tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246343802024-03-13T01:18:59.175-04:00Cloyce's Coffee KlatschLiberal Politics & Liberal Arts -- Fully Caffeinated & 100% Plagiarism-FreeD. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-769589890052591332010-07-28T20:49:00.002-04:002011-06-19T23:43:18.403-04:00I'm Somewhere Other Than HereThis dormant (verging on dying) blog will remain comatose for some time, as I've been spending my days (and nights) launching and maintaining two new blogs for my day job at The Library of America, which happens to be the one that pays.<br />
<br />
The half-dozen readers who still check in once a month to see if I'm still sputtering might be interested in my new homes away from home:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/">Story of the Week</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://blog.loa.org/">Reader's Almanac</a></span>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-45166066614428512572010-05-29T22:05:00.006-04:002010-05-29T23:32:22.618-04:00Mark Twain and the Legend of the "Vibrating Sex Toy"This is how spectacularly silly myths get started.<br />
<br />
Our story begins with Guy Adams, writing <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/after-keeping-us-waiting-for-a-century-mark-twain-will-finally-reveal-all-1980695.html">in the <i>Independent</i></a>, about Mark Twain's unpublished autobiography, which has been (more or less) sealed for 100 years, as stipulated in Twain's will. Adams claims, without citation or anything much in the way of research:<br />
<blockquote>A section of the memoir will detail his little-known but scandalous relationship with Isabel Van Kleek Lyon, who became his secretary after the death of his wife Olivia in 1904. Twain was so close to Lyon that she once bought him an electric vibrating sex toy.</blockquote>The next thing you know, "Mark Twain and the Vibrator" (or some equally salacious headline) gets picked up by dozens of media outlets and blogs, including <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/after-keeping-us-waiting-for-a-century-mark-twain-will-finally-reveal-all-1980695.html">John Hudson at the <i>Atlantic</i></a> and Adrian Chen at (of course) <a href="http://gawker.com/5545677/mark-twains-100-year+old-autobiography-features-vibrating-sex-toy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gawker%2Ffull+%28Gawker%29"><i>Gawker</i></a>.<br />
<br />
There is a bit of truth buried in two embarrassing falsehoods here: <a href="http://bookstall.indiebound.com/book/9780307273444">Twain and Lyon did have a stormy relationship</a>, but:<br />
<br />
(1) "The <i>Autobiography of Mark Twain</i> does not contain any references to sex toys or vibrators of any kind," and <br />
<br />
(2) there is a separate document, the "Ashcroft-Lyon MS., which does contain [a reference] to a pair of vibrating machines." The machine in question was in fact "the then-popular health aide the Arnold Vibrating Machine, a very above-board medical appliance which Clemens recommended to friends." It was designed to cure headaches and back pains.<br />
<br />
You can read more about it <a href="https://listserv.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1005&L=twain-l&D=1&T=0&O=D&P=4795">here</a> (via the University of California Press <a href="ttp://www.ucpress.edu/blog/?p=7932">blog</a>), from the editors of the forthcoming autobiography themselves, who wryly note that "this is not news." <br />
<br />
<i>The Independent</i> has yet to correct or retract this section of the article.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-48291305020279837852010-03-26T11:38:00.002-04:002010-03-28T02:21:15.207-04:00Suffer the Children: The Church and "Problems of this Sort"<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/19/donohue.catholic.church/index.html">William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League</a>, on the ever-growing child-abuse scandal:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter. Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Though this is starting to change, any discussion of employee sexual abuse that took place 30 and 40 years ago must acknowledge this reality....</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Is Bill Donohue equating the sexual dymanics of the workplace (screwed up and horrific as it sometimes might be) with child rape? Does he really mean to compare children with subordinate adult employees harassed or molested by their bosses? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">In any case, here's the best—indeed, the <i>only</i>—comparison he can come up with:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">According to a report by <i>The New York Times</i> in October, the Brooklyn district attorney's office had filed charges in 26 cases of sexual abuse involving members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Note the "filed charges" in this sentence—which is notably lacking in stories where the Church is involved.<br />
<br />
And then we have the usually sensible E. J. Dionne, writing in the <i>Washington Post</i> (via <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/03/enemies.html">Atrios</a>) :</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Enemies of the church will use this scandal to discredit the institution no matter what the Vatican does. Many in the hierarchy thought they were doing the right thing, however wrong their decisions were. <b>And the church is not alone in facing problems of this sort</b>. [<i>emphasis added</i>]</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Really? The church is not alone dealing with the abuse, molestation, and rape of <i>thousands of children</i>? Other than perhaps NAMBLA, can Dionne name another organization dealing with "problems of this sort"?<br />
<br />
Is this going to be the new talking point offered by defenders of the Church: "Why pick on us; even though we can't think of anyone, everyone else was raping children and covering it up, too?" </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>Update: </b>Does three make a trend? <a href="http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/27/the-catholic-church-is-a-criminal-enterprise/">Matt Taibbi discovers</a> Archbishop Timothy Dolan making the same claim:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">But he condemned the media for portraying child sexual abuse “as a tragedy unique to the church alone. That, of course, is malarkey.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Taibbi's reaction is the same one I had to similar statements like Donohue and Dionne:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">One expects professional slimeballs like the public relations department of Goldman Sachs to pull out the “Well, we weren’t the only thieves!” argument when accused of financial malfeasance. But I almost couldn’t believe my eyes as I read through Dolan’s retort and it dawned on me that he was actually going to use the “We weren’t the only child molesters!” excuse. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></blockquote>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-72040214725124264582009-12-09T00:16:00.006-05:002009-12-09T01:04:39.531-05:00Worst Novels of the Decade?The <i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/dec/08/worst-books-of-the-decade">Guardian</a></i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/dec/08/worst-books-of-the-decade"> books blog</a> proposes that we "commemorate the very worst writing of the decade," to counter all the Best of the Decade lists and give us a more balanced view of the first years of the millennium.<br />
<br />
Well, the titles listed below aren't necessarily the worst. Certainly, I read slush-pile books, self-published titles, and little-known debuts that were deservedly neglected and are (for the most part) already out of print. And let's not even go into the swath I cut through the science-fiction booklists. Instead, these are the novels I read that either didn't live up to the hype or to the author's reputation.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Biographer's Tale</i>, A. S. Byatt</b>. You know those index cards that scholars once used when doing research? If you ever wondered if they might add up to a good novel, Byatt tackles the question for you and offers up an answer. No.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Body Artist</i>, Don DeLillo</b>. I had a hard time choosing between this one and <i>Cosmopolis</i>, but DeLillo's newfound disdain for the grammatical artifact known as the pronoun antecedent won out.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Elizabeth Costello</i>, J. M. Coetzee</b>. B-sides and outtakes from the <i>New York Review of Books</i> do not a novel make.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Fourth Hand</i>, John Irving.</b> I've occasionally felt that John Irving is unjustifiably maligned by critics and ignored by the awards committees. Here was his attempt to write a subdued, more blatantly literary novel and validate their disapproval.<br />
