NYCweboy

Because I Thought We Spoke Out About These Things

UPDATE: I'm going to push this back to the top, because there's been a couple of developments, and because I do, still, find the relative silence fascinating. Apparently, Jill at Feministe finally said something on June 9, and while it's pretty straight up, it strikes me as late (and note that her commenters aren't nearly so clearly outraged). Adam Serwer noted that last night, and complained that conservatives giving liberals a hard time for not speaking up about it were wrong. In addition to Jill, he cites Pandagon (links below), and Jezebel, who, it should be noted, really was throroughly outraged early, and loudly. But that, of course, is all there is... Adam couldn't even note that neither Dana nor Ann at his own site have still said nothing. All of that noted, I should  also note that I did get a response from Melissa at Shakes, pointing out that she has been taking a blogging break. I wish her Godspeed. We need her teaspoon.

I've debated bringing this up, but I don't think I can just stay silent.

If someone published a list, online, of women who ought to be raped... don't you think someone would notice? Or protest? Even if - or especially if - it was from a popular adult site?

Apparently not... if the women on the list are conservatives.

On Monday, Playboy.com published a list of "So Right It's Wrong," listing 10 conservative women that, as the author put it, he'd "like to hatef*ck". The list of Michelle Malkin, Mary Katherine Ham, Megyn Kelly, Elizabeth Hasselback, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Dana Perino, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Amanda Carpenter, and Pamela Geller was taken down some time after it went up (a cache of it starts here), but not before Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico published the list of women, calling it "Playboy's Top 10 Conservative Women We Hate To Love."

Mullins, too, was forced, first, to admit that she'd made a mistake in the comments... and eventually took down her post and replaced it with an apologia, of sorts, saying "the Playboy article also included an offensive section that was not included in the blog, but has caused outrage in some readers who believe the blog agrees with all of Playboy stances. This is not true. So the blog has now taken down the link and greatly apologies. No ill will was meant." Mullins continues to refer to the piece as "10 conservative women 'they love to hate'" .

You know... if, by hate, you mean brutalizing sexually. Or was that love? Oh... never mind.

I have my issues with Michelle Malkin, and I even lose patience with some of her complaints about unpleasant attacks (as she tends to be somewhat extreme as well)... but this... is this really a hard call (or how about this)? A Playboy writer calls for brutal sexual assualts on 10 women and we're... not sure how to react to it? Seriously?

Bonnie Erbe at US News, asked by a conservative blogger to comment was about as equivocating as one can be -

A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org's agenda--I know I disagree completely with the group's position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I'm also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

But at least Erbe said something. I forwarded Malkin's own blog post about this to Melissa McEwan, with no response so far. There's also been nothing, so far as I can tell on any of this from feminists I know who care about this - not Feministe or Feministing, neither Ann Friedman nor Dana Goldstein at The Prospect. At least Amanda Marcotte did, sort of... oh wait, so did Jesse, and boy was his link helpful. And so, I figured, to stay silent was to agree that somehow, this didn't rise to the level of importance, or somehow required qualifiers. And that's not true, at least not for me. I think this is unconscionable. I can't believe no one is speaking out about it (okay, to be fair, I'm not alone), simply and clearly.

And so... I thought I'd try and do something about it. We'll see what develops.

Morning Morsels: Weekend Edition

In which I attempt to clean my palate - and my browser - of a chunk of post-vacation chunks, mainly of the financial or "Hollywood Minute" variety:

• My pal J in B pointed me towards this New York article about the wake up call to Wall Street's dynamos, and how they're adjusting to the new economic morality. Not well. Unwinding this stuff, though, is kind of fascinating to watch.
• Instead of reading the mistake-ridden cliches of the overvalued... for some real insight into the Freddie Mac CFO suicide, check out this unlikely source. (via Erick Erickson at Twitter).
• Ken Lewis (CEO, Bank of America) says Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson made him keep quiet about problems with buying Merrill Lynch. Bernanke says... of course not, that would be wrong.  I say... we won't have Ken Lewis at B of A by the end of the year.
• This week in Auto News: GM near bankruptcy, plans to close Pontiac. World is going to hell. Chrysler can't seem to figure out how to even go bankrupt successfully, and Fiat says we'll run it, if we get it for free. Fiat also says it will by Opel from GM... all while losing money. Ford also says it's losing money... but hey, that's the good news: it's $21 billion in hock, but it doesn't need a government bailout! whee!!!
• I have almost nothing to say about Jane Harman and the supposed phone call... except to point out that for all the talk about how tension between Harman and Nancy Pelosi "isn't a catfight", it's amazing how people still frame it as... well, a catfight. (For what it's worth, I think Harman - still - is pretty awesome; and I'm less than keen on Pelosi's leadership in the House. Bu either one is vast improvemen over your average white male Republican, if you ask me.)
• I don't have a lot to say about Susan Boyle; what older woman singer who fame passed by wouldn't be well suited to "I Dreamed A Dream"? Boyle's got a lovely voice, people make too many snap judgments off of appearances... yada, yada. The real dubious distinction, it seems to me, is these "[Nation's] Got Talent" TV shows that Simon Cowell's people have dreamed up, which mix in the occasional find like Boyle in with junk, and hope audiences are too stoned to notice. Don't believe me? Check out this bit from Sweden's Got Talent... if you can, since it's decidedly NSFW
• My boyfriend got to swim with Michael Phelps!
• Brian Williams does satire on 30 Rock... and right wing just doesn't get it.

