Wednesday, January 20, 2010
20
posted at 11:58 PM | Permalink | 1 comment(s)
It would be amazing if Brown is - really - what he seems, namely, a mixture of points of view, not a tool of either party, not beholden and not indebted, just a regular guy who says what he means and actually does what he said he would do, someone with points of view and a sense of humor and a sense of balance and a sense of fair play.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Ahead of (my) time
posted at 8:52 AM | Permalink | 11 comment(s)
Part of me is reluctant to post this because I fear/hate being yelled and screamed at. But more of me wants to write it down out loud.

During the recent brouhaha about Fox News, I couldn't help being puzzled since to me Fox seems mostly a bit disorganized and casual. Well, except for the screaming financial experts on Saturday morning, of course. And most of the women wear way too much eyeshadow and hairspray and although they have impressive educations and vocabularies, and sound bright and aware, they look too porcelain-doll for my taste. But a viewer with a remote can always watch something else, right? And it is part of the whole free speech thing that there be different points of view out there on the airwaves. But then I realized I was thinking about the station as a whole with some Barbie doll women and some loud annoying men. And then I thought about Glenn Beck.

A few weeks ago I mentioned to some friends that I think Glenn Beck may be the most dangerous and evil man in America. That might be an overstatement but I'm not sure who else would even vie for the distinction. Mere days after I made my pronouncement, Time magazine did a cover story on him. Happy though I am to know I was ahead of my time (get it?!), I'm sorry they and I are giving him so much ink (as we say in the biz). On the other hand, he needs to be identified as what he is, not simply left to wreak havoc and damage unchecked or unremarked upon.

Beck seems to look all angelic. He has a fairly pleasant, round, slightly pasty and bland face. But behind that mild exterior swirl eddys and earthquakes of fury. He loves to declaim and proclaim and cause as much trouble as he can. Basically, he's a terrorist. He'd like to grab hold of us all and infect us with his cynical, hateful, angry ideas. In the sweetest possible way, of course. And if some decent people with genuinely-held beliefs that seem similar to his happen to have rabble-roused heart attacks or turn on their country in the process, well, life's a you-know-what.

While he sneers about the mean president who's trying to take your money away from you, and while he stirs up various kinds of panic, it turns out that Beck himself is - quelle surprise - very different from what he espouses. He's a divorced and remarried father of four (two children in each marriage) and a "recovering" alcoholic, neither of which are wrong at all but they would not be on his own lists of how one ought to be. I feel bad and sad for him that both his mother and a sibling committed suicide, and another brother died of a heart attack, and one of his four children is physically disabled (cerebral palsy), and having turned to alcohol and then to fanatical passion about ideas seems downright reasonable under the circumstances - I'm guessing politics has replaced scotch in his addicted emotional life - but one or two visits to his program and you see that he is devious and calculating on a phenomenal level and he snags too many otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people in his net. Furthermore, in the hypocritical tradition of many demagogues and unlike the so-called normal Americans to whom he appeals and on whose heartstrings he yanks so hard, he himself lives quite differently than they do, no doubt a pillar of the unsuspecting community in an ultra-upper-class southern New England town with the highest median income of any town in the country ($178,651) and where it would be hard to find even a few people of color.

It's not entirely evident that Beck actually believes what he says. He clearly loves the sound of his voice - a voice that alternates from softly sarcastic to screaming. His rants are over-dramatized and I have to believe they are a calculated performance. His tirades are almost paced to a metronome like old-fashioned hellfire and brimstone preachers intending to rouse listeners into a frenzy.

Beck's immediate appeal is simple. He speaks directly to the fact that many of us feel scared and frustrated by the strange world of the moment. He's playing on our sense that American fundamental principles like be-all-you-can-be and buy-what-you-want are in jeopardy. And he wraps it all up in a package that seems, at first, kind of amusing and maybe really simple and straightforward. But as you listen longer, you realize he's fondling the strings of a put-upon violin and singing variations on a "socialism is coming" song every time he opens his mouth. He uses the race card in particularly under-the-surface and demonic ways, labeling black people including the new president as "white racists" and then smiling his round doughy innocent smile and saying gee he didn't said anything bad, gee, what could you possibly mean.

Bottom line, Beck's public persona is evil, deceptive, nasty, hateful and hating - a hypocritical lynch-mob rabble-rouser. I would suggest that one should beware of him, certainly, and also of anyone who think he speaks anything even approximating truth.

