Women and Politics

Against my better judgement (or not), I am taking a Women and Politics class this semester.

(Admittedly, it's with one of my favorite professors in the department, so I mainly did it for her. That and my "Speaking Intensive" requirement.)

There are many ideas that I disagree with in the course. Perhaps I will touch on those later. However, I thought that I'd post my reaction to an article I read. It was the first one that hit a chord in me, the conservative woman who didn't necessarily long to put herself under the "woman" category.

The article discussed the lack of women running as candidates forpolitical office. One thing that fascinated me was the theory behind the reluctance of women to run for political office. The study claimed that women constantly underestimated their capabilities and even women with the most credentials "didn't feel experienced enough."

And that completely struck a chord in me. If there's anything, in college I have felt that anything I had previously done was shoddy work. I read my past entries, newspaper articles, and I wince. I read more and more and lament over not having time to research more in a certain subject. I have basic knowledge of 3 languages containing different alphabets (Ukrainian, Farsi, Arabic) and I can read them with a decent accuracy. Everyone tells me "I don't know how you do this!" I know a lot about this, about that.

But every morning I wake up and I feel that there is so much more I could be doing. Why is my language study not progressing fast enough? Why can't I measure up? Why is my Middle Eastern knowledge so shallow? How dare I call myself a "specialist" in anything? I feel like the stupidest student in the department.

I am not doing this to show off or garner compliments. This is a feeling that I sincerely am faced with all the time. I would NEVER run for political office if I didn't feel that I was perfect. And I wonder, is the article correct? Do women feel that they are under extra scrutiny, and that they need to be perfect? That besides running a political campaign and being knowledgeable of all the issues, they need to be a great mother or the ideal model of a single woman, and look good doing it?

Is it a concern that is solely gender based? That might be ambiguous, however, the study did have a lot of hilarious quotes of men saying "I can run the government better than _____!" while women hardly ever made those sort of statements. Even as a non-feminist, in my experience, that's been true a majority of the time.

Do we hold ourselves to impossible expectations?

And does it even matter in the long run? Does it really affect a woman's perception of her own ability to become involved in politics?

Thinking...

One year later...

Or close enough. I'm not sure how many people bump into this blog anymore, if any. I always do wish to resurrect it, and when I get started, I realize how little I know and then I back down. College has been an extremely humbling experience.

Just an update, whether it's for any stragglers out there, or for my own reference point. I am double majoring in Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Mary Washington. My Arab studies are under way, and I am studying both Arabic and Farsi. I am extremely enamored of these two beautiful languages. I am studying Islam, Islamic politics, American government, and am taking a step into the Latin American government sphere (of which I know nothing about currently).

I am somewhat disturbed on the education I am receiving from professors here. I will not name names, but in a few classes I am beginning to become quite exasperated by the teaching quality. A few of my professors just do not seem to care, and my learning of the particular subjects has suffered due to them. I also have learned to never take what they say as fact, from wide reaching political statements to telling me what date a war started or who is the current Grand Ayatullah in Iran.

(I still believe that our professors, in general, are pretty great. But I have to do a lot of my own additional research for a few of their classes. Scary how much people might be taking what they say as pure fact!)

A lot of my work on campus relates to relations and the Arab-Israeli conflict (among other problems of anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, anti-Christianity....mainly those who are very anti-religion or are very radical in their views of the Middle East). I have actually dropped out of the "College Republican" sphere because it was just not for me. I would rather really be organizing important rallies, lectures, and movies, then...well, those of you who are with political groups on campus could probably guess what gets done at a lot of those meetings. It's just not my thing, and I'm tired of the two-party political backbiting and I want to work part of the actual government itself, not necessarily in political office. (Or with an NGO. Who knows where I'm going?)

