2 columns and one gigantic criticism

I know deference, I know when I read something that has a superior depth of thought and experience, combined with style, that my position shifts like mirrors on the sun, and my purpose is like them, to shine the light on others.

David Denby, the movie critic of the New Yorker and author of other books, has written a short book called "Snark." Why, you may ask, would you want to read a book on something that has become the tedious style of internet sites and even mainstream media? Something, I would argue, that leaks its way into people's own mannerisms. It doesn't sound like a nice book, except if you've found that the tendency is ruining the things you love.

The book is fantastic. The book is concise and fun to read. It is thoughtful and yet not difficult. It struggles to completely define Snark, but it succeeds to give a general idea of its habits. And, what's more, Denby holds up Maureen Dowd (in her own chapter no less) as the reigning queen of Snark. His criticism of her is balanced and devastating.

It helps to read this chapter because, though so many of us dislike Maureen Dowd, it's hard to think of all the reasons why. Well, he is very clear in them. I don't want to spoil it. The book is on my coffee table, feel free to read it!

-----

To sum up my problems with Maureen Dowd's past two columns, she shows that while she's angry about the last eight years and specifically at members of the Bush Admin, she works to avoid talking to them. She's right next to them, and yet, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt to answer a question, she judges them by their looks and by the last eight years. Fair enough, but, there's no point in it. Not so much an opinion as an exclamation.

Her latest column, again with the Clintons. She mixes praise with wary criticism. For an opinion columnist, she's very hard to pin down.

-----

David Denby has sacked me for words. I feel good reading his book, it gives me new direction. For those who enjoy expressing themselves through writing and now, I'm sad to say, talking and Facebooking, this book acts as a friendly self-check. How much snark do I post? When I made a comment about Jacques Brel the other day, I snarked him and his fans (which there are so many). True, I don't really like French or Belgian pop music standards. But I do like Musette. Why did I shut the door on myself?

So, this book comes highly recommended from me.

And, for that matter, so do his movie criticisms in the New Yorker.

The first day back is the hardest

Maureen Dowd had some sea legs when she stepped into work, I guess. It's hard to make much of her latest opinion, that Caroline Kennedy is a good fit for the office of Senator because, essentially, Maureen Dowd knows her.

This is hallmark Maureen Dowd. Maureen Dowd, as a writer, has gotten to know people over the years, and her knowing someone matters more to her than news information that anyone could access and comment on. She has conscientiously staked this out as her position (and if you see the Charlie Rose interview, she elaborates on it), that while other writers talk about facts and stated opinions, she wants to get to know the people behind the news and report on the people as she clearly sees them. Because, isn't that important too? Couldn't it even be a little objective?

Here is the Caroline Kennedy that Maureen Dowd supports:

soft-spoken, having spent a lifetime away from the public spotlight

someone who hasn't played politics to make political gains

a fresh face and new perspective, an infusion of class, intelligence, and guts

smart, cultivated, serious and unpretentious

But, of course, all of these things point to the very reasons that Caroline Kennedy is doubtful as a good pick:

can she handle the public spotlight, which is a politician's responsibility?

can she get things for NY citizens, seeing as how she's never had to try before, as a politician?

how many times has a new person really enacted change? It's just a total gamble whether or not the leftfield pick will be a dud or a miracle worker, or plain mediocre.

aren't there scores of other people: men, women, and minorities, who have devoted their lives to public service, in the public sector, that would also have these traits? (but their last name is not Kennedy?)

Judging Caroline's actions, it seems clear that she wants the easy route to a prized position. No campaigning, no hard work, no gobs of money tied up in a campaign. No risk. Taking risks and respect go hand in hand. We can appreciate what Caroline Kennedy has done, for instance, with public schools, but in New York State, that's not much of a position. And, as a downstater, she's done a terrible job carrying the downstater's burden: charming the upstaters.

And, just to be clear, this has NOTHING to do with her gender. Overall, state and national, there are scads of women who spent their lives, while Caroline stayed safe on the Upper East Side, campaigning, networking, bootstrapping, and politicking. She's got no dirt because she never did anything. If anything, she misrepresents the female politician.

At least Maureen Dowd gets to stand opposite reason, which clears her competition in the op-ed stage. Most people would fear the reputation of their judgement, and we appreciate Maureen for going boldly in the face of it.

I would love an interview with Caroline Kennedy where she would explain her plans to run for the 2012 Senate seat if she does not get picked. If she's so great, maybe she'd like to share herself with the public.

NY Mag to Maureen Dowd: Stop being superficial!

Wow, really? NY Mag...with the Look Book, and the fashionable parties.

It's a good magazine to actually enjoy the best of best superficial things! And to crack up at the Look Book, which Gawker did since forever ago so I can't go there. But please, go there.

