Deconstruction

The range of emotions and responses I have felt during the last month - vacillating between incandescent fury, nihilism, and ostriching (a new verb I have coined for burying ones head in the sand and ignoring things - in response to the Zimmerman acquittal, the punting of affirmative action, and the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act are things that I struggle with.  I thought about posting before, but what am I going to say? Why is what I have to say important?

It's not, really.  Because other people who deal with this can say it much better than me.  Like this.  And this.  And this.  And this.  And this.

So, time to not shut up about it, time not to ostrich.  That's not right.  Not sure how I'm going to do this, but keep listening, working, and yelling about injustice.  And, just as importantly, stepping out the way for other voices who are the ones who face this themselves rather than second hand me.

Stephen Lawrence

It's hard to express what I experienced as I just read about Duwayne Brooks' testimony in the trial of two men for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It's hard to express just how much Stephen Lawrence dying meant, how profoundly it affected me growing up in southeast London, a few miles from where he was beaten to death.

The first time I saw the flowers around the tree where he died, was when it hit me how close to home that was. We were in the car, an old blue Ford Cavalier whose number plate I still remember and which got nicked in Middlesbrough not long after this, and we were going swimming. I saw the flowers, and it hit me that this was where he'd bled to death. Just like that, on a road I travelled along probably once a month or so. Right there, within a bus ride. And I was not just angry for him, and his family's loss; I was terrified. That who I lived near, walked around, mingled with, could think such vile, racist things and could do that to someone. It was one of the first times my brain managed to comprehend fully that I did not share the values of people I lived with and near. I was scared, disappointed, and alienated. Typical teenage emotions as one grows up and away from home, but I think I had lived in this happy bubble and while knowing there were issues with racism, that wasn't what we were mostly like. And then this happened, and all most people knew about this pocket of southeast London was a disgusting murder; we all scrambled to distinguish and disassociate our neighbourhoods - be they Lewisham, Catford, 9r Hither Green - from Eltham.

I was terrified, angry, upset; I also lost some of my naivety about where I lived. My hometown, as it were, was always a bit rough around the edges, but this was something vicious, unexpected, an evil underbelly about which I'd been clueless; the lessening of my view of it and its people hurt a lot. But none of that compares to what Brooks went through, or that he would testify today after the loss of his father last night.

Dunzo, Finito, Finis

This morning I started writing a relatively measured post - for me, at least - about how I had realised that the increased joie de vivre I've been experiencing of late has coincided with my withdrawal from politics. I decided it was not worth the bother, really - not much of substance and no attempt to analyse causality.

And then I got back from a three-hour meeting to find that the Senate failed to repeal DADT, has put on hold the DREAM Act, and has voted against passing a bill for 9/11 rescue workers (unpaid for, you see, although that's apparently fine for $700bn of tax cuts for those earning over $250k per year - and god forbid that anyone build an Islamic cultural centre 3 blocks away because 9/11 was too important and it would affect those affected by 9/11).

And I realised that I'm done. I'm packing it in. No more podcasting; I can barely even take The Daily Show these days, it's so depressing. I just want out. Out, I tell you.

This while the students at home finally get excited about politics. Sigh.

Good Court, Bad Court

This week has seen two diametrically opposed dolings out of "justice" in courts in the USA.

In Massachusetts, Judge Tauro held that DOMA unconstitutionally interfered with a) the rights of married couples within Massachusetts, who were legally married under state law but unable to exert those rights federally (tax, etc.) because of DOMA's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman (violating the due process clause); and b) Massachusetts' ability to implement its own laws (violating the Tenth Amendment). This is the initial victory that a lot of marriage equality advocates were hoping for, planning to build on slowly but surely in the style of the civil rights movement toward desegregation, rather than the big federal Prop 8 trial in California (a really interesting article about that here).

In L.A., however, something much worse happened. I don't know if you know about Oscar Grant. He was an African-American man who while being held down by the police, was shot in the back by a transit policeman on the BART - the train system in San Francisco. I watched the video shot by witnesses once - I don't ever need to see it again, but if you google it, you will find it. The police tried to take away the phones and cameras that shot the footage. What is chilling about this is that for this officer's "safety" and a fair verdict, the California authorities moved the trial from Oakland, where it should have happened, to L.A. L.A. where, apparently, there has not been a guilty for murder verdict in a police-shooting-a-civilian since 1983. 1983. Because that's "fair," you see. And, despite the fact that he reached on the wrong side for his taser - he in fact reached for his gun - somehow the jury bought it that it was involuntary manslaughter. Watch the video, and see what you think. But honestly, I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. That poor man, and his poor family. There aren't words, really, to describe how awful it is. And it's also hard not to come to conclusions about how justice depends on what colour you are.

