Month: October 2010

Paul Reyes reflects on the foreclosure crisis:

Documenting a foreclosure requires invasion of privacy—an embarrassment shared by the sheriff’s deputy, a trash-out crew, a journalist or photographer. Having spent the last couple of years writing about this crisis myself, I can say that the embarrassment never fades. The sentiment in letters and photographs long abandoned never evaporates completely, no matter how moldered. This sense of invasion, oddly paired with an uncomfortable intimacy, is part of the voyeuristic tension of documenting the homes that people leave behind—sometimes in a rush that scatters toys and trophies and love letters, sometimes with the kind of order and neatness that speaks to a stubborn pride.

But in viewing foreclosure interiors, a curious thing happens: the voyeuristic awkwardness passes, and one begins to piece together the missing characters. We already know the circumstances, generally; but why was a wallet-sized snapshot of children left behind? What left the holes in the wall? Through these questions that flit behind the scanning eye, the portraits become a kind of forensic study.

Janet Malcolm once wrote, "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse." There's some truth in that description, which doesn't make the journalist's job any less necessary, especially in times of national upheaval. 

Gregg Easterbrook doesn't feel so sorry for seniors:

As a group, seniors are the least hardest hit [by the recession]. Most are retired, so unemployment, the biggest economic problem associated with the recession, does not impact them. Many consumer prices have fallen, which increases seniors’ buying power.

Two kinds of prices are rising — college education and health care. The former has no impact on seniors, while the latter has limited impact because seniors don’t pay most of their health care costs. Young workers pay those costs via Medicare taxes.

Of course there are individual seniors in need — but for senior-citizen lobbies to depict seniors overall as hard-hit by the recession is political selfishness in the extreme.

A reader writes:

According to Scott Thompson of The Kids in the Hall, the proper term for a straight guy who likes hanging out with gay guys is a "fruit fly." Hope this helps.

Readers have also applied the term to girls who like guys who really like guys. Another writes:

If you or your readers come up with a good name for hetero guys who generally prefer the company of gay men to that of straight guys, you can put my photo next to the dictionary entry. All through college and grad school, it was generally assumed that I was not only gay, but sleeping with my openly gay professor/friends – when in actuality, they were lending me their apartments (and sometimes offices) for clandestine sexytime with women I was seeing.

But what's kinda tragic about this situation is that one of the things I love most about my gay friends – their greater capacity for intimacy – seems to eventually trigger a crisis.

They're more open, less emotionally armored. Which makes them funnier and just all-around more interesting people. But it also makes them more emotionally haphazard in a way. My point is that I've been hurt badly when my gay friends fell in love with me in a way they knew I couldn't reciprocate, despite knowing very, very well that I'm irredeemably hetero. Enough of these wonderful friendships have run aground on those same rocks that it makes me wonder if there's a name for gay men who are primarily attracted to straight men.

Another:

You know, I hadn’t really thought about it much, but I find that I too am like your other fans who enjoy the fellowship of gay fellows.  I don’t give a crap about most spectator sports, I don’t watch TV, I have no interest in cars, and I don’t play computer/console games )except little casual apps on my phone that won’t support a conversation anyway).  I don’t hunt or fish or shoot weapons (though I was in the military, I avoid talking about it because the conversation almost always pains me). I could go on. 

The real cause of the greater enjoyability of conversations with gay guys (or women of all stripes, who comprise the balance of my friendships) is that they are not so straightjacketed by preconceptions about how guys have to be.

Not too long ago I encountered a feminist talking about how “men’s” media is much more misandrist than feminist media could be, and I kind of dismissed it as hyperbole, but I wonder if she wasn’t spot on.  If one is to live up to the version of masculinity expected of straight men in many corners , one must be an antisocial, sloppy, uneducated conspicuous consumer whose main goals are to win dominance fights and have sex.  How boring and pathetic are those who fulfill this extremely dubious role.  There may be many silly stereotypes of gay men, but at least gay men don’t seem to feel like they have to live down to them.

Okay, the “having sex” goal might still be there, but at least gay men don’t expect me to enter into their rankings and speculations on the carnal properties of anybody that crosses their minds.

Brian Moylan's guide for straight friends of gays addresses that last concern:

If we ask you if a guy is hot, you have to respond. Don't give us that socially conditioned, "Oh, I don't look at guys like that," bullshit. We're not asking you to hold his dick, just give us a gauge of how handsome he is. We know whether or not a girl is smokin', and you won't think twice about asking us, so we expect the same in return.

Los Angeles, California, 1 pm

“In a recent interview I was asked about the recent tragedies about gay youth who have committed suicide, and I misspoke when I referred to someone’s sexual identity as a “lifestyle choice.”   I meant no disrespect to the LGBT community, and I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words. 

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans.   Most of all, I hope this does not distract from the issue I was asked about – the desperate, tragic decision by some young people who feel that their only recourse is to take their own lives because they are being bullied or harassed because they are gay, or because others believe they are gay.  We must instill in young people respect for one another, and we must set an example of mutual regard and civility to create an environment that is safe for every person, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity,” – Valerie Jarrett.

More here. As I said in complaining, she obviously meant and means well. And many will be as grateful for this classy statement as I am.

Here's a spot on description of Christine O'Donnell:

Among the many things wrong with talking-head gab shows, which have proliferated/ metastasized in the past generation — they're cheap to produce, they fill air time, they make journalists into celebrities, they suit the increasing political niche-ization of cable networks – is that they reward an affect of breezy confidence on all topics and penalize admissions of complexity, of ignorance on a specific topic, or of the need for time to think.

O'Donnell comes across as a perfect, unflappable product of the talk-show culture.

That's James Fallows, whose 1996 essay "Why Americans Hate The Media" remains worth reading as an account of how the dysfunctional relationship between television, politics and journalism came to be.

Jonah is doing his best to explain what "conservatives" actually mean when they attack the Ivy League:

The problem is that when conservatives zing the Ivy League or the educational elite, they are no more offering an omnibus indictment of educational excellence than liberals are denouncing all Texans when they take potshots at George W. Bush’s Texan roots. Similarly, when Yalie George H. W. Bush stuck it to Michael Dukakis for his views borrowed from “Harvard Yard,” he was not offering a plenary indictment of academic excellence generally. Rather, he was speaking idiomatically about certain types of people who tend to hail from the Ivy Leagues. I find it simply bizarre that Applebaum cannot or will not grant the possibility that certain words and phrases in political discourse have a valence different than their black-letter meaning.

David Frum summarizes:

As Jonah explains, when conservatives attack 'elites,' they do not mean to indict all members of such elites. They only mean to indict such members as disagree with them. Populist resentment in the service of an unstated ideology: What could be more straightforward or honest than that?

Inspired by the Chilean miner rescue, Massie digs up a Peter Cook classic:

Amy Davidson is more somber:

What came through the tube kept [the miners] fed, but what sustained them, and humbled everyone else, was the way they worked together, sang together, kept faith together. There were worries that it could turn into “The Lord of the Flies” down there; instead, it was more like a shining city deep beneath a hill. (Gomez, who set up a makeshift chapel, was the latter-day John Winthrop—whose own most famous sermon was given on a ship.) When the news came that the miners were arguing about who would wait to go up last, it was hard not to come undone.

Alex Gibney recounts the truly baroque story of how the former New York governor, Eliot Spitzer, was targeted for the sex smear of the decade. Take Roger Stone, add some black socks, MSM laziness and, of course Spitzer's own hubris … and the Borgias seem rather tame.