<br />
<b><i>How to Be Good</i>, Nick Hornby</b>. How to be sanctimonious (and, even worse, not funny).<br />
<br />
<b><i>Life of Pi</i>, Yann Martel</b>. Kind of a neat story, in that <i>Fountainhead</i> or <i>Stranger in a Strange Land</i> kind of way. Then you ponder it a few days and resent the preachy manipulation.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Time Traveler's Wife</i>, Audrey Niffenegger.</b> Too bad about those last 300 pages.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Water for Elephants</i>, Sara Gruen</b>. A debut by an author who ingested <i>Geek Love</i> and HBO's <i>Carnivale</i> and regurgitated them blanched, without the crispy edges.<br />
<br />
Honorable mention: <b><i>Vernon God Little</i>, D. B. C. Pierre</b>. A blend of the best of the adolescent-angst genre and Southern gothic fiction. And the worst.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-33209926194668767062009-12-06T15:21:00.001-05:002009-12-06T15:38:22.533-05:00Maureen Dowd's Astral ProjectionI would venture to guess that, if asked what Desiree Rogers and Tiger Woods have in common, most people might say that they're both African Americans and be stumped to come up with any other likeness. But <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1260129684-W+javHl0UZ4IFLpJyY1Zlw">Maureen Dowd finds a connecting thread</a>:<br />
<blockquote>They were both elegant and <b>entitled</b> swans... They <b>presumptuously</b> put themselves beyond authority... Both the golf <b>diva</b> and the social <b>diva</b>... It was the <b>assertion of personal privilege</b> by Tiger and Desiree that was so off-putting... these two <b>controlling players</b> spiraled out of control... She mistook herself for the principal, <b>sashaying around</b>...<br />
</blockquote>Yes, they're both quite <i><b>uppity</b></i>, aren't they? <br />
<br />
The first question Ms. Dowd and her allegedly liberal fans need to ask themselves is: why these two? Why not focus on presumptuous players Tareq and Michaele Salahi, entitled adulterer Max Baucus, sashaying diva Carrie Prejeans, asserter of personal privilege Roman Polanski, or any of the many other celebrities and wannabes who have dominated the scandal headlines recently? As <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912060005">Jamison Foser asks</a>, "What's behind Maureen Dowd's contempt for Desiree Rogers?"<br />
<br />
The second question is more basic (and now I'll steal MightyOCD's pithy <a href="http://twitter.com/MightyOCD/statuses/6403355708">Twitter post</a>.)<br />
<blockquote><span id="msgtxt6403355708">Wow. Maureen Dowd gives new meaning to projection this week. Entitled swans obsessed with the brand, huh?</span><br />
</blockquote>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-80022264944297764842009-10-29T00:17:00.007-04:002009-10-29T09:09:57.402-04:00Books, computers, and alcoholIn a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/26/philip-roth-novel-minority-cult">much discussed interview</a>, Philip Roth predicts that novel-reading will be a "cultic" activity within 25 years. Ron Charles, of the <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://twitter.com/roncharles/status/5175329535">tweeted</a> (how appropriate) in response: "Let me counter Roth's daring prediction by predicting that cars will soon replace horses."<br />
<br />
The demise of novels and literature and books has been predicted as often during this past century as the Second Coming--and with about as much accuracy and evidence. In a blog post, JK Evanczuk responds to the gist of Roth's prophecy ("<a href="http://www.litdrift.com/2009/10/27/5-reasons-why-the-novel-is-not-a-dying-medium/">5 Reasons Why the Novel is <i>Not</i> a Dying Medium</a>"), arguing that the digital age provides opportunities for, rather than threats to, the future of literature.<br />
<br />
Yet, other than anecdote and projection and an obvious generation gap, is there any truth to what the infamously reclusive Roth is telling us? Does he have his finger on the zeitgeist or does he just need to get out more (or, better yet, do some research about "kids today")?<br />
<br />
I do wish someone would undertake a study that attempts to answer these questions. Yes, it's incontrovertible that consumers spend more time on computers (although, on average, the American consumer spends <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm">less leisure time</a> than many folks might think: ranging from 45 minutes per day for teens to 30 minutes for retirees--still far less time than is spent watching television.) Has increased computer activity resulted in less book-reading over the last few decades? Or is the leisure time spent on the computer "coming" from somewhere else? <br />
<br />
What about (to take one of many possible examples) alcohol consumption and socializing in bars? Let's examine <a href="http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1969-1969,1970-1970,1971-1971,1972-1972,1973-1973,1974-1974,1975-1975,1976-1976,1977-1977,1978-1978,1979-1979,1980-1980,1981-1981,1982-1982,1983-1983,1984-1984,1985-1985,1986-1986,1987-1987,1988-1988,1989-1989,1990-1990,1991-1991,1992-1992,1993-1993,1994-1994,1995-1995,1996-1996,1997-1997,1998-1998,1999-1999,2000-2000,2001-2001,2002-2002,2003-2003&variable_ID=1186&theme=4&cID=190&ccID=">alcohol consumption since 1969</a>, the year "Portnoy's Complaint" was published. In 1969, 9.1 liters were consumed annually per U.S. consumer, rising to a peak of 10.7 in the early 1980s, and falling dramatically to 8.6 in 2003 (the most recent year available). That is, for those keeping tabs, a rather astonishing 20% drop in alcohol consumption since the arrival of the personal computer on the market. <br />
<br />
Compare, however, <a href="http://www.galbithink.org/libraries/circulation.htm">the number of books checked out</a> by the average American library user. The number served per library user has increased from 5.8 in 1969 to 7.0 in 2003, while attendance has nearly doubled. (It should be noted, however, that excluding juveniles, the books-per-user figure has declined somewhat.)<br />
<br />
Both the figures for alcohol consumption and for library readership should be taken with some skepticism; reporting such behavior depends on sample sizes, methodologies, and populations trends. But that's the point: it <i>might</i> be true that increasing reliance on computers is resulting in the demise of book-reading, but <i>in the absence of reliable data</i>, it would be just as accurate to say that the increasing reliance on computers is resulting in a decrease in alcohol consumption and barhopping (with its collateral morning-after damage).<br />
<br />
And, in the end, who's to say who's better off: the reader or the author who spends 10 hours a week scanning bite-sized word morsels on the Internet, or famous drinkers Hart Crane and Jack Kerouac, who both still, somehow, found time and energy during their abbreviated, inebriated lives to read canonical books--and to write equally canonical works.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-53741694069739218252009-10-24T13:05:00.002-04:002009-10-24T16:19:31.736-04:00Ill-chosen adjectivesIn today's <i>New York Times</i> is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/business/media/24cnn.html?hp">a long-overdue article by Brian Stelter</a> on the Lou Dobbs menace to CNN's dwindling reputation and the network's continuing (and inexplicable) protection of his anchor status. It's a decent if short article, but contains this curious sentence:<br />
<blockquote>Mr. Dobbs is known to be exploring an exit from CNN, and he is viewed as a potential hire for the Fox Business Network, an upstart channel owned by the News Corporation.<br />
</blockquote>Yet <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908250009">here is the influence</a> wielded by this so-called "upstart" network:<br />
<blockquote>Fox Business averaged <b>21,000 viewers</b> between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. in June, according to Nielsen Co.<br />
</blockquote>Now, it's true that the train wreck known as Don Imus has recently given FBN a <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/07/mediaite-imus-improves-fox-business-network-mornings-by-1000/29889">bump in viewership</a> during the early morning hours. Since the network is available to more than 49 million homes, it must alarm Fox that someone with Imus's name recognition attracted only 177,000 viewers on the show's first day---<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-imus-premieres-to-huge-total-viewer-ratings/">most of whom are over 65</a>, a poison demographic for advertisers. And viewership for the first week dropped to <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_don_imus_gives_fox_business_network_first_ratings_victory_over_cnbc.html">149,000 viewers a day</a>, indicating a rather significant decline on subsequent shows.<br />
