Note to San Francisco

During the day, I curse you for your refusal to let me bask in your warmth; your cold disposition that renders me bitter; your icy fingers which grip every inch of my body and soul; your gloomy temperment that denies me so. Your unpredictable ways force me to be a servant to your whims, which change as often as the direction of the wind.

But when your heart beats past one, and the waves crash against the shore, I hear your call beckon me through the ink night. My defenses instantly crumble; and it is here that I forgive you and embrace you with open arms, like a foolish lover who believes that come tomorrow, you will be different from yesterday.

What Was That Again?

Boy, is Obama chatty. Very chatty. And on top of that, he expounds on virtually every aspect of an issue, and then refrains from taking a clear-cut position by reminding us that it’s a “complicated” issue. While I appreciate a president who can think more than one thought, I often think that Obama’s manner of speaking verges onto whataboutery to evade giving an unequivocal declaration on his positions.

Take his response to a reporter’s question during his first prime-time press conference last night on whether Obama will attempt to prosecute the Bush administration’s “misdeeds”:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration.

He said that before you turn the page, you have to read — read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

MR. OBAMA: I haven’t seen the proposal, so I don’t want to express an opinion on something that I haven’t seen.

What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don’t think those are contradictory; I think they are potentially complementary.

My view is also that nobody’s above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing*, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But that generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the — all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America, and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush, without adequate information.

So I will take a look at Senator Leahy’s proposal, but my general orientation is to say let’s get it right moving forward.

He should have just come out and say it: “We’re not going to seriously look into the Bush administration’s illegal actions.” Is this because some of Obama’s positions have been inherited from the Bush administration, like state secrets and extraordinary renditons**? Furthermore, as James Hanley aptly points out, “If prosecuting people for their crimes was “looking backward,” there’d be no need to do it.”

An answer that would have pleased me to hear:

I absolutely agree with Senator Leahy. And I think that in order for this country to move forward, we must deal with this hurdle first, or it will impede our ability to proceed forward. Investigating and prosecuting members of the Bush administration (including the former president himself) not only lives up to our democratic ideals of the rule of law, but it also puts democracy in practice. No one is above the law, and we as a nation will not allow politicians to escape unscathed for their illegal actions. Blagojevich paid the price for engaging in misdeeds, and there is no reason why we should implement double standards when it comes to the Bush administration.

*”If there are clear instances of wrongdoing”? There is no “if,” as it’s very evident. And Obama knows that, referring to it in the first paragraph of his response.

**For more info on extraordinary renditions and illegality, see here.

Sacrifice

Since I was a little girl, I have had a tender relationship with goats. Not of the nasty kind (whatever that may be), but of a maternal one.

I vividly remember how two decades ago, I saw baby goats rampaging the narrow streets of Gujarat, unmolested by passerby. Those images locked themselves in my memory and set the stage for “Awwwwwwww“-ing for the rest of my life at the mere hint of goats.When I went trekking in Nepal, my heart continuously somersaulted at the sight of innumerable baby goats lying on their side against their mothers.

More recently, over at Chapati Mystery, Sepoy wrote a wonderful post on a Lahori Bakra Mandi (Goat Market) and included beautiful photos. The fifth photo in particular arrested my attention; the goat is hauntingly gorgeous, and there is an almost celestial, beatific, and innocent aura about the goat*. Even Italian renaissance artists would have not been capable of capturing the “essence” of the goat as Sepoy did.

About a full day later, it occurred to me that this very goat was led to its death and reincarnated into sumptuous dishes. Such an angelic goat sacrificed.

*Does anyone want to explain why there is blue and orange on the goat’s head?

Talking to Goats, Freaky Tom, and Hate Crime in Italy

This Onion news segment on 9/11conspiracy theories is hilarious. My favorite part is when the Al Qaeda operative says that speaking with William Gerard is “like talking to a goat.”

On another note, via Five Rupees, Matt Taibbi’s caustic take on Tom Friedman. An even more unrelated but serious incident, a 35-year old Punjabi immigrant was set on fire in Italy (via Moscow Through Brown Eyes).

I’m Glad to be of Help

I’m glad that the taxes I forked over for 2007-2007 paid for AIG’s executives’ pedicures and manicures at a high-end California resort days after they received the bailout in October, followed by another vacation in November. I guess making too much money for themselves while losing everyone else’s places an insurmountable amount of stress on their shoulders which they then need to relieve by spending $440,000 on week-long getaways.

Continue to feel sorry for the Wall Street Gang, because they also just gave themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses, the “sixth-highest on record.” Let me remind you that unemployment at its highest since 1983, and the number of unemployment benefits claims filed is the highest since 1967, when the government started keeping count.

When the bailout was formulated, the criteria were:

(A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives for senior executive officers of a financial institution to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution;

(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial institution of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive officer based on statements of earnings, gains, or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; and

(C) a prohibition on the financial institution making any golden parachute payment to its senior executive officer during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution.