But for a categorizing of the sheer quantity of times that Maureen Dowd engages Tina Fey on food-related things, click here. (This is like a typical NY Mag nonfeature - 1 minute article).

Bring back the ha'penny

Maureen Dowd would like to touch on Tom Friedman's territory this week, in between the Lexus and the Olive Tree. Her article this week is ostensibly about outsourcing but also about the difficulty of keeping the Newspaper business afloat.

Indeed, she has some amusing anecdotes about India-written news that and some associated outsourcing problems. But, a busybody stateside editor could probably fix those errors. News is global in ways that are hard to tell--many of the 2008 Olympic Games (not the big events) were commented on from the U.S. off of the satellite feed.

When given a choice, and the newspapers certainly gave that choice, the internet generation would prefer to pick up their news for free online. And no, they don't usually click on the ads. Sorry internet ad dreams!

But she does neglect to mention that some intrepid (people have other words) businessmen like Rupert Murdoch are willing to purchase unprofitable newspapers. Oh, the glory of Op-Eds, you miss chunks of the pie that are "clearly" not relevant.

One part of her opinion that I can't figure out is whether she thinks the outsourcing newsman, James McPherson, is the future, or if he's an enterprising moron trying to cut too many corners. Perhaps she thinks he's both!

When Maureen Dowd puts her columns on the auction block, I'm reminded of how much I like pennies, and that, to paraphrase Mr. Burns, "I think I'd be happier keeping the penny."

Ismyblogrelevant.com

“I think people are beginning to look at it differently, I know it’s happened for me,” Feinstein said of gay marriage. “I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life. Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing.”

Maureen Dowd, "Marriage on the Rocks."

These are the family values that make a society strong.

Bill Clinton, cont.

In reading today's column, I continued to learn about Bill Clinton's personality. It's making me regret not reading "My Life."

I leave the article not being sure of whether Bill Clinton is an asset or a liability to Hillary Clinton's political future (State Dept or otherwise).

Asset: Loved by the world, worldwide connections, makes America look good.

Liability: Worldwide conflicts of interest, bitterness at the new president (he does have this way of hesitating on camera when talking about Obama, even post election), pulls in the lecture fees $$$(this should be irrelevant but people, in wanting money and credit, are turned off by others getting money and credit)

When it comes to comparing presidencies, though, I would hope that Bill Clinton would realize it's too early to call. Bill Clinton's years were overall prosperous and enriching, but also, in my opinion, not incredibly dynamic. Welfare Reform, Serbo-Croatian Intervention, NAFTA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Israeli-Palestinian Talks. And, of course, a raft of controversy distracting the government from helping Americans fulfill American Dreams. But no 9/11 to fight, no credit crisis to unfold.

Barack Obama, though, is playing for high stakes: win big, lose big.

I leave the article feeling a bit bad for Bill Clinton, that he can't sink properly into the background when necessary. If he had just not been president, I indeed think that would be possible in this not yet post feminist era. (who the hell is Mr. Pelosi?)

And, as others have noted, Maureen Dowd has revived his the President-elect's pre-college name of Barry to be his four-year moniker. Her freewheeling monikers remind me of the guy in the office who hasn't left the frat behind. Oh wait, does he look like

Stephen Colbert (AKA HERO), Scoops 2005

In one of his joke segments where he miraculously gets someone to sit with him (not a hapless Representative, oh those were the days!), he breaks this out:



Click here to read the article. It's about the "Are Men Necessary?" book and frankly we're not there yet, but we'll get there.

New addition: Charlie Rose Interviews on Maureen Dowd Blog

Please to direct your eyes to the lower right corner of the screen! There will be Charlie Rose interviews just a click away, in addition to other Maureen Dowd related internet content. Up for review soon is the Charlie Rose interview in 2005 to discuss Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?"

Bill Clinton era over, says Dowd

Bill Clinton hasn't been president for years, yet this is the fear that Maureen Dowd believes is a talking point this Sunday. She solely focuses Her Sunday column is on media fueled rumors about Hillary Clinton as a possible Secretary of State. If this were true, it would be a backstep for Obama, according to Maureen Dowd. Maureen Dowd read into Obama's rhetoric about bringing Change, that he would not work with Hillary Clinton (because she is the wife of the ex-president of eight years).

Other points of irrelevance: campaign strife, Bill Clinton's possible meddling, bureaucratic paperwork that Executive Branch employees have to fill out, and whether or not Hillary would enjoy diplomatic tasks.

What is remarkable about the column, though, is that it says very little. To reduce it to a sentence: Obama would contradict some of his promises by taking on Hillary, but Hillary, even though she had campaign team problems, would still be able to do a good job.

