I am going to say this, and I am only going to say it once

I think Twilight sucks. And it has nothing to do with the vampire thing, or the werewolf thing, or the fantasy thing, I have liked all those aspects in the past, and if the series was right, I could easily enjoy them.

But I don't, and the reason I don't can be summed up in one word: Bella.

She is, the most pathetic excuse for a girl I have ever seen. She is helpless, weak, and easily controlled.

Bella and Edward are not the "perfect couple" they are the classic abusive relationship.

Edward routinely tries to "control" Bella, and his excuse is that he is in love with her. Wow, how romantic, do as I say or I will track you down.

Now, to the credit of the author, Edward and Bella don't jump into bed together, nor does Edward pressure her to do so, but an absence of sexual pressure doesn't make Edward more likable.

The fact that Bella starts our as fairly independent but then becomes dependent on Edward for her sense of safety and is emotionally a wreck when he isn't there speaks to co-dependance more than love.

and believe me, that isn't the same thing.

I am not seeing that everyone who likes Twilight believes that men should act this way (note to all twilight fans who read this journal), I believe there are many aspects of vampires and werewolves and that universe that is attractive, but to me they've taken all the fun and all the sexuality out of this series, and turned it into a weak-willed nit-wit and her controlling boyfriend.

Just sayin.

What prompted me to write this was an interview on the news last night of a young girl (teenager i would say) talking about why she liked Twlight, her words scare me.

"It's because of like, how Edward treats Bella, kind of like, the perfect boyfriend"

oh sweetie no.

I am a firm believer that not all of these teen girls are looking for someone with Edward's personality, movie audiences (and readers) are smart and this is a fad that will pass.

But my belief, is that Edward and Bella are a terrible example of a loving relationship.

The way Edward treats Bella is not "like the perfect boyfriend" it is "like a stalker".

About a month ago, i was browsing the arts section in The Star, and came across an article by a male movie critic called "Saying nix to the term chick flick". This author attempted to argue that, as a male, he is sick of hearing the term, arguing it is meant in a derisive way, as in "it's only a chick flick".

I am as guilty as anyone of rolling my eyes at that term, but just because the term can be meant as derisive, doesn't mean the movies are.

The author of this article claims that many movies "derided" as chick flicks, are actually "thoughtful" movies that both men and women could enjoy if they got past the "nasty gender bias" inherent in the label.

Gender bias? These movies are aimed at women, as much as i would love to believe that my boyfriend would appreciate going to see a movie that centres around relationships primarily from the female perspective and involves women becoming empowered, i don't think he would. I do agree that the term is often used to insinuate these movies are poorly written, but often they are just movies about women that are reviewed by men who don't get it. They deride them because they don't understand them.

The reason movies are called "chick flicks" is because usually involve female friendships or relationships, or stories of female empowerment. The reason women are more attracted to these movies, is the same reason teens are more likely to see and like "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants", because they represent an experience unique to that age group and gender. I'm not saying all women are the same, but chick flicks, like teen movies, attempt to appeal to a wide range of female viewers.

I'm not saying that men don't like movies with the women as main characters just as all women don't necessarily like chick flicks, but if the movie involves relationships, men aren't necessarily interested and maybe that isn't a bad thing. Maybe they aren't meant to, i'll be the first to admit that men and women experience life differently and that I could care less if my boyfriend understood that, he doesn't have to.

I do think critics should make an effort to appreciate a wide variety of movies, and not be beholden to labels or to let that label dissuade them from liking a particular type of movie. But unlike the author, I don't believe getting rid of the label solves the problem of bias.

All types of movies exist for a certain audience, at the end of the day, does it really matter what we call them? Sometimes a chick flick is a chick flick, and that isn't anything to be ashamed of.

Barack Obama is the President of the entire United States, not just the people who elected him.

It isn't something I like to admit, but he does actually have to play nice with the opposition. And that means passing legislation that recognizes that opposition.

Coming to to Obama's one year in office, it seems the press is obsessed with calling the Obama presidency a failure. After all, he hasn't accomplished anything.