I'm Running Out Of Witty Ways To Say "Change"

...which is a shame when the word is so appropriate to today's news: my blog-pal Redstar has a new gig, and it's up and running: she is part of the force at Change.org, a new set of linked blogs dedicated to encouraging activism and, well, change, on a number of topics. Red is covering poverty issues in her usual clear-eyed way, so I recommend checking her out.  Also the site offers all kinds of ways to get involved, which I also recommend.

As always, I have to remind Red that she has a welcome home here to post about anything (and, too, that I hope she won't give up entirely on her own Redstar Perspective, if she can make it work). But I know a new venture like this can eat up all your energy and time. So I wish her the best... and hopefully, I can tell her that in person, soon enough.

The Change That's No Change Is The Change We Can Believe In

If it was pretty clear before the election, it's crystal now: the idea that the blogosphere offers a lot of diverse opinions is still kind of a dream waiting to happen.

Yeah, there's your basic left/right split and all, but look within the two, and you find... pretty much the same things.

It's easy enough to point out that the young, conservative white men of the Corner loo, and sound, a lot like the young conservative men at RedState, look and sound a lot like the young conservative men at The Weekly Standard look and sound a lot like the young conservative men at Commentary... and then cite Michelle Malkin as the exception that tends to prove the rule. Conservatism is marked by its doctrinaire approach (more on that later today), and the interchangability of its commentors is, after all, what leeps Fox News freshly annoying, hour after hour.

On the left we like to think we're more diverse than that; this election, though, atually laid bare how baldly untrue that lip service was, and a number of organizations - probably the Atlantic and American Prospect, most prominently - had to scramble to actually get the exciting election of the black man covered, you know, by black people.

I've written before about the narrowness of the mainstream left's blogs, but last night it hit me how narrow a post-Obama world will be - how interchangable the blogs of Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Talking Points, TNR, Kevin Drum, and The Washington Monthly have all become.  The same issues, the same opinions, the same reactions (largely cheerleading) for every move the Obama team makes. Oh, and let's not forget My DD, Open Left and Daily Kos (certainly in Kos himself, but others as well).

Sure, we're getting this range of agreement because so many things, finally, seem to be going our way; and it's nice to know, for a moment, that liberals are on the same page.  But the liberalism I know and love isn't so easy, and doesn't march in lockstep. Already, we're trying to paper over disagreements, and dissent, and hard questions we ought not to lose sight of. The debate over gay marriage, for one thing, roils these notions of simple unity.

It's not that I want us to be at each other's throats; it's just that I think, and my blog, at least, is all about the idea that we need to see more than one side of things. I urge you to seek out alternative voices in the blogs, and to challenge the party lines. Ask the hard questions, don't settle. I won't. Let's challenge the Lefty Blog Establishment - ask them to do better, try harder, be more than what they are.

And if you have suggestions on interesting, less heard voices, share them... I'd like to make this an ongoing project. 

Gone Fishin'...

As previously announced, the NYC Weboy will be on a hiatus from blogging here for the rest of August. Please scroll down, as it's likely that J in Baltimore and RedStar may fill in the gaps with musings, links and photos of their own. You may also find me blogging some critical things over at newcritics. I will not be checking this blog on any kind of a regular basis, but I can be reached via e-mail (nycweboy at nycweboy dot com)... and I do welcome correspondence. I will resume blogging the Tuesday after Labor Day. Yes, that means I will not blog about the Democratic Convention... but just assume I liked Hillary's speech, that the VP selection is not my favorite choice, and I wasn't all that impressed with Obama's speech.

Have a great summer. Enjoy.

Shameless Self-Promotion: Redstar Election Edition

While Weboy prepares for tonight's movie extravaganza (he likes to arrive early, get settled, there's a post in here somewhere in which he lays it all out) - I thought you all might want to take a look at the brilliance I've been leaving behind at The Hillary 1000.  I'm not sure how many of you are partisan enough to pop over there regularly.

Check out this post about that Boston Globe article criticizing public-private affordable housing developments done on Obama's watch in Chicago and how it relates to Obama's donors failing to live up to his pledge to help retire Clinton's primary debt.  I found the Globe piece "salacious" and overreaching, but also think it, along with this donor problem, points to a problematic lack of follow through by the Senator.  (There's also a worthwhile link in there re: Obama's urban policy proposals.)

Check out these two pieces breaking down Obama's campaign donors, by gender, organization and industry. 

And my H1K co-blogger Red Queen and I were interviewed by The Black Snob about our preferences for Obama as former Clinton supporters.  The Black Snob just won The Best New Political Blog and The Best Political Blog Overall by Black Politics on the Web, so you might want to leave her a shout-out while you're over there. I LOVE TBS, though clearly she wasn't up against our man Weboy in that race!

