What did arugula ever do to you?

There must have been some meeting of cloaked republican strategists, some time before this, that sounded something like the following:

Cloaked Man 1: Call to order! Has the kitten been sacrificed? Yes? OK, let's get started then. It's a pretty slow time right now, things are being mostly taken care of by the McCain campaign at this point...and if they're not the server running out of Cheney's chest cavity is taking care of it*. This is really just a procedural meeting. Does anyone have any motions to raise?

Cloaked Man 7: Yes! I move to amend section 6.342 of the charter with the following: FUCK ARUGULA.

Cloaked Man 1: The motion is to amend the charter with FUCK ARUGULA, this motion shall be put to a vote. All those in support of the motion, say 'aye'.

Everyone: [brief, contemplative silence...whispers of controversy...] Yes...YESS!! FUCK ARUGULA!! AYE!

So, there is a conservative War on Arugula and those that would eat this heathen leafy herby vegetable thing. Is it an herb or a vegetable? Do you cook it or do you eat it raw? Which is it? It's a god damn flip flopper is what it is. It's threatening family values. I've heard, you know, that some people even eat BABY arugula. They eat babies! They ABORT the arugula!

It could have been our next president.

Now, the above imagined meeting and rationalisation for the evils of arugula are patently ridiculous. They're a joke, and yet this is the best explanation I can think of. Why in the hell would you seize on arugula? What is wrong with you? Arugula is delicious, and not even that expensive, and not an acquired taste - it's a pretty simple vegetable-ish thing. Filet mignon, ok...Roquefort (especially in light of this ridiculousness), sure. Caviar? Foie gras? Yes. Arugula? What?

The latest person to sip some of this arugula haterade is Lisa Schiffren, who's just written a downright bitchy blog, titled "Arugula with that?" about the Obama's choice of chef. The Obamas have kept on the White House executive chef Cristeta Coverford, and also hired Sam Kass, a chef who owns a catering/private chef bussiness in Chicago often used by the Obamas. This NYT article makes it pretty explicitly clear that Kass was hired to fill an existing souschef vacancy, and not to replace Coverford.

I characterise this blog as bitchy without hesitation, which I wouldn't often do because a) it's a pretty loaded, often sexist term, and b) It's a blog, and like I've said repeatedly, bloggers don't matter and they can (clearly) say whatever they want.

But this is just too much. First of all, she implies something that is patently untrue, namely that Kass was the private chef on a full-time salary with the Obamas, going so far as to imply that he was just the tip on the iceberg of private, live-in servants employed by the Obamas in Chicago.

She even references the NYT article (did she even read it?), which she says is "gushing", without acknowledging that the facts in it - not whatever "gush" she is talking about - directly contradict half of her blog. Namely, Kass was never the private chef to the Obamas, but owned a catering business used by them. She also implies that keeping Coverford on was some liberal move not to piss off the feminists (but hiring her in the first place, since Laura Bush did it, had pure-hearted motivations), and that Kass is a deliberate plant to subvert Coverford. The Times article explicitly points out that Kass is filling an existing vacancy...so, you're saying that was just made up, for no reason, when they could have just said nothing if they were being so "gushy"?

Then, she extrapolates these non-facts to mean that the entire Obama image has been carefully crafted to make it seem like Michelle Obama is an actual mother, when in reality she's just a spoiled puppeteer leading an army of servants who raise her children and clean her house for her, and they did all of this to make Republicans look spoiled, rich, and elitist in comparison.

And lastly, it's fine if you are spoiled, rich, and elitist - but lying about it is baaad! Don't pretend to be some Joe Sixpack when you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, handed admission to an Ivy League school, own a ranch, and were born into a powerful career. It's disgusting!

It is at this point that it gets bitchy. Why do you have to imply that Michelle Obama isn't a good mother because they've used a catering business? Even if it was just to feed the kids one night, or just the family when no one felt like cooking, why on earth does that make Michelle Obama bad in her role as a mother?

If I could afford it, you bet your ass I would have a private chef known for using healthy, local ingredients. Which I get the feeling is somehow worse to Lisa Schiffren than hiring a professional chef known for deep frying twinkies - god forbid it be private and good for you. By almost any measure this is more down to earth than spending $150,000 on clothes in a matter of months, or owning multiple pairs of turtle skin cowboy boots. I don't get the connection between hiring a caterer and being a bad mother (my mom did it, and I'm awesome), and making it seems downright snarky and mean-spirited.

And what on earth does arugula have to do with it?

* Admit that this part is totally believable

I just want my fucking coffee

It's difficult to pinpoint exactly what is irritating me today, but I'm extremely irritated. And I haven't even trawled the web for useless conservative nonsense yet.