Does anyone realize he hasn't been in office a year yet? Anyone?

I'll admit some frustration. I'm frustrated he couldn't run Health Care reform right through the senate with a "so-called" public option. I'm frustrated that he won't immediately close Gitmo and repeal "Don't ask, Don't tell". But this is the difference between what liberals want, and what Obama can deliver.

The reality of governing is that legislation takes years. Health Care, for numerous reasons, is an exception, as was the economic crisis.

I don't know how long it takes to get things done in Government, but my guess would be a long time. But labeling Obama a failure, isn't recognizing what he is probably coming up against in his attempt to reform, well anything.

I'm not making excuses, the man is president, but he has three more years. If after that time, he still hasn't been able to pass at least some of what was promised then the judgment will come in the form of any election, as it should.

But this to me, is another indication that the American people are the least patient people ever. They want what they want, and they want it NOW.

Obama on the other hand? Is a lot more patient, and a lot more calm. Good qualities, not sure I understand how he is that way, but they are the qualities of a leader, not a partisan.

So as frustrating as it may be, i encourage those to recognize that all major reform that presidents have attempted to enact, have taken years, not months.

I also recognize that the Fierce Urgency of Now that Candidate Obama talked so much about during the campaign, is probably going to take just a little longer than some of his supporters may like.

Why? Because being president of all the people means hearing viewpoints other than your own, something the last guy who held that office wasn't very good at.

And while we would all love to say he's done "nothing" I would hope the American people recognize that sometimes doing things slowly, means doing them right.

Ever since Barack Obama won the election, I have been trying to forget about the awful phenomenon that is Sarah Palin. Trying to pretend that was all a bad dream, but she won't let me. Because she won't go away. And this is a big problem because;

I hate Sarah Palin.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me. Watching her behaviour is like watching a train wreck. No, it is a train wreck.

But I feel like there is something I need to clear up. I you see, am one of those people that "middle America' would call a "elitist". Why might you ask?

Well, lets check off the boxes.

I grew up in a city (where morals don't exist apparently)
I went to university (which is suddenly not an accomplishment)
I have "liberal" values (which are wrong, we should all think the same way, right?)

So, now that we have established that, lets establish why I don't hate Governor Palin:

She is a conservative: I actually think having more than one viewpoint on an issue is important. The fact that people disagree is positive, it helps to clarify an issue and can force people to think outside the box. All of which leads to a more lively and detailed debate.

The fact that she is an evangelical Christian: When it comes to peoples faith, I tend to want to stay away from judgment. It is not, nor has it ever been, my right to tell someone what they can and cannot believe. It is when these people want to integrate their personal beliefs into the public sphere that I get angry. I don't care what religion she is, and I don't care what Obamas is either.

The fact that she has a "folksy" way of speaking: No, I don't think her accent makes her unintelligent, Her accent and mine, don't define whether or not we are smart. She grew up in a different place, big deal. Most people don't speak exactly like one another.

So contrary to what many conservative Americans will tell you, as a "liberal" I am not threatened by her "conservative values" and I am not "afraid" of her points of view.

I am afraid of her ignorance.

We all should be.

I am writing because I am sad, and the thing is, I don't know why.

I certainly recognize that, at the death of Michael Jackson, a generation has lots its idol. I was too young to remember Jackson at his peak popularity (I was born the year Thriller was #1 on the Billboard charts), and perhaps Nimori put itest when she said

"By the time you grew up, he was already weird".

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, no doubt I knew about Jacksons music, but my knowledge stems much from parody and mockery as anything else.

I must say, that while I was fascinated by the freekshow (yes, be he dead or alive, that is what his life was) I never really cared per se, about how he lived his life. I had no emotional connection to his music, no emotional connection to his legacy. As far as I was concerned If he had enough money to live in a house called "Neverland" and play with childrens toys his whole life, then I couldn't care less if that is what he did.

It was his life, until little boys came into the picture.

