NYCweboy

Look, Muffy, An Editorial About Us!

One of my favorite things in the New Yorkers I read as a child growing up in Maryland were the little squibs at the end of long articles. They would feature misprints, examples of interesting malapropisms, typos that made a sentence completely unitintentiionally hilarious, things that newspapers miss in the rush to get the paper out the door.

That doesn't happen so much now - I blame Tina Brown - but my own sense of subversive humor gets re-kindled, now and again, while perusing the paper and tripping over an unintentionally hilarious or revealing moment. Like, for instance, yesterday's bizarre editorial on 3-D movies in the New York Times, which ends:

The actual world doesn’t have to create the illusion of its three-dimensionality. Its depth is so pervasive that we forget to notice it. We register it with a kind of 3-D equanimity, taking in everything as part of the natural field of view. There’s an unexpected serenity, a calmness, in how we see.

That was the pleasure of walking up Broadway from the theater. When a man looking for spare change said “Hey, bub!” his face didn’t leap into the foreground, nor did we suddenly see ourselves walking toward him from his point of view. The light mist that was falling didn’t hang like the northern lights between us.

It was a pleasure to take 3-D for granted and marvel, for a few blocks at least, at the subtlety of the special effects inherent in ordinary perception.

... missing from that last sentence? "Then we told the bum to stop bothering us, got in a cab, and headed back to the Upper East Side." Isn't New York glorious?

Do Nothing Til You Hear From Me

Day after day, the steady drumbeat of news and blogging insists that we are "almost there" on passage of "healthcare reform>" And day after day, I debate writing something, usually annoyed and slightly sarcastic, pointing out that, in fact, nothing much has happened, still, and the real prospects for reform are still as unlikely as ever.

And then I say... why bother?

Still, last week's passage of a bill out of the Finance Committee suggested that too much naysaying would be premature; it's certainly possible, on a momentum basis, that there will be... something... passed by the end of the year for the President to sign. It's probably some sort of hare brained "compromise" of ideas that have been bouncing around, which pretends that major elements of "reform" - like addressing Medicare reimbursements - if done in other bills won't be added to this one to determine an overall cost of reform.

I'd love to say I find any of this heartening or useful or even merely progress for the sake of progress (or as Olympis Snowe does, let's just repeat things twice - "when history calls, history calls." Ooooh. Now I get it. History is... calling). But I don't find much of what's happening at all helpful, and I think it's incumbent on those who know something about healthcare to point out, again, just what's not happening, and why it matters.

So here, a few points about why we may not be anywhere near the bill people think we're getting:

• How to pay for the thing is still a big mess. One of the remarkable simmering issues that's never been resolved is a mechanism to cover the cost of expanding coverage as proposed in all of the bills. Proposals have lurched from "luxury taxes" on the highest earners to a tax on "Cadillac Plans" of health coverage over a certain amount... which turns out to be some of the very nice plans unions have negotiated for members in various fields. Most prudent observers continue to point out that perhaps we should use tax revenue to cover the trillions of dollars of deficit spending already in place, and many other reasonable people also point out that tax increases in a precarious economy can't solve all your problems. It remains entirely likely that this issue, alone, could derail the whole thing.
• Do reform that doesn't really reform anything. The Finance Committee bill is the best indication yet that what's really happening is what was predicted by many - me included - months ago: that, as the idea of a Giant Reform of Everything fell apart, we'd get a scaled back proposal that does a few things, but is nowhere near the full attempt to reform major parts of our healthcare systems. That appears to be the result: we may get some insurance reforms ending preexisting conditions and lifetime caps (or at least, words to suggest both), we may get some subsidies to allow more people to purchase insurance... and that may be about it.
• Is there Medicaid reform... or not? Totally undiscussed is the most costly, and necessary, element to any real reform effort: federalizing Medicaid, and expanding it to cover everyone in poverty. The Finance Committee appears to have stuck to some sort of formula that approximates this... but it may be, as many Governors fear, a temporary fix that doesn't address the long term, structural problem of dumping the question of how to pay for halthcare for the poor on the states. This too is a major, undiscussed issue that could derail the whole effort.
• And then there's Medicare.  Medicare is the elephant in the room that at least everyone admits is there; pretty much every reform plan passed tinkers with some marginal questions, but nothing, really, is being done about fundamental problems in Medicare's structures that drive problems across the system. This is especially true of a looming problem around Medicare reimbursement rates, which have been a huge issue for doctors and hospitals. Then there's the generally expected move to significantly reduce Medicare Advantage, the HMO plans aadministered by private insurers which receive extra funds - essentially bribes - on top of normal Medicare rates. The cuts proposed will likely eviscerate the plans, and leave many seniors - especially in rural areas - with few or no options. That too is a disaster waiting to happen.
• "Public Options" are the least of it. Meanwhile, of course, progressives have made the presence of a Public Option - some sort of government subsidized insurance option - the be-all, end-all of reform. As always, it bears repeating that a "Public Option" onlyu solves a small subset of the overall problems with reform - you can't get to full coverage without one, but "full coverage" may itself be an unrealistic goal, and an incremental approach would make this a goal to get eventually... but not right away. What "public option" really stands in for is "move to single payer", which is even further unlikely than ever. Getting a public option, and especially winding up with a bad, poorly constructed one is no slution at all. But that's probably where we're headed, and by making that the only goal, progressives are giving away the other reforms that are far more key.