But Barack Obama made no promises of the kind, Hillary's campaign team only looks problematic when lined up against Obama's (universally regarded as the best campaign in history), and after those falsities and mis-characterizations, we're left with Maureen Dowd's endorsement. I shouldn't have to write this, but Maureen Dowd weighing in on campaigns and appointments only brings up bad memories. Al Gore. Impeachment trial. Pulitzer.

Maureen Dowd's column is not looking like itself these days. Where are the below-the-belt punches? Where are the paragraphs that beg for even a hint of research?

Perhaps Maureen Dowd is not sure how to attack the forthcoming presidency. If she's going to continue to attack the biggest guy in the room, then she's got to have a good strategy. It's humbling to know that this supposed Washington insider has to act like a Normal Person: she can't pass judgement on Obama because he's given people little to criticize or praise. He's not president yet, as he's reminded people.

Yet, there still is a sitting president and some very real (not to mention confusing) problems going on in America and the World. A fair few opedders used their spaces to expound on these varied issues: Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert.

Nicholas Kristof wrote an airy piece about kids who network for social causes. It was inspiring, though, to learn that some kids can touch a nerve profoundly before they're in Middle School. I hope Nicholas Kristof takes some of these children on his worldwide trips so that these future mini Kristof's familiarize themselves with cultures who have different takes on the world, on human worth, and even on the act of charity itself.

Dick Cavett, Speech Grammarian

If it weren't for the Simpsons, I would have no idea who Dick Cavett is, and I believe that other people in my generation feel the same way. In one of the most joke-laden episodes ever created, "Homie the Clown," Dick Cavett plays an irksome hanger-on to Homer, who he believes is Krusty the Clown.

It was a noble performance, and without having any exposure to his talk show, I assumed it indicated his wit and sagacity. Oh, but his new column has removed all doubt.

Dick, numero uno of most-emailed articles this Sunday morning: The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla. Note that this was not published paper, this is an NYT Blog.

The essence of his article, riffing from Maureen Dowd's Sarah's Pompom Palaver Article, is that Sarah Palin has poor grammar in speech.

Both Maureen Dowd and Dick Cavett have struck a low blow with this theme. Quite simply, there is a difference between speech grammar and written grammar. To quote someone's speech verbatim, unless they're giving a speech (which is written in advance and, in presidential races, written by a team of people), is going to yield grammatical errors unacceptable in writing. Sentences run on in speech because the speaker is finishing a thought rather than designating a pause for a period. In fact, I am reassured that Sarah Palin does not speak like a textbook because it indicates that her answers are not rehearsed. Rehearsal of answers and always saying the right thing is an excellent way to prevent honesty from seeping through. What's more, I will give Katie Couric credit for picking questions that avoided canned answers.

Their columns take the high-handed approach of judging someone's manner of expression as a prerequisite for public office (or even public exposure). It is right to judge someone for the adequacy or inadequacy of the answer, but to infer that idiosyncrasies indicate a lack of intelligence is frankly another shot fired in the culture war. There are many people who identify with Sarah Palin, the person. By making fun of her way of speech, will that attract people to the new presidential agenda or galvanize them as the cultural opposition?

As a side note, I am not a grammar crusader but I do have a comment for Dick Cavett's combination of grammar and style: his article had 9 rhetorical questions, two back-to-back parenthetical remarks, and one declarative sentence ended with a question mark. It's a blog and an opinion piece, but it seems that Dick Cavett wants to fight this grammar-culture war in the trenches and not from up high.

“We will survive; if one newspaper is left standing, it will be us,” - Alessandra Stanley, 2008 C.E.

Drew University keeps it tight with the New York Times. First, they were a clue a few months ago in an NYTimes Crossword puzzle, and now they're in the Randolph Record because they had the double treat of hosting bffs Maureen Dowd and Alessandra Stanley. This was on October 29th (seems that the news story needed a while to be written).

It's a short article and a real Dowd treat, it has her quotes live, and Alessandra mumbled something about a luxury fashion label. This is a good clue that someone is content to stand apart from the pack and choose elitism over something more tasteful. Hi five, Ms. Stanley!

Which verbal gems do you find most insightful?

Click here for the article

Click here if you'd like to book Maureen Dowd for a speaking engagement

Why is she opining on Sarah Palin on 11/11?

I'm confused as to why op-eds like this are running. The election is over and no one cares what a VP from a disastrous campaign is doing with her party's finances.

I can only conclude that she has carte blanche to write what she wants. No one can edit her, no one can ask her to write about something more relevant.

I am in pain, reading her articles and her portmanteaus. What others do for pure satire, she does to be taken seriously.

Here is the link to the article. May God cleanse me for reading and linking this trite nonsense. Read at risk to your eyes and mind.

And one more thing: