A writer friend of mine, Joe Loya, in his book The Man Who Outgrew His Cell, said that writing is a form of prayer. As I have shed my religious beliefs and a black and white view of right and wrong, I have also relinquished my belief in petition to a magnanimous being who would take interest in the tribulations of my personal life, although I always found that aspect of faith along with life after death challenging to get my mind around. I think my god was more like Paley's watchmaker: He set things in motion but has been on vacation pretty much ever since leaving the universe to its machinations and all if its inhabitants to their own free will.

I find the idea of writing as revelation, discovering what it is that the writer desires, as opposed to a form of petition, convincing though. Not all writing fits into the category of personal revelation and probably any writing that transparently does so is poor writing. But in retrospect, when I think about motives I think there is a strong component of desire behind the drive to write, the desire to create and explore alternate realities or choices and their consequences. And a dash of megalomania.

Which gives me pause because many of the things that I used to write about have come to fruition, leaving me with the choice of two conclusions: to believe that there is a God but, as I have said before, He (or perhaps there's a clique?) has a sick sense of humor or that one should be careful what one desires.

In which case, I should also probably change my tagline from Sex. Beauty. Exploitation. Greed to Chastity. Modesty. Humility and Patience...

Nah.

I've heard Sarah Palin compared to Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan by her advocates. The comparison that I think is more appropriate is to Margaret Thatcher. The daughter of a grocer and a conservative visionary, Margaret Thatcher reformed British society (although she would cringe at the use of the word 'society,' since she believed there were only individuals and families, nothing as amorphous as 'society'') through her economic reforms.

I've read from various sources that Sarah Palin is considered by many Republicans to be the new face of the conservative movement and she is already distancing herself from McCain publicly in anticipation of her next career move if she is not the next vice president.

So is Sarah Palin the twenty-first American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher who is going to rescue us from our current economic crisis through political reforms that would further reduce the role of government?

Both Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin come from similar middle-class backgrounds, both are Christian and both achieved cult status within their parties and both were loathed by their opposition. So yes, there are similarities but the differences are far more striking: Margaret Thatcher attended Oxford University, Sarah Palin attended five different community and state colleges; Margaret Thatcher was a Methodist, a main stream Protestant denomination while Sarah Palin belongs to the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, apocalyptic, tongues-speaking sect. Margaret Thatcher believed in minimal government and personal choice while Sarah Palin is a cultural conservative who would like to shift legislative power away from the federal government to the states so as that the laws reflect the 'values of the community'. This means the potential reversal of federal legislation regarding civil rights and in particular women's rights to confirm more closely to community norms. Margaret Thatcher truly believed in individual choice, Sarah Palin believes in reforming society through a shift in legislative power.

So no, I don't believe that Sarah Palin is the next Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher was an articulate politician who understood the relationship between the individual and government. Most importantly, she was qualified to lead Britain out of a long period of economic decline that resembles the crisis that America and the world economies now face after a long period of deregulation and free-market economic policy led by Alan Greenspan; Sarah Palin is not.

No, on the contrary, I believe that Sarah Palin is comparable to Paris Hilton. As Mark Rowlands argues in his recent book, "Fame," Paris Hilton epitomizes a new phenomena: vfame, which he defines as, "... fame unconnected to any achievement or excellence in any recognized form." (pp. 25)

Like Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin's sudden celebrity status is completely unwarranted by her accomplishments or credentials. Her emergence as a national political figure is perhaps the symbol of another crisis that the Republican party faces as it attempts to redefine itself after eight years of a presidency that has resulted in a long and protracted war with no clear path to victory, an economic crisis that demands government intervention and a country looking for change. Margaret Thatcher might have been the answer in 1979 after decades of socialist policy in England that discouraged small businesses and entrepreneurship, Sarah Palin is not the answer today nor four years from now after a decade of deregulation and free market policies.

Personally, I think Paris Hilton should run for President in 2012.

I shared lunch today with my friend, the filmmaker Jennifer Fox, who has explored in-depth the relationship between men and women in her epic six-part series, Flying: Confessions of a Free Woman. When I originally screened the film, one of the first things that caught my attention was that 1. she wishes she were a man and that 2. she emulates her father.

I am always perplexed by women who wish they were men. Why would anyone want to be a man? No one opens doors for you, you almost always have to pay for your own drink and you can't use that all time favorite excuse for being a bitch: I was getting my period (Sarah Palin, God forbid she should ever get to the Oval Office, could always say, "Silly me, invading Russia. I must have been pre menstrual.").

I have never thought of being female as a handicap or draw back. I was raised with the belief that if I wanted something badly enough, I could achieve it. The fact that I was female might even provide an unfair advantage over the competition. Marriage or career was never a choice, it was always marriage and a career. Family and personal achievement were not mutually exclusive. As I've pursued my goals (while being married) I have encountered quite a bit of good old fashioned misogyny from men and particularly women (yes, there are female misogynists but they deserve a separate entry) but not enough to stop me for too long. I realized that the issue was the misogynist's and not that I am a woman. They need to go to a re education camp; I do not need to have a sex change.

