkins (often considered by people who don't know much about atheism to be our Pope or something) embody this problem. He is often so snarky, so dismissive of religion, and so passionately shouting the gospel of atheism that it does more harm than good - and can have the effect of alienating people who previously had no opinion. Don't get me wrong here - Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist - I'm just not sure about the role he has taken on (but not necessarily asked for) as an atheist mouthpiece. At a conference on niche construction last year, someone said it perfectly: Richard Dawkins is the Bible's way of making more Bibles.

However, Dawkins' sometimes unsavoury attitude isn't the worst of the arugula ammo. There's been a lot of talk/writing about Darwin lately, since this year is the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, as well as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. One of the more controversial pieces among supporters of evolution is an essay in the Times by Carl Safina, Darwinism Must Die so that Evolution May Live.

It seems a lot of people have been unhappy about the sentiment of the article, including Pharyngula's writer, PZ Meyers, and Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True.

I'm not sure we should reject the 'Darwinism must die' mantra out of hand. For the most part, I agree that we should - but the most compelling reason for this is not ideological. It is what Steven Pinker points out (Coyne cites this), that intentionally trying to change words is futile at best (See my guest post on Nemo's Blog for more on this). However, there are political reasons for trying to do away with the term. And, as Pinker points out, reasons of political correctness are often the only way langauge can be intentionally changed. This isn't necessarily a matter of correctness, but bear with me.

Basically, we need to not be afraid of using the same battle strategies creationists consider as a first step. Creationism and ID (Intelligent Design) have been able to take hold (in the minds of the public) in the face of so much scientific evidence because they are willing to resort to cheap marketing tricks like trying to rename things (see: Intelligent Design).

They are organised in a way that atheists and Darwinists are not - in part because we can't believe that we have to take these people seriously. What we're missing is that while we may find the content of their mission silly, the effects of their efforts are very serious. While we're chatting away in the halls of Universities laughing at the laypeople, they may be handing this out to our children in public schools (without actually fully explaining the theory of Darwinian evolution, mind you). We are so holier than thou that we're going to lose because we refuse to even acknowledge there's a real fight.

Safina doesn't do a great job of making this point - he makes it seems like Darwinists are a 'one ideology, one man, one book' sort of group (sound familiar? Jesus maybe?), and we have to move away from the man so that we don't betray our true worship. More than that, he seems to feel the need to demean Darwin's contribution to evolution to justify doing away with the term. No, Darwin didn't have everything right. No one who knows anything is saying he did. However, he was the father of modern evolution, and though many advances have been made, there may have been nothing to advance upon if it weren't for him*.

More than anything, although Safina is a supporter of evolution, he seems to be using a different means to reach an end shared by creationists: painting Darwinian atheists as worshippers of a new rival religion, with The Origin as a holy book and Dawkins as head of the church. There is a perception of atheism and Darwinism as some variation on religiousity, when in fact it is the absence of religiousity and adherence to the scientific method.

As an atheist, it infuriates me when I am painted as some shade of religious. Not because of my disdain for organised religion (although I won't pretend I don't have any), but because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am about. I don't believe in anything, I don't have faith of any sort. I collect evidence, and draw conclusions from that evidence. I'm perfectly happy to look at new evidence and change my conclusions. If you sent me an angel who whisked me away and brought me to an audience with God, I'd be like: "Alright then." I'd be shocked, but I couldn't argue. However, evidence is of no concern to faith and religion; conveniently enough, the point is to believe in the absence of any evidence.

My personal offence aside, the perception of evolution and atheism as rival religious ideologies to Christianity is a potent weapon for the ID agenda. It allows creationists to continue to imply that our ideas exist to challenge theirs, when in reality our ideas exist because there is evidence for them. Darwin never sought to challenge Christianity, in fact, he was terrified of this particular side effect, and as a result delayed publishing his ideas. But the evidence was just too great. Science is not attacking Christianity - it has no opinion on it. You don't hear about Darwinists knocking on church doors with pamphlets. However, you do hear about pamphlets finding their way into classrooms. We wouldn't dare set foot in a church - but they are on our turf, weaseling their way into our science classrooms through the courts. And they have managed, somehow, to make it seem as if it is supporters of evolution who started it all!