I'm at a bar, slightly before noon, mostly because they have free wireless. Also, because I want a coffee, and they have nice chairs and a nice view, and there's really no one here. But it's open, at noon. Mostly because they aren't just a watering hole - they serve food, etc. So I go up to the bar and I order a coffee, and the lady is like "We aren't really a coffee bar." 

Oh, really? Are you not? Because this is a bar, and you serve coffee - I can tell because you have what's probably a £1500 machine behind you that spits out FUCKING COFFEE. And also, because I'm holding a menu that has like eight different types of coffee to order.

Now, right after she says this, she gives pauses, gives me an admonishing look: and then she starts making my coffee. I know this isn't that she's pissed that I'm taking up space without ordering much. First of all, I don't think she's capable of thinking that far ahead; second of all, there are people sitting around drinking glasses of free water, and nothing else.

So I say, "I know... its just nicer in here, a lot of the cafes are crowded around now."

"Yes, but its not really a coffee bar."

Bitch, shut the hell up and make my godamned coffee. I really do not give a shit what your business model is. You serve coffee. This is how it works: I ask for the coffee, you shut your hole and go make it, we exchange currency, and I never see you again. It's very simple.

Fuck you, you're not a coffee bar, I'm drinking your fucking coffee right now.

A. Hole Coulter is a useless wench

Clearly, I like easy targets. Mr. guy from a few days ago, who has a terminal fear of organic toilet paper and hybrid cars, and now I'm going to whine about this precious little lady, A. Hole Coulter*. You'll see a bit later why I'm referring to her as if her first name is Anus and she's chosen never to use it. By the way, I could have chosen to link to far more offensive pictures of her - believe me, a quick search reveals there are many. However, I believe the crazy in her eyes shines best when unadorned. In that picture she looks like she's about to go out hunting babies, and it is not remotely doctored.

Every few months, in trawling the web, my deep distaste for this woman and anyone remotely like her is rekindled. This is because every few months she spits out another terrible book with some far too ironic title like Slander or Treason.  Also, it is a symptom of the sadistic relationship I have with the internet: I need to watch and read things that infuriate me to stave off boredom. I've never actually read any her terrible books, mostly because I wouldn't deign to spend money on that kind of horseshit, and the libraries here in Edinburgh, shockingly, haven't bothered to stock her high class literature. Money aside, I have a feeling I would get a few pages in and vomit all over the book in disgust, rendering the rest of it unreadable anyway.

This time the book is called Guilty, and she's traipsing around the TV and Internets promoting it with her usual defensive and incendiary attitude. The first thing I watched was this, where she talks to Danny Deutsch about her "ideals". She can't even make any up. Here's my summary, because I can't be bothered to type it word for word - although I do recommend you actually watch it for yourself if you're concerned about my literary liscence.

Danny: If your dreams about the country came true, what would the country look like?

A. Hole Coulter: Like the republican convention!

Danny: Um, ok - but that's politics, so what would the country look like.

A. Hole Coulter: It would look like an all Republican Congress, president, and judiciary (only attractive) kicking Joe Lieberman**.

Danny: But what would the COUNTRY look like? Not the government, BUT THE COUNTRY.

A. Hole Coulter: People will be happy, Christian, and tolerant, of everyone else because we're all Christian and happy. If Christianity doesn't make you happy you'll be a happy Christian! Happy Christian people being tolerant of other happy Christian people, an they can even be not white! I'll allow it. People in NY who think they're not racist have a chip on their shoulder, I saw it on Seinfeld, which is an academic journal about social attitudes.

Danny: ??

A. Hole Coulter: We should all be Christian. You're Jewish, and you're not even good at it because you don't practice, because...I say so.

Danny: I do though. Can I goad you into somehow saying what you mean in a less offensive way?

A. Hole Coulter: I have a fast track to perfect you and all Jews. That's what Christianity is all about. I consider myself a perfected Jew, who is not anti-semitic.

Danny: You're really offensive. Let's go to commercial.

A. Hole Coulter: No offense! But you suck until you're Christian. Badly.

There is so much here that's offensive, but since all of that is easy to spot, I'm going to harp on about something you may have missed: she thinks its acceptable to cite Seinfeld. She really thinks the social attitudes of contemporary New Yorkers are truly depicted in Seinfeld, which, by the way, went off the air over ten years ago. So, she must also think that about 20% of the population of the city lives a life vaguely like Kramer - they just have a funny walk, know how to enter a room, and are easily startled. This is a demographic fact. 

Before moving onto my final point, I'll direct your attention to another video from her retarded publicity circus, where she talks to Matt Lauer. She spends the first few minutes screaming about how Matt Drudge started a rumour that she wasn't allowed on the show, and how dare they threaten not to let her on and also nothing Matt Drudge says is true. She literally, within a few breaths, acts offended that she may not have been permitted on, and then points out HERSELF that only Matt Drudge reported it and he's a retarded liar. Matt Lauer looks like he's not sure what his utility is in the situation.

