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.

David Brooks: Amen, that's funny!

From the David Brooks' op-ed today.

"Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists."

People, US, watch what you pay for

The NYT ran a story today (thank you contributor Jess) about Angelina Jolie putting editorial requirements on the exclusive interview after the Twins were born. Essentially, they had to focus on the good Angelina and not, say, the Hollywood Angelina (whatever that is).

While they got a big payout, I can't help but think that People could get smeared a bit. The magazines are 'fun reading,' that is, Bill Gates and Sec. Gen. of the UN Ban Ki Moon don't grab it while waiting for a flight. (I do, if someone left it on a bench). But, it's not as much fun if they're going to double stuff their fluff with personality-saving stories. I want to hear about crazy stuff and the expensive purses, not charity.

I, Wellsmus, citizen of the world, pointed back to the Bono + Angelina + Jeffrey Sachs "End of Poverty" ideas when they came out in 2004-5. After throwing money (rather carelessly) at problems for decades, their solution was to throw a huge amount of money at the same problems, but this time it would work because the amounts would just be enormous.

Not only can we call Angelina to the floor on something like this, but I can't get up on her shoe collection, or amounts of platinum vs. gold. Maybe she doesn't wear jewelry at all.

Most critically, I need this information to feed friends of mine who filter out the interesting stuff and tell it to me, which has been a rich part of my life.

I need dirt, I want it all over her! C'mon magazines! Gimme what I really want.

Oh, and as far as a dirty actor who hasn't done as well with his image, Mr. Tom Cruise, at least his movies this year have been or will be more interesting.

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

New York Feels New Kind of Pain

What's going on? Rampant quoting of Los Angelinos speaking the harsh truth of New York, at least from the perspective of those who do not know the ins-and-outs of how to shop here:

“We have lots of these stores in L.A.,” Ms. Bandaryan said. “We just wanted something new.”

New York Pobrecita! Tough medicine and at the worst time, no doubt. Does L.A. have tax-free clothing shopping on items under $100 dollars that are not accessories or shoes? I don't think so, please let me know if I'm wrong.

Looking for a bridge to somewhere

Tom Friedman's new column struck a chord with me that's been ringing since post 9/11. When George W. Bush told the consumer to start consuming, I felt that he was pushing against values of thrift and saving. Tom Friedman is right that George W Bush did not come out and remind people to raise their savings rates.

I'm not even sure if George W Bush's pronouncement actually caused people to spend money any more than our highly functioning market-based consumer economy does. But he did make consumerism patriotic, causing a quasi-religous backlash with the Church of Stop Shopping.

The money I spend is the money someone else will spend: that is our economy. Yet, what if the money the government spends is based more on infrastructure? I wish that Tom Friedman had debated this point; it is still fresh in my memory that a high-traffic bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, killing 10 people. Employed construction workers equal paychecks spent on consumer goods, much like a stimulus check (albiet reduced b/c of capital expenditures by construction companies. B/c our economy is largely consumer based, capital expenditures like heavy equipment and buildings do not strike at the 'core' of our economy like encouraging consumer spending).

What if the money that people spend, even, is based on something a bit more proactive than buying consumer products? One idea is to have tax credits (or rebates or pretax deductions) to join gyms, get nutrition programs, and see personal trainers. This is anti-free market, I realize, but theoretically it could chip away at the single greatest expense our federal government faces: Medicare.

Tom Friedman's idea seems to be the quick fix, but I think that as long as we're going to try another stimulus, we should try something new, because the last one's worth was diminished by people paying down debt.

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: