NYCweboy

Glennhoward Beck Beale

It's fun to talk about now nutty the Glenn Beck show is.

It's less funny - indeed, it's almost painful - to watch it.

If you're home at 5 - a time slot, one might recall, where Fox parked nearly as nutty John Gibson - you can try watching Beck; honestly, I get through about 7 minutes, tops before I just have to stop. People complain about Rush Limbaugh being toxic... but listening to Limbaugh's show is annoying mainly for the long and trying commercial breaks. Limbaugh himself? Disagreeable... but not nuts.

Beck's been bouncing around cable and radio for years, taken semi-seriously, largely dismissed as frings, but that changed when Fox made the decision to put him into the evening lead in slot (in a world where we accept that Neil Cavuto's lamer effort at 4 is ostensibly meant to be a Wall Street, business style wrap up of financial news). Since his arrival live at 5, Beck's sucked the oxygen out of taking much of cable news - and certainly most of Fox now - as a serious, respectable medium.

And to think, all he needed to do it was to make the fantasy of Network into reality.

28 Days

In the 28 days since the New York State Senate descended into chaos, I've said nothing; pretty much, I think the absurd state of affairs (oh wait, that state is South Carolina) speaks for itself. But hey, for anyone still getting familiar with the home game, here's a quick restatement of the obvious.

More than anything, this is just embarrassing; four year olds with temper tantrums will at least wear themselves out with a round of crying, throwing themselves around and wailing about the unfairness of it all; these are grown men and women and really, they should be able to work out compromises. It's indicative of the kind of ferns we've been electing to higher office (I know I'm mortified to bear any responsibility for Tom Duane just now, my state Senator from back when I lived in his extended gay district) that essentially no one has stepped forward to show grown-up leadership skills and try to solve this mess.

That includes David Paterson. Sure, I've been critical of Paterson for... okay, since like he started, but this is exquisitely awful. Paterson's attempts to sound commanding and above-the-fray are just about ludicrous, since he comes from the same operation and seemed no more inclined to lead it when he was there then he does now. And because no state Democrat can seem to come out and plainly state the obvious - look, he's got to go, and all of you know it - the party's leadership dithers.

Pedro Espada and Hiram Montserrate are no one's idea of governmental heroes; the latter is facing charges of assault on a girlfriend (and folded like a card table when pressed by the Dem leadership, leading to the current 31-31 tie), while the former is an ethical mess waiting to unfold, who probably doesn't even live in the district he's elected to represent (I know... details, details). Indeed, what's given all of this such a Surrealist Theater quality is how the lies Albany tells itself don't even make it past the city line these days - listening to Senators claim "ethical responsibility" and "our need to do the people's business" is ludicrous. You realize we've been able to see you for - oh, just for me - the past twenty years or so, don't you?

The solution is that there is no solution. Not with these guys (and gals). The palpable level of disgust with our state's government has yet to be tapped... but I suspect people will rather vote for a lawn chair than their sitting Senator, and while machine politics may thwart many ambitions, some sort of stiff breeze is bound to blow some of these characters out of office, none too soon.

Conservative who hope for some kind of dramatic right wing realignment (that first week, when gay marriage opponents convinced themselves that Espada and Montserrate were proof of an antigay wave among outerborough Democrats, was a hoot and a half) are kidding themselves. But the real mortification, I think, belongs to rank and file Democrats, who have fooled themselves, for years, into believing that the state's crony-driven machine was somehow a model of liberal heroism. This, when much of what we have to show for Democrats these days are named Cuomo (Andrew, shaping up to be an impressively bigger dud than Dad), Kennedy (Robert Jr. ...and Caroline), or Clinton (both him, her, ...and Chelsea, actually). We've been sold a bill of goods, and we keep wanting to believe we weren't. That has to change. Are you listening Kirsten Gillibrand? Or will a primary with Carol Maloney be required?

Something has to change, really it does. If we keep going with this insanity - doing the same political things over and over, expecting a different result - we won't need 28 days of political inaction... we'll need rehab. More than 28 days worth.

The Growl - For The Days When You Just Want Political Correctness To Go Away...

Perhaps it's the rainy day... perhaps it's the new diet... but I think it's maybe just the times we're now in: with the left back in control of so much of the national political conversation, perhaps it's unsurprising that there's a new "political correctness" in the air.

Just to recap: the PC got an overdue, if overwrought comeuppance in the nineties, led largely by "politically Incorrect," Bill Maher's seminal effort on ABC to have discussions that didn't insist on only showing certain "safe" viewpoints (...and the net result: Ann Coulter). But "politically correct" had been bouncing around for years, an idea that, in certain circles, you were bound to follow unspoken, possibly coded "rules", usually related to appropriate language, that could not be broken - or you would be ostracized. The idea of "PC" was usually met with derision in knowing lefty circles, a sort of "I know the rules, and I don't intend to be bound by them"... but gradually, as these things do, we wound up with "politically incorrect," the annoying capacity of people who'd never agreed to the terms in the first place - such as rabid sexists refusing to moderate use of sexist or derogatory terms for women - to claim some sort of "new freedom" to do just as they'd done all along.

I've come to see all of this as more of a continuum: a little progress on language, followed by a pendulum swing too far one way or another. "Politically Incorrect" was in some ways a necessary reality check for stifling reasonable discourse (and nothing proved how truly politically incorrect Maher was like the show's cancellation). But that went too far as well, and as we moved towards the 2008 elections, it seemed clear that we were returning to some healthy boundary setting and thoughtful questioning (for instance, the way coverage of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin raised issues and greater awareness of how women are treated in the media).

But it's easy to veer in the other direction too: as the internet has changed our ways of gethering information, so too has it created new communities of like minded people who want language to be used in particular ways. One fascinating, recent unfolding of this was a long discussion (you are warned, before clicking through, I'm serious about "long") at Shakespeare Sister about "triggering" language and "safe spaces" particularly in regard to the Blog's leader, Melissa McEwan.

I like Liss; I share her feminist values, and I sympathize with ideas like safe space, and even triggers... but like a number of others - including, I was struck to discover, my closest pals - I felt there was a "new PC" lurking in that  discussion. As events and discussions have unfolded, I've become steadily less thrilled with a growing sense of lefty admonishments of "you can't/shouldn't say that" starting to creep back into discussions.

And lately I feel compelled to say a few things, as contrarily as possible, like:

• I think Bernie Madoff deserved all 150 years - and then some - for his crime. I hope his wife suffers; I hope his kids are miserable too. And no, I don't think his sentence says "we don't care what happened at Enron" or "we don't find murder so big a deal." What Madoff's sentence says is "damn, guy... you really are an awful person." Which seems like the right message, to me anyway.
• I think it's ludicrous for black people to suggest - as some have - that we have to "say good things" about Michael Jackson, or raising his sordid past issues is some sort of racial injustice (or say faux gracious things about "what a man of peace he was"); the man was a drug addict with a penchant for inappropriate activities around kids. Sorry... deal with it. And by the way, he married two white women and used blonde haired blue eyed people to parent "his children." That's not my issue... it's his.
• I think when you're sleazy enough to cat around on your wife, no, you don't deserve public office; I'm all for "live and let live" on sexual choices... but hey, once we catch you with your mistress, hooker, girlfriend, etc... I'm pretty sure you're doomed. And you should be. I grow weary of this convenient sexual liberalism, espoused by many, that "we're in no position to judge." Sure we are. And frankly "I wouldn't accept that in someone I was involved with" is a good starting point.  I just don't think hookers, mistresses and "girlfriends on the side" are bad people... that's my liberalism. And I'm also prepared to defend it... and live with it.
• and yes, I think there's a lot of "lefty sexism" when it comes to Sarah Palin - Letterman's "jokes" were out of bounds, some of Todd Purdum's new Vanity Fair piece goes too far... but there's also something problematic about having to avoid saying that Palin's unique political place these days has to do with being a woman, and a prominent one; and that her failures stem, in part, from the woman that she is - not the "person" - I mean woman, specifically.
• And PS,  I grow weary of the language police.

Now yes, this is all coming from a tetchy place... and a politically incorrect one;  on better days, I could, probably, argue exactly the opposite of each point above, and mean it - and just as pointedly, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on anything - I prefer the tension of people passionately advocating for thier point of view, whatever it is. But still. The general failure of conservatives to essentially draw lines - to say, collectively, that something, anything is beyond the pale for them politically is partly why we're here; and it is refreshing to have some commmon sense boundary setting of "no really, that goes too far." But the fine line here is how to "watch what we say" without stifling dissent, alternative points of view, and unpopular noitons that challenge our worldviews. Sometimes, there's a polite way to do this... and sometimes there isn't. Things get ugly, people get mean, they say the "wrong" thing, they take language too far. Insisting on a political correctness, a "here and no further" approach to discourse may seem like a good idea... but I suspect it really isn't; you want a free and robust discourse, you have leave room to let it roam free. Really free... and not caged by correctness. Because mostly, I growl when caged. When really... I'm just a pussycat. Who loves to argue. :)

Green Days

Like many political, but domesticated, bloggers, I don't really have a lot to say about what's unfolding in Iran. I tend to think "Theocracy" and "Free Elections" are kind of incompatible... but the Iranians have seemed to make their government work since the 79 revolution... so who's to say? And I've always found Ahmadinejad less scary monster than mini-Me: a lot of pretensions to badass, but not much to show for it.

Still, who wants to see women forced behind the veil, limited in their abilities to be out in the world? Who wants to see an interesting, vibrant young culture squashed by governmental control? And who doesn't find the sight of protesting students at least a little romantic and wild?

What's interesting to me is the way the right has become something akin to the aging hippies who hang out in the coffeehouse near campus - ready to cheer on the kids when they protest against the Administration or social injustice, eager, somehow, to relive their wild youth on the front lines (not to tease too hard... but once you've heard one story about Chicago back in 68... you've kind of heard them all). There's a youthful, even hippie-ish bent to the way conservatives want to dye their websites, facebook pages and Twitter avatars in shades of green, the way they "cry freedom" about Iranian protestors and their decision to Stand Up to The (short) Man. Any moment I expect to hear "divest now, Thank you!" from the back of the hall.

The show of "solidarity" with Iran is, well, cute... but a little pointless. The people, united... may well be mowed down any day now by the military; if they succeed in installing Moussavi, or at least redoing the elections, there's still the sticky business of admitting that Moussavi is also no great catch in terms of US interests (one of the originators Iran's nuclear program, he's no fan of America, either). Part of the romance of "standing up for Iran" is that, well, it's a rather painless exercise in mouthing platitudes with almost no risk of consequence. And it dovetails very nicely with the current conservative wave of romaticizing old victories (no, this is not Poland and Lech Walesa, or the Berlin Wall), offering no particularly hard alternative proposal ("gee, I wish Obama said something more forceful" is especially weak tea), and vaguely believing in hard to oppose sentiments (except all you freedom-opposing, anti-election types... yeah, you know who you are).

In the end, Iran's going to unfold as it will, with little regard for American opinion for or against; that's not to say that, in the back of my conspiratorial mind, I don't see the hand of some covert ops in it: how convenient that Iranian protestors show up, so camera friendly, carrying signs in English. But even if we are playing some "black art" role in creating dissent, the "green wave" is more a cultural signal, I suspect, that a lot of people are looking for a politics of meaning that's hard to find, just now. The real worry, I'd say... is just who's going to figure out how to harness all the free energy here at home... and where they point all those people with the love of pretty colors.