In these difficult times, too many people have legitimate problems, questions and issues. It is unfortunate that some will look for answers from this man and thereby risk falling into his cauldron of hatred and hysteria.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 25, 2009
NY governor wannabees
posted at 8:11 AM | Permalink | 0 comment(s)
It has been noted by more than a few political commentators that Bill Clinton stumps for just about everyone. He's a consummate politician, right? And yet he has not muttered a word in the David Paterson vs. Andrew Cuomo face-off. Which says to me that he must feel the same as everyone I've talked with about it. Peterson has been pretty dreadful but Cuomo is such a whiny and manipulative guy that it's simply impossible to get interested in him, let alone enthusiastic. He got thoroughly drubbed - a word only professional journalists use, you know - in the last go-round and I was hopeful he was down for the count and ever. No such luck, evidently, but perhaps Clinton's silence will help return him there.

Labels:

Thursday, June 11, 2009
Hmm...
posted at 9:13 AM | Permalink | 3 comment(s)
David Letterman really should get his writers to put their and his verbal acuity and skills to funnier and ultimately more effective use. Bad taste and meanness are such a witless and lazy recourse. When one is ten and on the playground, it's mean but it's part of a social learning process to throw zingers out and laugh in that conspiratorial way at "them." But somewhere around fifteen or twenty or forty or fifty (how old is Letterman now?), most of us realize that nasty flippancies aren't all that funny and might backfire, particularly if, for example, you didn't marry your son's wife until your child was nearly six, stones and glass houses being what they are.

And this isn't about politics, by the way. I completely realize that the Palins are lightning rods and draw ridicule to themselves like flypaper draws flies. All the more reason that it isn't necessary to be tasteless and mean. For one thing it rallies their defenders. For another it overlooks so many others who are worthy of wry remarks. Besides, if Letterman had said anything even remotely like the A-Rod or Spitzer "jokes" about Dick Cheney's daughter or Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton, for example, not to mention about Sotomayor or Hillary, it would be crystal clear how dreadful the taste and how just plain rude it was. Plus, Dave's trying to slink out of responsibility for the bad taste just added to the stupidity of it all. There's plenty to lambaste Palin (and Letterman) about without dragging either of their young children into it.

Obama's presidency seems to have restored a level of decorum to the public discourse. It would be beyond unfortunate if lazy so-called comedy writers dragged us down again.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 21, 2009
Optimism and hope
posted at 9:45 AM | Permalink | 8 comment(s)
Former president Clinton talked yesterday about the importance of optimism and hope. Yes it's tough economic times, he said, but there is always a place for hope. Whether a few months or a couple of years or even longer, there is always an end to strife and it's important to keep that in mind.

I thought about that game where one team pulls a rope one way and another pulls it the other way. The team that pulls strongly together always accomplishes more than the team that argues and pulls apart.

It is important that we think and speak hopefully about Obama's plan for turning things around even if we think a different way would have been better. Pulling together accomplishes a goal; pulling apart does not.

Nothing is permanent - not war, not recession, not inflation, not depression - nothing. Living through difficulties, perhaps finding ways to weather them in creative and clever ways, can teach us how resilient and strong we are, show us that we can withstand storms and financial problems. We are people, hear us roar (to paraphrase Leon Russell).

I feel hopeful about Obama's presidency partly because so many people were touched and roused by his call to hope and change. He inspired a wonderful sense of optimism and excitement about life and the country and everything else. I'm sorry he has not been speaking with the same tone, recently talking more about how long and hard this will all be. There's a difference between realistic and negative. Right now we need realistic and positive.

Obama got our attention and gained our support for his ideas and proposals with beautiful words and oratorical skill. More, please! We need to continue to feel excited about trusting ourselves, the good in us, the good things that we can accomplish and be.

Labels: ,

Friday, February 13, 2009
Ouch
posted at 10:43 PM | Permalink | 0 comment(s)
Disaffection.  I want to hear a positive spin on these.

Labels:

Saturday, February 7, 2009
A bit sad, really
posted at 10:24 AM | Permalink | 1 comment(s)
Realizing that this is written by someone who is not exactly a fan, it is nonetheless a piece that makes me feel a bit sad (here). I guess "be careful what you wish for" applies to everything and everyone.

The present time is becoming progressively weirder and weirder, on many levels. I mean, consider that it was exactly 45 years ago today that the Beatles landed in New York for the first time. All that's happened since then and all that's happening these days, in all kinds of ways.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 25, 2009
Distressing
posted at 10:53 AM | Permalink | 4 comment(s)
It's always seemed to me that the wisest course of awareness and opinion-forming is to listen to everything you can possibly handle and then ponder and weigh it all. Therefore I was unsettled when I heard a news item in which Obama advises people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh. It seems foolish to me to assume he has such a level of importance, for one thing. And to be honest, I can't stand listening to Limbaugh because his tone of voice and his words are so fist-poundingly adamant. Reading him isn't quite as unpleasant but I find him difficult to take in any form. Neveretheless, I am very uncomfortable with anyone advising me to listen or not to listen to anyone with opinions even if the advising person is our newly elected president.