<br />
Finally, how many "business viewers" does FBN expect to watch Imus and Dobbs? As <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_don_imus_gives_fox_business_network_first_ratings_victory_over_cnbc.html">the <i>Daily News</i> article</a> notes, Imus and CNBC "tap different audiences and are not really in direct competition." Fox's strategy seems to be to make FBN an annex for disgraced shock jocks from other networks--hardly a magnet for the personal investor.<br />
<br />
Considering that this "business" network is now two years old, perhaps Stelter should have considered a more accurate adjective, along the lines of <i>ailing</i> or <i>wannabe </i>or<i> </i><i>money-sucking</i>. To call the network an "upstart" at this point is akin to calling the kids' lemonade stand on the corner a threat to Snapple.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-31447980491713128162009-10-23T10:35:00.006-04:002009-10-23T11:29:38.608-04:00Soupy Sales (1926-2009)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80iRuR701ZNNZHMkOFHcZCXHeHtFgRVUnL7rffKppy2OfZ7zKIx9ys9vlz1QSAoKUIXCrAueQCTEVYJ1HTLz8WCf7RP0usAldKQVyapV3Ck8LhyeG52KZVTh7cZ5Cw2uHlGYXYQ/s1600-h/soupy.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5395805711763753074" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80iRuR701ZNNZHMkOFHcZCXHeHtFgRVUnL7rffKppy2OfZ7zKIx9ys9vlz1QSAoKUIXCrAueQCTEVYJ1HTLz8WCf7RP0usAldKQVyapV3Ck8LhyeG52KZVTh7cZ5Cw2uHlGYXYQ/s400/soupy.jpg" /></a>I am quite devastated to hear of <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1624524/20091023/story.jhtml">the death of Soupy Sales </a>(pictured above with our dog <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Klonoa</span>).<br /><br />Almost every week for several years now, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Klonoa</span> has been making the trip by subway from Brooklyn to the Manhattan neighborhood where we used to live, passing the whole day roaming various apartments in a building on East 35<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> Street and visiting with Darryl, a former roommate from years past, and with Marlin Swing (a former producer for the late Walter Cronkite's CBS show). Darryl and Marlin would also take care of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Klonoa</span> when we left town for any period of time.<br /><br />During many of those visits <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Klonoa</span> spent a few hours with Marlin's neighbor and friend Soupy Sales and his wife Trudy Carson. I had the good fortune to meet with Soupy on a few of those occasions; the comedic spark was ever-present, and both he and Trudy genuinely seemed to love having our dog around--sometimes prompting Soupy to recall one of his White Fang routines. [For those too young to remember: <em>The Soupy Sales Show</em> <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if3a533371c11b14851c920cd458b85f7">featured </a>"puppets White Fang (the meanest dog in the United States) and Black Tooth (the nicest dog in the United States)." I was never certain whether to be pleased or worried that our dog reminded Soupy of White Fang rather than Black Tooth.]<br /><br />My thoughts and good wishes are with Trudy and Marlin and all of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Soupy's</span> friends, neighbors, and fellow comedians.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-18574390914974173112009-07-27T22:04:00.008-04:002009-07-28T00:48:15.800-04:002012: We Were WarnedLast night before we saw "Harry Potter and the <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/07/lighten-up-francis.html">Half-Drunk Kids</a>*," we were treated to 532 trailers for forthcoming movies, and we yawned through the Emmerich model-kit destruction called "2012" because deep down we New York liberals in the audience harbor a secret: we know that the truly horrific juggernaut in that pivotal year won't be the end of civilization predicted by <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=SDx&q=Mayans+2012&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10">peyote-popping Mayans</a> but rather the fearsome Unstoppable Candidate herself, Sarah of Palin, the prospect of which sends terror into the meth-raced hearts and LSD-laced minds of hippies everywhere (as <a href="http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/07/27/apocalypse-eventually/">TBogg disgracefully confesses</a>, probably after one of his daily waterboarding procedures). <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=669">Also</a>.<br /><br />* Favorite line in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health/28well.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=harry%20potter%20and%20the%20pint%20of%20liquid%20courage&st=cse">insipid New York Times "news" article</a> by Tara Parker-Pope about inebriated wand-wielders: "“in a world where dark wizards are kidnapping or killing people on a regular basis, a little under-age drinking is the least of their problems." (via <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/07/lighten-up-francis.html">Atrios</a>) Otherwise, the entire piece must have been written in a bar, on a napkin.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-849514039302738032009-06-09T10:31:00.002-04:002009-06-09T10:39:56.816-04:00Stuart LittleShorter <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/refusing-to-pander-by-digby-i-had-to.html">Stuart Rothenberg</a>: <blockquote>Now that Republicans are losing, we need to change political news coverage.</blockquote>Yes, cable news was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200604270005"><em>so</em> much more objective </a>six years ago.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-8287561381014950722009-06-08T21:34:00.007-04:002009-06-08T23:41:56.193-04:00When Democrats Become Republicans<blockquote></blockquote>Today, two New York Senate Democrats, Pedro Espada of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, switched parties kinda sorta, remaining D in name, but voting R for a power-share arrangement that hands over control of the legislative body to the Republicans after five whole months of Democratic rule.<br /><br />With the Republican Party so, um, popular, what kind of Democrat <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/nyregion/09switch.html?hp">would do such a thing</a>?<p></p><blockquote><p>Mr. Espada said he was motivated by the unwillingness of fellow Democrats to reform the rules of the Senate. “We had five months of sheer chaos in these chambers,” he said. But his own record could undermine his positioning as a reformer. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Mr. Espada has been fined tens of thousands of dollars over the years for flouting state law requiring disclosure of his campaign contributions. </span></p><p style="font-weight: bold;">Mr. Monserrate was indicted in March on charges that he stabbed his companion late last year with a drinking glass, leaving a gash that required 20 stitches to close. </p>Asked Monday how he would coexist with Republicans, he said, “We’ll figure it out, but I’m a Democrat.”<br /></blockquote><a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/revolt-could-imperil-democratic-control-of-senate/?hp">Plus:</a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">The state attorney general’s office is investigating a health care agency, Soundview HealthCare Network, that Mr. Espada ran until recently. </span>And Mr. Monserrate, who was indicted on felony assault charges in March stemming from an attack on his companion, would automatically be thrown out of office if convicted.</blockquote>Look, guys, you can have them. Like attracts like, and all that. (And you might want to take the Bronx uber-bigot <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11357/breaking-ny-daily-news-reports-two-dems-to-caucus-with-gop-turning-over-control-of-senate">Ruben Diaz</a> with you while you're at it.)<br /><br />Next election should be real fun, though. The Bronx isn't exactly GOP territory. (And neither is Queens, for that matter.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update: </span>Today's Republican Rebel Yell revolt <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/8/740211/-Failed-Attempted-Coup-In-The-New-York-State-Senate">may have violated parliamentary procedure</a>, and the Dems are still claiming to be in power. This would be exciting if it weren't so boring.