I think being a woman is a pleasure but I realize this is because of my role models, especially my father. He thought that there were three necessary skills for his children, regardless of their gender: to be able to shoot straight, sail a boat and support yourself and your children. When I hear my friends, peers or younger colleagues formulating their futures as an either/or equation, either marriage or career, I always try to let them know that there are other paths. My father always supported my mother in her professional and personal endeavors, unconditionally. He never criticized her and he never put her down and he never let having children stop her; he supported her. She succeeded.

Because I watched my friend Jennifer's film and it made me sad to realize that not all women experience or equate being female as positive. They equate success, power and independence with their fathers and subordination and dependence with their mothers.

Heck, I'd hate being a woman too if it meant subordination or dependence.

Next installment: Knights In Shining Armor.

Everybody, myself included, usually associates sexual harassment with a male boss and a female, probably younger, employee. But lately, as I listen to my male friends talk, I am realizing that there are no rules when it comes to sexual harassment.

Let me explain.

I am good friends with a documentary filmmaker who is by any objective standard tall and handsome and talented ( he has been nominated at least once for an Emmy). Like most filmmakers though, he is always on the brink of bankruptcy since you are only as wealthy as your last commission, which for him was over a year ago. So, he is a little hungry and a little desperate, especially with the fall of the stock market. And he has a wife who is an author (read no paycheck or social net to catch them if he fails) and a daughter who will soon be headed off to college.

In other words, his back is up against a wall unless he gets a commission for his next film. Unfortunately though, the decision to commission this film rests with a young woman who is second in command at the major cable network that has expressed strong interest. She is 35 and recently divorced and thinks my friend, let's call him John, is handsome and talented and has let him know that.

I asked John how he felt about the situation and what he was going to do. His reply was, "I told my wife and her instructions were, 'Do whatever is necessary.'"

Women can be so damn practical.

Morning Cheerfulness, especially before the first cup of coffee or if it is dark, cold or raining.

Thrift, especially at the expense of pleasure. Nothing worse than somebody who refuses to exert the necessary effort to make sure that the choice doesn't need to be between Gucci or Payless and then claims thrift is a virtue since anything else would have involved getting out of bed in the morning.

Total honesty, need I say more? No, I don't really care to know how you feel or why you do what you do, at least not if it involves anything having to do with your mother. You will be judged by your actions, not your explanations. The rest is irrelevant.

Overseriousness. This would apply to anybody who claims that they only read books in the original language. I adore Dostoyevsky and admire his mastery of English.

Guilt Mongering. Yes, many have less but plenty of others have more. Clearly life isn't fair, so why not enjoy it? Pass the champagne, please.

Fitness Obsession. Anybody who has enough time to pay attention to their total body fat content or their resting heart beat needs to apply that energy to solving world hunger.

Gossip Prudery because there is nothing more satisfying than a really good ripping apart of another individual, especially if they exhibit any of the above virtues.

The other day I was privileged to receive a personal indoctrination session by a registered Republican over lunch in midtown Manhattan. I left feeling not only as if all logic had been removed from the world of politics but objective criteria as well. I should have known what I was in for when my lunch date arrived wearing his 'Obama '08/Osama '09' t shirt.

If that isn't cheap poetry, not to mention poor taste and fear mongering, I don't know what is. Suddenly, I had to defend what I believe are some fairly rational beliefs about the world, from the need of our future president to have a vision for the twenty-first century that is more than a rehashing of Ronald Regan's glory days during the Cold War (which is over, no?) to somebody who doesn't think that just because she can see Russia from her back porch that she is qualified to run our foreign policy. Or our economy. Balancing a household budget, or even the state of Alaska's, is not quite the same as responding to the greatest economic crisis we have faced since the Great Depression. And if Osama Bin Laden is still at large, isn't that yet another failure of W's?

What truly felt the most like my mind was being fucked was the portrayal of Sarah Palin as a representative of the people who could lead the people. Since when is the Republican party the People's Party? My criticism that she is uneducated and unqualified was countered with, "Just because she doesn't speak French, doesn't mean she isn't qualified." Well no, but neither does her ability to shoot a moose make her qualified either. And for the record, I can do both, so where do I sign-up to be considered for vp? Oh, I forgot... I am a vp with an Ivy League degree but not a mother of five. Shoot, I didn't realize that the road to professional success was through motherhood rather than education and experience. Perhaps I should have spent the last fifteen years at home rather than trying to improve my and my family's standard of living through education and professional experience?