I know I'm skittish about being told what to read or listen to because I was raised by an academic who tried to control my reading material at every turn, even to the extent of banning Nancy Drew because the novels were not well enough written ("trash" was the word my father used) and he wanted my reading teeth to be cut on more literary tomes. The result of his efforts was that for a while I sought and read only so-called trash, of course.

That aside, my sense is that it's far better to get input from various horses' mouths - no matter how disagreeable and no matter how probable that one's opinions will not change - than to be strong-armed by others even if they have our best interests at heart and even when they are correct about some opinions being wrong. In that regard, Fresh Bilge cited this article, one that is certainly one-sided, but better to read than not know about. Attempts at thought control, even by people one generally agrees with, alarm me.

Labels: ,

Friday, January 23, 2009
On the new Junior Senator from New York
posted at 9:17 AM | Permalink | 2 comment(s)
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but at the beginning of the month, when Caroline Kennedy was first being mentioned as Hillary's replacement as the junior senator from NYS, I suggested Kerstin Gillibrand:



Maybe Paterson reads blogs! :)

Gillibrand is well educated AND mother AND career-woman AND attractive AND thoughtful AND a good politican. Possibly a boon to both the Senate and to the country.

More power to her! And hurray for New York State - the whole state.

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Praise
posted at 10:16 AM | Permalink | 4 comment(s)
Among other things that make America amazing is how we change governments. When the presidency changes every four or eight years, and particularly when it changes parties and ideologies, no blood is shed, no bullets are shot, no riots occur. It's astonishing and wonderful.

I love that our country is a living and healthy organism that can have moved from the cruelty and stupidity of slavery to electing a black man president. I love that something as old-fashioned as a train ride between two east coast cities excites people. I have to say that I hate that Obama sometimes sounds like a grindingly ordinary politician but perhaps he'd never have achieved the presidency if he didn't walk some of the walk that many seem to recognize and like.

I hope Obama succeeds in keeping himself fee of the glue of typical politics and politicians. If he accomplishes merely that, he will earn enormous respect. And if, further, he rallies citizens' and cities' and states' positive energies and actions, his will be a superb administration.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Color me puzzled
posted at 9:14 AM | Permalink | 2 comment(s)
I am baffled at the events of the government - federal and a couple of states - in the last few days.
  • Hillary Clinton was sworn into the Senate even though everyone knows she won't be serving as the junior senator from New York on account of her move to the Department of State. I understand that she's actually still a senator and that becoming secretary of state must be approved by Congress before she can take on that role. Of course, Congress that must approve it includes the Senate into which she was just sworn. ( See what I mean?)
  • Burris was barred and then admitted and sworn in as one of Illinois' senators but Reid says he's only allowing the admittance to "my chambers" reluctantly. Who made them his chambers?? And how did Reid become the arbiter of all things senatorial? And why wasn't a special election held to fill Obama's vacant senate seat?
  • Franken/Smalley was declared the winner in Minnesota's senate race even though more votes were tallied than people who were registered to vote. And, yes, unsurprisingly, another recount is planned and Franken has resisted moving lock stock and barrel to the senate floor but why on earth was he certified with that kind of imbalance without another and more reliable recount?
  • Much like Garbo, Caroline Kennedy spoke. She who apparently thought the New York senate seat was hers for the taking if she wanted it. But she was so inane and snotty that Andrew Cuomo has emerged as the front-runner for Hillary Clinton's U.S. senate seat even though he was badly drubbed in the last state election and has hardly any fans or at least none who will say so publicly. Proving one againI suppose, that unqualified women are even less popular with voters than unpleasant political hacks. And why isn't a special election being scheduled to fill Hillary's probably-soon-vacant senate seat?  (And why doesn't Paterson just appoint Kerstin Gillibrand - a Democratic, a woman, someone from so-called upstate instead of yet another person from NYC, someone who had lots of enthusiastic support and who has experience (two terms) plus proven ability to win elections?)
Anyway, I can't help wondering what the heck has been going on with voter ballots in this country -- remember hanging chads? How did the U.S. come to seem more seventh world than the supposed leader of freedom and democracy?? They can manage a fairly straightforward election in Iraq, inky fingers and all, but we have elections with more votes than voters??!

Please tell me how one voter - me, you, anyone - is supposed to have faith in the system and feel that our one vote has any bearing on anything? Sometimes it all seems enough to make a person wonder whether we should pay much attention or even bother to vote.

Labels: ,