No, he wasn't convicted of anything, but lets be honest with ourselves, he was acquitted because of his name and his money. Justice isn't Black or White, justice is Green.

But calling him a "pervert" or a "pedaphile" is too easy, and too simplistic. I wish I could say that his actions were premeditated, that I could dismiss his memory, but I can't. Not when I see him moonwalk, and no when I see old clips of him singing and dancing.

I can't.

does that make me naive? No, I don't think so. I still acknowledge what I, and many others suspect he did, and that is ... well, I cannot define it. Did he do things with boys that were inappropriate? Probably, did he understand fully what he was doing? Probably not.

Does this excuse his actions? No, not at all. He was a child at heart, and that was his undoing. His naivety, his excess, and his demands (all resemble the actions of a 10 year old boy) were his undoing. He should have been forced into therapy, he should have gotten help, but he didn't

He was lonely, and isolated and above all, he couldn't face the man in the mirror. I am sad, not because the world lost a talented man, but that Michael Jackson could never really become the man I think he so desperately wanted to be. He could never dig himself out of that self-loathing hole.

I know I should just remember the music, but the music was only one part of the man. My ultimate hope is that we remember and acknowledge all of him, his life, his problems, and ultimately, his legacy.

Because despite everything, there will never be another King of Pop.

I only hope that will be good enough for him, wherever he is now.

I am more than a little irritated at all the attention being devoted recently to Jon and Kate Gosselin's (the stars of TLC's hit show "Jon and Kate Plus 8) clearly dysfunctional marriage and home life.

Kate Gosselin is controlling, harsh, and critical of just about everyone around her. And I don't blame her one bit, you try raising 8 kids alone on one salary. Her husband is passive-aggressive and kind of a klutz, and clearly hates the spotlight. I don't blame him either, it must be hard being "Jon" from a hit TV show instead of a real person.

But I have always questioned the parenting skills of anyone willing to exploit their children to make money. There was never any doubt in my mind that Jon and Kate (Kate especially) loved the attention and the perks that came with the show.

And now, they are both is starting to complain. That it is "so hard" being them, that paparazzi follow the family everywhere, and that it is scary to raise kids in such an environment.

I agree Jon and Kate, so why did you do it? Why? Please explain because i'm not a parent so I clearly don't understand how hard it must be to live in a huge house, get free trips, a personal chef and all the babysitters you could want.

I mean really, It's not like anyone tied down your hands and made you expose your family to the harsh criticism of the public.

You cannot tell me you didn't know. That you couldn't have "predicted" this could happen . Sure you could, just look at Britney, and Lindsay and Paris. Their lives have been scrutinized and picked apart, they are followed everywhere and sometimes their lives are put in danger, all because they wanted some publicity. But you went anyway, believing most likely, that these things could not happen to you.

You guys were different, you were 'real"

Right

It's time people wake up and smell the coffee, all reality is staged, to one point or another. And some people crave the fame and the attention, and when these people are exposed they cry and whine and throw a fit and blame the media.

It's not our fault Jon and Kate Gosselin.

It is yours.

You opened your home, your lives, and your flaws to the world.

And we did the only thing that could be expected.

We watched.

Because I never do real updates about my life...

This weekend was uber-fun, finally the gods of advanced planning smiled upon Nimori and I and we were finally able to spend some time together (after three phone calls, it's times like these that I wish I had telepathy). Watched tons of Anime and lots of movies with pretty pretty boys, and made fun of early 90's fashion statements (and the computer-generated mistake that was Jar Jar Binks). AND we managed a super-frilly Starbucks drink in between, my idea of a fun weekend! I always need new tv addictions, so many thanks to Nimori for that! :)

Also? You know what I saw on my trip back? A guy on a cell phone while on his bike! Seriously people, is that the stage we're at? It's not enough we have to be on our cell phones in our cars?

Yesh.

The weather is lovely, and I am totally excited for the next few weeks, let the summer insanity begin!

I'm on Twitter. I "Tweet".

Yes, that's right, I spend roughly sixty seconds occasionally during my day looking at what my friends are up to, and updating them on my day.