It was also implied that I do not have Ms. Palin's moral integrity since I use birth control. Since when has moral integrity become equated with uncontrolled fertility? Hello womb, good-bye brain. Which raises the next question: how many women are actually going to vote for a woman who either validates your decision to reproduce like a rabbit or makes you feel like a failure because you are not a hockey-mom, bakesale, church-going, mother-of-five governor? Remember Geraldine Ferraro; post election focus groups showed that most women did not vote for her because they felt like over weight, under achievers in comparison who felt she threatened their marriages. Sad truth is, there is no great 'sisterhood' between women; on the contrary, there is envy, jealousy and gossip. Sarah Palin might get the Walmart vote, but I wouldn't count on it. In my experience, the dumber the woman the greater the envy.

McCain, and the Republican party, have made a gamble which has reduced the political debate to arguing about whether Obama is as qualified as Sarah Palin instead of policy issues. McCain's replies during hte debate on Friday evening harkened back to an America, to a world, that no longer exists. The Russians are not our number one enemy today. Georgia is a small province that has not been independent for 200 years. Their gamble for independence is like Texas deciding to secede from the Union or join Mexico and the Russians supporting them. And this is where I accuse the Republican party of engaging in a blatant mindfuck of the American people.

Mindfucking is defined by Colin McGinn as follows:

"Being surrounded by bullshit is one thing. Having your mind fucked is quite another. The former is irritating, but the latter is violating and intrusive (unless you give your consent). If someone manipulates your thoughts and emotions, messing with your head, you naturally feel resentment: he or she has distorted your perceptions, disturbed your feelings, maybe even usurped your self. Mindfucking is a prevalent aspect of contemporary culture and the agent can range from an individual to a whole state, from personal mind games to wholesale propaganda."

Yes, I walked away from that lunch feeling as if I had been mindfucked, from the sly comments about "super fly" to the comment that "You don't want to vote for a loser," my emotions and the facts were manipulated. And I didn't like it. In fact, I felt resentful. And angry. And the more I think about it, the angrier I become.

I don't like my mind to be fucked.

The other evening, as I stood on the platform waiting for the Dinky on my way home, I was handed a piece of binder paper by a Russian student with a poem written for me. Like all women I am vain (I often fear how I will function when I become invisible to men, will I find it a relief when they no longer pay attention to me as a potential conquest or will I wither from the lack of attention like a gardenia in frost?) but the gesture of being given a poem by a young stranger on a train platform on a chilly autumn evening in a language I am not fluent in is like carrying around a gift in my pocket, unopened.

I recognize a few words, "eyes," "night," "stranger," but my translation skills are feeble. Perhaps it is better this way? I can speculate forever the poem's content, wonder if it is a cliche, or if I have unknowingly been the muse of the next Pushkin?

Perhaps an untranslated poem is like a love that isn't consummated, remaining an ethereal ideal not subject to the laws of gravity, the end not contained in the first passionate kiss?

* * *

Незнакомый взгляд
Устремлённый в ночь,
Боль в глазах опять
И нельзя помочь.

Безразлично всё,
Годы мимо всколзь
И вернуть нельзя,
Повернув назад.

Стрелки вспять пустить:
Где же стрелочник
Наших светлых дней
И пустых путей?

MD 18/09/08 Princeton Junction

Since I know all six of my devoted readers have been patiently waiting for what they probably expect to be some especially titillating illustrated entry, I am going to be difficult and write about politics. I mean, really people—if you want sex go somewhere else. The Brillo Pad Bitch is not interested in gratifying your curiosity.

Nope. I am going to tackle politics. And not just politics, but international politics. I am going to write about Georgia. And Russia. And the West.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about how uncivil and brutish the Russians are – as if that’s news. They don’t even pretend to be civilized. For God’s sake, the national pastime is drinking vodka, a liquor that has no benefit except to make you so blotto that you can’t fukc.

Oh yes, I forgot, no sex.

So yes, the Russians are brutes. We are all clear on that fact and history will back it up: Hungary, Chechnaya and now Georgia. Now, the next character in this little drama is Georgia. Yes, my heart bleeds for the poor oppressed Georgians. Bad luck being located right at the base of a regional super power. Almost as sad as being Polish. Well, perhaps not quite. But back to politics. The question you have to ask Georgia is, what were you smoking? Were you seriously so naïve as to think that the West was going to go to war with Russia in order for you to join NATO? It would be like Texas seceding from the Union and expecting Russia to back them up when the U.S. sends in troops.

No, in my opinion, Georgia was like a silly woman who allowed herself to be seduced by an attractive suitor who promised her the moon: democracy, wealth, independence, no matter that she is a possession of another. Which brings me to my point. The West should not have led Georgia down the rosy path of true love unless we intended to go in with tanks and guns and rescue her. If anybody is at moral fault here, it is the West. Georgia can be excused for being naïve and silly but the West knew what it was doing.

And I suspect that Georgia has woken up and smelled the coffee, or perhaps in this case, the gun smoke. Because clearly the romance with George Bush is over (I think that man qualifies as a dickless wonder at this point). And now Georgia’s looking at a lifetime of Russian tanks and troops in her cities and streets along with a curfew, while George gets to retire to his ranch in Texas.

Coming up next: Economic Theory 101 or How an Abundance of Free Pussy Leads to Market Glut