Marginalization

The Stupak Amendment has, unsurprisingly, filled me with rage. Rage at the amendment itself, rage at the framing of the issue... just rage. I have no real analysis for you, commentary. But I do recommend these things to read:

• Jeffrey Toobin's piece "Not Covered" in the New Yorker - this is definitely one of the best things I've read on this.
• The Lawyers, Guns & Money people, particularly this piece about concession of middle ground. Amanda Marcotte has been banging on for months about the folly of "middle ground" and seeking a consensus when, as shown by the Stupak followers, there really is none. We should admit it and move on.
• Kate Harding's piece on the framing of the issue as "you little women don't understand the way the world works" is also ace.
  

What You Put Your Name To

I've had a few moments of late in which I've really been taken aback at what people are prepared to sign in protest or support of when they haven't really learned the underlying facts. It's so easy in the age of internet petitions to sign things you don't believe, haven't researched. I am certainly guilty of doing so. But a couple of things have given me pause in the last couple of months, and I hope from now on I will be less likely to do so.

First, I read the wonderful Rapture Ready. It really is worth your money and time. There is an awful part where the author confronts some kids handing out pamphlets that call children who were conceived by assisted fertility "abominations," or words to that effect. The author and his wife were unable to conceive without artificial assistance. His devastation as he reads it soon turns to absolute fury when he realises that the teenager handing him the pamphlet has truly no idea what it means or the implications of what he's saying. It was a lesson in really thinking through what one is standing for - the kid had no idea, and attempted to dodge the issue. Either you believe it, or you don't, but don't be ignorant and say that you believe it when you have no idea what you are, in fact, saying what it is you believe.

Second, the Polanski petition. As I have blogged previously, I am enraged by those who signed it: either they really do not think he did anything wrong, which is horrendous in and of itself, or they have no idea to what they put their names but blindly did so in ignorance of the facts. But that is why Emma Thompson has rebuilt some of her esteem in my eyes - of course, I'm sure that was pressing on her mind. Ahem. Anyway, a young woman had an opportunity to meet with Emma Thompson recently, and questioned her on her support of Polanski and wondered why she justified signing the petition. It seems to have had an effect, as Thompson is apparently going to retract her signature. I am impressed with Thompson's willingness to be open-minded and admit she was wrong. That is impressive. But it just emphasizes how celebrities have lent their names to something about which they know nothing - see Janeane Garofalo for another example.

So, the plan is to be a bit more informed. Because these things have shown me that you really should stand up for what you believe, but only if you actually know what those things are, or the impact of your signature on that piece of paper. Which, I suppose, is what a good lawyer ought to advise and practice.

Back to Where You (Sort of) Came From

My father is going back to Germany this week for the first time in 25 years or so. Seriously. He hasn't been back to Germany since there were two; since before the Wall fell. Yet he is (rustily) fluent in German, taught German, and lived there at various times in the 1960s and 1970s. I think it's going to be a strange, strange thing for him. Because where you live does infect you, become part of you. So it must be a strange trip up ahead, if wonderful, given the glorious things I've heard about Berlin.

But I thought about this, and it occurred to me how easy it has been to be a white person who moves around where she or he wants. When I lived in Barcelona, I just had to get a piece of paper filed with the police, then I had my numero de extranjeros and that was that - medical bills, no probs, taxes paid properly, bank account got. Of course, the little tarjeta that made me official took forever to come, but still - all relatively straightforward. And then I remember all the people who told me they hated immigrants, but that - after I pointed out little old me - I was "different." And so it probably was for my father in Germany, in a way it really would have been more difficult to do so if not white.

I'm not sure I would have taken this path of thought if it were not thanks to various pieces of anti-non-white things that have happened of late - Pat Buchanan's crazy rants about how white people's culture is under threat, Nick (shudder) Griffin on Question Time at home talking about how London isn't really British because so many non-white people are there. So I've been thinking a lot about this sort of thing. And I am grateful that Boris Johnson and Andrew Sullivan represent conservative thinking that stands up to this nonsense about how the English and Americans are so flipping "white," when, really, that doesn't mean anything given our nations' histories.