Atheists and supporters of evolution have to find the middle ground, and stick to it. At some point right before or after Dawkins became our Pope, we became extraordinarily intolerant (which I'm not sure we actually are, we've just been successfully portrayed as such). I have no problem if you want to go to church for 5 hours a day. I do have a problem if you want to tell my kid they should go to church for 5 hours a day. I have no problem if you want your kid to pray in school (Muslims do it 5 times a day, and are entitled to do so in public schools. Your child is more than welcome to take a brief religious break). I do have a problem if my kid is made to pray in school (and to what? Imagine how confusing...)

I have no problem if the minute your kid gets home for school, you hand them a creationism pamphlet and tell them not to believe in evolution. I do have a problem if you insist no one learn it simply because it clashes with your values, and I have even more of a problem if you insist your values be presented next to it. Let's say you magically come up with irrefutable evidence that Darwinian evolution is simply wrong - what about that fact would make the Christian creation story right? Nothing. I do not have a religious ideology, a Darwin worship if you will, that is trying to supplant your traditional values. I simply don't believe in anything blindly. Do whatever you want, just don't force my kids to do it also.

No one is trying to force anyone to 'believe' in evolution (if you look at the evidence with a clear head, no force is needed). What we are trying to do is force people to learn about evolution, because sending our kids into a global economy with no real idea of what it is is seriously detrimental (it has implications far outside of biology). I think you'd be hard pressed to find a child of atheist parents who wasn't aware of the Christian creation story given in the Bible - even without having been specifically instructed on it (in a science classroom of all places).

However, I'd bet money America is rife with children who don't have a clear idea of what evolution even is (I didn't come from a monkey! My grandfather wasn't a chimp!), even if they have had the pleasure of deliberately learning about it. Moreover, outside of some weird creationist cottage industries (a handful of Christian Universities that give degrees in creationism and theological physics, theme parks with dioramas of children playing next to dinosaurs, etc), knowledge of creationism has no real purpose outside of one's personal life - so, 'study' it on your personal time.

Darwinism may need to die for evolution to thrive in America, even though I think the term gives credit where credit is due. It's not that Darwin wasn't fantastically influential, but the term perpetuates the notion that atheists and supporters of evolution are just some disorganised version of Scientology: a fancy new religion trying to drive out Christianity (see this comment made on Pharyngula, which uses book titles containing the word Darwinism to drive this point home).

If we are to win the creation/evolution battle (and unfortunately, there is a battle), we need to take a hint from the creationists and get organised. The atheist ad campaigns have their heart in the right place - put they are still serving to preach atheism as if it is a rival religion, instead of educating others about what atheism really is, and why knowing about evolution is so important. Atheists and supporters of evolution** are a ragtag, disorganised group with a myriad of different value systems - the opposite of an organised religion. Ironically, we may need to come together and have a few meetings to make sure people actually know what we're about, and figure out how to fight the persistent image that we are looking for converts.

*Yes, Alfred Russell Wallace also had the idea in a malarial fever haze, which is what pushed Darwin's hand into publishing The Origin, when he would have rather done it post-mortem (he left specific instructions to his wife). However, it was not so much the idea of evolution that was groundbreaking (Darwin's grandfather also had this idea) - it was the detail with which Darwin identified natural selection as the mechanism, and populations as the units, with more than a little help from Malthus' Principle of Population. Wallace had the same idea - but had amassed none of the evidence, and arguably never would have done so with the skill Darwin possessed.

**Notice I do separate these two; not all supporters of evolution are atheist, but they do share the common goal with atheists of making sure the ID agenda doesn't take hold. Atheists want this because we don't think religion has a place in the classroom, supporters of evolution simply believe that its extremely important in a science curriculum that evolution be included, and that the integrity of science be maintained (atheists usually also share the latter opinion).

Is this a gd joke?

So, if you haven't seen this article entitled "You try living on 500k in this town", go read it now. Try to be quick - I know you'll have to pause, at first for laughter, towards the end for vomiting. I'll wait.

First, I'll acknowledge the fact that this is a hilarious joke. I mean, the person writing it had to have been like "This will win awards for its irony if I can get my editor drunk enough to run it." Granted, it's in the 'Fashion & Style' section - so it's not exactly hard hitting journalism, but still, it is The New York Times, not Cosmo. If our buddy Alan Salkin was being dead serious in writing this, he is part of that eccentric, disconnected NY elite that could walk onto the set of Gossip Girl and no one would even notice. These people should really be in some type of exhibit, like a cross between Spaceship Earth and a zoo. This might be their only option if the downturn continues. I'd pay to see it.

