Ink and Paper

Today I have a favor to ask you.  If you don't do it already (and perhaps, like me, you have your coffee-buttered roll-and-a-paper ritual down pat), will you buy a newspaper? A real newsprint version, that feels crumbly in your hands and gets your fingers all inky? I don't care if it's a rag or the paper of record, if it has a liberal or conservative bias.  Just buy a newspaper.

This post is in response to a post on another one of my group blogs, where there was an incipient discussion, although it got somewhat nipped in the bud because of mutual politeness, of a particular news station on American television.  Some folks don't like this particular news station; being the radical that I am, I maintain that all the 24-hour news stations are equally dreadful.  I do not use these words, equally dreadful, lightly.  These stations, whether liberally or conservatively oriented, do not really report the news that matters.  Or they'll latch onto a story for a few nights, and then, whether or not it's still relevant reporting, will drop it for something a little sexier and sparklier.  I won't go into specifics, but suffice it to say, there's a lot of stuff going on in the world and we should be kept apprised.

As a result, I have long boycotted the t.v. news.  I mean, and this is the truth, I simply do not watch the news on television.  Ever, ever.  Not anymore.  This is not a difficult achievement, as I don't really watch much t.v. at all.  However, poor Sarge still tunes in occasionally, and I will stumble upon him tearing his hair out, metaphorically.

Rather, I buy three of our local NYC papers every day.  The paper of record (The NY Times), the liberal rag (the Daily News), and the conservative rag (The NY Post).   The NYTimes has let me down more than once because of its decidedly liberal bent, which makes me, a serious professional iconoclast, arguer, free-thinker and non-line-tower, a bit uncomfortable.  But I'll give them a free pass because they also have a commitment to covering actual issues of import, and there are some kickass staff writers.

I worry about the fate of the ink-and-paper news.  I have no evidence for this, only anecdotal knowledge of the path we seem to be taking toward digital media.  My favorite NYC paper shut its doors only this past year, and the Times has increased prices to an insane degree.  So I have taken this up as my cause--I promise to more mindfully, rather than just testily, boycott the television news, to continue making my daily purchase of the papers...and even to read them!

Rev. Joseph Lowery: Magically Old School

I just came off the inauguration, and I loved it. Barack Obama is hawkish like he needs to be, enigmatic and stern despite the fact that everyone on earth thinks mistakenly that he's their boyfriend/friend. I loved the performances (hello, clarinet? Who knew you were an instrument of angels), the poetry, Aretha's beautiful hat, the fittingly dark and somber ghost-written presidential address, all the God references (hey, I'm religious--I'm not so sure the atheists out there were as comfortable with it as I was).

But the stand-out as far as I'm concerned was the Rev Joseph Lowery. He packed a wallop with his growly octogenarian voice and religious fervor. He also delivered the finest words of the day:


"I'm equally certain that we will continue to pray for justice to roll down as waters, and for that day when there will be peace in the valley, and for that day when every man and every woman will sit under his or her own vine and fig tree and none will be afraid, and for that day when black will not be asked to get back, brown can stick around, yellow will be mellow, the red man can get ahead, man, and white will embrace what is right! Amen!"

In that moment, like it or not, formality went out of style, people had the sticks forcibly pulled from their butts, and even our frowny president just had to grin. Thank you Rev Lowery for cracking wise with such dignity.

My cynicism is intact, though, rest assured. I still wish that darned Obama had used his own words (see post below). Sigh. Maybe someday.

UPDATED: I'm already seeing the critiques of Lowery's rhyme round and about the interwebs--seems the stick is still wedged up there, at least in some cases. Why does everything have to be so careful? so precious? I guess this is exactly why Obama needs a speechwriter who reworks every utterance to death before it can be trotted out in public.

And on another note, Hedgie watched the inauguration at school, with great interest. I blew her mind out when I told her that Obama's speech wasn't his own. She said she was shocked--she thought that not only were those his words, but that he was speaking right off the cuff. I guess it's a testament to his terrific speaking ability. God I felt like I was telling her the tooth fairy didn't exist. She also told me that it was "hard to have a mama who doesn't always agree with everyone else about politics." (everyone else being the far left leaning liberals in our incredibly rarified neck of the woods). I told her "I'm a free thinker, Hedgehog, and it's good for you to grow up in a free-thinking household. You need to learn how to think for yourself and not always go along blindly with the herd." She said, "you're right, mama, but it's hard." I said "You bet it's hard, but it's the most important thing you'll ever have to learn."

