There are probably few things sadder than listening to someone talk about economics-type stuff, when they have little comprehension of how said economics-type stuff works. I’ve never had much of a grasp on economic theory, or even that much of an inclination to learn. It’s always been one of those topics that bore me to death.

What I do know, however, is this:  I’ve never felt this nervous about The Economy. I was but a wee tyke in the late 70’s, when this kind of thing happened before, and throughout my adult life so far I’ve felt relatively insulated from the peculiar ebbs and flows of The Economy. Now, though, I’m starting to get scared.

I always hear (especially in election years) about people’s “kitchen table” issues. Complaints about the economy. Unemployment. Stagnation. Inflation. Those were always just words to me, mere hypothetical constructs – until the past few weeks.

Having just pumped my first $40 tank of gas yesterday, I’m starting to understand the fear, anger and depression expressed by so many. And it seems that everywhere I turn, I’m reminded of the dire straits we find ourselves in. I fell asleep last night listening to a Diane Rehm podcast about oil prices, and awoke this morning to a local news story about how higher fuel prices are driving up the costs of pretty much everything else, sometimes by as high as 20 percent.

Now I really understand the meaning of “general malaise.” I hear ya, Jimmy, I hear ya.

One thing that pisses me off is some of the comments I’ve been hearing from environmentalists. While I’ve always considered myself sympathetic to the Cause, I’m getting really tired of hearing about how these high gas prices are a good thing – that sometimes it takes pain to effect real change. Skyrocketing fuel costs will force people to ditch the gas-guzzling SUV’s for smaller cars, and will force them to drive less. That may very well be true, but I think what’s being overlooked is that some of the biggest offenders are people who are wealthy enough that they won’t feel the pain as much as the rest of us. Are the higher prices really affecting Mr. and Mrs. McMansion all that much?

I suppose the Ayn Rand types might tell me to just shut up, and that somehow the oil companies’ crazy profits will eventually trickle down my way. To impose any kind of governmental regulations would only make matters worse. And besides, he or she would say. You, the consumer, always have the choice. It’s all supply and demand.

A choice? Really?

I certainly realize (and agree) that we should all be driving much less and using mass transit whenever possible. But some of us don’t have much of a choice. We live in the suburbs, because we can’t afford to live in the city, closer to our jobs. And in most parts of the country, including here, you can pretty much forget about mass transit. Some of us would love nothing more than to own a Prius, but can only afford a used Kia. Sure, some of it’s about making choices, but choice is a luxury many people don’t have.

And where’s the choice when it comes time to fill up the car? I certainly don’t see much of one. Sure, I might save a few cents at a different gas station, but the extra fuel it would take to drive across town to that particular 7-11 renders any potential benefit negligible.

It now takes $40 to fill my compact car. Food costs are going up. My employer is raising the cost of health insurance. My tuition is going up. The only thing not going up is my salary.

I know a lot of people have it much worse off than I do. I have pretty good job security, my own house, and no kids to worry about.  Still, I’m scared. Last night, I lay awake worrying about the future. What if it gets worse? Will I ever be able to travel again, if only to some relatively remote part of the state? What if it gets so bad that we become one more family who can’t afford their mortgage payment, and lose our house? What if Dwight or I get really sick? The precariousness of our financial situation is clearer than it ever has been before. I’m not the sheltered little princess anymore. We really are one disaster away from homelessness. We don’t have enough in savings to get us through any rough patches, and we already have too much credit card debt from our regrettable, irresponsible 20’s, to even think about adding any more to it. We have no safety net whatsoever. No one to bail us out. We’re completely and totally on our own.

Oh, why did I just spend $20 on t-shirts at Target yesterday? That was so stupidly frivolous of me. And that slush from Sonic? I didn’t need that, either.

Whatever happened to my Friday afternoon high?

In honor of today’s theatrical release of Sex and the City…

What is your favorite cocktail?

A Ford dealership in Kern County, CA recently ran a radio ad containing the following text:

“Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, “Under God” out of the Pledge, and “In God We Trust” to be taken off our money?

“But did you know that 86 percent of Americans say they believe in God? Now, since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians who believe in God, we at Kieffe and Sons Ford wonder why we don’t just tell the other 14 percent to sit down and shut up.

“I guess maybe I just offended 14 percent of the people who are listening to this message. Well, if that is the case, then I say that’s tough; this is America, folks — it’s called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe and Sons Ford are afraid to speak up. Kieffe and Sons Ford on Sierra Highway in Mojave and Rosamond: if we don’t see you today, by the grace of God, we’ll be here tomorrow.”

You’re not “afraid to speak up?” Who exactly is trying to keep you quiet, Kieffe and Sons Ford? The 14 percent of Americans you just told to “sit down and shut up?” Apparently, freedom of speech only applies to Kieffe and Sons Ford.

I was also surprised to learn that the 86 percent of Americans who claim to believe in God are all, every last one of them, Christian. It was also interesting (but not necessarily surprising) to learn that the ad was written and produced by an Oklahoma firm.