In Defense Of Presents (Brown Paper Packages Tied Up With String)

Don't say you haven't heard it: the word this season is that austerity and frugality are in. Lavishness is out. And that means... no presents.

All around me, never mind in the papers, I've heard stories of "let's not do presents this year." Gifts, of any sort are passe. Extravagant. Wasteful.

Poppycock.

It's true that these times, clearly call for scaling back. No more absurdities. Someone should call Lexus about that whole "big bow on the car" thing, surely. But no presents? Uh-uh.

It's true that our consumerist society has gotten well out of hand. We are in a financial crisis, it's very clear, in no small measure because people kept spending past the point of all rationality. Easy credit and too many incentives to spend led to all sorts of excess. And it's time to scale back.

But not give up entirely. A gift is not the only way to say I love you, or I appreciate you, or anything else. But a gift is... a gift. It is not about the recipient. At heart the gift is given. And it is the spirit of giving which we - which I - celebrate.

My whole life - no giggling - is about giving. I want to help others. Support those I care about. Give of myself until there's (almost) nothing left to give. For a long time, I really did, to the point that I was hurting myself in being there for anyone but myself. I don't do that now. But I do give. Of myself. Of my time. And I give presents.

No, I will not donate to charity in your name. You are what I'm worried about. You are someone I care about. I give to good causes. And you should to. But a gift to charity is not a gift to you... and let's not pretend otherwise (and PS, at my grave, send flowers).

So just a heads-up: I will be giving gifts. They may be small.  They may be less than I would have in the past. But giving is not about you, the "no presents" people - it's so not about you. It's about us, the givers. We give without expectation of anything in return. We give because we like to, because in a society where most of us take more than we should, it's good to give something away. And I'm giving it to you.

Plus I love the look on your face when you're staring down wrapping paper and a bow. It's a present. It's a gift. Let it in. Enough wit the "no presents." Lighten up. Celebrate the season. Don't punish it. Or yourself. Or me. Let's give presents. Let's remember what giving is. I think, in the long run, it will help us all.

(PS, although I disagree with No Impact Man on Christmas, and quibble with his blog generally, this and this both got me to thinking. I highly recommend checking them out.)

...And Then We All Sat Down And Watched Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.

Congratulations to Maureen Dowd - yes, still America's worst columnist - for managing to underline class differences while remaining perfectly oblivious...

I grew up in the nation’s capital, but I’ve never seen blacks and whites here intermingling as they have this week.

Everywhere I go, some white person is asking some black person how they feel.

I saw one white customer quiz his black waitress at length at a chic soul food restaurant downtown, over deviled eggs and fried chicken livers, about whether she cried when Barack Obama won. ...

I saw three white women asking a black bartender at the Bombay Club, across Lafayette Park from the White House, if he was happy and what he thought about Jesse Jackson’s flowing tears at Grant Park, given his envious threat to cut off a sensitive part of Obama’s anatomy. ...

I saw a white-haired white woman down the block from me running out to strike up a conversation with a black U.P.S. delivery guy, asking him how he felt and what this meant to him.

I was starting to feel guilty. Every time I passed a black patron at a downtown restaurant or a movie or the Kennedy Center, would perfect strangers want me to ask how they were feeling? Or was that condescending and were they sick to death of it?

How would I know if I didn’t ask them?

I heard my cute black mailman talking in an excited voice outside my house Friday, so I decided I should go ask him how he was feeling about everything, the absolute amazement of the first black president.

Yes, all over America, earnest white people asked the maid if she felt good about being finally free. That's change we can believe in!

I've Missed You...

... damn these cheap rifles
... and you'd think, with a tire iron...
... where's my lariat?!
... most haven't
... but my lawyer says it could still mean prison time
... there must be a hole in this net
... many many times in the past
... and please send my regrets to your twin
... stand up
... stand still!
... Dorothy's House won't.
... but the ravages of time have not.
... but then, as you say, I throw like a ...
... and now *sigh* Grandma's in a wheelchair
... which isn't so bad, but my henchmen have too, and they shouldn't have. Not at these prices.
... the hair on the belly under my nipples isn't gray.