Having been born in NY, and growing up in the NYC area, and attempting to live there on less than 30k a year not so long ago (which, I'll point out, I was successful at), I didn't immediately scoff when reading the title. NYC is tremendously expensive, and I know shit about economics. Maybe they're going to show me some fancy math that will mean it actually is difficult to live on 500k a year in NY (although pretty much everyone I know does it). But surely, even if the math does pan out, they're not honestly going to ask me to feel sorry for these people? I mean, they're technically the reason we're trying to surf through this economic shit storm, no? And on top of that, aren't we supposed to be feeling sorry for the people that don't have jobs at all?

It's laughable before it even gets to using complete sentences:

"Private school: $32,000 a year per student"

What? Private school? Did it occur to you that might have to go? I know that private school is prestigious and all, but THE SKY IS FALLING. Your kid will do fine in public school - if you're making 500k a year, the likelihood is that they'll do pretty well actually. In fact, I daresay the shock would do them good.

It only gets worse from there - a full time nanny? Um, what is this nanny doing while your kid is sneaking a cigarette in the private school bathroom? Your laundry? Well, maybe do it yourself? ....????

So after going through all these ridiculous things, including the fact (stated as if it should make your heart bleed) that many execs making $2-3 million break even at the end of a year, the article states what most people thought when they saw the title:

"Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard."

UM, YES. Or move ANYWHERE but Manhattan and you will get more square footage for your money (and perhaps better public schools if you move out of NYC). And fire the nanny, asshole. Try daycare? YMCA? Boys & Girls Clubs*? 

This modicum of sense is fleeting:

But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven figure income can stretch to cover.

First of all, what does being being a man have to do with it? Oh no! We can't possibly mess with the identity of rich white guys! It's really fragile. These are MEN. They can't take a pay cut. Nevermind that men already make more than women, and certainly in the financial sector. The underlying implication is that for some reason in this whole clusterfuck, we need to take a moment and make sure no ones feelings are being hurt - and not just anyone, the people involved in the very architecture of the shitshow. God forbid they get hit by any debris. 

Also, I doubt I'd be blogging from Scotland right now if my MOM hadn't been a New York-based financial executive (she retired about a year ago). In case you missed that connection, my Mom is a woman.  I get that more executives are men (my Mom can attest to this), but this little qualifier implies that the women involved in taking a pay cut would be happy to just go home and bake. Their identities will be fine! The job they've had to work ten times as hard to get than most men really has nothing to do with their identity. It's not like they've spent their adult lives making sacrifices for a powerful career; only men do that. The women will only take a hit cause they can't have $15,000 gowns to go to the galas! My gowns! Nooooooo!!!!

Lastly, maybe the summer house and the charity gala will have to go altogether (that takes care of the gown problem!). Cry me a fucking river. Go to Coney Island. Fine, it sucks to change your lifestyle - but at least you have a JOB. You should not complain in public. Cry into your walk-in closet of Armani suits. You should be ashamed. Do you think all the people being laid off right now get to be like, 

"Oooh, you know what though? I'm afraid I won't be able to maintain my lifestyle if you fire me. Pizza night every Friday is really important, I don't think my kids will stand for it being replaced by rations of Ramen. I'm gonna have to go ahead and deny your firing."

See, now that is actually depressing. Moving to Brooklyn, sending your kids to public school, and cutting down on your gala attendance is not. Moreover, it wouldn't go over so well to tell your boss you're refusing a firing. I think you might be committed. So, guess what assholes, you're fired. It's not that other people think $500k is a lot of money and you know the real truth, it's that $500k is a lot of money, and you just don't know how to use it.

Whine about it in the Fashion & Style section all you want - but its a terrible idea. I haven't really heard anyone suggest that $500k is too high, but throw around figures like this and it makes even me feel like it's too much. It makes me want to exile them to Delaware with a $30k salary and force them to wear prom dresses from Deb. The men too. How would that effect their identity?

So you know, if Salkin is actually offering, I'd love to try living on $500k in NY. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't find it that hard.

*If you know me, I suggest this in half jest. You know why.

What did arugula ever do to you?