But the best part is when Matt asks her why, on earth, does she continually refer to Barack Obama in her book as B. Hussein Obama? The best she can do is scream on and on about how "that's his naaaaame!!" and she thinks its funny and ironic that Saddam Hussein shared it. Well, you know what A. Hart, you're not a fucking comedian. Some of what you say might sometimes be confused for comedy, because its so utterly ridiculous, but what you supposedly are is a "conservative commentator". Don't try to be funny. 

And more than anything, don't be such a liar. She's usually not shy about being hateful.  I don't know why she's trying to pretend that referring to him as B. Hussein Obama wasn't a blatant attempt to portray him as a "Muslim Terrorist Other" while trying to avoid being overtly racist. She seriously thinks we're going to buy that referring to him as that constantly, throughout hundreds of pages, was just a fumbling attempt at "irony". I don't give a shit what his middle name is, but she knows full well that a lot of her readers are about half as smart as she is (read: clinically retarded), and will read "Hussein" in the same backassed way she does.

While I wholeheartedly thank A. Hole Coulter's ridiculous rhetoric for staving off my boredom once more, my strongest feeling about her is "WHY ARE YOU HERE???" And by here, I mean in the media. Fine, anyone can write a shitty book (I have some perverse desire to own this, for example. And it has to be the updated and expanded version - I need all the answers to the question posed). Anyone can run around having their own website or blogging (see this). But why oh why are major television networks and newspapers spending time on A. Hole? Why is she not completely irrelevant? Who in the hell gave her the title "conservative commentator"? Clearly, she gave it to herself. I just can't understand why everyone else is playing along. It's completely expected that there will be crazies on the fringe (of both sides) saying disgusting things, it's the nature of the political bellcurve. But when did it become the norm that the crazies get airtime? The most bothersome thing about it is that I can't think of someone quite so fringe on the left that gets so much airtime. If I could, I'd be all about the fairness. Embrace the whole curve. 

It's Friday, so I'm going to wrap up this post by going and getting drunk.

*Her middle name is actually Hart, but it's more fun this way.

**No one likes Joe Lieberman.

I'm fucked.

If you're new to this blog (which you are because this blog is new), and you don't know me, you might be asking yourself: what makes you a professional nerd? How dare you?

Well, I dare because I study an extremely obscure subject, with no real practical value, and I plan to make a living doing so*, even though this is looking pretty grim. This obscure subject can be succinctly termed Evolutionary Linguistics, although in reality it involves a lot more cognitive science and psychology than the moniker would have you believe.

Why, you say? Well, because I feel like it, and because I can. I'm not going to be curing any diseases or saving any babies from fire**, but I find it interesting. I like to read. I like to think. I love language. I'm enamoured with Darwinian evolution the way most Americans are with Jesus. And I really like the idea of getting paid to think and read, even if I'll never get paid very much.

However, as the title of this post would suggest, I'm absolutely screwed. Stanley Fish just wrote an excellent blog today titled The Last Professor. It's basically an obituary for the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake (which, unfortunately, is pretty much what I do). It reinforces the decision I made to come to the UK to study, where I believe the epidemic of Universities as utilitarian money makers hasn't quite hit - but as Fish points out (through his former student Frank Donoghue), it's only a matter of time.

Well, during that time, I'm going to keep sinking money into my final higher degree, and hope I can slip into the obscure academic workforce just before it implodes.

It's a good thing have a plan B: I applied to go on Masterchef. I've got it covered.



*I also have a borderline unhealthy appreciation for Battlestar Galactica, among other nerdy things.

**Maybe if it were my baby.

In the overwhelming narcissism that floods a blogger after their first post, I decided to see what I would have to Google for my blog post to come up. I decided on the phrase "ass with a radioactive hamster," because it seemed like that was likely to be a rare combination.

Apparently, I can't make my new blog come up. HOWEVER....

This treatise on how to decontaminate a radioactive hamster exists in the wide world of the Internets. So, sleep tight everyone! Radioactive hamsters are no longer a real threat.

A healthy dose of crazy...

So, the commentary I'm about to make is a little unfair, because its about one crazy person who made a crazy comment, creating a gorgeous little straw man for me to scream at. But I can do whatever I want, because I'm blogging, and bloggers are assholes who say whatever they want. Mostly because the internet is so saturated with their asinine commentary that no one gives a shit.

Holding bloggers up to any kind of standard is like screaming in a four year old's face that Santa isn't real: all that will happen is that they'll cry and get all upset because you've shattered their world. Then they'll find someone who will convince them Santa is real after all, and your energy is wasted. It's not worth the tears. Unless I do it, cause then I get to have fun.