This came on the heels of a conversation we had this morning when she said "all war is bad." I said, "what about when we had to fight the Nazis in WWII so that we could stop them from killing all the Jews?" She said, "Okay, maybe not that war, but all other wars. Like Iraq." I said, "why is Iraq a bad war?" She said, "I admit, I don't know that much about it." I reminded her that she could certainly have opinions, but that those opinions needed to be informed. I know that the parents of her friends, well by and large, offer their strong opinions to their children, but never really explain their reasoning. It's like they think the kids are old enough to take on their politics, but too young to really be offered facts and explanations. Drives me insane in the membrane.

Jon Favreau: Pete Townshend to Barack Obama's Roger Daltrey

Abraham Lincoln's 1861 Inaugural Address

Or as Sarge said, more like "Jon Favreau: Cole Porter to Barack Obama's Mel Torme."

To be a bit less opaque, why can't these presidents write their own speeches, like Churchill, or me for my Bat Mitzvah? What ever happened to good old-fashioned homiletics? I would love to hear an inaugural address written by the man himself. Why cannot he speak for himself? He's obviously capable, and I for one would rather hear something he labored over in his spare moments than a speech from the mind of a souped-up adolescent wordsmith-for-hire. Did Lincoln have a speech-writer? (okay, I Googled it just to be sure, and no he did not)

Come on Obama, I want to hear you in your own words! You're not someone's puppet! Let's call for genuine speeches people!!!!

*learns second lesson of blogging the hard way: 2. never make pronouncements like "I'm taking a blogging break to be more studious" or you're gonna embarrass yourself dude. (#1 is never blog angry/drunk/non compos mentis or otherwise compromised of sense and reason)*

In the Reign of Louis Seize: A Political Rant, and Not the One You Think It's Gonna Be!

This morning's NYTIMES has a most disturbing right-column headline, one which troubles me greatly. Check the link. And the fascinating analysis. Let me just sum things up in case no one wants to bother with links to wordy Times articles.

The upshot is that not only do I NOT think it's exciting that Obama raised a record 150 million in campaign funds this weekend, but I think it's disgusting and disgraceful. Of course he's not the only guilty party; this is the way the system works now. But for shame! Am I the only one sickened by this gross excess? The world economy is crumbling, milk for my daughter is closing in on five dollars a gallon, regular people are having a damn hard time affording health insurance, and a reasonable roof over their heads, let alone luxuries, and politicians are boasting about the hundreds of millions of dollars they're raising for WHAT? Pellegrino and Viagra on the tour buses? McDonalds-style campaign ads and the clever self-congratulatory 22-year-olds who create them? Or is it going to solid gold diamond-encrusted campaign buttons programmed with a computer that holds conversation with you about the weather report for this week?!

The Republicans are a notorious bunch of fat cat big-business money launderers. God love 'em. But the Democrats are exactly the same just covertly. Well, 150 million--oh, whoops, 600 million--tells me it's no longer a covert op here. What can the defense possibly be? Trickle-down economics? Well, Democrats don't believe in the Trickle-Down theory.

When the next president, whoever he may be, takes office, I foresee a huge competition amongst contractors who specialize in mother-of-pearl toilets, raw silk wall-paper, solid platinum plumbing fixtures, and ruby-and-emerald-set kitchen tile. The new and improved Versailles--I mean, White House--will be the most lucrative contract ever. And don't forget, our tax dollars from our sweaty day jobs may well go to finance all 12,000 bottles of Clos du Mesnil vintage 1995 champagne, and a herd of wild boar to dig up truffles for Mr. President's dinner parties! I'm sickened, I tell you, sickened.

Bring on the candidate who runs a home-made 20,000 dollar campaign, and I'll vote for her. Of course, many won't. As one of my wisest gurus pointed out, much of the American public needs to be spoon-fed a gilded campaign, or they may not even notice there's an election going on.

I'm so furious that I can hardly choke down my frozen waffles over here in Brooklyn.