The trench is dug within our hearts. If you do a Google search for the words "Israel" and "Darfur," you will find a plethora of links all leading to this article detailing how evil Israel turned away 50 Darfur refugees who illegally entered the country from Egypt. "Israel turns away Darfur refugees" the headline screams. That evil, despicable Israel. What a den of compassionless sin! Apparently, genocide is bad, but Israel is worse.

What these headlines don't tell you is that Israel already has accepted 1,500 refugees with 1,500 more waiting entry (in prison, unfortunately). I've actually seen some of them as they spent shabbat with us in my boyfriend's village. These headlines also don't tell you that the refugees are fleeing Egypt because they are being harassed and, in some cases, murdered.

Let me get this straight. The fact that Israel turns away 50 refugees warrants a CNN News Alert, but the fact that the same people are being murdered in Egypt doesn't warrant coverage? And how come other countries such as the United States aren't volunteering to take in refugees or working with the surrounding nations to iron out a solution if they are all so concerned?

I'm not saying it's a good thing for Israel to turn away refugees. Clearly there needs to be new government policy designed to deal with this situation (and as someone who has spent the last several months working closely with the Israeli legislative process, I will say that you might be waiting a long time for this to get sorted out). Let's put the blame where the blame is due. Israel's refusal to accept 50 illegal immigrants (remember how much we love those in America?) does not a genocide make. And besides, Israel is a tiny country that's trying to work out its own rather hefty problems. Let's see a country with some global muscle do something, and stop blaming the underdog!

What a wookie. Inexplicably, I have had several discussions about FGM lately, and it seems that the media is following suit. Despite banning the practice nine years ago, Egypt witnessed the second death in three months due to complications arising from FGM surgery. This only underlines my consistent point on the subject: I don't care how culturally sensitive you are or unwilling you are to judge foreign social constructs, FGM is bad.

As much as I disagree with female circumcision, the male version doesn't bother me as much because male circumcision has proven medical benefits. Last fall, reporting on a randomized controlled trial in South Africa, scientists found that circumcision reduced female-to-male HIV transmission by 60 percent because of the susceptibility of the foreskin. "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved," they wrote. It was, they observed, "the first experimental study demonstrating that surgery can be used to prevent an infectious disease." Using the new data, scientists estimate that over the next 20 years, circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa could prevent 6 million infections and 3 million deaths [Source].

Hilariously, anti-circumcision advocates refuse to acknowledge the health benefits of male circumcision, blindly calling the practice barbaric. The most hilarious, in my opinion, is Jews Against Circumcision. After perusing their website for information as to why I should refuse to circumcise my (as-yet unborn) sons, I could find no legitimate medical reasoning to support their claim. I was, however, awarded with this juicy tidbit: "[Circumcision] sets off a ripple of hormonal changes that wire the child's brain to cope with a malevolent world. Males are violent due to circumcision. It is usually boys who go to school and kill people; they are violent since their brains are wired for violence from infancy." So, if circumcision makes men violent, how do you count for all the millions of men who were not and are not circumcised but who are violent? For example, the Crusaders, the Khmer Rouge, and the Nazis have no history of circumcision yet were remarkably violent, arguably more so than Jews. According to their website, Jews are some of the smartest people in the world, holding 33% of awarded Nobel Prizes. Apparently, these people aren't those types of Jews.

The blindest of the blind. Dear Readers, I pose to you the following question. I received the following CNN News Alerts today. One of these was sent to me simply as an article of interest and the other as a Breaking News Alert, ideally reserved for the most pressing of events. The first discusses a newly-created Hezbollah video game in which children gain points by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers. The second, ostensibly more important Breaking News Alert informed me that President Bush's idiot daughter is engaged. Now, Readers, I ask you, do you see these designations of the importance of current events as accurate? Is Jenna Bush's impending marriage (to Karl Rove's ex-assistant, no less) really more important than the brainwashing of children?

This is example #865 of the stupidity of America.

