NYCweboy

Separating Dessert Topping From Floor Wax... and The Men From The Boys.

First off, sorry for the light (i.e. nonexistent) posting - long day, long story, long nap. Blogging in earnest will resume tomorrow.

However, I do have a couple of small items - well, not necessarily small in stature, just small in length.

Let's start with Jonah Goldberg. No, really.  I've been following the travails of Liberal Fascism for a while, still refusing to read the book.  I can now fall back, comfortably, on my old retort that I tend to avoid items on the New York Times bestseller list - where Liberal Fascism is now #1.

That perhaps shocking (though "relentless sales job" comes to mind) turn of events is supposed, in a Goldbergian view, prove the book's worth, where success (again "relentless sales job") serves as the most recent substitute for actual seriousness. Every couple of days, I stop by Jonah's blog on the book, hoping a) it will finally be interesting and b) provide some of the more amusing snark I've come to appreciate the guy for... sadly, no.

However, today I caught sight of a series of complaining posts about a review by Michael Tomasky, which led me to Tomasky's multi-page takedown of the book.  As I consider Tomasky a genius (since before moving to New York, when he was at The Village Voice, muckraking the Giuliani years), I had high hopes going in... and they were amply met: the review is one of the most solid critiques yet:

However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism. Anybody familiar with Liberalism 101 grasps that there is something deep within liberalism, from its earliest beginnings, that prevents it from degenerating into fascism, and that is its explicit recognition that the state must serve both common purposes and individual liberty. Liberal theorists from John Locke to Cass Sunstein, with hundreds in between, have addressed this point. It is absolutely central to liberal theory and liberal practice. We do believe in such a thing as the common good, yes we do. We want more of it, and we want a democratic leader who will summon us to believe in it, who will locate for us the intersection of self-interest and common interest at which citizens can be persuaded to participate, together, collectively, in a project larger than their own success. But where that collective urge crosses the line into coercion, well, that is where liberals--I mean liberals who know something about liberalism--get off the train, and do their noncoercive best to derail it.

He's Just This Guy, You Know?

As we  move to elect Obama President of the Galaxy... er, Supreme Leader... er, President of The United States, perhaps we should just back up for a minute and try to ratchet down some of the rhetoric these days.  Granting that I've had my moments of exasperation, and that he's getting away with all kinds of stuff, Obama is, still, a reasonably liberal guy who would make a fine Democratic candidate.  And we - especially those who continue to support other candidates - shouldn't lose sight of it.

If we're not agreeing to the "he's the messiah" type claims that go on, by the same token, we shouldn't go overboard in suggesting that he's more than he is, or that his wins are less than his own.

I'm thinking of the growing sense that Texas - again, here we go, giving Texas a seriousness it doesn't completely deserve - will see a large number of registered Republicans jump over to the Democrats to vote for Obama.  One should note it wasn't long ago that we expected people to come over, in droves, to vote for Clinton, on the theory that they would rather face her (and her high negatives) come November.  Now, similarly, it's suggested that there's a Rove-ian, double secret, plan to tilt the election by having Republicans select Obama to run against McCain... in order to see him fail.

That sense is only exacerbated by recent moves by Republicans to focus on Obama, now that he is, clearly, the front-runner for the nomination.  McCain has accused him of ignoring the presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Others have accused him of insufficient patriotism.  One ugly e-mail making the rounds suggests that he is anti-semitic, or at least, overly sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

And really... Obama's just this guy... you know?

Ma - Ma - Mama, We're All Westcastrian Now...

I am typing this to you live from my sister's new house... which, I should say is my sister's very, very old house.  Built in 1909, it is a stunner, 3 floors, plus basement, massive stained glass windows on the mezzanine landing, floor plan suited to a newlywed young family of turn of the century America. Which, we can safely assume, my sister (the chef) bought for the kitchen appliances (Viking stove, Subzero freezer, industrial grade sink).  But it's the massive dining room, with it's Tiffany style chandelier and built in rounded breakfront that's probably the real showstopper (love the breakfront... not so sure about the chandelier).