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-60965747386615692052009-06-01T21:43:00.016-04:002009-06-04T21:37:42.033-04:00Magnetic Strips, Black Helicopters, and the Right-Wing's Tenuous Grip on RealityAmidst the horrific revelations surrounding the murder of George Tiller, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/1/737417/-Tiller-Suspect-Known-By-Friends-as-Believer-in-Justifiable-Murder-of-Doctors">one truly bizarre tidbit describing the suspect caught my attention</a>:<br /><blockquote>“He told me about a lot of conspiracy stuff and showed me how to take the magnetic strip out of a five-dollar bill,” Leach said. “He said it was to keep the government from tracking your money.”</blockquote>Clearly, I need to get out more. I had no idea that this urban legend, which <a href="http://www.snopes.com/business/money/strip.asp">may have got its start in a 1994 episode of the <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Files</span></a> (apparently the go-to source before <span style="font-style: italic;">24</span> came along), had become standard lore among right-wing conspiracy theorists. An article advancing this truly moronic notion even appeared in the <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@algebra.com/msg01919.html">May 2000 issue of <span style="font-style: italic;">The American Spectator</span></a>. (Never mind that the suspect strip is <a href="http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000134834">made of polyester</a>--to foil counterfeiters rather than counteract tin-foil hatters.)<br /><br />Perhaps the inability to distinguish between fiction and fact, between fantasy and satire is endemic. I suppose such stupidity goes a long way to explaining the belief among conservatives that <a href="http://www.eandppub.com/2009/06/stephen-colbert-true-conservative.html">Steven Colbert is really one of their own</a> or that there exists <a href="http://icestationtango.blogspot.com/2009/05/nate-silver-ruins-perfectly-good.html">an Obama-Chrysler conspiracy against Republican car dealers</a>.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-49073336117685925102009-05-30T13:30:00.008-04:002009-05-30T15:12:29.487-04:00Jeffrey Rosen, Jonathan Chait, Gossip, and LiesThe writers for <span style="font-style: italic;">The New Republic</span>--fast becoming America's leading magazine for milquetoast politics and tabloid-style hit pieces--is circling the wagons against <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/">the</a> <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/feckless-bloggers-evaluate-sonia-sotomayor-by-reading-her-opinions.php">widespread</a> <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=whats_jeffrey_rosens_beef_with">censure</a> of Jeffrey Rosen's <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085">Sonia Sotomayor hatchet job</a>, which was a hastily written piece based entirely on gossip from anonymous sources. Its most infamous line is almost certainly this one: "I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them." (And yet Rosen is a lawyer; one would think those opinions might have been of interest to his assessment.)<br /><br />Yesterday, Jonathan Chait weakly defended Rosen against accusations that he is a gossipmonger, and <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=21944">John Cole eviscerates Chait's defense</a> in a must-read post ("The Worst Defense Since the '81 Colts").<br /><br />Chait's basic premise is this: If I say it isn't gossip, then it isn't--dictionary definitions be damned. But what really irritates me about Chait's post is that, in order to defend Rosen's article, he has to deliberately distort--scratch that, he had to <span style="font-style: italic;">lie</span> about--what it contained: "<span class="articleText">He [Rosen] spoke first-hand with several of Sotomayor's former clerks, who provided a mixed picture."<br /><br />Yet here's what appears in Rosen's original piece:<br /></span><blockquote>Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness.</blockquote>The trash talk against Sotomayor, on the other hand, comes not from "<span class="articleText">Sotomayor's former clerks" but from other sources:<br /></span><blockquote>But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, <span style="font-weight: bold;">nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors</span> in New York. [<span style="font-style: italic;">emphasis added</span>]<br /></blockquote>Chait has always struck me as one of few remaining intelligent writers for a magazine I have found increasing loathsome over the years, so it's particularly disappointing to see him engage in these tactics--tactics that assume both the stupidity of his readers and critics and their inability to look things up on the Internet to see whether various claims are true.<br /><br />If Rosen (and Chait) had any integrity left, they would apologize for an extraordinarily indefensible, gossip-filled piece (parts of which have been <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/hatchet-job-jeffrey-rosens-utterly.html">proved false</a>) rather than try to excuse themselves by claiming that the article contained things it most certainly did not.<br /><br />But, unfortunately, that clearly won't happen. In the world according to <span style="font-style: italic;">The New Republic</span>, only politicians should apologize. Journalists are exempt from such indignities.<span class="articleText"><br /></span>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-78474198014956193472009-05-18T20:50:00.007-04:002009-05-18T23:42:33.169-04:00A Reader's OrgasmLooking over various publishers' lists of forthcoming titles, I've noticed an overwhelming number of new works by "heavyweight" writers of literary fiction: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Year-Flood-Novel-Margaret-Atwood/dp/0385528779">Margaret Atwood</a>, the late <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Skating-Rink-Roberto-Bola%C3%B1o/dp/0811217132">Roberto Bolaño</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Book-S-Byatt/dp/0307272095">A. S. Byatt</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Homer-Langley-Novel-E-L-Doctorow/dp/1400064945">E. L. Doctorow</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Night-Twisted-River-Novel/dp/1400063841">John Irving</a>, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/Kazuo%20Ishiguro">Kazuo Ishiguro</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chronic-City-Jonathan-Lethem/dp/0385518633">Jonathan Lethem</a>, a posthumously translated novel by Nobel laureate <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mirage-Modern-Arabic-Novel/dp/977416265X">Naguib Mahfouz</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gate-at-Stairs-Lorrie-Moore/dp/0375409289">Lorrie Moore</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Little-Heaven-Joyce-Carol-Oates/dp/0061829838">Joyce Carol Oates</a>*, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Generosity-Enhancement-Richard-Powers/dp/0374161143">Richard Powers</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inherent-Vice-Thomas-Pynchon/dp/1594202249">Thomas Pynchon</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Humbling-Philip-Roth/dp/0547239696">Philip Roth</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/That-Cape-Magic-Richard-Russo/dp/0375414967">Richard Russo</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Compass-Anne-Tyler/dp/0307272400">Anne Tyler</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Maples-Stories-John-Updike/dp/0307271765">John Updike</a> (and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/My-Fathers-Tears-Other-Stories/dp/0307271560">another one</a> -- even dead, the man is prolific), and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-William-Vollmann/dp/0670020613">William Vollmann</a>.<br /><br />It's quite a feast, and the only way I can see that I'll be able to satisfy the craving is with heavy doses of amphetamines (or, lacking that, coffee). How can I possibly read all these favorites and still sample new writing by new authors? (Although it would help if I stayed off this damned computer.)<br /><br />I'm also looking forward to Percival Everett's pre-season appetizer, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Am-Not-Sidney-Poitier-Novel/dp/1555975275/">I Am Not Sidney Poitier</a>, which is coming out next week as a paperback original. Everett is one of the most undeservedly neglected writers in America.<br /><br />* Granted, a season without a new title (or two) from Joyce Carol Oates would almost certainly herald the Death of Publishing. I see there's already <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Maiden-Joyce-Carol-Oates/dp/0151015163">one lined up for early next year</a>.