Wow, it's been awhile since I've closed my open windows, so to speak. But Heidi just got engaged (and here's hoping she doesn't have to search for a new job) and it's Cliff's birthday, and it's snowed outside which sets the perfect mood to sit and type if I can keep my eyes open. I'm just glad my scheduled second interview at a potential employer was moved up to yesterday afternoon, as NYC is looking to shut down early today even though the snow's all but stopped now. Although it's made Maru happy, which she deserves to be since her blog WTF Is It Now?!? has passed its six-year mark; congrats, Maru!
• I've blogged previously about becoming more and more disillusioned by Keith Olbermann's Countdown, the only US news program that had been worth watching. I've seen the sportscaster descend more and more into the stat-driven horserace speculation end of the 2008 presidential campaign -- you know, the part that doesn't matter, as opposed to actually discussing the issues that do. Now the newscast has gone so far as to completely ignore vital goings-on in the rest of the world (Cuba, Kosovo, Pakistan, etc.) and even in the rest of the country (not one word about the NIU shootings) in favor of stuff that is by no stretch of the imagination (except Olbermann's and his fellow pundits') news. But we still tune in sometimes to see whether Keith's ratio of news to nonsense has improved, as he's really kind of the Last Best Hope modern TV journalism has. We're increasingly discovering that this hope ain't much. On Wednesday he spent half an hour discussing supposed allegations in a New York Times article that weren't even the point of the article, and weren't even allegations as much as a "teaser" to get people to read beyond the first few paragraphs. As those first paragraphs implied "SEX!" heaven forbid the usual suspects leave it alone and concentrate on the meat of the matter. And Olbermann is now firmly within this clique of usual suspects. I hope more viewers wake up about this; the degree of difference between Keith Olbermann and other pundits is like that between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates -- when all is said and done, they have much more in common, and pal around, with each other more than they ever will with us. (I mean, Rachel Maddow playing patty-cake with Pat Buchanan? Granted, that's a better left-right match-up than Hannity and Colmes, but the civility is sort of unnerving.)
Fortunately, bloggers are getting the story right. Kevin Drum explains why it's disingenuous of the NY Times' Bill Keller to be shocked, do you hear me SHOCKED, to find out there's sexual innuendo going on in the story and being picked up by most sensationalism-seeking media outlets. The Rude Pundit interprets things thusly: "It's pretty much like the New York Times thought, 'Aw, hell, we gotta do something to make people read this story about the arcane rules regarding favors and campaign contributions, so howzabout some hints at some lobbyist ballin'?'" Roy Edroso is wonderfully skeptical of all the media hypocrisy that adds to the McCain hypocrisy. Pete McGowan illustrates how this story might have legs via the indictment of Rick Renzi, a member of McCain's "Leadership Team," on "35 Counts of conspiracy, money laundering, insurance fraud and wire fraud." Wow! And, of course, What Digby Said. She, like a heartening number of bloggers, wasn't fooled at all by the major media coverage of the, erm, major media coverage. Quoth Digby, "The meat of this thing has to do with favors he [McCain] did for this lobbyist in his position as Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I frankly don't care whether he did it for money or sex or just because she made him feel young again, it's unethical and hypocritical coming from someone who's running as a reformer." Bucking the trend, publius at Obsidian Wings insists the story actually is "about the affair."
• A lot of bloggers think Republicans aren't the only party to use coded language, and of course they're right since, as I call your attention again to the above paragraph, we need to remember these people all have more in common with each other than with us -- including money, class, methodology, ambitions, etc. Still, even with his eloquence and obvious knowledge that Word Mean Something, the way Barack Obama has spoken about his Democratic opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign didn't seem that unsettling to me. Are accusations of "subtle sexism," as illustrated by Mad Kane and others (Amp has a good roundup), or "sexist dogwhistles" as Zuzu terms it, just a matter of finding something you're hyper-sensitized to look for? I've seen this with feminist cultural critics as well. Because there's so much actual sexism still beating down upon us (see this astute analysis from Melissa about intimidation at political caucuses), we tend to assume it exists everywhere, even in places where it's the farthest thing from people's minds. I'm not saying these folks don't have a good point and argue a good case (and yes, it bothers me that Obama's site doesn't even discuss gender issues), I'm just not sure I agree with it. (I'm glad to see other feminist bloggers like Hilzoy agree with my conclusion; it tells me I'm not utterly crazy for thinking it.) I'm still among the Thinking People who wouldn't mind either a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama presidency if that's our only choice given neither of them is exactly left of center, and I'm just about tuning out any newly-manufactured controversy as de facto manipulated by our mass media. Seriously folks, EuroNews or the Beeb. There's so much important stuff going on now in the world besides this campaign crap! I mean really, Obama supporters are a cult? Make these idiots read them some Athenae, I says. And seriously, bloggers, isn't a Turkish incursion into northern Iraq a tad more newsworthy than Ann Coulter's credit card being declined or Janet Huckabee staying at a Hooter's hotel in Vegas?
