Fashion for the Recession

Cutouts and peek-a-boo holes. An artful slash here and a provocative slice there... Now there's a Fashion Week trend I can get behind, even in these recessionary times. Especially in these recessionary times. Not for the actual fashion aesthetic, mind you, but simply as a matter of practicality. That threadbare T-shirt with the gaping hole in one shoulder, all those sartorial makeovers I've attempted on a garment armed with nothing more than a pair of scissors... Suddenly I've found a way to "spin" a woebegone wardrobe that screams "poverty" into one that purrs "fashion." This is one trend that I hope goes viral.

But I know how those fashionistas roll: troll the streets for inspiration, preempt the trends of the poor-and-not-so-famous, then dump said trend once it catches on. Or pair it with fur (another catwalk trend) to separate yourself from the (shudder) poor-hungry-tired masses for whom "the look" is not a conscious fashion choice but rather an economic necessity.

Oh Fashion... you heartless, spendthrift bitch...

The Bailout Booth

Apparently there's a new site out there called bailoutbooth.com. And to generate some media buzz for their site they set up a booth in Times Square in NYC and just, like, handed out crisp $50 bills to anyone and everyone who stood on line--even more, in some cases, if one's tale of economic woe managed to so move the mystery man in the booth.

But if you missed out, no worries. Plans are already in the works for booths in other major cities such as Boston and Philly, among others. So start crafting and honing your tale of woe, folks... I know I am. Then I'm going to blow all $50 on booze, invite over some friends, turn on the CNN, and play a little drinking game: whenever some talking-head utters the word "Bailout" everyone has to chug a shot. Because if we really are facing "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" I think a bit of binge drinking is in order--wouldn't you say?

The Bailout Booth: coming soon to a city near you...

I Hope Obama Doesn't Get Mad At Me...

But from what I've read, Obama wants to make Washington more "wired" for the express purpose of making our Government the transparent one it purports to be. Towards that end, let me point out the conflicts-of-interest inherent in the proposed Bailout for the Big Three Auto-Makers:

The unions are one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. The UAW (United Auto Workers) does not want the Big Three to crash or file for bankruptcy. Because if that happened, the Big Three wouldn't be able to make good on the wages, pensions, and other benefits the UAW has negotiated for its workers. I'm sure the UAW is lobbying hard right now for this proposed bailout...

And some Democrats may be tempted to back this proposed bailout mainly to curry favor with the voters of manufacturing-heavy, blue-collar states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--all of which went Blue this past election. If the elected representatives from those states want to fight for this proposed bailout on behalf of their electorate, that's fine with me. What's not fine with me, however, is if the Democratic Party as a whole backs this bailout because it's more concerned about protecting its position in future elections than with the overall financial health of this nation.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happening here. But I just want everyone to factor in these conflicts-of-interest when forming their own opinions on this proposed bailout. Because this isn't just our current financial well-being at stake, here--in reality, we are paying for these bailouts using the credit cards of our children, so to speak. We can't keep doing that--we just can't. Let those kids get into their own credit card debt, if they do--because that's the American way...

Sometimes A Bankruptcy Is Better Than A Bailout

Every family has one: that perpetual-screw-up relative who incessantly asks for a Bailout (then blows the money on Lottery tickets, or the latest get-rich-quick scheme, or whatever). And as long as you keep giving it to them, they'll keep asking... and never learn how to make it on their own.

The Investment Banks, the Big Three Auto-Makers, AmEx, maybe even DHL now--where's it going to end? Who'll be next to play Great-Depression-Era starving urchin before Congress, begging for a handout (or at least some more gruel...) According to the WSJ, as many as 52 companies are now on track to collect bailout money.

Well. Some experts say that a Bankruptcy Reorganization may actually be a better option in the long-run for some of these faltering institutions. AIG is one such named example. And they've already burned through their original bailout funds and are now asking for more... as though we taxpayers even had it to give. And the fact that AIG continues to engender more bad PR by hosting events/meetings at spa-like settings (except that now they instruct those spas and whatnot to keep AIG's name hush-hush)... So stoopid. It would be far better, AIG (from a PR perspective anyway), to stop with the $400 business-meals and stuff, and maybe get your ladies-who-lunch wives to throw a Potluck Fundraising Event or something... or at least pack you a brown-bag lunch. Just a thought.

And if you need a bailout, you better hurry up and stand on line... because they're going faster than tickets to Obama's Inauguration.