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-32365853873816027482009-05-18T00:02:00.010-04:002009-05-31T14:04:50.871-04:00Relaunch: The Maureen Dowd EditionI've been crazy with work for the last few months--not to mention the fact that I've been so gobsmacked by the GOP's insistence on following the Federalists and Whigs into oblivion that I really haven't had anything truly inspirational to add to the melee. But it has been bizarrely fun watching Dick Cheney come out of "retirement" once again to treat us all to a final Death Tour.<br /><br />(It does seem we need to revise the old joke about what will left after a nuclear attack: cockroaches, Cher, and Cheney.)<br /><br />Still, I can say that I was never <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thejoshuablog/2009/05/ny-times-maureen-dowd-plagiari.php">so desperate for copy as was Maureen Dowd, who wholly lifted</a>, without attribution, another blogger's post--and then <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/05/ha-ha.html">basically lied</a> about the cut-and-paste job, claiming that the paragraph was somehow passed along, verbatim, in the Beltway society version of telephone.<br /><br />This blog <a href="http://cloyce.blogspot.com/2006/03/copy-and-paste.html">started in response to plagiarism</a> and I suppose it's only proper that I relaunch it on the same theme.<br /><br />Also: One blog I've been reading with increasing regularity in recent months is <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/">Balloon Juice</a>. John Coles's frequent reminder to his readers that he's often been wrong is both refreshing and endearing. Move over, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock">David Brock</a>!D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-58920059784842950622009-02-25T16:51:00.011-05:002009-02-25T17:36:17.284-05:00Bobby the Page's Neighborhood<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVXRRvhi2VCRcnN7sk4ter1lJt0Kn3lkyyBnrLdaWkqHg2dkol-5DU9MXvsgPmbQ1GWLHLIMKCSDeo2BO-Qwu-xD2bc4ZaZxHMX0x9vy26Oq6ygyPMyMJXNceEWXB7Tgg_S78x8Q/s1600-h/kenneth-the-page.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 198px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVXRRvhi2VCRcnN7sk4ter1lJt0Kn3lkyyBnrLdaWkqHg2dkol-5DU9MXvsgPmbQ1GWLHLIMKCSDeo2BO-Qwu-xD2bc4ZaZxHMX0x9vy26Oq6ygyPMyMJXNceEWXB7Tgg_S78x8Q/s200/kenneth-the-page.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5306859688018158498" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5LOleG3o4WjRp9BbuZuk3aQLqZZZNy1jHGNnGMV_eO4EY0dscTbdt1-c4C40ZTx9y4ee6vBROrs4yDsRIdm4IRilHnSNkFLXr2ftXsPjJ2h6n48uzC2ctYUjzsmUMt54VPJdeQA/s1600-h/mr-rogers.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 176px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5LOleG3o4WjRp9BbuZuk3aQLqZZZNy1jHGNnGMV_eO4EY0dscTbdt1-c4C40ZTx9y4ee6vBROrs4yDsRIdm4IRilHnSNkFLXr2ftXsPjJ2h6n48uzC2ctYUjzsmUMt54VPJdeQA/s200/mr-rogers.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5306860573064575474" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6GOsduVeyz1VWqlFYi9flTgp2zieAc9f-7F3a9HXWnPtdRyLL9DsSxd01Z5GwkCJZ5lX0DzM2-gSDS6plrS8Nw2ZwQhyphenhyphenU1NWgrpYp_GOaxwq9Bu5Hh5Y1Hukof64bOKQfr69q1g/s1600-h/don-knotts.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 158px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6GOsduVeyz1VWqlFYi9flTgp2zieAc9f-7F3a9HXWnPtdRyLL9DsSxd01Z5GwkCJZ5lX0DzM2-gSDS6plrS8Nw2ZwQhyphenhyphenU1NWgrpYp_GOaxwq9Bu5Hh5Y1Hukof64bOKQfr69q1g/s200/don-knotts.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5306867302032648706" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYl-X9VwTZsupCjc78gXVdqMCrfK9EDzmOSyN9h-6XLqoYJAv13mI_okCNhjvzxHlbUEKT8Qk0CT2Sv-gYXQWTO8uiz4U1o5RYF0gF2HgLrwj45qz3zRMilkDhHdBmQH1W_tWvZQ/s1600-h/Bobby-Jindal.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 183px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYl-X9VwTZsupCjc78gXVdqMCrfK9EDzmOSyN9h-6XLqoYJAv13mI_okCNhjvzxHlbUEKT8Qk0CT2Sv-gYXQWTO8uiz4U1o5RYF0gF2HgLrwj45qz3zRMilkDhHdBmQH1W_tWvZQ/s200/Bobby-Jindal.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5306859699734757298" border="0" /></a><br />Bobby Jindal "will not be easily caricatured or dismissed."--<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403019.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">Michael Gerson</a>, staff hagiographer for <span style="font-style: italic;">The Washington Post</span>, 2/24/09<br /><br />"I'm pretty sure he's going to be SNL's next target."--Amanda Carpenter, Townhall.com, less than 24 hours later (<a href="http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/02/24/bobby-we-hardly-knew-ye/">via TBogg</a>)D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-14392893649921521142009-02-01T13:46:00.011-05:002009-02-02T22:06:41.574-05:00Cliff Mason's Bogus Bonus BoogieJustifying the $18.4 billion handed out to Wall Street investment bankers at the end of last year is a tough job. But <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/28936692">Cliff Mason</a> apparently feels up to the task of defending the indefensible--because that's what they seem to be paid to do at CNBC:<br /><blockquote>This isn't a compensation issue, it's a diction issue. <p class="textBodyBlack"><span id="byLine"></span>... on Wall Street, and at many law firms as well, a bonus is simply part, often the greater part, of your regular compensation. It may vary from year to year, but when you take one of these jobs, the understanding is that you'll be paid a base-salary and once a year you'll also get a "bonus." </p><span id="byLine"></span>The bonus varies in size from year to year, but it's not actually a "bonus" in the way most people think of the word. It's an expected part of your salary, delivered in a lump- sum near Christmastime. </blockquote>There are, of course, several problems with Mason's Clintonian word-parsing, and I'll highlight one of them by asking:<br /><br />Did all the investment bankers who used to work for Lehman Bros. get bonuses around Christmastime? And what is the difference between Lehman Bros. employees and (say) Merrill Lynch employees?<br /><br />Well, we know what happened to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/economy/31employ.html?partner=rss&emc=rssemploy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">Lehman Bros. and its hapless managers</a>. Other banks, like Merrill Lynch--the banks handing out billions of dollars in bonuses--are (to quote <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=do_officials_have_names_post_c">Dean Baker</a>) "bankrupt banks. In other words, they would be shut down and put out of business if we let the market run its course." Bonuses, not to mention the "base salaries" themselves, would be a moot point <span style="font-style: italic;">were it not for government bailouts</span>.<br /><br />Not content with a mildly stupid argument in semantics, Mason then insists that, by awarding bonuses at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/30pay.html">2004 levels</a>, it will convince these souls "to stay at their jobs," that the "base salary is much less than they could be earning elsewhere." Really? If these underemployed bankers don't get their Christmas checks they'll quit and go elsewhere? Is Mason really trying to argue that there is a dearth of investment bankers on Wall Street right now? And does he really think that these bankers--if they manage to remain employed this year at all--will receive similar checks at the end of 2009?<br /><br />He then sums up by arguing that Wall Street simply needs to adapt a new linguistic strategy: "Call [bonuses] something else. Think of something boring like 'annual performance-adjusted block compensation.' "<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/31/145927/067/168/691402">Kagro X (Daily Kos)</a> asks, "Say you're a banker and you flushed $30 million down the toilet, which is the actual scenario we're looking at. When can we expect you to pay a part of that back?"<br /><br />These banks are still in business and their employees are still employed <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> because the federal government has handed them hundreds of billions of dollars. And it's a little surreal (but all too predictable) watching these same pseudo-capitalists abandon or contort their Ayn Rand-based principles to justify their newly assumed positions on the government dole.<br /><br />Mason doesn't need to tax his brain coming up with a "boring" phrase to describe these payments. There's <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> a word for the compensation given to workers whose underproductive labor is supported by government money:<br /><br />Workfare.