However, being the nerd I am, I'd like to stay as factual as possible. So if any of the two or three people actually reading this catch some glaring factual error, please, let me know.

So here's the topic. The following is from an episode of This American Life, a fantastic radio show run out of the Chicago NPR affiliate. This particular episode is about Obama, and how people think he's going to do as President (you can listen to it for free on the website). Believe it or not, this exchange is between two people who work in finance. As the subtle name changes of one of the characters indicates, he seems to lose his mind in about 30 seconds.


Fairly Rational: We're going to have government owning a substantial portion of major industries? Is that an outcome of this?

Other guy: What's gonna happen in its place is gonna go back to more of the way I would imagine the WWII generation lived - living within your means, being able to put 30-40% down on a house, buying a home only when you can afford a home

A little off base: That's in and of itself a scary thought, because that whole generation was one week away from being out on the street - there was no safety net, there was no savings, uh, are we going back to that?

Other guy: But is it a safe method also where middle america is living on their credit cards and their home equity? And so, I think that everyone will be reconditioned form the highest earners to the lowest earners to be able to live within their means.

Batshit Crazy: It's a scary thought that the government is going to try to condition us. That in and of itself is socialistic Orwellian type of of speak, that's scaring me now. I'm scared that they're gonna condition me to wanna drive a hybrid, they're gonna condition me to use organic toilet paper.


Let me start by saying that I named "Other guy" as I did, because his commentary is unremarkable. It makes sense, and so there's really nothing to say about it other than it provides a great contrast to Batshit Crazy.

Starting with our friend while he's still Fairly Rational, what is he even talking about? Given that the question was about the feelings of an Obama presidency, he seems to be indicating that it was Obama's idea to collapse the economy by instituting rampant deregulation, and then rescue it all in a diabolical plan to have the government overtake private idustry (the Porn idustry wants in too, by the way). I think it's fair to say that throwing money at various failing American industries was not in the orignal fine print of "Yes we can." This is a legacy of the outgoing administration - and an unfortunate one at that.

I defy anyone to find one person that is PUMPED about the heaps of money we're throwing at private industries, whether they support the various bailouts or not. However, I also defy anyone to come up with another viable solution that doesn't involve a) China owning more of us than they already do, or b) Even more job loss than the country (and the world) is already experiencing. Granted, I'm not a whiz with economics, but remember: I'm blogging, so I can say whatever the fuck I want.


Next, he starts to wander a little off base. There's not much to say about this, other than that our friend is confused. When other guy refers to the WWII generation, I think of the post WWII era (perhaps wrongly), when I don't really think people were a week away from being on the street. I think he means the depression? I don't know. He's losing me. Also, I'd rather people be a week away from being on the street, than have actually lost their house and be on the street, which is more the tone of the current crisis.


Now we're at my favourite* part. First of all, he's not even paying attention to what our innocuous other guy is saying. He's never said the government is going to condition anything, he's implying that a shitty economy, combined with the lasting scare of a bad recession, is going to force people to live within their means. Batshit Crazy seems to think the government is setting up some kind of Pavlovian lab where they give you coke while you're driving a hybrid, so that you become addicted to hybrids. I'm not a doctor§, but this is dumb.

Second of all, what kind of narcissistic asshole are you that you think the government gives a shit what you wipe your ass with? No one cares about your toilet paper. Where did you even come up with that example? Wipe your ass with a radioactive hamster for all I (or the government) care (PETA migh have some kind of objection). The fact that this guy actually thinks there might be a House Committee on Citizen Asswiping should be a clinical symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.

Lastly, why do these evil things he seems to think the government are behind happen to be environmentally friendly (watch this and you'll see it's quite the opposite)? What kind of asshole thinks to himself, "Well, if this isn't polluting something, somewhere, somehow, it's probably Orwellian Socialism." You can be a money-grubbing, small government, environmentally friendly idiot. In fact, if you were smart, there's a lot of money to be made on things like hybrid cars and organic toilet paper.


In closing, although this guy is clearly exceptionally dumb, there is something about him that represents a whole slew of dumb, spoon-fed, "small government" Republicans**. What they seem to ignore is that government has grown under Bush; and where it hasn't, particularly in terms of financial regulation, it has fucked us big time and forced us into expanding government further. Many of them also feel ok with assuming that Obama has planned the financial crisis all along, and they seem to have found enough information to convince them that things like organic toilet paper are the first signs of a government conspiracy.

Anything to stop them crying in their Mommy's skirts, and get them back to thinking Santa is real.



*Yes, I spell British, but I am American. I have my reasons. Get used to it.

§ Yet.

** There are also Republicans without these admirable qualities; our innocuous Other Guy was also a Republican who didn't particularly support Obama, for example.