• Of course, that doesn't mean we oughtn't be concerned about stuff like Dallas police officers being given the order to stop security checks before an Obama rally. Oh jolly, just the thing to help some enterprising good-ol'-boy racists. Or perhaps Bill O'Reilly's "hypothetical" lynch mob gunning for Obama's wife for saying she was proud of America for the first time in her adult life (and I know how she feels, even though I was a lot prouder when Carter won back in '76).
• Speaking of which, please read these three very touching articles about the shootings at Northern Illinois University by Liberal Coalition member and NIU employee Michael Spires, who blogs at Musing's Musings: "Let not our own darkness conquer us"; Merci; and NIU one week later: it is what it is. Michael is one of the most eloquent writers I know, and a blogger who certainly deserves wider recognition.
• Amanda Marcotte is spot-on in two of her recent posts, one about credit card debt (which I've never had, and I've often thought that makes me some sort of freak in this country) and how the NY Times just can't seem to report about it correctly (because, of course, they all have more in common with each other than with us... no, as a matter of fact I won't stop saying that) and one about fat-shaming making inroads in chick lit, one of the places one would hope never to find it.
• Of course, we all pay attention when the NY Times comes out with articles we like, such as this one about more girls blogging than boys. Naturally, the "where are all the women bloggers?" set will dismiss this out of hand, because they don't see girls and women blogging about anything (they consider) important. And what was that latest *yawn* basketball score again? Of course then it's right back to skewering the Times, as Avedon does admirably, for articles like this one talking about how stupid kids today are.
• I've been saving this reprinted gem from Kate Harding since Valentine's Day, as it's very keen indeed. Speaking of V-Day, I can has marriage proposal? And Rob and I were too lazy to get dressed and go out in the cold on Wednesday night to glimpse the lunar eclipse which we couldn't see from just looking out the window, but there are plenty of cool photos online, like these from my favorite photoblogger NTodd Pritsky.
• "My first thought was 'Whoa! There must be a really famous person shopping here!' I turned around to see who it was. That's when I realized the famous person was me." Congratulations, or condolences, to Jenna Fischer on her first paparazzo stalking.
• Hey Steve, is Ken Jennings going to be at your OC library soon? Tell him your ex-wife is a big fan who writes about him a lot on her blog. :)
• Yoko Ono, who just celebrated her 75th birthday, insists she's not suing Lennon Murphy over the use of her surname, but over the young singer's supposed desire to use that name as an exclusive trademark. Julian Lennon also had a comment up about this but he seems to have deleted it, as well as his original comment supporting Murphy. Lennons and litigation, perfect together!
• On the weirdly partisan nature of the steroids-in-baseball hearings, What Digby Said, again. "Of course they are protective of a big, white Texas boy using steroids to win by any means necessary. It's a fundamental conservative value!" Oh, snap! Also see Thomas' post at Feministe.
• The snark twins of the culinary world are at it again, as Michael Ruhlman and Tony Bourdain announce the nominees for the first annual Golden Clog awards, and Tony adds another category on Ruhlman's blog to make it a baker's dozen.
• Even when teens get pregnant and follow the repressive rules their society expects, they still get dumped on. Jill at Feministe has the story.
• Your pareidolia for the day comes via Melissa at Shakesville, who reports on Our Lady of the Rold Gold. Speaking of Shakesville, you must read this post about feminism from their Teen Analyst, Kenny Blogginz, who's like a smarter, funnier Dmitri Martin.