Will there be a bill? Right now, I'd guess there will be something... but what it looks like, I think, may be far different - and much less - than where we seem to be now. I think as a number of issues turn out to be too hard or the compromises too absurd, things will get dropped until very little is left and the real change will be modest, a few insurance reforms, some increased access, and not much else. But you can't count out the pressures to "do something" and that the Administration has made this a major goal. Failure will be disastrous.

But failure takes many forms - one of which I'd say is concoocting, as the Finance Committee did, a bill in which the main reforms are years away, and are strikingly modest and weak, all designed to hit a budget number, rather than ask the more pertinent question of what reforms are most important, and which ones can wait. Doing nothing remains a recipe for disaster, but "thie reform or nothing" does make the compelling case that doing nothing, just now, and starting over with a new, smarter proposal... would make more snese. But good sense, I suppose, is soething that's never been in the mix. And doing nothing til we have it... means we never will.

To I Wish Someone Would...

Yes, Ta-Nehisi is right... we can all relate.

The Tragic Mulatto Goes To Louisiana

One of the most eye opening moments for me about race was the discovery that I was not alone; yes, I've had a sister and cousins of mixed race heritage, but it wasn't until college that I discovered that we, really, were not oputside of America's historical narrative.

I forget that a lot of people have not been exposed to "the tragic mulatto," a literary device going back to colonial times, used as an argument against miscegenation. Basically as implied, the stories revolve around the idea that a child of mixed race faces a sad, tragic existence, never accepted in any community, forced to lie and pretend, always in fear of being found out. It's tragedy... so things really never end well.

Perhaps the best known - and indeed, archetypal - presentation of the Tragic Mulatto (who, BTW is almost always a woman) is in the Broadway show that is considered the first real musical: Showboat, which is the tale of one tragic mulatto woman who gives birth to another, with tragedy all around. And singing! And dancing!

This archetype has really never died, and it has colored our societal perceptions of race mixing and children of mixed race parentage. Often, without thinking (or with), people will say "I'm sure it can't be easy with your heritage" suggesting endless tears, shame, and rejection. I ignored a lot of this for years... and then I found it kind of silly.

It's not necessarily easy, and I wouldn't minimize the difficulties many faced, especially prior to the Civil Rights Era (when the "one drop" rules of race meant there wasn't a "mixed race," just another shade of black). Shelby Steele, as I always like to remember, is a good barometer of that transition, and continues, really, to struggle with notions formed in that period. But life is not "tragic" even when it's hard; as much as children of mixed racial heritages may face unique dilemmas in a society that sees, often, only black and white, it's also a life that's very normal, very ordinary... and not really difficult for many. It is not Imitation of Life - and it wasn't, even then.

I hadn't planned to mention any of this, but I've been struck by a news story that came up, and stuck with me, as it did for others. A Justice of the Peace in Louisiana is denying mixed race couples who ask him to perform their weddings, and part of his reason for it is this:

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said. Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Bardwell's action, it can be pointed out, is illegal; as it has been since Loving vs. Virginia. And it's worth noting that his rationale - the sad plight of mixed race children - is a rationale also advanced by the State of Virginia in Loving, and also smacked down then. And what it is, yet again, is what we live with: the Tragic Mulatto, shunned once more, accepted by none, pariah to all. Which is especially hilarious in Louisiana of all states, where they have an entire group of people with a word, Creole, to describe their mixed race population.

It's well past the time to let this shit go.

You Deserve A Break Today

On a cold and rainy Sunday, I find myself needing - not in a bad way - to rest and recharge a bit; could be that fabulous bridal shower last night up in Boston (sadly, no strippers or vodka were harmed in the pursuit of my evening with the girls...at least for me), or a raft of financial challenges... but mostly, I jsut need a minute to myself.

Sorry I missed a singalong for Saturday. Normal operations will resume tomorrow.

Rush And The Capitalist's Tools

Let's be clear on what happened, at least: Al Sharpton did not make the NFL reject Rush Limbaugh from becoming a part owner of the St. Louis Rams. Indeed, Al Sharpton didn't make the rest of the people in the conglomeration of purchasers reject Rush either.