But “senior executive” is defined as “an individual who is one of the top 5 highly paid executives of a public company, whose compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any regulations issued thereunder,and non-public company counterparts.” That doesn’t include the people below those five who could still receive hefty bonuses. Why didn’t Congress place strict caps on bonuses, and even salaries? If they wanted to, it could have been possible to devise a graduated plan, where senior execs could not be awarded, say, a $150,000 salary, and bankers below shall not take home more than $100,000. You say that these paychecks are too low. That’s right. I think that is exactly what they are worth and maybe even less.

I’d like to Cha-Ching You Down the Toilet

I read the New York Times for two reasons. It either fuels my fury or my curiosity, the former fed by biased reporting and columnists like Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd; and the latter for uncovering quirky findings, like this recent article titled “It’s the Economy, Girlfriend.” It’s about 30 mid to late-20 year old ladies who make up the support group called “Dating a Banker Anonymous.” Along with blogging about their experiences, they convene for drinks and brunch to chat about their problematic “Finance Guy Boyfriends” (FBF) who have been affected by the current economic meltdown in one way or another.

I’ll be very honest. When I read the article, and then migrated over to the blog, the first words that slipped through my lips were: “What bitches!” While everyone else is losing the roofs over their head and food in their bellies, and having the rug pulled out from under their feet, these ladies are whining about the carpet not being red and not being able to afford the right kind of expensive shoes to walk that red carpet. Some of the complaints at the core are not so bad, like the decline in their sex life due to financial and employment difficulties. Quality and quantity of one’s sex life can impact you emotionally. But can you be really that heartless when, you selfishly and imperiously write that

Lovingly, I explained to him that either he put the polish on my Brittany the way he used to, or I would find someone else to do the job. I then gently reminded him that although he now walks around Manhattan like the big man on campus without a trophy girlfriend such as myself on his arm testifying to his coolness, everyone would see him as the math and chess club member he once was.

I had made my demands known and was keeping count. When 60 days passed without me having a real orgasm (ladies you know the difference), I decided he had been given fair notice and that this was no way to go through my twenties. I packed his cuff-links and sent him to live on his buddy’s couch.

In the latest post, this lady is pissed off that her man is no longer a reliable and sturdy ATM machine now that he has lost his job. He’s now “clingy,” and wants to stay home and cook dinner instead of taking her out to fancy restaurants. “Thanks to the recession, I now have a completely devoted BF, which is exactly what I wanted,” but she’s not happy. She’s

bored and can’t stop thinking about my perpetually unattainable Euro ex-boyfriend who is recession proof courtesy of an offshore trust account. To be honest, I’m only with my BF because I just don’t have the heart to change my facebook status from “in a relationship” to “I ain’t saying I’m a gold digger, but I ain’t messin’ with no broke banker.”

Another post is written by a 24-year old mistress of Charles, a financially successful older man. The mortgage meltdown brought her life to a cruel halt:

Suddenly, I found myself being taken out less and less frequently. A recent argument went along these lines:

Me *pouting*: You haven’t taken me on a trip since we went to Bermuda in September. What’s going on?

Charles: Honey, finances are tight right now so my wife has taken it upon herself to check up on all of our accounts. She will notice any big expenditures.

Me *cute voice*: Wellllllllllllll, what are you going to do to make it up to me?

Charles: Can we talk later sweetheart? I’m really busy right now.

Me: No. Give me an answer NOW. Don’t you realize what you have? I’m way too hot to be treated like this. (Disclaimer: Yes, I come across as bratty here, but it typically works when trying to get something out of him)

Charles *yelling for the first time in our almost two-year relationship*: I’VE GOT TO FIRE TWENTY PEOPLE BY THE END OF THE WEEK. Z has four kids, X just had a baby girl, Y just sent his son to college and I’ve got to get rid of two of those guys… and you’re complaining about vacations and dinner? God, you are so 24! GROW UP!

Me *stunned*: Okie dokie, let’s talk later lover.

Look– I don’t have that much love for Wall Street guys, especially if they were involved in breaking our economy because of their incontrollable greedy and selfish ways to make ungodly profits, make the rest of us mere mortals suffer, and then get a bailout from the little money that we have. But these women are heartless, egotistical, and infantile. So you haven’t gotten a trip to the Bermuda. Boo-fucking-hoo. There are people who don’t even have money to pay the rent, let alone get wined and dined in posh restaurants and then get whisked off to Bermuda.

What’s more is that as a woman, I find this gold digger mentality not only disgraceful, but a mechanism in the larger inequality that some women are trying so damn hard to overcome. I don’t like being objectified by men, i.e. expected to be a baby making machine who is also a slavish servant by cleaning his poo off the rim of the toilet, doing his stinky laundry, preparing his meals, catering to his whims, etc without a hint of protest on my part. So why should women do the same to men, seeing them as disposable credit cards who, when not enabling you to buy what you want, you just snip in half? (BTW, these gals know that they aren’t the most intelligent, forward-thinking people out there, since they declare that “Dating A Banker Anonymous (DABA) is a safe place where women can come together – free from the scrutiny of feminists- and share their tearful tales of how the mortgage meltdown has affected their relationships”).