But some people seem to have a problem with this. They seem to think that us "Twitterers" are wasting our time on something that is at best a time-waster, and at worst narcissistic.

Well, I agree with them on one thing. It is a time-waster.

And you know something? I couldn't give a rats ass if it is.

So why do I do something that seems to have no real "purpose"?(it's not really social networking, it isn't going to save the world, and the messages aren't particularly deep, at least not all the time)

Honestly, because I can.

Part of it is because it is a way to connect with people who I don't always see. People I like to keep up with, but also? It's really cool.

And if all those journalists and bloggers and columnists would get their heads out of their asses and realize that sometimes the internet doesn't have to have meaning.

It can, sometimes, just be fun.

So to all those who would write about Twitter representing some kind of ultimate decline in communication, I ask.....

Do you wanna come follow me?

After all, all the cool people are doing it.

This is the story of love and loss, fathers and sons.

And parenting gone haywire.

This is the story of an article on Slate.com about a mother and her two young boys entitled "May the force be with them: Why does star wars still take over the minds of young boys?"

I read thinking that it would be a cute article about her kids obsession, and maybe some commentary about why Star Wars has withstood the test of time.

Instead, I got the ravings of a mother absolutely terrified that her poor widdle babies are going to be corrupted by the violence and blatant merchandising of the star wars franchise.

She writes about her youngest, Simon:

"He was obsessed. He talked about the movie to any relative, friend, or baby sitter who would listen and plenty of shopkeepers who wouldn't. He relived the trash-compactor scene. He worried over Obi-Wan Kenobi's Jedi sternness and Darth Vader's glittering malevolence. He sniffed out plot twists in the rest of the endless six-movie saga (who knows how) and tried desperately to work out why Darth Vader could be Anakin Skywalker and Luke's father—and could also cut off Luke's hand. Here's a little girl sweetly summarizing the Star Wars plot. Simon wasn't sweet. He was feverish. He was short-circuiting. Thanks to our two hours of stupid indulgence, Paul and I concluded, his neurons were melting".

Neurons melting? I'm sorry, what?

So she doesn't have a problem with Superman or Batman, but Obi-Wan Kenobi as a hero for her boys? Not a chance.

This bugs me, because it confirms every fear I have about parents these days. That they are getting so caught up in what their children are seeing ,they forget that children are capable of discerning the difference between right and wrong. Simon even has a conversation with his friends about "why" Obi-Wan had to die in the first place.

Simon is cheering for Han, Luke and Leia after all, so he is pretty clear on who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Also, Simon is not the first child to build his own lightsaber and re-enact the scenes.

But really, this isn't about Star Wars. This is about childhood, and everything it means to be a child. When I was a little girl I love Princess Leia (still do) I also used to play with Barbie dolls, and play princess. And yes, I owned dolls and wanted a lunch box wtih Rainbow Brite on it, but that doesn't mean that I became some slave to brands.

And neither will her children. They won't be obsessed with Star Wars forever, but there is no guarantee that they won't have other obsessions either.

An imagination helps kids work out their own problems, and also lets them just have fun, you know, fun without a planned schedule, or any moral lessons. Life doesn't need to "teach" you things, although you'd be surprised what your kids have learned just from watching tv.

They learn more than you think, and they retain what they want to (in other words, you may see something harmful, doesn't mean they will).

So, what about her irrational fear of Star Wars? She needs to remember that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

And who gave recites those words of wisdom? A green muppet, in those movies she hates so very much.

Now that spring is..um...springing, I am now spending more time outside and I have realized that I spent so much time this past winter watching reality TV. I'm not talking about "Survivor" or "American Idol" i'm talking about the weekend daytime television that is on such prestigious networks as "Slice" and "TLC".

Now that my hibernation is coming to an end I figured I'd make some very deep, meaningful observations on what reality tv has taught me.

Observation #1:

You cannot renovate a house without a granite counter in your kitchen. It just isn't done. Your house just won't be good enough, so regardless of how much it costs, or how much debt you go into, granite is key.