With this move, our whole immediate family now resides in Westchester County (my sister had lived on the Upper West Side), hence the title of this post.  We are a close knit family. if only in the sense that, like beads of mercury, we seem to keep re-forming into one, nearby bead (though it could have something to do with the free child care my Mom provides for her two grandsons on a near daily basis).

Oh, and did I mention the carriage house out back? Probably not.

Yes, as Redstar used to tease me so about in Boston, my sister lives in a mansion. We are a family of mansion dwellers, or mansion preferrers... champagne tastes and whatnot. This will, certainly, do - though my sister has already noted plenty of things that need correction (the kitchen, though lovely, does want for more cabinetry), and I kind of wonder what two growing boys will do when they want to shut themselves off from Mom and Dad, as teens are wont to do. I should be envious at all she has... and yet, I'm sort of mostly pleased for her, impressed with the grown up she's become, not so much wishing it were I - it's really more house than I'd ever need.

For the moment, I am basking in morning sunlight in the computer nook, reveling in the closeness of family and the wonder of the Little Star (my younger nephew, just laid down for his nap). In the next room is a view of the Hudson, and exploring the Carriage House beckons. Perhaps some tea. More later. :)

Silencing The Great Wind

When a friend's elderly mother died, someone (I think it was J in Baltimore) said "Now you're an orphan," and we were all caught short because it hadn't occurred to us, until then, what it meant to lose both your parents, even as an adult.

This is what I think of, for Christopher Buckley, now that William F. Buckley has died, less than a year after his wife, Pat.

I was debating what to say, but for my money, James Wolcott has offered the best left-side sum-up of WFB, Firing Line, and National Review:

He was a master of the tangential counterattack, to borrow a phrase from Manny Farber, not only removing the stuffing and mummy wrapping from modern conservatism but endowing it with a fizzy bonhomie that enabled him to entertain friendships with liberal foils such as John Kenneth Galbraith and others. Unlike a industrial-strength grievance collector such as Norman Podhoretz, Buckley didn't scrounge for opportunities to cast former friends and allies as enemies and infidels in order to play the role of injured party; he believed in the social emollients of courtesy, banter, and prompt drink refills during the intermission pauses between political jousting matches. His interrogation technique on Firing Line was a marvel of making a guest feel at ease before knocking him off his pedestal, his elaborate foreplay so stylized that it became a comic staple for impersonators ranging from David Frye to SCTV's Joe Flaherty, who didn't miss a trick conjuring Buckley's trademark deployment of fountain pen, flicking tongue, protruding rabbit teeth, sly grin, and reclining posture--his sitting in the interviewer's chair at such a steep incline that he nearly dropped out of camera frame.

If A Tree Falls In The Forest, And No One Uploads It To YouTube...

I'm less interested in discussing the poor content of last night's debate - for my money, Red describes (via Digby) the absurd, meta, SNL-like qualities of the questioning perfectly - than I am about the mechanics.  Even if I wanted to show you the SNL clip of the opening (which was hilarious), or the much discussed (but less seen) Tina Fey hilarity on supporting Clinton, I really can't - unlike say, Jimmy Kmmel and his naughty words; and similarly, I can't really show you any clips of the debate.

That's because NBC (and its parent company, Universal), unlike CNN (and ABC, in the case of Kimmel), is vigilant about keeping content off of YouTube. As we discussed at the beginning of the TV season (which seems long ago and far away), NBC pulled content from YouTube, and from iTunes, preferring to set up their own, closed, advertiser driven system. And although there are no numbers yet, I'd say a quick tour of the zeitgeist says the wider exposure of NBC and Universal content... isn't happening... much.