Well, at least I finished linking to all the posts I had checked off before Bloglines quit on me. So I'm off to read through some of the DC comp box (two months unread so far) before coming back later for a couple more posts (including Friday Cat Blogging).
• I've blogged previously about becoming more and more disillusioned by Keith Olbermann's Countdown, the only US news program that had been worth watching. I've seen the sportscaster descend more and more into the stat-driven horserace speculation end of the 2008 presidential campaign -- you know, the part that doesn't matter, as opposed to actually discussing the issues that do. Now the newscast has gone so far as to completely ignore vital goings-on in the rest of the world (Cuba, Kosovo, Pakistan, etc.) and even in the rest of the country (not one word about the NIU shootings) in favor of stuff that is by no stretch of the imagination (except Olbermann's and his fellow pundits') news. But we still tune in sometimes to see whether Keith's ratio of news to nonsense has improved, as he's really kind of the Last Best Hope modern TV journalism has. We're increasingly discovering that this hope ain't much. On Wednesday he spent half an hour discussing supposed allegations in a New York Times article that weren't even the point of the article, and weren't even allegations as much as a "teaser" to get people to read beyond the first few paragraphs. As those first paragraphs implied "SEX!" heaven forbid the usual suspects leave it alone and concentrate on the meat of the matter. And Olbermann is now firmly within this clique of usual suspects. I hope more viewers wake up about this; the degree of difference between Keith Olbermann and other pundits is like that between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates -- when all is said and done, they have much more in common, and pal around, with each other more than they ever will with us. (I mean, Rachel Maddow playing patty-cake with Pat Buchanan? Granted, that's a better left-right match-up than Hannity and Colmes, but the civility is sort of unnerving.)
Fortunately, bloggers are getting the story right. Kevin Drum explains why it's disingenuous of the NY Times' Bill Keller to be shocked, do you hear me SHOCKED, to find out there's sexual innuendo going on in the story and being picked up by most sensationalism-seeking media outlets. The Rude Pundit interprets things thusly: "It's pretty much like the New York Times thought, 'Aw, hell, we gotta do something to make people read this story about the arcane rules regarding favors and campaign contributions, so howzabout some hints at some lobbyist ballin'?'" Roy Edroso is wonderfully skeptical of all the media hypocrisy that adds to the McCain hypocrisy. Pete McGowan illustrates how this story might have legs via the indictment of Rick Renzi, a member of McCain's "Leadership Team," on "35 Counts of conspiracy, money laundering, insurance fraud and wire fraud." Wow! And, of course, What Digby Said. She, like a heartening number of bloggers, wasn't fooled at all by the major media coverage of the, erm, major media coverage. Quoth Digby, "The meat of this thing has to do with favors he [McCain] did for this lobbyist in his position as Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I frankly don't care whether he did it for money or sex or just because she made him feel young again, it's unethical and hypocritical coming from someone who's running as a reformer." Bucking the trend, publius at Obsidian Wings insists the story actually is "about the affair."
• A lot of bloggers think Republicans aren't the only party to use coded language, and of course they're right since, as I call your attention again to the above paragraph, we need to remember these people all have more in common with each other than with us -- including money, class, methodology, ambitions, etc. Still, even with his eloquence and obvious knowledge that Word Mean Something, the way Barack Obama has spoken about his Democratic opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign didn't seem that unsettling to me. Are accusations of "subtle sexism," as illustrated by Mad Kane and others (Amp has a good roundup), or "sexist dogwhistles" as Zuzu terms it, just a matter of finding something you're hyper-sensitized to look for? I've seen this with feminist cultural critics as well. Because there's so much actual sexism still beating down upon us (see this astute analysis from Melissa about intimidation at political caucuses), we tend to assume it exists everywhere, even in places where it's the farthest thing from people's minds. I'm not saying these folks don't have a good point and argue a good case (and yes, it bothers me that Obama's site doesn't even discuss gender issues), I'm just not sure I agree with it. (I'm glad to see other feminist bloggers like Hilzoy agree with my conclusion; it tells me I'm not utterly crazy for thinking it.) I'm still among the Thinking People who wouldn't mind either a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama presidency if that's our only choice given neither of them is exactly left of center, and I'm just about tuning out any newly-manufactured controversy as de facto manipulated by our mass media. Seriously folks, EuroNews or the Beeb. There's so much important stuff going on now in the world besides this campaign crap! I mean really, Obama supporters are a cult? Make these idiots read them some Athenae, I says. And seriously, bloggers, isn't a Turkish incursion into northern Iraq a tad more newsworthy than Ann Coulter's credit card being declined or Janet Huckabee staying at a Hooter's hotel in Vegas?