Not to mention that I just don't fit in with that world. I'm too weird! ;)

(It also disgusts me how little some of the high-ranking CRs speak up in my political science classes. They may have high CR positions, and in some cases I just have to guess that Mommy and Daddy's name and/or money got them those spots. Because when the professor is standing up in front of the classroom and crushing your beliefs, and you're silent or just not caring, I've got problems with that. And some thinking that they're too good for this? Really.)

I'm also doing a lot of "religious" sort of work...hopefully in the future with the pro-life movement, and a lot of service work. It completely shocks me how I can't avoid politics in any of these things; that the littlest thing is affected by it. Well, thank the good Lord I'm going for my BA in Political Science then!

I'm still fascinated by the study of Political Science, but my view of how I want to implement my studies has changed.

I spent a month of my summer in L'viv, Ukraine, working with children who have the worst lives one can ever imagine. It was absolutely heart-breaking, life changing, every sort of earth-shattering adjective you could think of. I've made lifetime friends there, and I've also picked up a smattering of Ukrainian. My reading is pretty good, and I'm still pursuing the study of the language so I can really communicate well with the children if I return.

Well, there that is. The American Lady of 2004 in 2007. I never thought my life would take a turn like this, and my life has never been more uncertain, but I'm my happiest because I know God's placed me here.

Quotes:

These quotes are taken from journals at the Mary Washington LiveJournal community.


"Now all we need is for Cheney to shoot himself in the head on his current hunting expedition."

"OMG ALL BUSH AND CHENEY HAVE TO DO IS CHOKE DURING A TRAGIC PRETZEL BINGE."


"And now it looks like a re-count and the whole nation (and world) will focus on my home state as its vile, bigoted, redneck fucking piece of shit Senator George Allen and his goons fight it out in the courts to try and hold on to the Senate."

"we wont have to see fucking allen and his smarmy ass face anymore. he looks like shit now, and i've never been so pleased."

"fucking george allen. i'd like to buy him a cocktail..... something... russian. with a rag."

and fuck virginia. stupid fucking ass-backward close-minded fuckwits.

Way to celebrate, Dems. Such class!

I was always bad at chess...

Was I the only one that woke up this morning going "Good, a new opportunity."?

Am I a minority- a positive Republican, post 7 November 2006?

Kean, New Jersey, great job. Is our state really going to have to actually fall into the water for them to understand? Plus, Menendez rejected me when he saw my resume sample paper on the subject of the extremities of the separation of Church and State, so obviously the man does not know good consituents when he sees them. HA.

Kidding.

[On a side note, I never wanted to work for Democrats, but somehow my resume accidentally got to both Menendez and Clinton. I'm still waiting for Senator Clinton's reply....]

Honestly, I hate to look at it this way, but politics is a giant chessboard. Pieces get taken, pieces try to move in strange ways on the board (like for example, that person who jumps their pawns 2 squares ahead, you know who you are), and depending on how you play it, some pieces get brought back and bargained for.

Conditions are always changing. Black and white. White looks like it's winning, and then black makes a stunning move that puts white into check.

If you look at politics in a football play diagram/chessboard/etc. point of view, you notice that there are patterns followed. Nancy Pelosi, the new queen of the board, may want her knights to move like a bishop, while some of the new Democratic knights of the House may be having none of it, telling her that they are moving in the more moderate way they were, as they promised their voters.

Nancy Pelosi may be blocked by the king, who says "You're not going ANY further left. Take that pawn over there, NOW!"

And if not, most Americans do not like extremes on both sides, left OR right. If The queen decides to knock over the king and keep moving left, the "one pawn, one vote" citizens looking on will frown on it and take action.

It's democracy at its best. So our side lost. There are implications, but as I feel that the nation is moving to become more moderate, it's going to be hard for any radical element to really take over, in my opinion. All we can do is wait and watch.

And for those more ruthless than I, now that the white side of the board is in the spotlight, 2008 elections may be more promising for the black king, whoever that will be once Pres. Bush retires. Sit back, let the Dems work, fight for what we can. But if they are wrong, and we are right, would we really have a problem taking back control?