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-16436770333452584272009-01-31T19:42:00.020-05:002009-01-31T22:52:13.939-05:00Wingnut Welfare Becomes Wingnut Warfare; Or, When Conservatives Collide<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhTf3dv7SSEOrtI7BK-9BL7Je06oTNo3MPqiQqxMYWA9-5bcU-EHfHzbuOIzdLtKwxYz5fsAgtOiqr4_0Tk9NP_gtwkxc48SjIrbmMWIF5dX6yXqa202N0i-DVsR7FLIYWdMJuuw/s1600-h/IMG_0031.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhTf3dv7SSEOrtI7BK-9BL7Je06oTNo3MPqiQqxMYWA9-5bcU-EHfHzbuOIzdLtKwxYz5fsAgtOiqr4_0Tk9NP_gtwkxc48SjIrbmMWIF5dX6yXqa202N0i-DVsR7FLIYWdMJuuw/s200/IMG_0031.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5297634798134747570" border="0" /></a>It's hard to believe it's been two months since my last post--did anything happen while I was away?<br /><br />Via <a href="http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/01/30/roger-simon-is-pretty-much-a-back-stabbing-douche-so-this-was-probably-inevitable/">Tbogg</a>, I notice that some self-proclaimed "free marketers" have learned a horrifying truth: they have been subsisting as wards of charity and may now actually need to find productive employment. I speak, of course, of the allied bloggers associated with Pajamas Media. Says <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/01/31/pajamas-media-matters/">Roger L. Simon</a>, Man of Mystery:<br /><blockquote>I wrote a letter to the Pajamas Media network bloggers yesterday, some of whom took it a bit more personally than intended. We disbanded the ad network part of our business for a simple reason: it was losing money and we couldn’t see how in the reasonable future that would change.<br /><br />Actually that part of our business has been losing money from the beginning, so the people getting their quarterly checks from PJM were getting a form of stipend from us in the hopes that advertisers would start to cotton to blogs and we could possibly make a profit. Didn’t happen. No wonder those people are kicking and screaming now that they are off the dole.</blockquote>Stipend? Dole? <span style="font-style: italic;">Dole?</span> Them's fighting words! The gist of which causes <a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14229">Jeff Goldstein</a> to clutch his pearls of Protein Wisdom:<br /><blockquote>Here’s the thing, Roger: <i>you never once told us</i> that the blog network you kept insisting was the next great thing “has been losing money from the beginning” — at least, not to our faces, and certainly not in any way that would suggest that you were carrying us like welfare recipients.</blockquote>Well, you see, Jeff, as those of use who work in the real world of the free market can tell you, the last thing a struggling business wants to do when it's, um, struggling is let all its creditors and affiliates and clients know that it's in danger of collapsing: that pretty much will insure the enterprise <span style="font-style: italic;">will</span> collapse.<br /><br />I might also point out the lack of "free market" wisdom, protein or otherwise, exhibited by the business model of Jeff's blog, which depended entirely on another firm for its only source of revenue. But, Jeff assures us, evidence to the contrary: "We free marketers aren’t complaining that the business model failed."<br /><br />The remainder of Jeff's response is a shot across the bow (grab the popcorn!): Jeff's former source of income is now "a vanity site for wannabe journalists"--which marks, I'm afraid, the first time Goldstein and I have ever agreed on anything. Then Jeff really tells us how he feels:<br /><blockquote>The fact is, Roger, not everyone was given millions of dollars of venture capital to blow through. So before you go comparing people YOU SOLICITED TO JOIN YOUR ORGANIZATION to people taking welfare (you ever try paying a hooker with food stamps?), you might want to think about where it is “your” money is coming from.</blockquote>Regarding the forms of payment accepted by prostitutes: I'll admit this is beyond my area of expertise and will leave that argument to <a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-did-rush-limbaugh-visit-epicenter.html">Rush Limbaugh</a>. But what really seems to gall Jeff is that the "venture capital" (dole) for Pajamas Media will now go to Roger's new enterprise: <a href="http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/01/if-im-paying-a5-busks-a-month-to-see-glenn-reynolds-videos-that-fucker-had-better-be-topless.html">online conservative video</a> featuring people <a href="http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2009/01/tom-blumer-just-lost-a-few-pennies-pajamas-media-dies">too ugly even for radio</a> (to enhance a joke from one witty commenter).<br /><br /><a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14222">Alas for Jeff</a>:<br /><blockquote>What this means is that as of April 1, I am officially out of work. So save going to a pay model, this site will likely have to shut down.</blockquote>Equally alas for Jeff, Starbucks isn't hiring--and I doubt his Protein Wisdom is protean enough to get a job in the current administration.<br /><br />Meanwhile, proving yet again that misery loves company, another nascent conservative war is brewing. Via <a href="http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/01/redstate-dont-never-change.html">Instaputz</a>, we see that Erick Erickson (no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson">relation</a>), intending to rally the troops against the <a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylon">skinjobs</a> hiding in the ranks of the Republican Party, has <a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/01/28/perseverance/">regurgitated the speech</a> he wrote when he ran for (and, we're guessing, lost) senior class secretary at Ridgemont High--a <span class="ResultBody">homily</span> that is only slightly short of the world's record for most cliches in a final paragraph:<br /><blockquote>We must fight and our fight must frequently induce pain on our own side. It is frequently the only way to make headway.<br /><br />... We will be sometimes defeated. We will be sometimes victorious. But most importantly, we won’t be idly bitching and yelling into the wind — we’ll be working to make a difference. It is no good to complain and not act. It is very good to act without complaint and fight the good fight until the setting of the sun.</blockquote>Oh, yea--you and what army?<br /><blockquote>One way to do so is to join the RedState Army.<br /></blockquote>Oh.<br /><br />(<span style="font-style: italic;">Above:</span> the reaction from one Dog of War upon reading Erick's post.)D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-64122804513688202202008-11-20T17:08:00.007-05:002009-01-07T23:21:30.113-05:00Larry Kudlow's Distant MirrorI see Larry Kudlow, inexplicably, still has a job at CNBC and, unsurprisingly, is still spewing <a href="http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZhNjdlM2RjNGQ5ZWY2NDg2MjFhMmZkN2FiNTQ3MDA=">optimistic</a> <a href="http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODcwN2YxOTk0ZDFkYzEyYzdiZmJmN2Y1MDY3NWIxODY=">nonsense </a>at the <em>Not-So-<a href="http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/">National Review</a>.</em><br /><br />So it's time to look through our way-back machines, to August 2007, and review <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWYxY2NlOTk5MTc0ZTgyZDdmYTg3ZGNmNmUxNjg0YzM=">what Larry wrote</a>, using the neurons lingering after his historic <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E2D8123FF930A35757C0A962958260">cocaine binge</a>:<br /><blockquote><strong>It Ain't 1929</strong><br />[<span style="font-style: italic;">here Kudlow exhibits his remarkable ability to read a calendar</span><em></em>]<br /><br />The way some people in the mainstream media are talking about the stock market and economy these days, you’d think it was 1929 rather than 2007. [...]<br /><br />As for all the gnashing of teeth over corporate and mortgage loans, capital markets are absorbing the credit backup. Stocks posted strong gains the last two days and the long awaited market correction is currently tallying a 4-5 percent loss—quite mild by historic standards. [...]<br /><br />So, while the mainstream media peddles its flimsy “sky is falling” narrative, the reality is a 13,400 or so Dow, along with rising wages and a 4.6 unemployment rate, point to a prosperous nation. These are the key barometers. <em><strong>The Bush boom continues.</strong> </em>[emphasis added]<br /><br />No on should buy into this 1929 scenario. It’s not happening.</blockquote><p>Okay, Larry. Maybe last year wasn't 1929. <a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/graph-worst-crash-since-great.html">But this year is sure looking a lot like 1930</a>.