• Of course, that doesn't mean we oughtn't be concerned about stuff like Dallas police officers being given the order to stop security checks before an Obama rally. Oh jolly, just the thing to help some enterprising good-ol'-boy racists. Or perhaps Bill O'Reilly's "hypothetical" lynch mob gunning for Obama's wife for saying she was proud of America for the first time in her adult life (and I know how she feels, even though I was a lot prouder when Carter won back in '76).
• Speaking of which, please read these three very touching articles about the shootings at Northern Illinois University by Liberal Coalition member and NIU employee Michael Spires, who blogs at Musing's Musings: "Let not our own darkness conquer us"; Merci; and NIU one week later: it is what it is. Michael is one of the most eloquent writers I know, and a blogger who certainly deserves wider recognition.
• Amanda Marcotte is spot-on in two of her recent posts, one about credit card debt (which I've never had, and I've often thought that makes me some sort of freak in this country) and how the NY Times just can't seem to report about it correctly (because, of course, they all have more in common with each other than with us... no, as a matter of fact I won't stop saying that) and one about fat-shaming making inroads in chick lit, one of the places one would hope never to find it.
• Of course, we all pay attention when the NY Times comes out with articles we like, such as this one about more girls blogging than boys. Naturally, the "where are all the women bloggers?" set will dismiss this out of hand, because they don't see girls and women blogging about anything (they consider) important. And what was that latest *yawn* basketball score again? Of course then it's right back to skewering the Times, as Avedon does admirably, for articles like this one talking about how stupid kids today are.
• I've been saving this reprinted gem from Kate Harding since Valentine's Day, as it's very keen indeed. Speaking of V-Day, I can has marriage proposal? And Rob and I were too lazy to get dressed and go out in the cold on Wednesday night to glimpse the lunar eclipse which we couldn't see from just looking out the window, but there are plenty of cool photos online, like these from my favorite photoblogger NTodd Pritsky.
• "My first thought was 'Whoa! There must be a really famous person shopping here!' I turned around to see who it was. That's when I realized the famous person was me." Congratulations, or condolences, to Jenna Fischer on her first paparazzo stalking.
• Hey Steve, is Ken Jennings going to be at your OC library soon? Tell him your ex-wife is a big fan who writes about him a lot on her blog. :)
• Yoko Ono, who just celebrated her 75th birthday, insists she's not suing Lennon Murphy over the use of her surname, but over the young singer's supposed desire to use that name as an exclusive trademark. Julian Lennon also had a comment up about this but he seems to have deleted it, as well as his original comment supporting Murphy. Lennons and litigation, perfect together!
• On the weirdly partisan nature of the steroids-in-baseball hearings, What Digby Said, again. "Of course they are protective of a big, white Texas boy using steroids to win by any means necessary. It's a fundamental conservative value!" Oh, snap! Also see Thomas' post at Feministe.
• The snark twins of the culinary world are at it again, as Michael Ruhlman and Tony Bourdain announce the nominees for the first annual Golden Clog awards, and Tony adds another category on Ruhlman's blog to make it a baker's dozen.
• Even when teens get pregnant and follow the repressive rules their society expects, they still get dumped on. Jill at Feministe has the story.
• Your pareidolia for the day comes via Melissa at Shakesville, who reports on Our Lady of the Rold Gold. Speaking of Shakesville, you must read this post about feminism from their Teen Analyst, Kenny Blogginz, who's like a smarter, funnier Dmitri Martin.
Well, at least I finished linking to all the posts I had checked off before Bloglines quit on me. So I'm off to read through some of the DC comp box (two months unread so far) before coming back later for a couple more posts (including Friday Cat Blogging).
0 comments:
Post a Comment