Promiscuous girl, you're teasing me. If you're like me, and you find those surveys reporting that men have twice the average number of sex partners in a lifetime as women somewhat disconcerting, your suspicions have been confirmed. This somewhat hilarious piece from the "New York Times" claims that those studies which report that men have a median of seven female sex partners while women have a median of four male sex partners are mathematically impossible. It's pretty logical, if you think about it. I mean, what happened to those three extra women the men reported sleeping with? Does the average man buy prostitutes or sleep around? Or are men and women just using the "Rule of Three" so expertly explained in American Pie 2?

When asked, Ronald Graham, a professor of mathematics and computer science at the University of California, San Diego, positied that "Some might be imaginary. Maybe two are in the man’s mind and one really exists." I told you this was vaguely hilarious.

It's calling out to idiot America. You'd hope that this little controversy would have settled down by now, but apparently Cleavage-Gate is still well under way. Commentators are hypothesizing that Hillary Clinton did this "on purpose" to "soften" her image and up her sex appeal. A candidate as poised as Clinton doesn't slip up and flash Congress by accident.

Why does Hillary Clinton need to defend her womanhood? She's clearly a woman. She clearly gave birth to a daughter. Hell, she went to a women's college. So why does Bill Clinton need to tell "Good Morning America," "I don’t think [Hillary’s] trying to be a man." Yet the media seems to be more and more obsessed with candidate fashion, pointing out the replacement of Hillary's trademark black pantsuit with softer pastel shades! I don't know a thing about her stance on health care or the Middle East Peace process, but at least she's wearing lavender. I'm so relieved!

According to the Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, male candidates receive about 5 percent more issues coverage than do females because of this preoccupation with appearance. Research has also shown that winning women candidates are "typically those who are best able to balance stereotypically masculine and feminine images and issues, posing with children as well as in formal suits, and discussing both health care and defense. Those who are seen as too feminine tend to lose races, while those who are seen as 'too hard' work frantically to soften their images." [Source] Basically, the ladies have to prove they are tough enough to go to war but not too tough so that they won't bake you cookies. We don't really care what they have to say; we just care about how they make us feel.

Let's put it this way: Almost every country in the developed world has been represented by women. Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Norway, France, Finland, Iceland, and New Zealand (to name a few) have all had female heads of government and even more have had female heads of state. Hell, even countries the United States paints as hopelessly backwards such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Rwanda have had women heads of government. Americans have the opportunity to support a strong, intelligent woman who is an exemplary candidate, yet they can't stop arguing about two centimeters of boob long enough to actually judge her by her merits. We are a nation obsessed with image and incapable of intellectual analysis. This really burns my toast.

Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game. We know that presidential candidates like to skirt the issue, but, as this points out, they're avoiding topics we didn't even notice they were avoiding!

I especially enjoy this observation about the United States' "bloated military budget:"

Home of the brave, my ass. What kind of a country needs to spend more money on "defense" than all the other nations on earth combined and is still as collectively paranoid as a cuckolded husband in the throes of an amphetamine psychosis? A huge Military-Industrial complex overcharges taxpayers on a scale that makes the pharmaceutical industry look like Robin Hood. It's the biggest financial scam in human history, but no serious candidate dares to say peep, less he or she be seen as unpatriotic.

Thank heaven for little girls. I really can't take this crap anymore. This isn't an Amish or Haredi company, either. Oh no. This is a company that seeks to bring back traditional "modesty" by bringing back 19th century swimwear. Apparently this makes us "wholesome" instead of "insane."

Look, I understand why you might want to wear an oversized T-shirt over their bathing suit at the beach. I mean, I hardly ever think I look good in my bathing suit, either. But to bring back this antiquated need to cover women in the name of modesty is just... bizarre.

She's the face on the radio. In answer to that age-old question of what happens to Communist dictators once their regimes have been overthrown, apparently they go on to have very lucrative careers in fashion. That's right, the former leader of Communist Russia is now a spokesmodel for Louis Vuitton handbags. Maybe that's why communism failed. How good can your political ideology be if your leader goes ahead and turns around and starts endorsing the epitome of capitalism and conspicuous consumption?

