Pbth

Pbth. That's how I feel right now. Just pbth.

On a day when all I want to do is sit and watch the Mets game, it's raining in New York and there's no end in sight. So much for Mets baseball brightening up my lousy day.

I've got a ton to do: restock my pantry and fridge, clean up the mess that has been my apartment for the last few months, finish the adult education brochure. Andrew's been away since last Monday (and I'm missing him like crazy), so it's given me a lot of time to catch up on my life that's been running away from me. But work's been kicking my butt and I have no desire to do anything. I'm tired and I'm in the mood to complain.

Next week I'll be in New Rochelle for a bat mitzvah of close family friend's of Andrew's. Then three weeks from today, we'll be in New Rochelle again for an open house/engagement party Andrew's mom is throwing for us at the synagogue. Two events I'd really like to wear something nice to, but I've got nothing. And I'm not at all exaggerating.

I've never been a fancy dresser, which suits me just fine. I'm a pretty casual person. Which makes things difficult when I need clothes for events that are not casual but also not strictly formal. I just don't have anything suitable that's in between. What makes things even more difficult is my neurotic self-conscious image I have of my legs. I hate them. I really do. And if I can help it at all, I won't go in public with them showing. Which means no short skirts. Not even mid-calf. Anything that isn't ankle length is unacceptable.

You may think I'm nuts, and I'll probably even agree with you, but that's just how I feel. I don't wear the long skirts for religious reasons, as some may think. It's purely an image thing. Which is why life became so much easier when I decided to start wearing pants.

So I went shopping this morning, though not really optimistic that I would find anything. And of course I came back home empty-handed (well, except for a few pairs of pants for work, but that doesn't count right now). The problem is that no one makes long skirts anymore. I tried on one today, just one. And that one was priced at a cool $415. $415?? WTF??? Who in their right mind will spend that much money on a regular black skirt? Not me.

What am I do to? Every few months, I scour the internet for long skirts and sometimes am willing to pay even $100 for a skirt, since it's so hard to find them. But most of the time I come up with nothing. It may be worth a quick trip to Israel if someone could promise that I would return home with a suitcase full of long skirts that would last me 5 years.

That's why I hate shopping. It's just simply depressing and it evokes yet again those yucky feelings of how much I hate my legs that I try so hard to bury. Most of the time I'm successful. But it's days like these when all I want to do is sit, feel sorry for myself, and watch the Mets game. And just my luck, it is still raining in New York.

In the name of real security

It's about time airlines banned most liquids from flights. But last week was not the first time a plot using liquid explosives to take down planes was uncovered. Stuff like this goes back to the 1980s. What took them so damn long?

Truth is, the above is a bit sarcastic. While the TSA and the airline industry should do everything possible to ensure that no one boards a plane with the intent to blow it up, my question is this: where does it all end? Where is the line drawn? How long until shoelaces and belts and keys and even pens are banned? How long until they only allow the clothing on our backs?

The real problem is that all this is us being reactive instead of proactive. The terrorists will always be at least one step ahead of us. We shouldn't be dellusional and think that this new tougher security will actually prevent any new attacks. It may prevent an attack using liquid explosives, but it won't prevent other attacks. Will it prevent an attack on our ports? Or an attack on our rails? Or an attack on our underground subway?

Compare the amount of money we spend on airline security to what we spend on port and train security combined. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I can almost assure you that the former dwarfs the latter. And that's simply not good. But the reason for this is simple: why spend the money to prevent something that's never happened before? We know the threat exists in the air. So we should do everything possible to protect air travel.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't protect air travel. Hell, it kills me how often Andrew travels by plane simply because of this fear, but it's unavoidable. So of course I want the plane to be as safe as possible.

But mark my words: the next terrorist attack, at least on this country, won't occur on a plane.

Of course, I don't have any concrete suggestions besides for believing more attention should be paid to the rails and ports. And I'm not certainly not advocating chipping away at the freedoms our Constitution provides. I don't agree with the idea of banning carry-on luggage and making traveling all the more difficult and cumbersome.

But until we start being proactive about our security and start thinking creatively, we'll always be one step behind.

A Primary in Connecticut

I've been putting this off for the last few weeks, trying to calm my annoyance on the issue and just let the day come and go and see how it goes. I've also been trying to figure out exactly what annoyed me so much about this race. And while my posting on the issue probably won't sway even one Democratic voter in Connecticut (how many people from Connecticut actually read my blog?), I will go on anyhow.

