Friday, October 24, 2008

The $150,000 Conundrum

Lately, screaming headlines abound on Governor Palin’s $150,000 clothing spree. I’m truly confounded by the outrage spewing from both the democratic and republican camps because seriously, if you’re looking for a reason to dislike Palin, her clothes are your best bet? What have you been doing these past few weeks? Living in the “real America?” I mean, really?

Personally, I’m offended by the attacks on her clothes because, giving credit where due, chick simply looks fabulous.

Exhibit A:

Or Exhibit B:

Or Exhibit C:

And can we just focus for one minute on the outfit she wore to the vice presidential debate...

Fierce! (Yes, I really did just say that).

If the repugs really are donating her clothes to charity, best believe that I’m trading in my louboutins to stand in a homeless line for a night or two.

So work it out then chick.

Seduced by a tea bag.

Perhaps the best tea endorsement I've ever heard was uttered by an acquaintance whose legendary alcoholic binges validated those conspiracy theories that the liver is just a tad overrated. In an attempt to relieve his hangover resulting from another weekend spent deep in his cups, I used him as a guinea pig to test out some samples of Mighty Leaf Organic Detox Infusion tea (yes, I remain determined to try out every single Mighty Leaf tea on the market). Ten minutes later, I receive a text from him, "Rather pepperminty with a touch of licorice flavor. Pretty tasty all around. Some brown sediment coated the cup. No discernable effects to my liver as of yet. Sexy bag."

Okay then, I’m sold?

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Sadistic, much?

Evil is when a professor makes you slave away in preparation for an examination (think showers and/or sleep optional) and finally, when face to face with the exam, you realize the exam is merely an nth of the level of difficulty as was forewarned (with menacing tones added for effect) by the professor. It is undoubtedly cruel. And just plain old inhumane.

Monday, October 13, 2008

This one, not so idle.

In response to my last blog, my sister responds "lol, you're so Carrie."

Now, dear sister, I must once more beseech you thusly- As much as I love love Carrie's sense of style, if you tell me one more time that something I've done is "Soooo Carrie," I shall have you killed.


Wedding Bells

In a few short months, T, one of my dearest friends from my undergraduate years and a former partner in debauchery, is getting married. I can sincerely say that I am (was) genuinely happy for her, such that I happily sat through hour-long phone calls listening to her bemoan the cost of petunias and gardenias, and I think I even managed a semi-legitimate squeal when I saw her baby blue bridal shower invitation card replete with a miniature organza wedding dress. Of course my bliss was short-lived because fast forward to last night’s phone call with T, during which she asks me if I have a "Williams Sonoma" nearby.
"Yes, why?" I ask.
"Oh, you know, for the registry."
I brush her off to say "Well, I have time. The wedding is in January."
She chuckles- she actually chuckles- to say- "Hon, I meant for the shower."
I’m now confused. “But I was going to order the gift for the wedding."
“Noooo, you give me cash for the wedding.”


Ten minutes of further chit-chat, I discover that I’m expected to bring a gift to every pre-wedding shindig because you know, this is “wedding etiquette” and “this is how [her] culture does it.” What Culture? Chick you’re from Kansas! But you know what, I’ll swallow my irritation and buy all $200 worth of gifts from your registry since you somehow forgot to register for anything under $50 and you just have to have two engagement parties, a bridal shower AND a bachelorette party.

However, I am now announcing to all my friends, including all nine of you who got married in the past two years and dragged me into your bridal party (because we’re SUCH good friends and if I don’t accept it’s just poor form)- I'm going to get married last and I shall make sure that I throw a wedding party attendance-mandatory (a) we're thinking about getting engaged party (b) watch us get engaged party (c) an engagement announcement party (d) an engagement party (e) a bridal shower (f) a Jack and Jill bridal shower (g) wedding dress fitting party (h) a cake tasting party (i) we broke up but got engaged again engagement party (j) bachelorette party in New Jersey (k) bachelorette party in Vegas (l) because I frigging can party (m) wedding ceremony party (n) reception day party and (o) brunch after reception party.

And like my last birthday, I’m registering at Tiffany.

This is not an idle threat. Just keep f*cking with me.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Well, so much for that

This fall I started grad school in New York. I had every intention of being as unabashedly touristy as possible, but unfortunately, the feeling didn't last:

On the 1 train, into our car steps a Mariachi band. Till the next stop they perform for us

My thoughts: I love these people! They don't even realize what a service they provide for us. We're often so deprived of art and culture, so what better way to fill this hole than during our daily commute? I'll give them money.