Thoughts, thoughts. Always in danger and never in the safe zone.

Either way we never know what is going to happen next.

Here's to building a stronger party in the next 2-6 years, to take control back in the hands of the Republican party. Give me a couple years of Dem control for long term Republican party building, and I'll take it.

Oh, what a wonderful man!

Way to go, John Kerry!

A man of the (educated) people!

A man out there to defeat all (Republican) hacks!

A man who will tell you the (relative) truth!

Seriously, Senator, if I were you, I'd reconsider showing your face in the 2008 presidential election.

I have a secret:

I want a monarchy here in the United States.

Yeah, there, I said it.

I WANT A MONARCHY.

Spending 3 months studying democracy in the United States is making me ill.

There's something about Iran:

Let me get this straight, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man off of his rocker. I can't stand his opinions or what he stands for. His anti-Israeli sentiment makes me ill.

But you know what, I will say this, I admire the man's "guts" (there's a vulgar word that might work better there, but I dislike that word in conversation or writing).

The man has guts. He talks great smack. He defies the UN (who can do absolutely nothing to really enforce as an organization). He tells the world that nothing will stop him from enriching uranium. If he was on a reality TV show...

The talks had been seen as a last-ditch attempt to avoid a full-blown confrontation between Iran and the U.N. Security Council after Tehran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment — a key step toward making nuclear weapons — or face punishment.

Face punishment?! Being ridiculed in the US media? Having Europeans refuse to speak to you? Go UN! Way to bring it!

There's got to be a different way to handle this. We've got the crystal ball effect in place (do we really think that Iran would fire at Israel with a weapon, fully knowing of 2nd strike capability?). It's almost up there with the Cuban Missle Crisis, how crucial Iran is in the stability/instability/peace/chaos in the Middle East.

Sometimes, knowing the 2nd strike capability, I almost want to let Iran have the capability for nukes. (The politics of the nuclear age is a fascinating topic).

Ahmadinejad is bringing it with all he's got. And I propose that we take our turn, and give it all we've got.

Shut up, liberals.

I've never been so blatently angry at liberals in general on my blog. Be prepared to read a lot of third-grade rhetoric (in the form of "shut up, liberals") in this entry.

I am angry.

I've seen one too many "Jesus is a liberal" bumper stickers and buttons and patches.

Shut up, liberals.

Let's see. Jesus loves the poor, the outcasts, everyone, hates war, embraces peace, loves children.

Sounds pretty liberal doesn't it?! Conservatives hate the poor, everyone who isn't them, we pick wars for the fun of it, and we kick children to the curb.

Okay, so some conservatives fit the label above. Or some of it. I don't think that I fit anything. Or other conservatives that I know.

I want a liberal to tell me that Jesus would support:

A) The Welfare State (in its current form...y'know, instead of us helping people on our own, we need to be tied to a pole by the government on where our money goes)

B) Abortion and Homosexual Marriage - (Jesus would embrace the women who had an abortion and homosexuals, forgive them, and love on them. But could you really say that Jesus would march around in a gay parade holding a sign saying "Support gay marriage!" or sneer at people who don't support abortion?)

C) Bashing conservatives (Jesus probably doesn't like liberals laughing at "white, Christian conservatives"....or anyone else, for that matter.)

D) Throwing money at public schools repeatedly instead of really looking at the root cause of the problem? Obsessing with paying teachers the right salary (which is high enough already, shut up- all my Catholic school teachers got paid practically half of public school salaries. they were there because they loved children,) instead of focusing on how to teach children correctly?

I can't think of anymore. If anyone has anything to add to the list, let me know. Those questions don't have definite answers. If they don't have definite answers, stop saying that HE SUPPORTS YOUR CAUSE MORE.

Not that Jesus loves conservatives more, or anything. I believe that He'd also have some major problems with us, seeing that many of us invoke His name and talk about how much we love and worship God...yet we don't follow His teachings concerning everything on the platform.