Have no fears, we've got stories for years. The AV Club staff seems to have gone off the deep end with their Simpsons love-in. With the movie opening this week, I guess they can't really be blamed, but the in-depth debate about the show's continued existence is particularly geeky. Not nearly as geeky as the types of Simpsons merchandise out there, of course. "Eat My Shorts" Cereal? Really? But who am I to judge? Apparently The Simpsons is the best cultural critic ever and is generally better than everything else in the entire universe. Pretty good for a 22-minute cartoon, eh?

She's in fashion. I don't usually argue with the Washington Post, but I seriously doubt that Hilary Clinton was trying to show off any cleavage when she wore this shirt. Here's a news flash: Women have breasts. When women wear v-neck shirts, sometimes some of the tops of our boobs peaks out. This does not mean we are trying to "show off" our cleavage or making a statement about our sexuality. Frankly, the fact that Hilary Clinton's wearing a slightly low-cut shirt warrants news coverage is almost as ridiculous as the media circus that surrounded John Kerry's adoption of the Live Strong yellow wristband.

As a rebuttal to this ridiculous piece, I'd like to point out Slate's recent examination of what happens when Hilary Clinton is insulted. Apparently, it strengthens her popularity among the ladies. I am not sure whether the Post meant to insult Clinton, but the minutia of the exploration certainly made me uncomfortable. In general, I do not enjoy it when I am minding my own business and someone draws unnecessary attention to my femininity. It is inappropriate and unnerving, exactly how this Post article made me feel. Eesh.

School's out for summer. Augustus Caesar isn't going to like this one bit.

Take it to the taxman. Listen, people. Stop saying that President Bush should "fire" Dick Cheney. The Vice President can't be fired. He is not a Presidential appointee, he's an elected official. Read the Twelfth Amendment, for crying out loud. We have a written Constitution for a reason!

I'll be your whatever you want. Having lived in the region for the past six months, I can tell you that this is an oversimplified answer to a complex problem. Via Facebook group Lezbollah, hot women from different Middle-East-Peace-Process ethnic backgrounds will send in pictures of themselves getting it on and, thus, inspire the rest of us to put down our weapons. After all, what's more inspirational than girl-on-girl action?

I'm pretty sure that most traditional Arabs and Jews would take offense to lesbian hook-ups, even if they are multi-cultural and, therefore, awesome. Also, I am compelled to point out the exploitation here: Why do women always have to pretend to be gay to get men to do what they want? As usual, the only tool with which women can prarticipate when it comes to compromise is our sexuality--or pseudo-lesbian posturing, as the case may be.

Leave me lying here 'cause I don't wanna go. I will not be mourning the end of Jane magazine. Jane was originally designed as the daughter of Sassy, which, according to everything I've read, was rather innovative and irreverent. Jane, however, is mass-marketed faux-feminism. Every time I've picked it up, it's been full of nothing but painfully-expensive, blink-and-you'll-miss-it fashion trends and terrible advice for all you "feminists" out there. The most recent issue contains a how-to guide for detox dieting. Any doctor worth her degree will tell you that a detox diet is harmful to your health. But this is not the first time Jane has given its readers step-by-step instructions on how to perform arguably-unhealthy acts. Some years ago I remember reading a guide to one-night stands. For a magazine that releases reports on STIs, it's ironic that they would trumpet an activity which is a fantastic way to get you sick.

I suppose Jane does appeal to a New York City subculture of mid-20s young women who are sexually active but not necessarily in relationships, who are fashion-conscious and see nothing wrong with spending money on shoes instead of investing in a 401k plan. I'm not condemning this way of life; however, I think that it's irresponsible and untrue to say that Jane speaks to its readers with a feminist voice. Bitch magazine, the real feminist successor to Sassy and an amazing read if you can find it, outlines it much better than I can: "Jane is like the girl in your homeroom who chats with you pleasantly enough but always manages to mention that her skirt cost more than yours....An old, advertiser-smooching, beauty-product-hawking, celebrity-ass-kissing, skinny-model-filled old friend in a new, faux-iconoclastic, hypocritical, self-congratulatory hat."