- Redstar

...And A Diamond's Worth

Last week, a little lost amidst the political roilings, I noted the passing of Sydney Pollack over at NewCritics. Pollack was one of preferred directors, classy and tasteful, the very notion of Hollywood Establishment, at least to me.

As I mentioned there, I think Tootsie remains one of the great screen comedies; and one reason for that, besides his assured direction, is Pollack's sharp performance as Michael Dorsey's agent.

There's a lot of great moments in there, but the one that I still think of first is the moment, at the height of the craziness, when Michael, having been groped by one man and proposed marriage by another (as Dorothy), goes to his agent and explains all of it to him. As he says in passing that he got a marriage proposal and oh yeah, even got a ring, the two of them stop and check out the ring. And Pollack compliments the ring and asks how he plans to handle it, and for a moment, they both fall into discussing Dorothy's life as if it's real.

In the comments there, Steve Barnes reminded me that Pollack's acting was, in many ways, as key to him as his direction:

There’s a good reason why Mr. Pollack was known as and actor’s (or star’s as the case may be) director. He was a very good actor himself. From appearances in several of his own films, to roles in Woody Allen’s “Husbands and Wives,” Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” to the final season of “The Sopranos,” he put a pretty solid string of performances on screen. He deserve to be remembered for those, too.

I agree with Steve, and it's very true that Pollack was a wonderful, underrated and subtle performer, often the best thing in the works he's in. And I think his sensitivity as an actor does explain volumes about the trust he got (and deserved) from his actors, especially stars - like Redford - who were not necessarily famous for talent first (don't get me wrong, I love Redford as an actor... but let's not pretend the blonde and the baby blues aren't key).

In any case, this is a good time to recommend Steve's equally informative and thoughtful post over at his own blog, which I think merits regular visits. And to remind anyone in a position to schedule film festivals (like, say Film Forum) that a retrospective of Pollack, as an actor, would I think be a revelatory thing - like another facet on a diamond.

Late At Night I Toss And I Turn And I Dream Of What I Need...

A few late night notes:

• Via Jeralynn at TalkLeft, I was just overwhelmed by Clinton's speech today in Boca Raton, perhaps the best speech this election season on the need for Democrats to stand up as the party in favor of the most free and fair elections possible. Though I know there's a political calculation to all of this, I too push, strongly, for including Florida and Michigan simply because it is the right thing to do. Some things really should be beyond the Clinton/Obama debate, and this is one of them.
• Via Hillary 1000, the names of the 55 state bloggers who will be seated with the delegates at the convention has come through... and guess what, it's overwhelmingly white and upper middle class. Um, kind of like the blogosphere, when it comes to politics, most of the time. Suspecting just such a result, I applied to the DNC to be a credentialed blogger at the convention, along with Redstar. Cross your fingers... but it looks like things are looking good for us to write to you from Denver. That said, it's disheartening to see less than the appropriate amount of work put into making sure that a diverse set of voices blogs about convention events. Come on guys, try harder. And pick me (and Red). :)
• UPDATE: Matt Stoller has more. Apparently this DNCC thing is a big deal, and people are pissed.
• And finally, J in Baltimore is sad because I took this song for the title of my last post. I hope the song I used for this post meets with his approval. It's sad when I let J down. You complete me, man. :)
• UPDATE: And Red completes me, by adding more links, directly below. :)

-- weboy

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For... In The Netroots

You have to understand, I'm largely agnostic on the subject of Daily Kos, at least on a personal level. I've said all along that I find the whole Daily Kos/Netroots thing to be less than the sum of its hype and its energy; I've long thought it's a movement in search of figuring out just who it wants to move.

When the "writer's strike" of Clinton supporters started, I was most impressed by this statement Kos himself made in response:

"First, these people should read up on the definition of 'strike.' What they're doing is a 'boycott.' But whatever they call it, I think it's great. It's a big Internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for."

Sure, it was a little rough, but still - classy, graceful, not arguing the point, just saying "let's go on, separately."

But of course, that wasn't the end of it.

Like I said, this isn't my fight: Riverdaughter and Alegre are much more up on the ins and outs of it. To the extent that I have any opinion at all, it's about the notion of Netroots, the usefulness and dilemmas of DailyKos, and the tension over this Democratic race.

All of which you can read more about, should you care to, below the fold.

Green Eyed Monster

So the news is finally true - Ezra Klein shifts tomorrow from his own blog to a presence at The American Prospect.  Ezra's announcement has turned into congratulatory paean to the young fellow, on that I, oddly, can't really get into the spirit of.

Please, don't get me wrong - I think Ezra is a brilliant, talented writer, clearly devoted to his subjects and determined to find answers. I will certainly continue to read him, and to comment, because his blog attracts an interesting group of people who are great to debate ideas with.

But look - not much, really, has changed. And while I like what Ezra does - so much, I started to do it myself - I'm not sure that what is gained here replaces what is lost.