Here are some previous posts of mine on this topic:
http://theadventuresofwonk.blogspot.com/2008/10/bailout-for-us-auto-makers.html
http://theadventuresofwonk.blogspot.com/2008/10/calling-bullsht-on-bailout-part-1.html
http://theadventuresofwonk.blogspot.com/2008/10/treasury-department-redacts-bailout.html

Mormons Are "Baptising" Victims of the Holocaust

Did you know that they actually do this?! Well apparently, posthumous baptism-by-proxy has been a common Mormon practice for more than a century. The point? To reunite Mormons with all their "ancestors" in the afterlife... regardless of whether those ancestors happened to be Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, whatever. So disrespectful.

Not surprisingly, many of the Jewish faith are grossly offended by this practice, and the very thought that Holocaust victims who were murdered precisely because of their religion would then be posthumously baptised for Mormon purposes... and without their consent. Even the Vatican has ordered Catholic dioceses worldwide to withhold member registries from Mormons to prevent Catholics from being "baptized" in this fashion.

Thought Death would finally protect y'all from those persistent Latter Day Saints out to convert your heathen souls? Apparently not.

And I thought the Mormon Church funding the Vote-Yes-on-Proposition-8 thing was offensive (not to mention hypocritical, in light of all that bigamy). Sheesh...

Here's an article on this topic: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-10-jewish-baptisms_N.htm?csp=34

Sundays with Sus--11/9

What a week. But no hanging chads! No "Bradley effect"! And Palin's back in Alaska--hurrah! So now what? The Obama Campaign awakened this, like, Activist in me... and that soapboxing genie will not be shoved back into her bottle (no matter what her Master says). So.

But every activist does need a great Cause... And here are some options I'm mulling over this Sunday:

1) Help Alaska Secede From the Union: Seriously. I used to have such warm-n-fuzzy impressions of Alaska. It started with "Northern Exposure" (remember that show?), which made Alaska seem so darn quirky and charming in its idiosyncrasies. To me, Alaska was where my parents took their cruises... Where my brother did his fishing... I had no idea what actually lurked within those borders. A governor who thinks Africa is a country! (Even my ten-year-old nephew must be laughing his ass off over that one.) A senator who may be the first convicted felon in history to be elected to the United States Senate! What the $#@*&! is going on up there?!!
So, I'm thinking of packing up my parka and joining the Alaska Secessionist Movement (but as a mole--shhh, don't tell). Except... they'll probably expect me to handle a rifle, huh, and like shoot stuff... So maybe that won't work, after all.
2) Free David Gergen! I love that man about as much as I could love any old white dude who served as an adviser to three Republican Presidents (Nixon, Ford and Reagan). But he served as an adviser to Clinton, too, and he identifies himself as an Independent (hurrah!). Plus he's got this Cat-in-the-Hat quality about him:

Isn't he just... Seussical? And he's the best, always spot-on, voice-of-reason political commentator there is... and far too good for CNN. See, CNN loves to brag about how it's the most trustworthy source in cable news... but that's mostly bull, and hidden bias. At least MSNBC is upfront about its political leanings (see Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman). But CNN is all sneaky about it... and sometimes sloppy too.
If you don't know David Gergen yet, you should. And once again I say to CNN, Free David Gergen!--you're not worthy. And Mr. Obama, couldn't you please find a special hallowed place for him in your administration? The country would be a far better place as a result... seriously.
Oh, and I still watch CNN all the time... I just make sure to have that salt shaker nearby... just in case.
3) Gay is the New Black: Like being told to drink from the "Coloreds Only" fountain--that's what the passage of Proposition 8 here in California is to gay and lesbian citizens. (I wonder if the 7 out of 10 African American voters who voted yes on Prop 8 realize that.) "Civil Unions" are just as good as "Marriages"? Well, segregated schools in the South once argued that segregation was totally legal because, hey, the schools were separate but "equal." And um, remember those nasty little anti-miscegenation laws that were supposedly just "preserving" the centuries old institution of marriage? Well, a vote for Prop 8 was like a vote for those no-mixing-of-white-with-black-blood marriage laws. That a person could on the same ballot vote first for Obama and then vote yes on Prop 8--The hypocrisy/irony there is too much for me... It really is.

Well, here comes the next Civil Rights movement... because it seems in this country that someone has to be treated like a second-class citizen... always. From "Jim Crow" to "Jim Queer"--is that where this nation is headed? If so, I say OK--bring on the "Gays Only" fountains, and restaurants, and theaters/galleries/concert-halls, etc. etc. I may be "entitled" to the "Straights Only" venues... but hey, I'd rather go where much of the funny/talented/aesthetic are... if they'll have me. Because I wouldn't blame them for being really suspicious of all us "straights" right now...

Even Some Republicans Are Trying To Ride Obama's Coattails

Good God, Karl Rove. Before the election, you were saying that Obama was the most liberal Leftist. After the election, well now you're saying that Obama is really a Conservative, or Center-Right Centrist. You threw me for a loop there, Karl. For about a minute. And then I realized what you're trying to do: steal some reflected glory from Obama's victory and his mandate from the people (through your usual spin), in an attempt to save your cannibalizing Republican party which is currently eating itself alive.

