What a First Lady is Made of

As our new First Lady, Michelle Obama has been widely received, not only by our own nation, but recently by the world. In the First Family's visit to Europe we have heard just as much about Mrs. Obama as we have about President Obama. The media has become fascinated with this beautiful, well dressed, intelligent woman. And, we consumers, eat it up.

The majority of us are engrossed in the pretty little details of Mrs. Obama's lovely existence. We love the way she looks and the way she dresses; we go as far as to compare her to our nation's very own debutant: Jackie Kennedy.

It's hard not to respect a woman with that kind of class.

But what about the part of Michelle that has nothing to do with her clothes or her beautiful appearance?

In our haste to accept her as the perfect counterpart to the 21st century's version of JFK, we have forgotten, perhaps, her classiest feature.

Her mind.

Yes, indeed, underneath that well-dressed exterior, we might be able to catch a glimpse of a human being with intelligence and character that could rival the leader of our nation.

So, why have we ignored a part of her that we have so remembered and valued in her husband? She seems to be a good First Lady. She portrays herself as a dignified human being who supports her husband with all the charm in her designer-clad figure.

Looking back over the years, it is the dutiful women who stand behind their men that are received the best by our nation. It is those who apply themselves to the role of First Lady that win the hearts of the masses. The First Ladys who actually act like "ladys" are the ones we seem to embrace.

After a small bout with pondering this issue, the feminist in me is what draws the conclusion: this is the example of what a good woman should be like. Beautiful, feminie, stylish, supportive of her husband. Of course the masses love women like these. They do not threaten our current idea of societal status, they do not make us contemplate what would happen if the boundaries of the roles of man and woman were blurred. They make us feel secure in the fact that the way of life to which we have become accostmed will not change.

In a lot of ways, most people are right in looking to women like Mrs. Obama as a good example. She is the kind of woman we would all like to be like.

I can't help but wonder why more women aren't looking up to Hilary Clinton this way. She was a dutiful First Lady. We all know the depths of her martial commitment, especially in the face of a true martial test. She has proved over the past decade or so that she is hard as nails, strong enough to withstand the strutiny of the media mircoscope we put her under in the late 90s.

Beyond that, she has persued her own political career, and made a success of it. She has come closer than any other woman to getting a poltical party nomination as a presidential canidate.

And still, so many people hate her. Why?

We call her "kneniving" and "ugly". What poltician isn't those things? Since when has a male poltician's attractiveness been the reason we chose to elect him? Doesn't anyone remember what President Chester A. Arther's protrait looks like?

Still, I feel it is in Hilary's tendency to defy certain gender roles that we find fault. It is theorized by feminist scholars that woman are often separated into two categories: the angel and the witch.

The "angel" represents innocence and purity. She is selfless and dutiful to her family; constantly self-sacrificing. In contrast, the "witch" (often considered a whore as well) is a monster. She is ugly as she is corrupt. While she might be powerful, her power only lies within her ability to lie and manipulate.

If Michelle is the "angel" and Hilary is the "witch", then we know we haven't progressed much further than the belief that a woman's place is in the kitchen. When will the rest of this nation catch on that women are just like any other human being in that they cannot be simply classified into two distintly separate categories? When will we realize that there is an equal amount of "angel" and "witch" in all of us and it is the perceptions others chose to have that dictate which side of the specturm we fall into?

It is my hope that once speculators start to find a middle ground in this specturm, we will all be able to forget theidea of the First Lady and start to see the real woman behind whatever facade we have given her.

Economix 101

I do not consider myself an economist. In fact, monetary issues usually bore me. I find them to be shallow. People who find money interesting must not be interesting people themselves; no passion for anything beautiful or riveting.

However, these days who isn't an economist?

With the entire trade world in shambles, who cannot take an interest in where his or her money is going? We constantly hear news stories with headlines like "Your congressman is getting TWO paychecks, find out how you are pay twice for this person". The news feeds us one story after another on families losing homes, people losing jobs, and the Dow Jones dropping points.

Of course, economics has all of our attention right now.

What has my attention right now is what we can possibly do to fix this. I heard today on Fox News (I'm somewhat ashamed to quote them, but they made an interesting point). The money it will take to bail out this economy if every dollar is a day, is equivalent to about 30,000 years. We might need on the up of a trillion dollars to bring our economy back to a healthy state again.

So, how did we get to this point? Weren't there various bailouts to attempt to stimulate the economy so that people would have jobs and spending money, eventually?

Sure, there were plenty of bailouts. In fact, billions of dollars were given to the banks so they wouldn't go under when lending money to those who applied. That's one of the reasons why banks exist, right? They lend money to those to apply, and in turn, the lendees pay back those loans with interest. It's a win-win situation. The lendees get the money they need to obtain things like a home, an education, a new business, etc, and the banks make a profit on what they have lent.

But things are different now. We're living in a bad economy, so banks are not as apt to give out money to every joe-schmoe applying for it. In the case that the lendee cannot pay back what the banks have loaned, the banks lose money. That's what got them in their current state.

Oh wait. But there was that bailout. Now, banks can still loan money to those who, once a credit check is done, seem fiscally responsible enough to pay it back. Silly rabbit. Don't you know? The economy is bad right now. That means that whatever money was given to the banks by the government to help stimulate the economy should not be used to loan to people, as banks are supposed to do. That money was obviously meant for banks to just sit on until the economy seems good enough to start lending money out again, risk free.

The sheer irony of the situation floors me. Let's examine this like we're back in high school English class. The government gave banks money, which came from tax dollars, to bail them out. Tax paying citizens of this country all paid into that pot from which the bailout money was taken. Some people who are having trouble keeping up with their bills, due in part by the taxes they are paying, apply for a loan, but are denied because the banks supposedly do not have the money to pay out a loan.

Interesting. It seems as though the taxpayers were giving the loan to the banks, but have yet to see any profit.

Perhaps rather than just sit on the money we have and wait for this storm to blow over, we should consider the investments we should make. Consider, an education is a timeless investment. Put unspent money toward classes toward an unfulfilled degree. That way your money is being spent on something that will pay out in the long run. In addition, you will be feeding your hard earned cash into a worthwhile facility, making it possible for that school to stay alive long enough to provide others with educations as well. If you are not big into education, consider the real estate front. Almost all home are selling for less than they are worth, meaning if you have the capital, you could make a really good deal on a new home. In this case, you are buying something you would have needed, while helping to stimulate the real estate industry, which is one of the largest issues our country is currently facing.

If we all thought good and hard about what we could afford and how it would pay out for us in the long run, I think the economy would find itself out of that large hole it seems to have fallen. Perhaps, rather than bailing out industries that won't use taxpayer money for what will help matters, we should all consider which investments seem worthwhile and which ones don't.