Jesus lived in a time of authoritarian/(argue totalitarian) governments, oligarchies, and arguably, rough monarchies (in a sense). Stop putting Jesus into your message and saying that He would love your side more.

It's like the Pharisees, all words, no real action and intent. Jesus would rather us do the action and have the intent. Stop plastering His name all over your stupid political signs.

(The theme of my entrywas definitely un-Christlike, forgive me, which is why I am not carrying a sign that says "Jesus loves Lorraine more than everyone." I told myself repeatedly, "write this entry out of love, Lorraine!"...I tried.

But seriously, stop affiliating Him with your cause. I'm sure that He could care less about American political parties and more about the people of the world.)

It's all assumptions, but people, you can't put Him in a box.

5 years later.

I haven't forgotten.

I will admit it.

I regret, at this moment, becoming a political science major.

I'm taking a class that is mainly focused on the American Democracy. Is it a pure democracy? Or not? Why? What can we do to bring it back to pure democracy?

Here's the answers we learned on day one, in the order of the questions: No, it isn't a pure democracy. Because our founding fathers were evil slaveholders. We can't do anything except talk about it!

There goes my $900. In one day we answered the question of the course.

We're reading Dahl's How Democratic is the American Constitution?, where he ridiculously states that he's just trying to get us to THINK about our constitution. (Right. He answers his own question in Chapter 1, more than once.)

There are 2 types of democracies. Both work brilliantly in utopia, but horribly in reality. Obviously nothing works the way that it theoretically should. One is not REALLY better than the other, hence, there really is no "pure, true democracy"...

I'm ready to accept a dictatorship at this point. I'm only half kidding about that.

I advise anyone NOT to read the book. Dahl accuses the the Framers of bearing "profound ignorance" of what would happen in the future. My dear Dr. Dahl, unless you've teamed up with Miss Cleo, you are just as ignorant of the future as James Madison was.

NO FRAMER could have predicted the future.

Although our "democracy" and "Constitution" unmistakably has flaws, the logic and writings (such as the words of The Federalist) still manage to put shivers up my spine every time. It's beautifully written, intricate logic, that I doubt ANY writer today could match. It's much easier for the writers and professors of today to write and lecture against the logic, without really offering solid answers of their own.

Therefore, I am probably the last person to deserve a BA in Political Science. I sometimes wonder if college is worth it. But I grit my teeth and keep on truckin'.

Dude.

People hate that I bash on some Republicans too much. (I say that I make justified comments, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to!) I'm from the self-degrading school, so of COURSE I am going to expect the party that I support to pass my expectations.

So I can admit that there are Republicans out there that are downright nasty and say horrible things just to get a rise out of liberals.

Sometimes I even think that conservatives can be nastier (not that we as a group ARE, or that a large percentage are, but that some are just incredibly rude and not classy), and then I read things that some liberals post, and then I'm definitely out of THAT frame of mind.

It drives me insane, what some of these people say! Seriously, they want to CHARGE President Bush with murder in a court of law? Death threats on liberals aren't funny, but wishing death on our president is common knowledge? Republicans are all close minded and intolerant? 1000 variations on the same "idiot"
joke about President Bush? (With people laughing hysterically at all 100 same. joke.)

It makes me wonder how people just think like that. On EITHER side. Wishing death on someone in political office? Finding a need to insult everything they do? (And before any liberal tries it, I have done neither. Not that I should be rewarded, but I even think that I sent Clinton a get well card years ago.)

I just wonder how anyone can think so extremely, so off the chart. On EITHER side! Both sides do it. I don't get it either way.

Approaching One Year...

A piece inspired by Lorie Byrd's piece at Townhall.
So much recaps, so many memories. In our time of technology, people hold elaborate memorials within a month of a situation. A year brings even more dramatic memorials.

I, with the traumatic memory of September 11th all too fresh in my mind, have to sit through commercials for World Trade Center. I have to sit through numerous people making memorial videos of the same depressing clips that I saw too much of on September 11th alone.