...wait... let me try again

I missed ewe... have you?

- weboy and j in b, together again

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.

He's Not Dead Yet, You Know

Like some sort of Monty Python sketch, it seems worth pointing out that the eulogies for What A Great Man Ted Kennedy was are premature. He's not dead, and really, we don't know yet exactly how bad his brain cancer might be.

Let's also not get ahead of ourselves in overstating the importance of who he is or what he's done. Yes, a lot of admirable work has been accomplished on a lot of issues that Democrats care about.  But it's also the case that this was a callow youth who got into the family business and was given perhaps the safest of Senate seats. His personal life has been far from exemplary, and no, I'm not just talking about the Chappaquiddick bridge.

Will there be a dearth of leadership if he passes? I find that hard to believe; Senators are ambitious creatures (what, like 7 of them ran for President this go round or so, yes?). The idea that Kennedy is or was better at the business of legislating than others belies the fact that his best and brightest successes were shared ones, that speak to the power of collaboration and cooperation. Values which, I think, could use some celebrating, and less denigrating generally.

As for ghoulish speculation, I'd point out that if he does leave or pass out of his Senate seat, the real interesting question is who succeeds him.  It's likely - given the state of Massachusetts politics - that the Massachusetts delegation will be without a Kennedy for the first time in 50 plus years. Moreover, the machine-like nature of the Democrats in Mass has kept a number of perfectly strong representatives (Barney Frank being the most obvious) chafing in House seats with nowhere to go.  That could be compounded if, as I suspect, Deval Patrick would leap at the opportunity to flee the State House. And it makes me wonder if John Kerry can really count on never being challenged again in a primary.

I'm always fascinated at my Mom's discussion of the Democratic sacred cows; she was always stinging in her disregard for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and she reminded me, pointedly, this morning, that she didn't vote for Kennedy when he first ran for the Senate, and we lived in Boston. I think we, as Democrats, get a little doctrinaire at times about who we're supposed to laud (and I'm not going to touch the implications in that sentence about our Civil Rights legends - draw your own conclusions). These are politicians, not Gods, we're talking about. Of course I feel bad about Kennedy's illness, and I hope he can be treated and do good work for many more years. But we can wait until he's dead to make more of him than he actually was in life.

...Because My Endorsement of Nars Moisturizer Probably Means Nothing To You, Too.

Just a quick word about endorsements - yes, I think it's somewhat significant that Bob Casey endorsed Obama... but only up to a point. I haven't been getting too worked up over endorsements because really, in our ad saturated, cynical society, how many really trusted endorsers are there? Does anyone convince you to do anything? Do you buy drug store haircoloring because some over the hill actress uses it? Do you buy dime store toilet water because some lazy starlet slaps her name on it? Probably not.

I think endorsements matter for a couple of reasons - one, because it helps us to sort out the superdelegate count (which remains quite close, despite the ongoing threats that "a massive tide" will turn for Obama); and two, because some of these people, at least, bring with them effective turnout operations and years of street level work by a solid team. I'm not sure that's true of Casey, and I'm pretty sure it's not at all true of Richardson.

The rest, it seems to me, is entertaining but a diversion: the Carville/Richardson flap - despite Ezra's grumbling - strikes me as  mostly meaningful to people who know this stuff personally. I may agree with Carville about valuing personal loyalty, but Richardson's never particularly impressed me, so his lack of it doesn't necessarily surprise me. I'm perhaps a little more frustrated by Amy Klobuchar, who I would have expected to at least see the importance of having a woman running enough to wait and let things play out; I don't doubt, though, that her choice was sincere (and she did stay away from the "she should get out now" bandwagon).

Still if you're open to an endorsement that's meaningful - go down to your local department store and ask them about the new Nars skincare line.  It's fabulous, I'm telling ya. How do you think I keep my skin so dewy soft? :)