I had no immediate plans to go out and see the Sex and the City movie, but after reading Roger Ebert’s review, I now feel compelled to – if only to try and rebut some of his points. I need to know how much of his review is warranted criticism of a flawed movie, and how much is simply an adherence to dated gender stereotypes.

Something about the way this movie has been discussed in the media has created a little blip on my Sexism Radar. The level of smarminess and near-hostility that’s been directed towards the movie so far surprises me. Look at how Ebert begins his review:

I am not the person to review this movie. Perhaps you will enjoy a review from someone who disqualifies himself at the outset, doesn’t much like most of the characters and is bored by their bubble-brained conversations.

Okay, that’s fine. There have certainly been plenty of movies in which I couldn’t stand the characters. (I’m thinking of The Darjeeling Limited at the moment, although there have been many others.) But where Ebert felt the need to make such a disclaimer at the beginning of his review, one of the two male hosts of Filmspotting (one of my favorite podcasts) has been trying to get out of seeing the movie entirely. I think this might be the first time I’ve heard of a film reviewer try to get out of seeing a particular movie. Why this one? I’m sure there have been many other, much worse, movies. But, at least the Filmspotting dudes are bringing in a female film critic for a little “female perspective” on the movie.

Wait – there are female film critics?

As far as the Ebert review is concerned, I agree with his criticisms of glorified materialism. That was very much present in the Sex and the City series. And some of the over-the-top, gross-out gags he described – one character literally craps her pants, another has a compulsively masturbating dog – seem like they’d be more appropriate in a movie aimed at the traditional target audience of male teenagers. All of that is fair criticism that I very well might agree with after seeing the movie myself. But it are comments like these that catch my eye:

The most human character is Louise (Jennifer Hudson), who is still in her 20s and hasn’t learned to be a jaded consumerist caricature. She still believes in True Love, is hired as Carrie’s assistant and pays her own salary on the first day by telling her about a NetFlix of designer labels (I guess after you wear the shoes, you send them back). Louise is warm and vulnerable and womanly, which does not describe any of the others.

To me, this sounds like Ebert is suggesting that to be appropriately “womanly,” one must be warm, vulnerable and devoted to the idea of “True Love.” Really, Ebert, really? The worst of it, though, is reserved for Carrie Bradshaw’s longtime love interest, “Mr. Big,” who’s described as “unreal,” “passive” and “kinda slow:”

As played by Chris Noth, he’s so unreal, he verges on the surreal. He’s handsome in the Rock Hudson and Victor Mature tradition, and has a low, preternaturally calm voice that delivers stock reassurances and banal cliches right on time. He’s so … passive. He stands there (or lies there) as if consciously posing as the Ideal Lover. But he’s … kinda slow. Square. Colorless. Notice how, when an old friend shouts rude things about him at an important dinner, he hardly seems to hear them, or to know he’s having dinner.

To me, “passive” is pretty much in the same adjective group as “vulnerable.” Is Ebert criticizing one of the main male characters for being what the women of Sex and the City are not? And would a more “manly” response at the described dinner party have been to stand up and deliver a punishing blow to the insulter’s jawbone? This part, most of all, really got me: “He stands there (or lies there) as if consciously posing as the Ideal Lover.” Substitute “she” for “he” and you have a sentence that aptly describes the typical female role in the typical male-oriented film.

There are plenty of things one could reasonably criticize about Sex and the City. As I said, it can be a little materialistic for my taste – although some secret little part of me always did kind of lust over Carrie’s Manolos and Jimmy Choos. I also think the series went on a season or two too long. But it was (and I think this is what many male critics don’t get) one of the few shows that portrayed women as strong, assertive, independent people. Perhaps even more, it portrayed female friendships as interesting and worthy of attention. We’ve been inundated over the decades with portrayals of male relationships (there are even entire genres devoted to male bonding – westerns and war movies). So why the hostility towards a television series, and subsequent movie, that does the same for female friendship?

Actually, another one of my criticisms of the series is that in the end, it still (quite predictably) boiled down to love, marriage and children for most of the main characters. I don’t think it did quite as much as it could have to buck some of those gender stereotypes. With that being said, in a world where there seem to be fewer and fewer interesting roles for women in mainstream film and television, Sex and the City has been much appreciated. And I, for one, am looking forward to the movie. Even if I have to go by myself to see it.

I give you…the life span of lettuce:

Last night, we finally harvested some of our red leaf and Romaine lettuce. I’ve noticed a couple of the plants getting kind of weird and stalk-y, so I figured I’d better pick the damn things before it was too late.

Although we’ve been growing herbs for a few years now, and have done fairly well with jalapeño peppers, this kind of felt like the first time we’d actually grown and eaten our own vegetable. I was excited, and a little nervous, to taste the fruits of our labors. What if it was awful?

I whipped up a quick red wine vinaigrette, and tossed in a few chives and parsley leaves (also from our garden).

It was delicious. Best. Salad. Ever. It tasted just like real freaking lettuce.

Here’s hoping the tomatoes turn out just as well.