Relativity

Occasionally, I really do think I am a bad person. I will feel terrible about some horrendous thing I've said or done that has hurt people in some way. Often, those people are the ones I love dearly, as I have a tremendous propensity for lashing out.

And then, someone like Jan Moir comes along. And I realise that, in the grand scheme of things, I'm not that bad. Because I would never, ever sink so despicably low. Or, indeed, so pathetic as to deny that any of her drivel/bile was based on stereotypical assumptions about homosexuality or gay people. I often despair of the world, and this level of meanness and callousness is quite remarkable.

On the other hand, this mock up is excellent.

Pathetic

I can think of no other way to describe the apologists for Polanski. Obviously, me being me, I'm boycotting them. All of them! Although as I go so rarely to the movies, that's not saying much, but still... I'm just annoyed I gave stupid Steven Soderbergh my money for The Informant a fortnight ago before all this hit the fan. I also, obviously, stopped following David Lynch on Twitter. A little bit of me died inside when I saw that Martin Scorcese, Pedro Almodovar, and Emma fricking Thompson had all signed up. Sigh.

Still, several people have managed to capture beautifully just how terrible not just the crime was and is, but the support for Polanski. The claim that he has been victimized, that he has paid penance by not being able to accept an Oscar in person or holiday in Key West... ye gods. It's not just that they have supported him, but that people such as Thompson, whom I have loved and admired and thought were smart, are either complete morons, or they are awful people who think that making a good movie excuses drugging and raping that girl.

So here are a few people whose comments rocked my world:

Chris Rock.

Amelie Gillette (the hater podcast is my current favourite thing anyway, so I was obviously very happy to hear this).

And the wonderful Jay Smooth:

Awful

The cold-blooded, vigilante murder of Dr. Tiller on Sunday morning has left me speechless, with both rage and an inability to express that rage due to the seeming inevitability of it all.

But the overwhelming feeling is one of despair. Despair at what desperate women will do: those women whose babies are incapable of living, other than for a few hours, in agony because of defects and abnormalities, blood diseases; those women whose babies die in utero, and now, can only find two doctors in the entire United States that will remove the dead foetus beyond 24 weeks. Less than 1% of all abortions are in the final trimester; these require medical indications, such as those listed above. Women may go through labour with such children; that's their choice. But to force them to do so, particularly if it will cause the baby nothing but pain and agony, is inhuman. Terry claimed that what Tiller did was "literally demonic," but I really do believe that forcing a woman to go through that experience and inflict such pain on her baby is more deserving of such a label. Tiller's opponents are cheering this "saving" of unborn babies, yet judging by the stories, most of these babies are desperately desired and will, if they live at all, suffer greatly.

I am not going to post anymore on this, because most of it has already been said elsewhere, and with greater eloquence and focus than I can really muster. There's so much I couldn't collate it all, but I do urge you to read the stories of his patients, that recount his kindness, the funerals he shared with patients, his attempts to support a 15 year old on her birthday while being a patient at his clinic that week.

Really?

I've been trying to curtail the rage-infested posts recently, but sometimes you can't avoid them. Reported in several blogs and news outlets:

"We consider this murder."—Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, after a judge granted access to an abortion to a nine-year-old girl carrying twins after being raped by her stepfather.

The Archbishop of Brazil is to excommunicate all those who "helped her," including her mother. It's consistent, at least, with the awfulness of their position, but I do so hope that at least includes the stepfather who raped and impregnated - let's repeat it - HIS NINE YEAR OLD STEPDAUGHTER.

Words defy me.

Beefcake

Yesterday was the third workout of my new weightlifting regime. Inspired by Zuzu, I bought the New Rules of Lifting for Women and have been really enjoying the lifting. I've kind of ignored the protein/diet requirements, I must confess, but I think I might take a look and get on that part of the programme, too. But the main part has been lifting again. I loved it last summer - absolutely loved it. Mainly, however, I benefitted from a friend who was ex-military and who was happy to come and help me work out. I honestly think it helped keep me sane for the Bar exam.

Anyway, I've had a couple of weird experiences that made me think about why I can now deal (or not) with weight rooms. On Monday, TOH and I went to NYU for some squash and, I hoped, weights. But the weight room was full of 20 year old guys sweating and getting in my way and aggressively hustling for benches and it made me realise how zen and calm my gym is. I couldn't handle it and left asap. But yesterday morning I went to my gym and was able to fairly easily get my swell on (and no, I don't grunt to show everyone how jacked and tan I am). It's been great.