I was never a proponent of the Iraq war. From the very beginning, I told my father (with whom I have many debates when I go home to visit) that it was going to be a huge mistake, that the United States will be stuck there for a long time with no way out, and that despite the menace that he was and the threat he posed years back, Sadaam did not pose an "imminent threat" to the United States. Instead, I argued, we should be focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan and figuring out what to do with North Korea. (If I remember correctly, North Korea was accused by the US in late 2002 that it had started a uranium enrichment program. And this we knew was true, as opposed to the "intelligence" provided by the US to justify invading Iraq.)

But, the fact that Joe Lieberman supported the war doesn't bother me so much. He supported the first Iraq war in 1990, and he supported ground troops in Kosovo, and he supported air strikes against Milosevic, all before it became popular to do so. So I applaud him for taking an unpopular stand (turns out, at least those previous decisions were the correct ones). I don't support partisanship to the point where one is for or against an issue solely based on blind loyalty to party. That's not the way government ought to work; that's not the way our politicians ought to behave.

Yes, I would have liked to see a strong opposition to Bush's plans, but it seems like everyone was duped. And once we got into Iraq, there really was no way out. And c'mon, even the most liberal amongst us has to admit that pulling out of Iraq 100% now would do no one any good. Maybe there should be a timetable. Maybe we should be more aggresive about handing security over to the Iraqi army. But these are all questions that must be answered realistically and pragmatically based on what's going on now, on the ground; not simply ignored because we're still so angry at Bush for pulling a fast one on us.

Ned Lamont is a one-issue guy. All he's talked about is his opposition to the war as opposed to Lieberman and that's why you should vote for him. But the truth is, Lieberman's been a centrist Democrat for years and has stood up for the values that the Democratic party represents.

I think it's becoming clear to many that the Democrats have a real chance of taking back at least one chamber of Congress this November. And I think it's clear to many that extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism don't win in the long run. Yes, they might win primary elections, but when it comes to general elections, the majority of the electorate votes moderate. Most Democrats want the party to focus on the fundamental, bread-and-butter issues: health care, the environment, welfare and social programs, education, and a healthy balance between security for themselves and their families and their individual rights. And, most believe in some sort of higher being and simply want their politicans to be respectful of that.

Do some of Lieberman's opinions not sit well with me? Definitely. But, the guy has a natural talent at working to get things done by way of bipartisan agreements. That's a skill that is immeasurable at a time when the Democrats are in the minority and have a good chance at taking back Congress.

There is a time for partisanship and speaking with one voice, and there is a time for compromise and getting things done. This is a time for both. And it's possible to do both. Once the Democrats do gain control, they may even have the opportunity to be productive, if the ideals of bipartisanship remain somewhat visible and active on the Hill. So I'm not willing to give up on that prospect simply because the liberal blogosphere says that it's immoral for a guy to split with his party on the war issue. The politicians we elect in November will have a lot more to do than just worry about Iraq. There's real work to be done here at home as well. And Lieberman has proven that he can get it done while staying true to his Democratic roots.

True Character

A long time ago, probably in grade or high school, I was taught a hebrew saying. I don't remember the first half, but it goes something like this-- The true character of a person can be found through three things (and here is the hebrew): b'kiso, b'koso, u b'kaaso.

Meaning:

The true character of a person can be found through three things: his pockets, his cup, and his anger.

His pockets: how deep are they? How much does he give to charity?
His cup: what he says when he's drunk, without any inhibitions.
His anger: how he reacts when he's angry.

And it's immediately what I thought of after reading about Mel Gibson's latest and greatest public embarassment. Honestly, after the whole controversy over his last movie, Passion of the Christ, I didn't really think all that much about him being anti-Semitic; more specifically, I just thought he was a crazy kook and didn't deserve my watching of his movies any longer (sorta like how I feel about Tom Cruise). There was no real definitive proof of him being anti-Semitic to point to. Now, though, this is icing on the cake.

There are no justifications for what he said. The hatred in his heart was on display a few nights ago for everyone to see. He can't deny it or apologize for it, because we all know he meant it.

Alcohol can do strange things to people, but there's no doubt in my mind that it also holds the power to shine a light on the true essence of a person as well. That's not to say that whatever you see your friend (or even yourself) do when they are drunk is the defition of who he or she is. But some things can be telling. It's just another interesting insight into the complexities of our character and thoughts.