Observation #2:

If you live in Orange County California and you don't have fake boobs, you will not be accepted as a close friend of any woman who lives in Orange County. God love the "Real Desperate Housewives", they know what's really important in choosing friends.

Observation #3

A young woman's greatest goal in life should be to become Paris Hilton's Best Friend. After all, if you aren't being dragged around to various social events and dressed up like a Barbie Doll, you're not really living.

Observation #4

If you are getting married, you must invest in a helicopter, stretch limo, sports car, or elephant in order to make the proper grand entry. Oh and if you're the bride, you need a tiara that's bigger than Princess Di's. Go big or go home folks!

Observation #5

And finally, nothing is more important in life than getting exactly what you want, when you want it. Whether that be throwing the perfect party, having the perfect wedding, or having the perfect body, if you can't get what you want, there is no point in trying.

You know, leave it to a bunch of fake spoiled people to help me realize just how lucky I am I don't know them.

There is a new book out called "Let's talk about love". In it, author and "Globe and Mail" critic Carl Wilson details his "journey to the ends of taste". He has said in interviews, that while there is no accounting for taste, he wants to at least understand why it is we like what we like.

And for that matter, why we hate what we do.

He uses Celine Dion, because he used to be "repulsed" by her music, but having attended a concert and talked to fans, his answer isn't so certain anymore.

This really got me thinking.

Truthfully, one of my biggest pet peeves are people who label ANY kind of art (writing, movies, theatre, drawing) as "bad" or "good". I heard a lot of this in school (being an elite liberal arts grad and all)

"OMG, such and such a book is such trash".

oh, really?

Maybe it's just my nature, but I don't qualify things that way. Certainly, I have movies I hate (Pearl Harbor) and music I hate (heavy metal) and certainly there are books I think are terrible (anything by Margaret Atwood, sorry Canadian readers).

But here is the catch, if someone were to ask me why I don't like this stuff, I would just say I don't, and that yes, I think it's bad

The key word there is "I"

I am making a judgment based on "my" taste, not on absolute taste. I don't consider myself in any kind of position to judge what is absolutely good or bad...well.....anything!

Because really, when someone tells me something is "bad", my response is always

Could you do better?

I think the answer to that question, if you asked yourself, might surprise you.

It appears many people think "The Reader" is a bad movie.

I have seen a number of articles lately discussing "Holocaust revisionism" and what that phrase means. Some have pointed to the recent movie starring Kate Winslet, because it implies that those that committed the heinous crimes while guarding concentration camps were people, and had feelings, and were lovable. And this is revisionism, because these people did unspeakably horrible things. By humanizing these characters, we are condoning their actions.

We, and indeed them movie, does not such thing.

To clear something up, "The Reader" is not about the Holocaust. Indeed, the author of the book himself has declared that the primary focus lies around the "second generation" dealing with the crimes of their parents ("who knew? how many? was it their parents? friends?") It is the young people who grew up in the 60's trying to come to grips, and some understanding, of how people they loved and respected could do what they did.

Disregarding whether or not you believe that Nazi guards deserved forgiveness, the movie attempts to show us a man who is tortured by the understanding that the woman he had an affair with as a young boy, was a Nazi guard.

Clearly, this greatly confuses and angers the main character (Michael Berg) as he grows up conflicted as to how he could still love this woman despite all that she has done.

And if she could be loved, than she is human.

This bothers people, for reasons I well understand.

despite the obvious, that the movie isn't about the Holocuast itself, these criticism reveal something in many people which frightens me.

They reveal that those who despise the movie seek to label those who committed Nazi crimes as simply evil.

and that is very dangerous.

If you refuse to acknowledge the lives and feelings of those who joined Hitler's army, then you refuse to acknowledge history.

In order to ensure we never allow something like the Holocaust to occur again, we need to fully realize that those who committed crimes during that time were regular people.

If we don't see this, we blanket them and their actions as beyond us, inhuman.

But the truth is they were very very human.