But yesterday still had a few low points. Some Random decided he needed to go round and make comments to various women who were working their arses off. One he told was doing things the wrong way round and it just jarred me. Would he be saying the same things to a guy? I thought to myself, bringing back memories of my helpful swimming buddy from a couple of years ago (I can't find the post but, basically, felt patronised and irritated by some guy who had to keep offering me advice). The advice was probably good; she may have appreciated it. But where did it come from? A genuine desire to help, perhaps, but because a woman can't possibly know what she's doing? I really didn't see him offer any advice to any man working out.

Anyway, working out was this unbelievable looking woman who was in incredible shape - tall, muscular, and not a spare ounce of flesh. But not skinny - firm and tough. Exactly the body type I'd be if I could (think a less bony Venus Williams). The same Random decided to joke to the guy working out by her, "I don't know if she's trying out for Scores or to be... I don't know what." First: Really? Second: The woman kicked arse. Barely blinked, and then said that she simply didn't jiggle enough to work at Scores. Awesome acknowledgment of how ridiculously in shape she was and a good putdown without getting into a fight. There's no way I'd have handled it that well. She ruled.

Sunday Selector: NOT brought to you by Genius

I've not used Genius before - I hate the whole iTunes recommending stuff it thinks you ought to buy. But, one of my favourite bloggers uses it every Friday to generate a random playlist, and I thought that it might be a fun thing to try, to compare what Genius thinks about my record collection as opposed to what I'm listening to. Well, I'm trying to but it has to "gather information" about my library and has been doing so for several hours now. Gah!

Right, we're good to go. Genius, do your thing! Starting song: Stuck on Repeat, Little Boots. Oh, it turns out that Genius can't handle this song. Apparently it is limited to certain songs about which it can get information. How crap is that? I wouldn't mind, but I bought it from iTunes - if I bought it from another source, I could understand it, but I didn't. GAH.

So, anyway, this is suspended until I can actually get it to work. Also, a while ago I managed to wipe an awful lot of my iTunes library, accidentally, from my external hard drive. It finally showed up (I don't understand how, but there you go), and I am now painstakingly adding it back in. It means I cannot, alas, use the stupid old iTunes. In VERY BAD MOOD. That's also probably because TOH has gone away for five days, it's cold in the house, and I am working on what is supposed to be a day off.

Klear as Kristol

I really do have a problem with Bill Kristol. I can't help it. Today he has a stupid columnin the NY Times about how liberals are going to be fine if McCain wins... I presume it's supposed to be amusing - I cannot believe he'd be seroius - but it's just facetious and annoying. In response to his points:

1) McCain's the underdog. Really? I don't hear anyone saying they won't vote for an ex-Marine white guy, but you do hear an awful lot about people not voting for Obama because he's black. That just automatically underdogs you, when people cannot bear the thought of voting for you because of the colour of your skin. Because you have to discount them, and all the misconceptions and prejudices that others who are not as overt have about you, your wife, your children.

Further, the reason Kristol cites is that the Obama campaign was a multi-million juggernaut, and he conveniently forgets just why it raised so much money: lots of small contributions from record numbers of people. It's not just the amounts that are the stuff of record, but the sheer quantity of people who contributed. McCain's money came predominantly from the Republican establishment and the RNC, and the highest paid people on that staff were Palin's wardrobe and make-up consultants. Hmm, underdog indeed.

2) A defeat for the establishment. McCain only stayed in the Navy, according to some, because his Daddy ran the whole thing; he has been in the Senate umpteen years and is the embodiment of cozy establishment. Sarah Palin is also pretty cozy with the Washington establishment. Kristol claims the establishment nature of Obama is evident because Republican insiders are endorsing him; but surely, if they weren't, that would be evidence for how he's not ready to be President? You can't have it both ways - if he's criticised he's unsuitable, if he's endorsed he's an insider.

3) A victory for McCain is one for hope over fear, because it won't be just a retaliation for the Bush years. This one is just laughable. I suggest you just look at it in order to cry with laughter / bemusement at Kristol's depth of delusion. Again, if it's supposed to be funny, it is unfortunately coming across as facetious.