In which case I'm not sure there's any way to really discuss the lasting impact of last night's debate, or its aftermath.  Outside of people who tuned into MSNBC last night (still one of the smallest audiences for news on basic cable), most people will see little, if anything of it (nor did MSNBC follow CNN's example of making a live web feed of the debate available, a key reason I've been able to see them, along with my Mom).  What they will see will probably be stage managed by TV news people into easy sound bites that confirm the current storyline - Obama is vague and wonderful, Clinton is mean and desperate. And tomorrow, even fresher footage will be used to do exactly the same thing.

What little I did see in the cherry picked selection NBC graciously allowed me to watch after commercial (after commercial), was unimpressive.  Brian Williams lacks the gravitas of more seasoned anchors, and comes off - still - as junior league and trying too hard.  Russert, as always, substituted mind numbing detail for actual probing of people for ideas that would illuminate actual - as opposed to media created - differences. And, as Red notes, though Clinton was probably hurt by it, the format wasn't doing Obama many favors, either.

In the end, though, with conventional wisdom hardening into amber, it probably doesn't matter.  What does matter is that NBC's refusal to capitulate to the demands of new media, and the changes in audience approaches to content and content delivery means that they are cutting themselves out of the culture, and sealing their fate as a weakening media powerhouse. Their debate is most likely the tree that falls in the forest, with no one around to hear it.  Without YouTube it's like it never even happened.

Odds and Ends V: Personality Profile

One last side note - as I head off to the National Training Night at the 'Bucks - Red mentioned at the end of last week that she had taken Myers-Briggs, the well known personality profile system, and came up as INTJ. There are descriptions of the INTJ personality here and here... but what's weird is that Red and I, without ever comparing, turn out to be exactly the same.  I, too, tested INTJ.

Since taking Myers-Briggs, I've come around to the notion that it really does provide interesting insights, partly because the relative similarities of its insights to deep astrology are more than many (like my Mom) would care to see. You can take the quiz here. In the meantime, I plan to continue quietly taking over the planet. :)

Speechless

I could, of course, be referring to my reaction to the previous post's videos, but really, the current spin of the campaign cycle has me floored, topped off by what has to be the oddest confluence of silliness ever - in which a picture of a man in a turban becomes central to some nonexistent debate we're not having about an election that, as we so often manage, has come down to trivialities.

Let's give credit to the fact that the Obama campaign has run away, with both hands, from virtually every serious discussion of the issues of the day, preferring to fight its battles on style, uplift, and other equally intangible, unnecessary qualities. The turban picture, we are given to understand by them, represents "dirty" campaigning, because Americans, really, are too stupid to understand the difference between a politician visiting a country and putting on a silly hat, and equating every black man with terrorism (this, I should think, would come as news to every black man, who mainly have been relieved they don't look like every vaguely Arab looking man).  This, from a campaign that says we are all just waiting to be drawn to our higher, more intelligent, more unifying selves.

And, of course, it plays into every current Clinton trope: she's grasping, she's desperate... her campaign too foolish to figure out the incredibly dense - and really, let's just say it, idiotic - way Texas plans to choose its delegates (and how one truly does miss Molly Ivins at a time like this, to come out and tell us that this delegate selection process is horseshit, and no election, certainly no Democratic election, should come down to Texas).

Really, people... turbans?  This is what's passing for serious election year debate?

Speechless, I tell ya.  If we wind up with Barack Obama, really, at this point, it may just be the insubstantial reality we deserve. At the very least, couldn't we at least pin the cloud down and ask him about specific anti-poverty plans, or for a plan to increase affordable housing, or... something? Could we find out how he plans to pass bills while working with a Republican opposition absolutely disinterested in compromise, or the concerns of people not like them? Or are we really just going to wind up trusting that by believing in people's inherent goodness and the love of a benevolent leader, all our problems, all our divisions, will just magically... go away? Is that really all we've got here?

Speechless. Just speechless.

And PS, Obama people - don't point me to another Obama speech, or his website.  Do better.