</p><p>Why anyone would take seriously anything said or written by Kudlow, or by his lackey <a href="http://cloyce.blogspot.com/2008/09/tale-of-two-economies.html">Donald Luskin</a>, is beyond me.</p>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-50811231693635098292008-11-08T13:45:00.007-05:002008-11-08T16:14:07.457-05:00Philip Reed (1949-2008)I first met <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/nyregion/08reed.html?ref=obituaries">Phil Reed </a>nearly 20 years ago, when I first became an executive committee member of Manhattan's <a href="http://www.glid.org/aboutGLID.asp">Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats</a>. As I recall, his relationship with certain senior GLID members was often prickly; he was a district leader at the time, and his political priorities were often local. Not a few fuzzy-minded dilettantes withered under his blunt and irreverent style. He was more than willing to compromise the luxurious, often abstract principles of middle-class whites from the Village and Chelsea if it meant he could more readily meet the day-to-day needs of the residents of East Harlem, Manhattan Valley, and the "Upper Upper West Side," where he lived, on Central Park West and 103rd Street.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMw14pR3kQC9ZdaBh80H2nNDYKbwgzEv9-Urhp3jJUJcBzJrsxyEbLIeuUFV-vc-DsQmWivOqyqQjrpNYL1qGrcptcU6-QmeEvZEIc3Aboh2Jhl2kjGYe7tHVaOzXYLVgE8vwACA/s1600-h/Phil+Reed.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5266374493102643746" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 168px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMw14pR3kQC9ZdaBh80H2nNDYKbwgzEv9-Urhp3jJUJcBzJrsxyEbLIeuUFV-vc-DsQmWivOqyqQjrpNYL1qGrcptcU6-QmeEvZEIc3Aboh2Jhl2kjGYe7tHVaOzXYLVgE8vwACA/s200/Phil+Reed.jpg" border="0" /></a>By 1992, the ground had shifted and a rapprochement of sorts existed. GLID honored him at that year's annual dinner; that's me presenting his award "for his commitment to health care issues and for promoting lesbian and gay political power in the Upper West Side." And six years later he returned the favor: he served as presenter when I received the 1998 Howard Schaetzle Award, named in memory of a mutual friend who was an unsung grassroots activist.<br /><br />As "<a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/philip-reed-ex-councilman-is-dead-at-59/?apage=2">the first openly gay black member of the City Council</a>," as well openly HIV-positive, Phil chalked up a lot of footnote firsts. But, like any friend, he was more to us than these categories, which he reluctantly resigned himself to for political purposes but resented all the same--"I'm openly male, too," he once said to me under his breath when he endured such descriptions at yet another event. And he was one of the funniest politicians I'd ever met; his caustic, catty, campy wit pretty much insured he would never be elected to a higher post. (Without directly naming him, I mentioned him in an <a href="http://cloyce.blogspot.com/2006/04/manhattan-in-black-and-white.html">anecdote I recalled last year </a>about the difficulties black men faced simply hailing a cab in Manhattan.)<br /><br />Since I "retired" from politics a few years ago, I hadn't seen him much, something I'll forever regret. He is and will be missed.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-89260953833402627322008-09-14T15:21:00.007-04:002008-11-20T17:44:11.680-05:00A Tale of Two Economies<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202415.html">Donald Luskin (McCain adviser, Larry Kudlow pal, and economic ostrich), September 14, 2008</a>: <blockquote>Things today just aren't that bad. Sure, there are trouble spots in the economy, as the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and jitters about Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers, amply demonstrate. And unemployment figures are up a bit, too. None of this, however, is cause for depression -- or exaggerated Depression comparisons.<br /><br />Overall, the pessimists are up against an insurmountable reality: In the last reported quarter, the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3.3 percent, adjusted for inflation. That's virtually the same as the 3.4 percent average growth rate since -- yes -- the Great Depression.<br /></blockquote><a href="http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amVkrOCQNBQs&refer=home">Alan Greenspan, on the same day:</a> <blockquote>Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the financial crisis that began with the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market last year "is probably a once in a century event'' that will lead to the failure of more firms."<br /><br />"There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen, and it is still not resolved,'' Greenspan said in an interview today on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos.'' Greenspan, 82, retired from the Fed in January 2006 after serving for 18 years as chairman.</blockquote><p></p>Let me add: Luskin's article is filled with statistics to support his claim--but all of them, needless to say, measure the past, and the "last reported quarter" was buoyed by a one-time stimulus package and a resilience in American exports. (And Luskin could probably not have picked a worse day to publish his myopic article.) In sum, Luskin argues that only three or four dominoes have fallen; look at all the rest that are still standing up! So what if a few are wobbling! He's a bit like Wile E. Coyote, running off the cliff and congratulating himself on how high he still is.<br /><br />Luskin might argue that one can only predict the future of the economy based on the results of the past, but he's cherry-picking his figures. Very few politicians or economists are arguing that we're about to enter a depression; but there's little doubt that the fundamentals of the economy have undergone a seismic shift.<br /><br />I suspect that even Luskin knows, as Greenspan does, that things are on the way down, it's going to get worse, and nobody knows where the bottom is. What's true for Merrill and Lehman is true <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/13/short-sellers-start-to-hit-merrill-lynch/print/">for many financial institutions</a>: "no one knows how badly their balance sheets have been damaged, not even their managements. As credit markets fluctuate and housing prices fall, the value of many financial instruments changes every day."<br /><br />Luskin seems to belong to the school of thought that says we can cheerlead ourselves out of this crisis--the same way we deceived ourselves into a bubble. But the banking crisis will not stop with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, or <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc552bf8-8282-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html">Washington Mutual</a>, or <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/aig-stock-record-slump-downgrade/story.aspx?guid=%7BA149E91A%2D9509%2D47C5%2D943D%2D13BE89718BD2%7D">AIG</a>, or <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/13/short-sellers-start-to-hit-merrill-lynch/print/">Merrill Lynch</a>, and <a href="http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/09/roubini-and-bail-in-this-weekend.html">on and on and on</a>. The reason for the current panic is that nobody knows how many dominoes there are, or when the last one will fall.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-50948435684921367132008-07-14T22:22:00.008-04:002008-07-15T02:12:26.642-04:00Obama, The New Yorker, and MirrorsWhile good satire is very often offensive, offensiveness is only rarely good satire.<br /><br />In defense of the <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/new-yorkers-sat.html">now-infamous <span style="font-style: italic;">The New Yorker </span>cover</a>, <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/political-satire-but-obama-is-not-laughing/#more-5608">David Remnick claims</a> that the artwork "hold[s] up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics."<br /><br />But where's the "mirror"?<br /><br />The illustration misfires so badly because it is far more literal than satirical and its target is unclear. As the ever-ridiculous <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzY3OGU2NTcwNDk0NGVlMzBlYWM2YTEyN2Y4OTI4Yjc=">Jonah Goldberg admits</a> (via <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_07_13_archive.html#8221443699199095547">Atrios</a>), "it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of <em>National Review</em>." Even G. Gordon Liddy boasts that "<em>The New Yorker</em> finally got it right." Surely, this kind of recommendation is the stuff of Remnick's nightmares (or should be): accolades from a writer for a magazine with a <a href="http://cloyce.blogspot.com/2007/01/ideas-have-consequences.html">noted history of racism</a> and an ex-felon with a hatred of democracy.