4) A victory for freedom. Hmm, because he caved over the torture Bush's administration may perform? He states that genocidal perpetrators will sleep less soundly during a McCain administration; Al-Qaeda endorsed McCain. What to do? Strange how "freedom" no longer means traditional constitutional civil liberties - freedom of speech, equal protection, right to be free of search and seizure - but means "freedom from terrorist attacks." National security does not equal freedom. Not that I'm a huge fan of Obama's voting for the wiretapping, either - I just don't think Kristol has a clue what he's talking about, because Republicans and the right have so far warped people's conceptions of personal freedoms that they honestly believe this is what it means. As a friend said to me last night, restricting American values of freedom in order to preserve American values of freedom doesn't really work.

5) Better for liberalism to have a mixed Congress etc. Maybe it worked before, but it's not good for us right now. Clinton caved to the conservatives in Congress by introducing and signing Don't Ask, Don't Tell as a way of dealing with the issues of gay people serving in the military. That's a good example of "compromise" legislation. Not that good stuff didn't happen with that mixture, but right now, liberals need to get their judges into the judiciary and need to get rid of the Global Gag rule and Abstinence-Only Funding and overhaul all the disastrous legislation Bush wrought (No Child Left Behind, anyone?). Bush has vetoed more legislation than anyone in history - does anyone really think Palin (Kristol's choice for President) would be any different if people did stuff she didn't like, particularly given her behaviour during Troopergate? I fear again for the DOJ and US Attorneys if she ever takes charge.

Right, that's out of my system.

Vote tomorrow. Please.

Reportage

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Last night, I got a cab home. I already was bristling at the driver's assumption that no one really wants to live in NYC "except for the money." Apparently we all want to live in the suburbs. I said I could understand that (highly magnanimous of me, you'll doubtlessly agree) but I liked culture - theatres, independent movies, concerts - things not so easy to get in the 'burbs. But yes, parts are beautiful.

Then, when I got home, the exchange of money took place, I took the receipt, and then our verbal exchange went thus:

Him: This is a dangeous neighbourhood.
Me (not really listening): What do you mean?
Him: All those people loitering about. It's dangerous.
Me (looking around): Which people, where? What do you mean?
Him: Those.
He nodded at a group of about 6 teenagers at the side of my building's entrance.
Me: What them? They're kids from my building. They're nice. They're always friendly and holding the door open for me and everything.
He didn't respond.
I got out of the taxi.

Honestly, the more I think about this, the more fuming I am. He didn't say anything overt, as you can see, but I'm fairly sure his comments were racially motivated, and he wouldn't have said anything of the sort were the kids white - although maybe if they were wearing hoodies etc (the evil hoodie being the equivalent of 666 branded onto your forehead these days), he might have come out with the same.

What bothers me further is the underlying assumption that kids on the street are trouble, full stop. My neighbourhood is not rich and, like most places in NYC, kids don't have any real space of their own; they certainly don't have gardens to play in, or any coffee shops or places where they can just hang out with their mates, except for the street. What astounds me every time is that all ages hang out together - I've honestly never seen so many 18 year olds and 6 year olds playing peacefully together. There's no way I'd have done that when I was 18.

The kids are nice. They don't menace you with the ball, unlike horrible brats I've known in other places (or, indeed, the Columbia brats that menaced the homeless person, as viewed by WUB a few months ago). They stop playing to let you go past, open the door for you if your hands are full of shopping, and the kids that know me say hi. Yet someone like my cab driver sees kids on the street in the city at 9pm and that means a dangerous neighbourhood. In the 'burbs that's a "community," no doubt. I just can't bear them not being given a chance.

So the dilemma is: Do I report him for making what I think is an inappropriate comment on my neighbourhood - inappropriate for infringing on my personal choices (over which he has no right to comment - although that's a bit master-servant, no?) and for making a dubious assumption about the kids. The problem is, it won't fix anything. Still, the Taxi & Limousine Commission has an option to complain because the driver was "discourteous." I suppose that is the closest option I have... other than "fundamentally wrong and bigoted assumptions about passenger's neighbourhood."

Flirtatious

Is anyone else bothered by this story, or are my rage buttons going off for the wrong reasons again?

Essentially, this old goat with tons of money (billions!) paid for the series between the England cricket team and various counterparts in the West Indies. He was spotted on the big screen at the match with one player's pregnant girlfriend on his lap, and was generally cuddling up to and flirting with the female players.

He's personally apologized for "the incident" - by calling the player with the pregnant girlfriend and the captain of the team. Is this not a tad... well... like treating the players as if he'd got on their horse, or sat behind the wheel of their cars? What about the women - what about apologizing to them? Or, indeed, not apologizing to them, because from the photos, none looks offended; they all look to be having rather a jolly time. Which, I suspect, is what really bothered the players in question.