These women– and their FBFs, if they were involved in the current financial crisis–should be forced to do 40 hour per week of unpaid community service for the entire duration of our recession, specifically in neighborhoods or cities that are economically much worse than, say, Manhattan. They need to teach part-time at rundown inner city schools; other part-time hours can be fulfilled by offering a shoulder to cry on to those who have lost their homes, those who are working overtime for little pay and no benefits, and so on. Or, alternatively, they can be sent to the woods in someplace like Minnesota and be left to fend for themselves. Spend a little time around the truly unfortunate, and maybe you’ll change your tune.

President Obama and Team: We Are At Your Gates, Let Us In

Obama is the most internet savvy and wirelessly connected president we’ve had. Starting with his campaign, he’s been quite open source; and now, the White House website claims that “President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history.” As if to underline this point, there is now a White House blog. A blog! Imagining a new era of fruitful exchange of ideas, thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions between the President and The People, I whooped for joy. “Public participation” and “public feedback,” here we come!

Of course, I don’t expect Obama to post late night, drunken confessions about how he’s been having suicidal thoughts as of late because of a bilateral talk gone wrong, or how annoyed he is by George Bush’s incessant late night calls because Dubya wants to counsel Obama by giving Cowboy advice on how to deal with the rugged Afghan political landscape. And, the writer(s) of the WH blogs are not him, but his PR staff. But maybe– just maybe– he might visit the blog during his lunchbreak or before hitting the sack, and he might read a comment of mine–or yours– about how he needs to have balls and call out Israeli military actions for what they are: state terrorism.

But the WH “blog” is a misnomer. In my mind, blogs are blogs precisely because they have a comments section where readers can post their thoughts and interact with the post’s subject, even if the comments are moderated. Instead, the WH blogs lacks a comments section; and what’s more, the blogs are press releases. Some of them are quite important, such as Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, or energy and unemployment, but I could seriously give a hoot about the beginning of the Year of the Ox. If you’re looking for a post which asks us citizens what we think about US foreign policy, that would be found over at Dip Note, the State Department’s blog.

President Obama, I beseech you to let us in. Let our voices be heard by allowing comments on the WH blog. We also wouldn’t mind having a heartfelt post written in your own eloquent words.

P.S. President Obama: Thank you for executive order on FOIA.

P.S.S. Readers: William Kristol published his last NYT Op-Ed yesterday. I am waiting for Thomas Friedman to write his for reals.

A Flat Inauguration

The Obama inauguration felt oddly flat.

Let me state something in the interests of disclosure: I reluctantly voted for Obama, though I differed on a number of his issues. But I admit that euphoria washed over me after his victory, because (to repeat a well-worn phrase by now) I never thought I’d see a black president in my lifetime. That euphoria quickly ebbed as my previous reservations about his positions reclaimed me, and his recent stances–such as his shameful response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza and letting the Bush administration off the hook for its unconstitutional, illegal, and disastrous actions–confirmed what I had thought prior to his election victory: he isn’t going to be radical enough to fundamentally change the US’ domestic and international policies. Still, I thought I’d shed a tear or two during the inauguration.

It didn’t happen. In fact, I was irritated.

To be sure, I appreciated Obama’s thinly veiled criticisms of the previous administration while Bush sat there, his cautious tone about solving our nation’s problems, and declaring that “our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” Oh, and I was overjoyed at seeing Darth Vader in a wheelchair.

Book Reviews: Politics of Pooping, Bastards Sittings on the Couch, Rich Bengali-Americans, Kites, Slavery, and Monsters

The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste And Why It Matters , by Rose George

I am obsessed with hygiene, and thus, I am also fascinated by sanitation and the proper disposal of human waste. That’s why I couldn’t wait to read Rose George’s book (you can read excerpts on Slate ).

George’s fixation on sanitation–and an entirely merited one at that–is not new. For example, this 1885 article in Harper’s Magazine titled “Sewage Disposal in Cities” probed the matter*. But since then, times have changed, population growth has been exponential, and the subject needs to be revisited– but through global lens.

George points out that 2.6 billion people do not have sanitation: “no access to any latrine, toilet, bucket, or box. Nothing.”

Back in the Game

After blogging for two years, I decided to call it quits for a while. I told myself that when I was ready to resume blogging, I’ll re-emerge in blogosphere with a new handle and persona. That happened briefly, but I found that I wasn’t entirely comfortable in my newly acquired skin.

So I am back, as Desi Italiana. I thought about importing all of my old posts, but to be honest, I can’t be bothered. Perhaps I will select some and upload them. Posts dating from 2007-2008 have been imported from my former blog. With regards to this blog specifically, I will be posting shorter pieces, in contrast to the mini research papers I used to do.

And while this is my own personal blog, a certain omarbello may periodically post in Italian. We shall await with delicious anticipation to read his thoughts.

Ciao for now.