Nice try, Karl. But now I understand this wave of articles I've been encountering lately that ask the question: Is Obama the true Conservative? Is he really Ronald Reagan, the Sequel? And so, did the Republican Party in effect "win" this election? Once you just put the proper spin on things?

Maybe y'all aren't evil (exactly). You're just hopelessly incompetent and totally inept... and 8 years wasn't long enough for y'all to even figure it out. Or maybe you just make the same mistake that Hollywood studios often do: you underestimate the intelligence of your audiences. Then scratch your heads when those movies tank.

One thing I've learned though: I will not trust labels, any of them, that others try to attach to our new President and his Administration. Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat--they're just labels. And I don't care (anymore). From now on, I'll do my own homework and come to my own conclusions, thank-you-very-much.

How To Win Enormous Cash & Prizes

$25 million: Richard Branson's prize for the solution to Climate Change
$30 million: The X Prize for landing a lunar rover on the moon by 2012
$75 million: The Michaelson Prize for inventing "The Pill" for dogs and cats

$75 million! Doesn't that make you wish you had become a Scientist? And all you'd have to do is just, like, use your mind... and get all "Mavericky" about it.

But that pill... well it has to be single-dose. And completely non-surgical. There's the rub.

Regardless, it seems all the really big money these days is in R&D: Research and Development. And it takes some tycoon philanthropist to really make change happen. Hmm...

Hey... what's Warren Buffet doing with his money these days, do you think?

"Drill, Baby, Drill"? No. More like, "Dumb, Baby, Dumb"

I still go a little apesh*t every time I hear that chant, "Drill, baby, drill." I've talked myself down... again. But, here's what I'd like everyone to do:

Let's all do some basic math here, of an order not even challenging enough to make it onto that show, Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

If we exploited every ounce of oil within our jurisdiction through off-shore drilling, we'd be able to produce around 3% of the world's oil supply. We currently consume about 25% of the world's oil supply. So. Where's that other 22% gonna come from, people?

Currently, Scientists are not entirely sure how long it takes for the Earth to produce oil. But most believe it takes something like hundreds of thousands of years. Again, given the frightening rate at which we consume oil, let's all think about the math here. If oil is indeed so plentiful, as some still argue, why are gas prices what they are? And why do our Leaders seem willing to send in our poor exhausted troops to fight to preserve our access to that oil? I wonder...

Here's a fascinating article, though, that I found this morning, entitled Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol. Here's an excerpt:

"To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil."

Pretty trippy, eh? Some might even say it's "radical"...

Read the article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

OMG, I'm About to DEFEND Sarah Palin(!)

I am no fan of Ms. Palin. Clearly. But I, for one, am not going to stand for this media onslaught focused almost entirely on Ms. Palin, whom I see as little more than a patsy in many respects.

Whether the RNC spent too much "styling" Ms. Palin is so beside the point. The question is, is there any precedent for this kind of spending, on candidates either male or female, by either the Republicans or the Democrats? Did the DNC spend money styling Hilary? Or Geraldine Ferraro? And when We-the-People make contributions directly to the candidate of our choice, are our contributions going towards this kind of frivolous spending? If so, do We-the-People want to perpetuate this kind of politics-as-usual gamesmanship and the worship of Style to the complete exclusion of Substance?

Which is why I just fired off a rather snippy and snarky email to CNN Headline News... and I generally like their coverage of the news.

And try to watch NBC's Brian Williams' long-awaited interview (tonight?) with Palin, and McCain. Take special note of how Daddy McCain had to sit beside her, in order for Ms. Palin to face (or be allowed) to meet the press. The Republicans are treating Ms. Palin like a patsy... and I, as a woman, am more than a little peeved. Maybe if the Republicans had just let Ms. Palin sink-or-swim on her own (like Joe Biden does, for good and bad), instead of focusing on how to dress up their "Caribou Barbie" and what words to put on her teleprompter... well, maybe she would have eventually figured out how to avoid all the embarrassing gaffes she has been making. Maybe not. But still...

*************************************************
Postscript: Thank you, Keith Olberman of MSNBC, for answering some of my questions. Neither party is innocent here--Clinton was once getting $200 haircuts, apparently, on the taxpayers' dime. The irony is, McCain himself, back when he actually acted a bit like the straight-talking "maverick" he still claims to be, raised this very issue of the frivolous spending of public funds by politicians on highly personal expenses, including one's wardrobe. Once. Oh McCain... maybe I should start calling you King McLear instead...