Odds and Ends IV: Four's A F**king Crowd

Before leaving the Oscars, we should note that the post-Oscar show on ABC (after your local news) was a special edition of Jimmy Kimmel, which featured his response to a now fairly widely seen video of Sarah Silverman's.  There's a whole fairly complicated history here which has something to do with Silverman's appearance at a Comedy Central Roast of Pam Anderson, and a running gag on Kimmel about having Damon as a guest, but running out of time before he can come on.  In any case, you don't need a lot of backstory to appreciate Silverman's musical kiss-off:

Kimmel promised a response, and word leaked out that it involved Ben Affleck.  And last night, it arrived. And it was worth the wait. :)

I have one thing to say: Josh Groban! Who knew?!

Odds and Ends III: The Instant Reax

Tilda Swinton!

Tilda Swinton!

Well, it may be one of the dullest Oscars, with some of the least engaging winners... but Tilda Swinton has an Oscar.  It can't be all bad.

And so does Marion Cotillard.

Now for the bad parts: Jon Stewart was weak, and looked entirely uncomfortable. The show seemed oddly small and muted for an 80th Anniversary - no doubt a consequence of the strike - where were the ambitious montages? Where were the old stars? I mean the really, really old ones. Jack Nicholson, doesn't really count. Why no medley of the score nominees? Why the dull production numbers for Enchanted?

As an aside - apropos of my comments last year about film as truly international, I think this may be the first time we had acceptance speeches in French, Spanish, and I think Italian. Which made that embarrassing moment between Helen Mirren and Daniel Day Lewis almost passable (and PS, when you have two Oscars, a wife who's the daughter of Arthur Miller, and the pedigree he has, a knighthood for Daniel Day Lewis is pretty much a given).

As for the dress parade, I saw very few duds.  Best I saw in rough order of preference: Katherine Heigl (stunning), Hilary Swank, Tilda Swinton, Renee Zellwegger (though she has GOT to stop sucking in her cheeks), Marion Cotillard (Jean Paul Gaultier couture - best choice), Amy Adams (her green velvet number, not her performance dress), Kristen Chenoweth, the costume designer for Elizabeth (a damn fine dress),  George Clooney's date, Nicole Kidman (the necklace, absolutely).

Not so good, but still lovely: Anne Hathaway (the weaker version of Katherine Heigl's), Jennifer Garner (bad strapless; bad, naughty strapless), Jennifer Hudson (full figured gals have such struggles), Cate Blanchett (maternity... always a challenge), Nicole Kidman (the dress - so-so, but also a maternity challenge), Miley Cyrus (too teen prom), Helen Mirren (well constructed... but the pieces didn't work together as a whole).

And finally, a small memo to Diablo Cody: it's all good, dear, so long as the dress doesn't wear you.   And generally, slits are dangerous.  But dude, way to rock the tat!

Odds and Ends II: There Will Be Oscars

Well, I had planned a few "odds and ends" posts yesterday, but working and personal time intervened (... I've Got a Life... though it refuses to shine).

Still, tonight is the Oscars, and I am off to the annual Oscar do at a friends (I always come close to winning the pool... but then some fool who "guesses" beats me on Best Documentary Short).  If I can, I might try my hand at a "livebloging" post or two... but let's not get our hopes up, shall we?

This year, the Oscars have tried to have an increased online presence - a deeper website, and more interactive elements, as well as videoclips.  As these things go, it's sort of hit or miss.  The clips are interesting (apparently culled from a VH-1 special of "Oscar Moments"), but odd - where's Louise Fletcher's famous sign language Thank You to her parents? Where are some of the most memorable musical moments? (My own fave, Frank Sinatra's "Here's to the Losers" which showed the people who never won one, for one thing.) It's a good first try... but hopefully there will be more, or there will be blood. :)

Given the Writer's Strike, this has been a low key year of Oscars, and as I've said, thank G-d for that. After seeming for a while like too much - too many dresses, too many foreordained conclusions, too much run-up - this year has felt refreshingly like not enough.  Who even remembers all the nominees? Who has even seen all the nominees? (Sadly, not me.)

After the jump, a few mild prognostications.  But done with not nearly the overwhelming interest of years past.