There must have been some meeting of cloaked republican strategists, some time before this, that sounded something like the following:

Cloaked Man 1: Call to order! Has the kitten been sacrificed? Yes? OK, let's get started then. It's a pretty slow time right now, things are being mostly taken care of by the McCain campaign at this point...and if they're not the server running out of Cheney's chest cavity is taking care of it*. This is really just a procedural meeting. Does anyone have any motions to raise?

Cloaked Man 7: Yes! I move to amend section 6.342 of the charter with the following: FUCK ARUGULA.

Cloaked Man 1: The motion is to amend the charter with FUCK ARUGULA, this motion shall be put to a vote. All those in support of the motion, say 'aye'.

Everyone: [brief, contemplative silence...whispers of controversy...] Yes...YESS!! FUCK ARUGULA!! AYE!

So, there is a conservative War on Arugula and those that would eat this heathen leafy herby vegetable thing. Is it an herb or a vegetable? Do you cook it or do you eat it raw? Which is it? It's a god damn flip flopper is what it is. It's threatening family values. I've heard, you know, that some people even eat BABY arugula. They eat babies! They ABORT the arugula!

It could have been our next president.

Now, the above imagined meeting and rationalisation for the evils of arugula are patently ridiculous. They're a joke, and yet this is the best explanation I can think of. Why in the hell would you seize on arugula? What is wrong with you? Arugula is delicious, and not even that expensive, and not an acquired taste - it's a pretty simple vegetable-ish thing. Filet mignon, ok...Roquefort (especially in light of this ridiculousness), sure. Caviar? Foie gras? Yes. Arugula? What?

The latest person to sip some of this arugula haterade is Lisa Schiffren, who's just written a downright bitchy blog, titled "Arugula with that?" about the Obama's choice of chef. The Obamas have kept on the White House executive chef Cristeta Coverford, and also hired Sam Kass, a chef who owns a catering/private chef bussiness in Chicago often used by the Obamas. This NYT article makes it pretty explicitly clear that Kass was hired to fill an existing souschef vacancy, and not to replace Coverford.

I characterise this blog as bitchy without hesitation, which I wouldn't often do because a) it's a pretty loaded, often sexist term, and b) It's a blog, and like I've said repeatedly, bloggers don't matter and they can (clearly) say whatever they want.

But this is just too much. First of all, she implies something that is patently untrue, namely that Kass was the private chef on a full-time salary with the Obamas, going so far as to imply that he was just the tip on the iceberg of private, live-in servants employed by the Obamas in Chicago.

She even references the NYT article (did she even read it?), which she says is "gushing", without acknowledging that the facts in it - not whatever "gush" she is talking about - directly contradict half of her blog. Namely, Kass was never the private chef to the Obamas, but owned a catering business used by them. She also implies that keeping Coverford on was some liberal move not to piss off the feminists (but hiring her in the first place, since Laura Bush did it, had pure-hearted motivations), and that Kass is a deliberate plant to subvert Coverford. The Times article explicitly points out that Kass is filling an existing vacancy...so, you're saying that was just made up, for no reason, when they could have just said nothing if they were being so "gushy"?

Then, she extrapolates these non-facts to mean that the entire Obama image has been carefully crafted to make it seem like Michelle Obama is an actual mother, when in reality she's just a spoiled puppeteer leading an army of servants who raise her children and clean her house for her, and they did all of this to make Republicans look spoiled, rich, and elitist in comparison.

And lastly, it's fine if you are spoiled, rich, and elitist - but lying about it is baaad! Don't pretend to be some Joe Sixpack when you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, handed admission to an Ivy League school, own a ranch, and were born into a powerful career. It's disgusting!

It is at this point that it gets bitchy. Why do you have to imply that Michelle Obama isn't a good mother because they've used a catering business? Even if it was just to feed the kids one night, or just the family when no one felt like cooking, why on earth does that make Michelle Obama bad in her role as a mother?

If I could afford it, you bet your ass I would have a private chef known for using healthy, local ingredients. Which I get the feeling is somehow worse to Lisa Schiffren than hiring a professional chef known for deep frying twinkies - god forbid it be private and good for you. By almost any measure this is more down to earth than spending $150,000 on clothes in a matter of months, or owning multiple pairs of turtle skin cowboy boots. I don't get the connection between hiring a caterer and being a bad mother (my mom did it, and I'm awesome), and making it seems downright snarky and mean-spirited.

And what on earth does arugula have to do with it?

* Admit that this part is totally believable