Fear is human, paranoia is human, Hope is also human.

We are capable of great good, but we are also capable of great evil but it is we as a people who are capable.

If we think these people's actions were beyond what human nature could conceive, than we are not taking the events as seriously as we should. Caricatures allow people to distance themselves from events, and we simply can't distance ourselves from this.

It is a part of each and every one of us, whether we were a direct part or not.

And in the name of all those who died during World War II, I hope we never forget.

Never

I hope.

This is the following quote from Evelyn Harper (Charlie and Alan Harper's mother on "Two and Half Men") regarding children

"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment."

And I was wondering why my mother watches this show?

Before I start this post, I need to add a bit of a disclaimer. I am a member of "Generation Y". Born in 1983, I am now often lumped in to the generation known as everything from the "Net Generation" to the "Millennials" to "Generation Me". In short, we are the generation that is entering the workplace.

We are, the future.

And as such, there is a plethera of books describing what exactly "we" want from our job. From the more positive "Grown up Digital" to the downright insulting "The Trophy Kids Grow Up", lots of authors are taking on our generation, and one word seems to resonate throughout the literature.

Entitled.

That's what we ultimately are, apparantly. We "want" things from our bosses, and in some cases, we are unmotivated and spoiled. As a member of this generation, I feel it necessary to give those interested, a bit of a reality check.

And so, in the spirit of fairness, I am going to list some myths and some truths about this much maligned generation.

1) We look for flexibility in our jobs:

This one is a big "yes", we do look for flexibility in the hours we work. We are not keen on working 24/7 and see more value in quality rather than quantity. So in other words, it makes no difference to me how many hours somebody works a week, it is what they get accomplished in that time. We also like to actually take our vacation time, that is what it is there for.

This has given people the impression that we don't work as hard, or that we aren't as motivated, but as I have said before, it isn't how much time you spend at the office, it is what we do with it.

2) We are truly "digital"

Yup, for sure. We have grown up with technology changing before our eyes. So we have had to adapt more readily, more so than our parents.

This has given people the impression that we understand technology better than our parents. I don't think that is true at all. I think the boomers are very capable, but what I see is a resistance to change. I think this has more to do with their "age" (ie. "when i was a kid") then their capability or intelligence. In short, we are not smarter than our parents, and we don't have any secrets.

3) We want to find work that is "meaningful".

Yes, that is true. The way I hear people my age speak about the work they do, is that they want to find jobs that give them a sense of purpose.

This gives people the idea that we are "idealistic" and "too picky" when we really need to be making money and gaining experience. This is not true either. One cannot love all aspects of their work all the time, and I don't think anyone does. But at the end of the day, if you aren't feeling satisfied with the job you do, then it isn't worth doing. And while this may appear spoiled, I see it as inspiration. It gives us the ability aspire to work harder and be better, we don't settle, which isn't a bad thing, necessarily.

4) We are spoiled rotten

Sorry, I don't buy this. And it really does depend on how you define spoiled. Yes, I was fortunate growing up, we didn't have any wars, the economy was doing well, we didn't really have to make sacrifices. But this doesn't mean we don't understand the value of hard work, or that we don't understand the value of money. What people need to realize is that we see the world as "bigger" than money and status. We want more out of life, money doesn't impress us, and I think that is a positive.

So how do you work with us? You realize that we aren't impressed with large salaries if it means we have no time to spend any of it. We value personal time and hobbies and outside interests. So don't be afraid of us, don't think we don't "get" it.

We are different from our parents, but isn't every generation different?

Dear Ms. Winfrey

you don't know me, and probably never will. I've been a fan of yours, albeit a tad suspicious of your seemingly endless good will and charity. But I respect you, so what I am about to say is hard for me to do because I know that you have always prided yourself on being honest with your audience, and sharing your troubles with them.

But you need to stop.

And just in case you're wondering why in gods name i would suggest such a thing, when you have built your empire on being "real", I offer you a quote from Jon Stewart:

"it's hurting America".