On the way home, the band again

My thoughts: What, they're still here? Sheesh.

Monday, October 6, 2008

In Defense of Marriage*

The vice-presidential debates reminded me of one of the few unifying factors between the current republican and democratic campaigns: the refusal to acknowledge gay unions as marriage. Post-debate discussions with my fellow viewers revealed the strong and prevailing sentiment that while gay couples deserve the same civil rights given to straight couples, "marriage" should be reserved exclusively for straight couples. When pressed for reasons, I was offered reasons that included arguments that legalization would lead to the inadvertent sanction of polygamy, devaluation of marriage, and the destruction of "family values". The most confusing, and yet the one with the most support, was the argument that marriage has nothing to do with legislation or the courts, but everything to do with religion.

In that room, I sat with five impassioned and educated adults, who silenced my voice with misinformed beliefs and opinions on gay rights and gay marriage. So I am left with this forum to speak directly to you, you, and all of you who think and believe the way you do, and by so doing have acted the way you have done, and as a result have prevented tax-paying citizens from having the civil and legal rights that you get to enjoy.

To begin, I challenge those that say that marriage has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with the State. Marriage is a CIVIL INSTITUTION where our government accords legal and civil rights on the basis of that status. It is a civil institution wherein your moral and religious ideals should have no place. I ask you, why is it that marriages are not legally recognized in this country without a marriage license? Why is it that your marriage is not legal if not officiated by legally sanctioned officiant? (What? You thought your priest (or applicable religious leader) could willy nilly legally marry anyone they chose without being legally certified? In the eyes of God, yes. In the civil realm, no they cannot.) Examples abound but I shall stop from heading down this rabbit hole of proving a concept that should simply be a "duh."

Do you really think that by imposing your prejudices and phobias upon gay people- I meant to say: When you condescend to allow gay couples "civil unions" while reserving "marriage" for your precious straight couples, do you not really see the harm you're doing? Without the protection of "marriage", you are guaranteeing a sect of second-class tax-paying citizens who are subject to improper or inadequate health care and benefits, lack of rights in child custody scenarios, inheritance issues, social security and pension denials, immigration issues, etc. etc. Or how about the effect on employment, especially for those in the military? Or did you forget the brilliance that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Don't you dare tell me that things are coming along and gay people should be happy with the crumbs tossed to them. To date, only two states recognize gay marriage, while eight states and the District of Columbia recognize civil unions which offer varying degrees of the legal rights offered to heterosexual couples. The thing is, no one is asking you to open your churches, your mosques, temples, and prayer houses, to gay people. Nor are they asking you to find the gay lifestyle enticing. It is simply about equality, legal rights and civil rights. Something the United States Constitution guarantees and last I checked (and despite the many attempts of the current administration to whittle it down to a mockery immortalized on crumbling parchment paper), the Constitution of the United States is the ultimate, the absolute and the fundamentals of our laws.

Do not counter my arguments above by throwing your religious convictions or your bible scriptures in my face. My God is your God and OUR God is tolerant and loving. And please do not give me the family values argument or the argument that you romanticize the notion of marriage. In my experience, those who always cite their religious feelings are usually the ones with the most dirt. After all, wasn't it Senator Edwards who claimed his religious beliefs prevented him from supporting gay marriage all while mocking his marriage vows in one seedy motel room after the other. Or the many outed anti-gay legislation members of congress who are caught in compromising homosexual situations. (Larry Craig anyone?)

I am not shallow enough to believe that I can change your mind, but I am arrogant enough to try. Be human, be real. Civil unions are not the same as marriage, either in concept or legally. Fifty years ago we legally struck down the separate but equal doctrine and we began to move away from it. It was abhorrent then and while arguably in a different and more amorphous format, the doctrine should still be abhorrent today. Please listen- your prejudices and phobias have far-reaching negative effects that do not exist in a vacuum. And I swear to you, if you opened your eyes, you will see.

*The views expressed in this blog are solely those of Me. Oogie in no way contributed to the views and opinions expressed herein.

Finally! Someone who gets it right

In concurrence with the views shared in the above link, may I stress that Governor Palin SUCKED during the Vice-Presidential debates. This is despite the oh-so-knowledgeable political pundits/commentators/analysts/know-it-alls that delusionally think chick did a gosh-darned great frigging job because she "did not fall flat on her face." Or because "all things considered..." Or because you know, it's her "first time on the national stage."

Lay off the moonshine people because I must respectfully disagree; she plain-old with no caveats s-u-c-k-e-d.

And for the record, SUCKED!!

Oh, and wink.