Why should we be surprised about what might be shown on the one year memorial of Hurricane Katrina?

A mournful Anderson Cooper, perhaps a weeping Shep on the TV? Clips of water, water, and more water? People crying on the television? The looters?

I'm going to hate it all the way. I'm going to turn off my television if I see anything like that. I am absolutely sick of the negativity and the way that journalists show these things.

There are tons of people in the US who were able to contribute in their own ways. People sent boxes of items, prayed, donated money, went down to rebuild, etc. etc.

Now, this is the first big thing that I have gotten involved with, besides 9/11, so I feel a personal (teeny tiny) sense of entitlement about it, I'll admit it. However, I love hearing about how many people go down there, and I continually encourage people to go down there and help as well. And yes, it still needs to be done! Especially the elderly communities- they were hit very hard.

The sense of entitlement enters here: I feel a personal hit when I see some of the news specials made about the hurricane. Government incompetence! People dying! Whose fault is it?

These things undeniably happened, and no one can take that away. However, there are so many of us who become blinded by rage and looking for a scapegoat, that finding a solution does not become an option to many people. Finding a solution is equal to looking for someone to blame, and blaming them.

One year later...people are still homeless, people are still being stiffed by government. Some people have new, rebuilt houses. Some people are now living in other states and are having good lives. Some people have died. Some people have adopted animals and children and are raising them with all their heart.

Some people are still in the trailers. Some people still look outside and don't see a future. Some people are now back on their feet and helping their neighbors.

One year. Marking a tragedy that showed the worst and the best parts of humanity. We can't eliminate those who raped people or looted, but we cannot also forget the shining faces, those who expressed an unbeatable faith, those who gave up their lives to move down there and help.

It's an anniversary that will make me cry for many reasons. To know that the friends of the people we know down there died. To see numbers other than 0 painted on the houses. To see people who couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel. But it will also make me cry as I remember the genuine thanks that the earnest people expressed with tears. I remember those in the cafes crying when meeting volunteers. They wanted everyone to hear their story. They, many without houses of their own, were taking care of children and elders in their neighborhoods.

They had faith. They had a bravery that took my breath away. And they had love, that even when they had nothing material left, that they continued to pour out.

Hurricane Katrina was a lot of things, but there was an undeniable sense of faith and love and support that was strong in the region. And I hope, that after 1 year, people will still know how much help is needed, and how much the help of American people from all corners of the country affected those in Louisiana and Mississippi.

American Lady LIVE...

Blogging live from Shannon, Ireland!

I've lots of first hand accounts about the London bomb scare, and flying right out of the UK/Ireland area afterwards. (We arrived THE MORNING they announced the story!) Lots of stories from British tourists and views on whacky European politics.

But that's when I get back, as I am a poor student that's about to go over 30 min on the internet cafe here in Shannon! Blessings on all of you, and I hope that your weeks are going wonderful.

P.S. My voice is now confused. Ever heard of a New Jersey-an with a touch of Southern slang and an Irish/Scottish/British accent? Yeah...you don't want to.

Well-

Did anyone watch Laura Ingraham with the Code Pink lady on the O'Reilly Factor tonight?

Ugh. Lady, you do not represent me. Please, go bother someone else. Go march in front of my room on campus. I'll give you the address. Use the megaphones. Follow me around with banners and scream in my ear. Leave those who deserve respect alone.

It makes me sick.

And also the fact that being Anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli is now the fashion. I like being a rebel and all...but pro-Hezbollah being en vogue makes me sick. Please!

I'm thinking of some pro-Israeli fashion statements. I'd probably just get thrown out from about everywhere.

But maybe it's about time that it happens!

P.S. Laura is absolutely fabulous tonight. Woman needs her own TV show...methinks that Greta could take an 11 PM spot and we can move Laura to the 10 PM..? (9 would be better...sorry, Sean Hannity.)

a quick aside...