Now, Jon was talking about the divisive political rhetoric, but i'm talking about the opposite. The sort of "feel good" philosophy that you preach so frequently on your show, is hurting America.

This is an opinion I have had a tough time explaining, but i'll do my best for you, because I believe you deserve my best.

After your recent admittance that you gained quite a bit of weight back, and your honest assessment of how difficult it has been and how defeated you felt, I actually groaned. And i shouldn't, I should want to support anyone who wants to make such a drastic life decision, but I couldn't. And you know why?

Because you've been encouraging such life decisions for many years.

I'm not saying you need to be perfect, in fact, if you chose not to lose another pound, I would support that, if it meant you could be happier with yourself. What I am saying, is that the reason I think you keep dealing with being "the best you", is because you feel like you can't possibly live up to your own expectations.

After all, you are encouraging your audience to eat right, be your own medical advocate, find spiritual enlightenment, and while they're at it, balance their budget.

And people look to you and only you, as a measure of their own success.

After all, if you can't do it, how can they?

And so, you keep going round and round in this cycle and what comes of it? No one really feels anything, except that they should be doing more, of everything!

So what would I suggest you do? Keep informing people about medical advances and financial and spiritual tips, and keep telling stories about extraordinary people. It is what you do best.

Bust just don't make it about you this time. Seek your own enlightenment away from prying eyes, where you can't be judged. Then maybe while it's so quiet, you can find yourself again.

Best Regards

Jenn

By Francis P. Church, first published in The New York Sun in 1897. [See The People’s Almanac, pp. 1358–9.]

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:

Dear Editor—

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O’Hanlon

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

About the Exchange
Francis P. Church’s editorial, “Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” was an immediate sensation, and went on to became one of the most famous editorials ever written. It first appeared in the The New York Sun in 1897, almost a hundred years ago, and was reprinted annually until 1949 when the paper went out of business.

Thirty-six years after her letter was printed, Virginia O’Hanlon recalled the events that prompted her letter:

“Quite naturally I believed in Santa Claus, for he had never disappointed me. But when less fortunate little boys and girls said there wasn’t any Santa Claus, I was filled with doubts. I asked my father, and he was a little evasive on the subject.

“It was a habit in our family that whenever any doubts came up as to how to pronounce a word or some question of historical fact was in doubt, we wrote to the Question and Answer column in The Sun. Father would always say, ‘If you see it in the The Sun, it’s so,’ and that settled the matter.

“ ‘Well, I’m just going to write The Sun and find out the real truth,’ I said to father.

“He said, ‘Go ahead, Virginia. I’m sure The Sun will give you the right answer, as it always does.’ ”

And so Virginia sat down and wrote her parents’ favorite newspaper.

Her letter found its way into the hands of a veteran editor, Francis P. Church. Son of a Baptist minister, Church had covered the Civil War for The New York Times and had worked on the The New York Sun for 20 years, more recently as an anonymous editorial writer. Church, a sardonic man, had for his personal motto, “Endeavour to clear your mind of cant.” When controversal subjects had to be tackled on the editorial page, especially those dealing with theology, the assignments were usually given to Church.

Now, he had in his hands a little girl’s letter on a most controversial matter, and he was burdened with the responsibility of answering it.

“Is there a Santa Claus?” the childish scrawl in the letter asked. At once, Church knew that there was no avoiding the question. He must answer, and he must answer truthfully. And so he turned to his desk, and he began his reply which was to become one of the most memorable editorials in newspaper history.

Church married shortly after the editorial appeared. He died in April, 1906, leaving no children.

Virginia O’Hanlon went on to graduate from Hunter College with a Bachelor of Arts degree at age 21. The following year she received her Master’s from Columbia, and in 1912 she began teaching in the New York City school system, later becoming a principal. After 47 years, she retired as an educator. Throughout her life she received a steady stream of mail about her Santa Claus letter, and to each reply she attached an attractive printed copy of the Church editorial. Virginia O’Hanlon Douglas died on May 13, 1971, at the age of 81, in a nursing home in Valatie, N.Y.