<br /><br />Likewise, <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI5MWE3ZDJhZGE4MmZiMTcwOGEyYmNjOTI3YzNhYWI=">Byron York</a>, another wannabe parodist at the <span style="font-style: italic;">National Review</span>, gloats that "privately, some McCain types admit they find the cover funny. And how bad can it be for your campaign when a national magazine, in an effort to take a shot at Fox News and talk radio, portrays your opponent like this?"<br /><br />And there you have the problem: we see the reflections in the mirror (Obama and his wife), but the viewers distorting that reflection (conservatives, Fox News, talk-show gasbags, etc.) are nowhere to be found. Not only does the caricature miss its targets, <span style="font-style: italic;">it doesn't even suggest they're there.</span><br /><br />As Kevin Drum points out, <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014086.php">there was a way to do this well</a>--but Remnick and illustrator Barry Blitt must have been too busy preening in front of the mirror.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-61859898459212343582008-06-15T13:48:00.006-04:002008-06-15T18:57:50.289-04:00Why Keith Olbermann MattersPeter Boyer's <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/23/080623fa_fact_boyer"><span style="font-style: italic;">New Yorker</span> profile of Keith Olbermann</a>, filed by the editors under "The Political Scene," isn't really about politics or even about television; instead, it's a gossip-filled, behind-the-scenes look at MSNBC cooler talk and corporate obsessions. As such, it's remarkably boring--tabloid-style shop talk more suited to <span style="font-style: italic;">Ad Week</span> than to the political section of a major magazine.<br /><br />A reader of Boyer's article who has never seen Olbermann's program will come away with the idea that MSNBC has created a left-wing version of <span style="font-style: italic;">The O'Reilly Factor</span>. But, setting aside Olbermann's public goading of O'Reilly, that's not the reason for the show's success. Any article about <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> that doesn't mention Rachel Maddow, Dana Milbank, Eugene Robinson, Howard Fineman, John Dean, Craig Crawford, or Jeffrey Toobin (himself a <span style="font-style: italic;">New Yorker</span> contributor) has missed the point. Every hour of <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> features four or five several-minute segments of Keith wonking wonkishly with a respected wonk about some political issue, be it the latest election result or the latest Supreme Court decision. Even if it's presented from a liberal/progressive slant, you simply won't find such in-depth analysis on any other celebrity-driven news program outside of PBS.<br /><br />What the show <span style="font-style: italic;">doesn't</span> have are commentators shouting over each other, anchors ridiculing guests while cutting off their microphones, and ignorant viewpoints masquerading as just another side in a phony, tempestuous debate. ("Coming up: Is the earth 4,000 years old? We report. You decide.") What is intolerable about Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews and their ilk is their insistence that the most reprehensible prejudices and brainless nitwits are worthy of equal time.<br /><br />That's not to say that the show always lives up to its goals. Keith has become infamous for the question that answers itself; occasionally a rambling comment leaves a guest staring blankly at the monitor, wondering if a response is needed or expected. And I agree with <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/05/keith_olbermann_blows_last_rem.html">James Poniewozik</a> that Olbermann's rant against Hillary's "assassination" gaffe was over the top; it made me uncomfortable, and for a brief moment the show became what it had been an answer to.<br /><br />But I think that particular ten-minute tirade was notable for being an exception to the overall setting of the program: an often cynical, usually funny, sometimes heated, but rarely belligerent discussion among intellectual equals who assume that certain viewpoints are beneath their viewers' dignity and, above all, who never condescend to their audience when talking about politics. Behind Olbermann's success is the still-radical notion that the most fervent American patriot can voice dissent against government malfeasance and right-wing spin.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-58171451358137874752008-05-29T17:29:00.007-04:002008-06-15T00:04:53.281-04:00Larry Craig's Own Private Idaho<a href="http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2008/05/larry_craig_still_not_gay_writ.html">Shoot me now</a>: Larry Craig "is writing a book detailing the state of American politics, and also the story behind his arrest in a Minneapolis airport men's room."<br /><br />A good working title for this project might be <em>Sunday in the Park with George Michael</em>.D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24634380.post-40532593724432506252008-04-06T23:40:00.009-04:002008-04-07T12:48:54.551-04:00Sean Wilentz and the Fall of American DemocracyMy friends are finding it increasingly implausible that I have no real preference for the Democratic nomination; I was, as many know, a Clinton delegate to the 1996 convention, and I am a longtime fan of the Clintons.<br /><br />Still, in truth, I would be thrilled with either Obama or Clinton as President. In fact, for the first time in 24 years, I couldn't bring myself to vote in a New York primary; I simply couldn't decide among all <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">three</span> candidates (including Edwards).<br /><br />But <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html">this desperation-smacking, politically motivated, ahistorical rant</a> from historian Sean Wilentz, published by <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Salon</span>, has temporarily tilted my equilibrium. Wilentz argues that, if the entire primary system were different ("if the system made sense"), Hillary would be winning the nomination and would soon have it wrapped up. Different how, you ask? If the primary were run the same as the Electoral College, with the winner taking all the delegates in each state.<br /><br />Five observations:<br /><br />1) Salon reprehensibly and irresponsibly does not identify Wilentz as an unwavering Clinton supporter--one who has published <a href="http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/permalink/deeb71606bf75f6977766a44b076b0d6.html">a series of articles</a> attempting to prop up her faltering campaign. (Instead, they leave that important tidbit of information to a reader who, in the comments, lists Wilentz's many essays.)<br /><br />2) In 2000 Wilentz organized <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1006497/">a $100,000 advertising campaign</a>, placing two ads in <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The New York Times</span>, both of which decried the constitutional crisis that resulted when the Electoral College and the popular vote were in conflict. (Wilentz even got in a bit of trouble for these ads; a few signers had not approved the text as published.) This "constitutional crisis" resulted, as Wilentz well knows, because the American Electoral College and the popular vote are pretty much designed to provide different results--as they have on several occasions in our history.<br /><br />3) Now, however, Wilentz suddenly finds an argument in favor of these bipolar elections. The argument's name, it seems, is Hillary Clinton. "Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College." In other words, the Democratic Party should mimic the nation and go with the "indirect and fractured" system more likely to cause a discrepancy between the popular vote and the delegate count. After all, who needs just one crisis during an election year when you can have two?<br /><br />4) Let's be merciful and grant that Wilentz is right: that the state primaries and caucuses should be winner-take-all, to best imitate the general election. If that were the case, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">then Obama would certainly have run a different campaign--</span>a consideration Wilentz blithely ignores. But both candidates used campaign strategies for the system as it exists--not as Wilentz imagines it should have been now that the game is nearly over.<br /><br />5) <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186162.php">"It's like the Patriots on their final drive against the Giants saying that if you went by just touchdowns they were actually tied."</a>D. Cloyce Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12017407200533790119noreply@blogger.com