As my television forays have been between Project Runway and FNC, I've only been thinking of the two subjects for days.

Now, this entry is going to deal with the former...as I've blogged my heart out on the latter and am very close to sending a letter of concern for FNC and their little lamb, Shepard Smith.

If anyone has watched Project Runway, designer Jeffrey Sebelia, (unfortunately) clad in only a towel, popped up in a conversation about fellow designer Angela Keslar, and summed her up in one word- "feminazi."

I understand severely disliking his designs, which are ugly, and his attitude, which is not classy. But everywhere was an eruption over that word, "feminazi." Suddenly women all over the US puffed out their chests and said "That word is for someone who is afraid of strong women. He's such a man. There's no such thing as a feminazi!"

Well, it is depending on context. If they are going to put a "feminazi" in the same category as "strong women," then, yes, the word exists. Many people I know who use it mean for it to stand for an "extreme feminist," and admittedly a few actually liken them to the Third Reich.

I've pretty much had enough of women walking around and saying that men are intimidated by strong women. I've experienced some of those "strong women", and I even thought like them since I was 7! (Susan B. Anthony was my first American hero...) And let me tell you one thing, they are irritating. They are grating. They see women who don't understand their agenda as 'weak', or self-loathing. They trump up careers and look down on women who start families at a young age.

I know it. I used to do it, and I knew other people who did as well. Now, as a woman, I will admit it, I can be emotional and weak at times. In fact, it happens pretty often! But when the time comes, when I'm debating, or when I'm putting forth an idea or something, I don't like to back down. My opposition yells the most hateful things at me (and no, it's not because I'm a female...it's because I'm Republican!), I don't leave the room. I have my moments where I can get very stubborn and I've never had a man say that I was irritating him or intimidating him.

There ARE ways for a woman to be strong! And that woman could wear ruffles or sweatpants or Ellen Tracy, and she could be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. She can hold her own in the world but doesn't walk around with a superiority complex, doesn't think that etiquette is a propaganda tool to torture women, and she doesn't push her ideas on people.

I know of a few feminists who I am good friends with, and they are very tolerant. But there are also some women who really PUSH, PUSH PUSH their ideas onto other women, and try to somehow imply that I'm bound by men because I buy into the Biblical view of women in marriage, or for a number of reasons, including my political affiliation.

Please, ladies, don't feel sorry for me. I grew up in an environment that almost promoted me to become the way that some of you are (I was writing feminist propaganda essays in the 8th grade!), and no one pulled me out of that but observation, experience, and my own conclusions.

A woman can be strong, feminine, and still retain a shred of dignity within her. However, not all women share my view, and they can do whatever they want. But please, don't ever feel sorry for me. I enjoy living the way I am now. I want to be married start a family at a pretty young age (well, if that would ever possibly happen to me ;) ), but if God wills me to work first, I will do whatever. I'm ready for either. I don't believe that Republicans or conservatives hate women or that we're all old-fashioned and backward. I'm not going to ignore my husband when he has an opinion. I'm not going to walk around and denigrate men and say that I can do anything that they can.

It's about personal ability and nature. All women are not the same. We are individuals. I want to compare my ability to other individuals, not racial groups, and not the male gender.

And I'm perfectly happy with that.

This is (BLANK), with (BLANK) channel...reporting from Israel...

As a dedication to the interviews I've been seeing on all the news stations lately...an exaggerated mix of the undertones, obvious questions, horrific etiquette, and other parts of the inteviews I have seen over the course of a couple of weeks. I'm sorry, when I saw the 1000th irritating interview, I just had to write it. And it went on and on, in my head.


REPORTER: We're talking to one of the fathers of the soldiers. (to father) How are you?

FATHER: Ra me'od.

REPORTER: (looks at camera) That means...very bad. People, we're getting some Hebrew lessons out of this.

(to father)Well, why are you doing badly? VERY badly? (to translator) I got that, right?

