Quick glance

at today's headlines:

Sisters in Idiosyncrasy about a bicoastal creative class, which made me want to take greater advantage of living here. And then I reminded myself that I'm getting a master's degree and writing a thesis at the moment, so 'taking greater advantage' will have to wait a few months, which is fine.

Obama Communicates, Even Without Words about Obama's recent appearance on the View (which I have to admit I've only seen a few partial episodes of). The article sort of focuses on body language, but I have to point out that communicating "even without words" implies that it's surprising that he (a man) can handle being "surrounded by women" (which is how he put it, but he was referring specifically to his home life), which, lets face it, is - wait, what is it? This drives me crazy, this pervasive gender split, I was thinking about this last night as I walked past a window display at the Gap (whose spring line features classic slacks, button-downs, and cardigans for guys of all ages and "light and airy" pastel spring dresses for women of all ages). I don't think the split is so decisive, but advertisers (this will be my scapegoat today) seem to think so. Back to the article: notice that all of the women except Whoopi Goldberg are wearing skirts and heels and have their legs crossed towards Obama? Why is it still the "norm" for 'dressed-up' to mean 'in a dress'? Don't get me wrong: I like dresses as much as the next person. In the warmer months. (It's 42 degrees outside - I'm wearing jeans and boots, thanks. And knee socks and a sweater under my wool coat and scarf.)

It really upsets me that what passes for women's fashion isn't meant to keep us warm.

And hooray for science: Study Ties Genetic Variation to Schizophrenia. Although I have to admit that a small part of me is wary about what pseudo-science is capable of doing with this information...

And speaking of pseudo-science, what is up with the New York Times' headlines lately: Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More. Really? This seems a bit inflammatory given the content of the article, in which scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva scoff (that's right: scoff!) at two men - one of whom 'probably' lives in Barcelona? wtf?? - who are suing CERN because they think the collider may create a mini black hole that will swallow the earth and the solar system and the galaxy and, hell, maybe the universe. While I am inclined to view advances like this as potentially dangerous (the article does mention the atomic bomb), and even though I am reading all of this apocalyptic literary criticism and what have you, let's look at the opening of the article for just a sec:

"More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can’t afford their mortgages and in some places now they can’t even afford rice. None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right." Really, Dennis Overbye? Is that really the part of the article we want people to read? Don't worry, kids, there are lots of fucked up things going on between people on this planet, but "none of this... will matter a bit," and you may as well not give two shits because a group of scientists somewhere may blow up the whole goddamned universe if these two guys (one of which doesn't even know where the other one is!!) just by chance might be right about something even the scientist whose work they cite on their website says they don't understand, but they filed a lawsuit (in a court which doesn't have jurisdiction over the project!), so maybe that means we should heed their warning of impending doom. *exhale*

Also, if you don't know about Earth Hour tonight, check it out.

Anyway, I am going to make myself a huge lunch and enjoy the sunshine, even if it's from this side of the blinds. I've started my day off with a little opera and some Earl Grey tea, and I might be going to a play later, and then we're celebrating my friend's birthday. Brilliant.