There's something weirdly proprietary about the need to apologize to these women's men, as if they were the women's owners. And why Pietersen - because as head of his men he's head of his men's women, too?

Apologize to the women for offending them; or for causing trouble, maybe, but apologizing to the men...

It is just not sitting right with me.

Devout

My tidbit on the election this week. Well, second, if you count my revelation yesterday of a dvd-based-conspiracy to get you to vote for McCain. A dear friend pointed this my way, and I could not agree more: Why on earth does everyone have to go out of their way to point out that Barack Obama is not Muslim, or Arabic? It's ridiculous, because it just should not matter. Not in the least. Then people will point to "tendencies," and we'll get into a nasty stereotyping war. The current devout Christian in charge of the White House is happy to invade other "sovereign nations," bomb and torture people; his very first act in office was to repress women's rights all over the world by reinstating the Global Gag rule after Clinton got rid of it; as Governor of Texas he signed the death warrant of thousands of people. He has shown himself to be merciless, full of brutality. Not much to do with the compassion, caring, or, indeed, Christianity. So why is that so much better than loving Mohammed?

I recommend reading the piece and watching the video. Highly.

This photo, incidentally, is of a mosque in the absolutely gorgeous Bo Kaap part of Cape Town - there will be more photos of this region in days to come.

Debatable

So... thanks to a phonecall with a much more politically active friend who couldn't quite believe I wasn't watching it, I managed to get suckered into watching / listening to part of the debate last night; despite promising myself I wouldn't. Bear in mind, this is not because I am not politically engaged; it is because I am too politically engaged. This is for my mental health. Which, already strained (work is a little bit much at the mo., as it turns out that three weeks into it, I'm not perfect/awesome at it), really suffered last night. Observations:

1. I am not "your friend" Mr. McCain.
2. How on earth can anyone seriously think of voting for him?

That's about it. He's untruthful and I honestly can't stand it. My blood pressure went through the roof just watching The Daily Show from Monday that talked about the VP debate - although that piece with Jason Jones watching the VP debate in Alaska was genius. Note to Palin/McCain: that's gotcha liberal journalism, if anything is - simply getting people to say ignorant things on tv. Fab. Most honest and insightful piece of political debate: "they're all gay."

I'm back on the abstention kick: no more politics for me. Last night poor old TOH did the whole meal and I poked at the pan with a wooden spoon, probably more often than not brandishing it as a weapon, thrusting it at the radio and yelling at McCain. You see? Not good for my health or my relationship which, despite his current rather busy time - some might say crunch / vital /most important of his life - is very much a lop-sided affair right now. For the good of the world, I am retreating once more. You'll thank me for it later.

Everything Old Is New Again

GAH.


Just had a wash of notifications of marriages and, consequently, name changes. Whenever I log onto facebook it seems I get more notifications that various people I know - all successful, caree-driven women - have changed their names to their husband's. It clearly is one of my anger triggers - It really does make me quite remarkably incoherent with rage. I know I go on and on and on and on about this, but it is SO ANNOYING - not least because I have to change my address book to reflect your stupid gmail changes, as I discovered this morning. When you friend me on FB and we've not spoken for 10 years, I have no idea who you are. It's fricking inconvenient.

I also just don't get it. Just don't get it.

GAH.

Chicken

I am, it turns out, a total coward. I am refusing to watch any election coverage that isn't by The Daily Show or Stephen Colbert. I know, pathetic. But I can't bear it. It's just excruciating.

However, I am justifying this to myself by arguing that I am "being a grown up." You see, I'm sick of being angry all the time. If I watch it, I'll be furious. Furious as to the lie-peddling, the childishness, and the sheer insult that is Sarah Palin's nomination. And I'm really, really, really bored of being angry at everything. So it's no more blogs, no debates (other than the VP one - which, I imagine from this clip, will be a little like watching a car crash - macabre, but you can't pull your eyes away.)

Today, however, I'm just too tired for anger - for anything. Work is... exhausting, and yet, talking to everyone who is also working, I am definitely getting off lightly. I'm also, of course, sad at the passing of Paul Newman. I know very little about him, other than his movies, salad dressings, and the famous "steak" quote about his famously monogamous and happy marriage. He seemed like a good bloke. And his utterly staggering beauty was, of course, a bit of a bonus. So, it's off to juggle with the Netflix queue, and get us out the classics.

Oh, and if he wasn't a nice guy - I don't want to know, kids. Just warning you.