FATHER(through translator): Why do you think? My son is out there fighting Hezbollah! He could die!

REPORTER: He could. (to camera) That is what soldiers do. They could die.

(silence) Well...so...do you think that he will die?

FATHER: He could! It is dangerous!

REPORTER: How is it dangerous?

FATHER: You know what weapons do....you know...kill people. My son is a person. He can be killed by a weapon.

REPORTER: Do you have any hope for your son?

FATHER: I have hope for the army.

REPORTER: (like a Valley Girl) Huhhh-looooo! They're getting killed! Did you see those beheading videos? Those rockets that are actually hitting PEOPLE? You know, war, death?

FATHER: There is a chance, and I still have some hope in His will.

REPORTER: Who's "HE?" ((translator swiftly kicks reporter)

FATHER: We are strong. But you never know what will happen. The enemy is strong as well.

REPORTER: So, onto something a little more lighter. (laughs) It's too serious around here. Y'know, why don't they import some comedians? We've got a lot of Jewish ones in America...and some at the kosher delicatessen down the street. Ha ha! They want to charge me THAT MUCH for a...(translator swiftly kicks reporter) WHAT?

TRANSLATOR: STOP THAT! Get back on track!

REPORTER: I see the ad campaigns in America! "Make laughs, not war!"

TRANSLATOR: THE FATHER...

REPORTER: What if your son dies?

FATHER: I will pray that he will return alive.

REPORTER: Sooo...what if he doesn't? Ever think of changing religions? We can use our extremely influential station to push Iran to drop some leaflets over Israel. If there's one thing Israel needs, it's diversity.

FATHER: WHAT?

REPORTER: What if you get to see him dead? Is it better than if you don't get to see him dead?

FATHER: I don't understand you.

REPORTER: That's because I'm speaking English! Ha ha! Just a little international journalism joke.

TRANSLATOR: (to father, in Hebrew) I'm not going to even bother translating that.

REPORTER: How would you prefer your son to come home? Roasted? Bullet-ridden? In pieces? I mean, one's gotta be better than the other, right? I think I'd prefer...

TRANSLATOR: I refuse to translate that.

REPORTER: But I want to know! The WORLD WANTS TO KNOW!

TRANSLATOR: Uh...(runs to camera) breaking news! Breaking news!

REPORTER: Shut up. You just don't want to ask the hard-hitting questions. You shouldn't even be in journalism.

FATHER: (to translator) What is he saying?

REPORTER: I will find out! For the people! For the good of the people! I don't think that they know what the REAL story of the Middle East is! They see WAR, but there must be something more! Something complex! Mixed feelings!

TRANSLATOR: (to camera) Please, back to you, Dan. Make it stop.

JOURNALISM.

I cannot stand journalists lately. Now even more so than before.

Today, lounging around, binge eating, and obsessively watching the news to catch up on what's going with the Middle East, the family and I have been flipping around news channels.

We've observed a few things. During a big moment yesterday-

FOX NEWS: Breaking news. Constantly. (Why do they keep airing the other shows about the economy and then cutting it off every second? It's no use.)

CNN:...They need to let Wolf Blitzer finish, and then show their "god-like" Anderson Cooper for the audience to drool over. And then...oh yeah, BREAKING NEWS! Although I have to note that while FNC thrives on hours of commentary, that CNN was a change to see clips of other stations and what they're airing. But their interviews (and a lot of their commentary) are a joke.

MSNBC: "Today, in entertainment news..." (Total joke. Today they're on yesterday's news.)

So every channel is in its own way, irritating me. It's horrible, but when other news pieces are mentioned, I get irritated. So maybe it's not the specific stations, but the fact that I'm needing a 24 hour channel talking about the Middle East.

But I've been watching some interviews on the 3 channels...and for example, on CNN, a man was interviewing a Palestinian. He was asking "How is it going here?" WELL. PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST IS ON THE VERGE OF A HORRENDOUS WAR. YES, MY LIFE IS EXCELLENT.