Well, I just need a little space to breathe. Someone explain to me why anyone would buy an iPhone. I don't get it. Yes, it's shiny and new and... I honestly can't think of a single other reason this is desirable. From this article, you can see why the gadget isn't revolutionary. It has a tremendous amount of pitfalls, the price being number one on my list, second being the fact that AT&T's cellular service is spotty at best. But perhaps the single biggest turn-off is recounted in this Apple-addict's ode:

While I couldn't find my favorite YouTube video (of rocker Jenny Lewis performing "The Frug," live), I was able to watch some very popular videos and chuckle softly to myself while waiting for a smoothie. The Season 3 finale of Lost looked vastly better on my iPhone than on my video iPod--so good, in fact, that it made one friendly stranger gasp.

How pathetic of a person are you that you cannot stand on line at Jamba Juice without watching a video? Furthermore, how pathetic of a person are you that you feel the need to pay Apple $10 for the privilege of watching a TV show ABC lets you watch for free on their website? How much constant stimulation does a person need? It's like the entire country has become afflicted with ADD, and the only cure is the newest iProduct.

I'm not saying I am free from the pull of crass-consumerism and materialism, but at least I have the good sense to recognize that Apple's products aren't as amazing as the media would have you believe. My iPod, and the iPods of most of the people I know, broke within the first year or a few months after the warranty expired, and I won't even go into the terrible battery-life. But love of all things Apple is nothing new, and most people seem more than happy to ignore the problems for love of the pretty packaging.

The biggest concern for me is that all this electronic gadgetry will create a world of unhealthy non-thinkers. According to the Franklin Institute, television makes your brain go into "neutral." Overexposure to computer screens causes eyestrain. Not to mention the connection between headphones and hearing loss. My point is that this constant exposure to gadgets is ultimately harming our health, our brain function, and our creativity. So wouldn't it be better if we put down our supped-up phones and had a conversation with a real person every now and then? I mean, how can iPhone "revolutionize" the way people communicate if we're spending all our time watching YouTube and shuffling through our MP3 collection, not to mention the fact that it doesn't work as a phone?

If you want to go to hell, you should take a trip. I realize some of my recent posts make me seem like something of a prude, but there are just some things I don't need or want to know. For example, I do not need to see or even think about Bart Simpson's penis. How in the heck is this necessary? This is the ultimate example of a case of too-much-information.

Unfortunately, this is not a publicity stunt. More information here.

I'm a sinner, I'm a saint. You call this news analysis? I think the author was giving the President's family a verbal blow job. Or does she have a girl-crush on Jenna Bush?

Come on, CNN! The President of Israel is going to plea bargain his way out of serving jail time for rape. Hamas is throwing people off buildings. The airport in Glasgow was bombed. There's a genocide going on in Darfur. Lindsay Lohan just got out of rehab. Write about something important!

Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down. It is my humble opinion that when Time magazine creates a word count as to the latest post-jail Paris Hilton interview, we have officially reached oversaturation. I mean, I expect her to be on the cover of People. I even expect CNN to send me breaking-news updates via e-mail about her antics. But the fact that Time actually went throught the Larry King Live transcript and counted how many times she uttered the word "yes" during her interview (45 times, apparently) is just going too far! I mean, Paris Hilton is, was, and always will be nothing more than an uninteresting blob of flesh. Must we rub it in?

Our days and our nights. Another part of my inner child just died, except this time it drowned in a pool of its own vomit. I don't want to give this (or the upcoming reality show) any more exposure than it deserves, but suffice it to say that I am deeply disturbed. Deeply. Painfully.

It gives that Charles in Charge theme song a whole new, vivid connotation, doesn't it? And do we have to involve poor little Joanie in this? Ew.

Where do we go from here. I admit that I wasn't as jazzed about the musical episode as some people apparently are, but I am not going to stand in their way. I think it would be fantastic if this went the way of Rocky Horror and we could all dress up like our favorite character. I could bust out some crazy witch-cum-lesbian flowy dress thing, or maybe some hot leather pants. Or just sport some fangs. Awesomeness, thy name is costuming. So, even though I am not quite the fangirl, I say sing on, proud cult following. Sing on.