1) i am officially a "millennial". I have the attention span of a golden retriever, get bored so quickly, and am more often than not doing two things at once so I don't go insane.

2) we need to name our snowstorms less lame names, considering we have so many of them. Why not name them something fun, like after people! That's way cooler than "snowmageddon".

3) I get addicted to anime very easily when bored. I am now watching Deathnote, and am obsessed. Just so everyone is aware, this is entirely Nimori's fault ;)

That is all.

Now that the economy offically sucks for everyone, the media has decided that Americans need to stop spending.

As a result stories are popping up on blogs and news websites informing all those ready for the holidays, on how to do it one the cheap, one Huffington Post blogger even urged readers not to buy presents this year.

So this begs the question, not buy presents? are you insane??

I'm all for curbing spending, believe me. But I don't think that people buying presents at special occasions are whats causing the economic problem.

I think the problem runs deeper, in fact, i'd go so far as to say all those who decry Christmas spending are only putting a band-aid on the real economic issue.

The problem is entitlement. Americans have been brainwashed in to believing that they deserve stuff. Not just little stuff either, but big ticket items: vacations, cars, houses, designer clothes. All of those things.

And I think that the solution to this problem needs to be a change of attitude. you are not defined by how big your house is, how expensive your car is, or how many vacations you've taken.

And until that happens and Americans realize that they need to actually "own" their own houses, and cars, this situation will not improve.

So, go buy presents! Buy your parents those clothes, or that Ipod, but just do me this one favour.

While you're at the mall, try not to buy a house you can't afford.

Please?

I really can't take much more of this. Ever since Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton came onto the political scene, they have been talking about sexism. Accusations flew from their campaigns, almost daily in this election, that one or more news outlets were being sexist, whether that charge was deserved or not.

And i have to say, those women made me hate feminism

No, wait, that's not right, they didn't make me hate feminism exactly... they made me hate what feminism has become. It seemed this year that "feminism" became a "get out of jail free" card for the two women.

You criticize my politics? SEXIST!

You question my judgement? SEXIST!

you question my readiness? well, you get the idea.

But here is the problem, I AM a feminist. I am a card carrying believer in equal rights for women (which I thought was what feminism was all about).

But here's the thing, "equal rights" doesn't excuse you from criticism, it doesn't make you exempt from public scrutiny, and it doesn't mean that every criticism leveled against you is the result of sexism, not by a long shot.

Both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton used the gender card as if their lives depended on it (and they did, politically that is). This is pathetic, disgusting, and cowardly.

Can I ask that, now that the election is over, women reclaim and redefine sexism? Can we remind women why it's so great to BE a feminist?

It means we get to vote

It means we get to make our own decisions.

And unfortunately, Governor Palin and Senator Clinton, it means we also get to make mistakes.

And at some point you need to deal with that.

Now that the neverending election is over, it feels like a fog has lifted. My life, has changed, it's kind of like withdrawl in a way. I am rediscovering parts of my life that I left alone for MONTHS, and now that i've had time to decompress...I'll name a few.

3) television: yes, i watched lots of TV during the election, but nothing fictional. It was all news shows and specials and analysis and, yesh. I have rediscovered sitcoms! and Dramas! it's wonderful.

2) fiction. All I read during the election were blogs and news sites, and non-fiction about the disaster that is the Bush Administration. I've rediscovered real reading! Like there are these kinds of books in this "fiction" section (I seem to remember fiction, once...long ago) and they're really good. You guys should try reading some.

3) Holidays. Did you know we had Halloween this year? I didn't, or wait, yes I did, except it wasn't Halloween it was five days before the election. See what I mean? I know am structuring my life around normal events, like weekends, and the holiday season, instead of "how much longer till this is over??".

I still have to find a balance (some of the paranoia that something bad will happen still sticks with me) but ultimately my life needs to be restructured.

But i'm doing that, one step and one day at a time, but i'm coping.

please note: any comments to this post that go along the lines of "you need a life" are not necessary, I have known this for years