I'm sorry, but can't they just get to the point? Do they have to ask the obvious?

And do they have to act so darn excited when the breaking news is "34 civilians killed?" I know that they probably are fighting to be the first one to break the news, but some journalists are practically beaming while reporting such morbid things. It brings me to remember, for example, Geraldo Rivera purposely running into the path of some flying object in a hurricane, just so he could get hit. Some journalists get a little too excited when their ponchos fly off.

So today, as I am thriving on the news, I am also getting aggravated with the presentation of it. Ah, journalism, don't want to live with it, but can't live without it.

"In the world today...."

"Well, the Middle East is close to exploding. Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. What's next?

Oh, and let's see how it's affecting YOU. Let's look at those oil prices...."

WOW. The entire region is in chaos that will ultimately affect us incredibly if there will be no peaceful resolution (and it's looking more and more impossible by the minute)....oil prices are the LAST thing in my mind.

I feel like I'm close to a heart attack today. And I really don't care how much the oil prices are going up. Human lives and foreign relations come first. And I thought that I was a capitalist pig! ;)

Ms. Sheehan,

The only thing that a hunger strike against the war will do for y'all is do some wonders for your figure (and most of them not-so-wonderful). How about you do something that has a better chance of working? A war dance, perhaps? A tribal chant?

What makes me angry about your fasting is that you're not doing it to keep troops safe or to pray for their well being, which is what they need right now. It's so that you can skew the government to fit your agenda. They're not going to bring everyone home. This is not worth killing yourself over.

From what I know, fasts are internal sacrifices, not something to be splashed on billboards and glamorized on pretty pink websites. It figures that some people can glamorize sacrifice for the entire world to see.

Good try.

~L

US > IRANORTHKOREA?!

To my dear Mr. Murtha,

We wanted to get Saddam Husain out of Iraq.

We wanted to free the people of Iraq.

North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons that, according to their threats, aren't necessarily sitting around for defense or decoration.

The first situation could have gone any way possible.

And the second one has a crystal ball effect.

Quick, direct annihilation that will destroy nations of people.

Now tell me, which number is greater, 2, or 300?

Yours, Lorraine

Should I send this?! ;)

To the New York Times,

The last time I ever looked forward to reading your newspaper was when I looked for the New York Knicks scores in the 1990s. Clearly, I can't even get excited about that anymore.

You have been helpful in many things. When I was into painting, you provided a place for me to paint. When I needed to clean windows, you were also extremely helpful, and I thank you for that. Unfortunately, I've replaced you with a paper that does the same thing, and is actually worth reading. Slightly more balanced.

However, I don't ever remember wanting the New York Times to protect me. In fact, you are lousy protection. A bullet could rip through you and kill me easily. If I went to Baghdad tomorrow, I couldn't even imagine what little protection you would offer me. Please, I don't need your protection. In fact, for a while, I used to throw a few lines out to the people listening to my phone calls.

I'm sure that they were dying to make an arrest. No one, but no one wants to listen to me talk about any subject for more than 5 minutes.

I don't need your 'protection.' In other words, I don't need you trying to endanger my life anymore. I would rather put my trust in the hands of men and women who are specialists, and who are trained to protect me from terrorism.

Journalists, I have to believe, are usually not out there to help the American people. They are there to get the next big story, to steal the headline. But please, don't put my security in danger when doing so. As corrupt as the political/military world can be, I'd rather put my life in the hands of them than into the hands of selfish journalists that have absolutely no respect for the security of the American people.

We are in WAR. This isn't the time to play petty political games with those that are keeping us safe. If you have wanted me to be infuriated, yes, you have accomplished that. But I am not infuriated at the 'invasion of privacy.' I am appalled at the fact that anyone would have the audacity to print it and compromise the security of our nation.

Please, stop sending me forms. I don't plan on subscribing to your newspaper any time soon.

Sincerely,

Lorraine Jablonsky