No, they did that on their own.

I don't know if Rush Limbaugh should be part owner of a football team. I can't say it radically changes my opinion of football, or team owners all that much (can anyone be shocked after Marge Schott?), and frankly, I kind of liked the ironic messaging to Limbaugh's fans that while Rush talks about the problems of the common man, when you have the millions needed to invest in a sports team... you are not part of the ordinary masses.

But we kind of knew that, anyway.

Limbaugh's been on a tear since the bid was made public, and the rather quick turn from interesting side note to full on controversy to flat out rejection actually added a touch of humanity to it all. Even people barely familiar with Limbaugh's messy path to stardom could be vaguely aware of his passion for sports and his real dream of being a sports announcer. As I always try to remember... don't fuck with people's childhood aspirations. It's really very mean.

Still, Limbaugh's tetchy, angry screeds about rejection and his defensiveness over things he was said to have said (more on that in a moment) seemed oddly misplaced. And for someone who so passionately defends the American system of capitalism and personal responsibility for one's failures and successes, he seems strangely or perhaps not so strangely - blind to what that means in his own story. If businesses should be allowed to make business decisions based on whatever whim suits their business thinking... then the problem isn't them. It's you.

Friday Evening Fisherfish

Traitor.

jinb
 

The Blonde Leading The Blonde

As I was flipping around morning news TV - a fool's errand if ever there was - I tripped over a little informative fact I'd missed, that along with Liz Cheney, Debra Burlingame has become a Board member/spokesmodel for Keep America Safe, the new "let's compain about Obama and foreign policy" group that prefers to call itself concerned with advocating for the "policies that kept us safe for the past 8 years."

There's plenty to debate in those notions, but I was struck by the appearance of Burlingame; in case you've missed her, Burlingame is the sister of one of the pilots of American flight 77, which crashed into the Pehtagon on 9/11. In the aftermath, among a number of other family members of victims, Burlingame moved into a fairly prominent role, speaking out for the concerns of families, and more generally, revealing herself to be a fairly traditional notion of a conservative woman.

It's not surprising that Burlingame's wound up in the Cheney group... but I think it gives a good indication of just what Keep America Safe is about... and what it isn't. And it seems likely that we'll have another semi-serious, pseudo-activist  group to watch and groan by, should we tune into those 24 hour news channel programs where people largely unconnected to things actually happening opine about how their easy to predict viewpoints reflect fresh, deep insight into the issues of today. The combination of Cheney and Burlingame - both so camera and soundbite ready - will likely be yet another exasperating example of what isn't happening in our political discourse, and harder to counteract because the objectionable lines will come from attractive blonde women.

And it's that familiar approach to dressing up conservatism that's got me this morning.

Afternoon Morsels: Preppy Snack Time

...for the frat boys of all ages:

• Dow over 10,000 - oh yeah, that's a perfectly sensible approach to the current business climate.
• And here's Calvin Trillin to explain how we got this way. Blame the preppy people.
• Beer pong turns out to be a great way to pass Swine Flu! But of course!
• Somewhere in New York, and everywhere else, in every market, someone is playing Taylor Swift. Right now.
• But in the real Hollywood Minute, Nikki Finke has some fascinating insight into the potential deal between Comcast and GE to sell NBC. And it seems Jeff Zucker would (finally) be replaced by the guy who used to run FX and developed The Shield, among other things.
• And... while not really a preppy moment, it turns out Michael Jackson's new song "This Is It" is actually an old song he co-wrote for Safire. And I know who Safire is... but in case you don't.

The Fight For Our PJs

When I first saw the kerfuffle developing around John Harwood's report of a White House Advisor saying "they [bloggers] should get out of their PJ's and put on some clothes and get out in the world," I pretty much planned to avoid it. There was a certain "oh no, not again" quality to the whole thing and a "why bother" aspect to responding that seemed paramount.

But a sense of impending deadline, the choice of not posting anything at all yesterday, and a slightly off-kilter sense of humor combined yesterday to push me to toss off what I figured was a cute, idiosyncratic point of taking the comment apart not for the politics, but for the fashion - a defense of pajamas, and the more relaxed life they imply as compared to an uptight, bound up life in the corporate world of suits and "seriousness."

And two unexpected things happened - one is that my dear J in B got on me for being unserious, and the other is that I got angrier as the whole thing didn't go away.

So now - a little pissed and a little more serious - I'd like to make the point again, more vigorously: there's nothing wrong with "blogging in PJs" and we (the blogger nation) need to stop feeling down and defensive when it's brought up. In every sense - from our relaxed lifestyles to our passionate writings to our political impact - we are winning. And we should act like it. Defend the pajamas! Embrace the pajamas! Pajama people rule!