One more day out in the canyons, one more night in Hollywood
Now that my mother has gone, the record-setting rainstorms and intermittent smog have dispersed, leaving us with views of the snow-covered mountains and cloudy skies: winter in L.A. Even the local beautiful people have dressed for winter, adding knee-length scarves and Ugg boots to the tank-top-and-miniskirt ensemble. (L.A. is not a city that subscribes to the "It's more intriguing to conceal than reveal" philosophy of allure; this place shares the Las Vegas philosophy that subtlety and restraint are for suckers. Hence the compulsive display of flesh.)
In short, winter in Los Angeles is completely alien. San Franciscans wander around in leather jackets and a lot of Prada (or Prada-esque) clothing and pretend that the city really is Paris on the Pacific. Washingtonians vacillate between panicking over the snow and just dealing with it (it depends on whether or not you can drive in the snow, and whether or not your commute requires a few blocks of slogging through DC's always-cleared-last streets), and developing a bone-deep dislike of your winter coat some time around February. Upstate New Yorkers -- or at least the ones I observed while living up there -- are basically hale and hearty walking L.L. Bean ads. (I used to see people skiing to work on especially blustery days.)
Here? Miniskirts and Ugg boots. The only thing this winter has in common with any of the other ones I've lived through is that once again, I am using mango body butter and coconut body butter like they're going out of style, because everything dried out at once.
Megachurch! It's a fun word to say like a panicky Japanese anime character: "ME-GA-CHURCH!" It's also a growing phenomenon. Those of you who did surf through Christianity Today after yesterday's link know what I'm talking about; the rest of you can read the CSM's 12/30 article, "The Rise of the Megachuch." Scary "you can leave the Church, but the Church never leaves you" moment: when I read, "Gone are traditional religious dogma, rituals, and symbols, replaced by uplifting songs and sermons," and immediately recoiled. Part of the reason I still identify as culturally Catholic is because: a) I feel the dogma, ritual and symbols provide a historic and intellectual context to the faith, thus buffering it against johnny-come-lately charlatans (Also, I'm snobby enough to prefer the antique charlatans that occupied the Papal seat through the dark and middle ages); b) I like feeling tied to my ancestors through something that's thousands of years old; c) Rituals and symbols are both handy meditational aids and cues to shift from a hyped-up state into a more meditative one, and that reflectiveness is spiritually beneficial, and d) Simply believing in a higher power that actually cares about us, and therefore lends our existence a greater and more timeless meaning than it would have otherwise is a pretty damn uplifting concept unto itself; I don't need a primer in positive thinking just in case the central message of Christianity hadn't sunk in. I've been to revivals and come out near a nervous breakdown; I can't imagine religion as a Yay-God-Yay-Us! pep rally, which is what the whole megachurch experience sounds like. But it apparently works for many other people.
Speaking of religion as a team sport: David Brooks continues his clumsy exegesis on the moral life of yuppies, this time talking about how denominationally flexible we are compared to other nations. Key idea (which ties into the megachurch point above): "Many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously. As the historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote, 'During the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, religion prospered while theology slowly went bankrupt.' This tendency to emphasize personal growth over any fixed creed has shaped our cultural and political life." For a better look at the point Brooks at stabbing at before getting to his column's punchline, I recommend reading the Economist's Dec. 18 story on spirituality in India, titled "The Swamis." The quote which Brooks could have actually used in his column: "So in India, in contrast to a western country of Sunday churchgoers, the religious life 'is not divorced from public life.' In the West, religion has become an 'antiseptic distilled water.' In India, it is like the holy river Ganges: 'It looks muddy, but it is there.'"
Reading Rainbow: Jason Kottke is going to read 52 different magazines in 2004. What a wonderful resolution! It's so totally one I could keep, given my current reading list. I subscribe to or read weekly/monthly/when it comes out: Reason, U.S. News and World Report, Utne Reader, Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, Allure, Lucky, Vogue, Budget Living, Real Simple, Mental_Floss, ReadyMade, Bust, Wired, Scientific American, ESPN. The one I'm dropping in 2004: Cooking Light. The ones I'm hoping to pick up or return to: Bitch (I need to get over them rejecting my pitches), MIT Technology Review, Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, New Yorker, Business 2.0, Columbia Journalism Review, Cook's Illustrated, Skeptical Enquirer, Discover. The ones I'm mulling: Yoga Journal, Asimov's, Fantasy and Science Fiction, The Baffler, Relevant, Bas Bleu.
Peter Carlson writes in the 12/30 Magazine Reader column in the WaPo that 2003 was a really weird year in magazines. Here's hoping 2004 is as delightfully strange.
Reviewing this list makes me also want to resolve to read more books; I did too much escapist reading this year, with very little structure or discipline. Maybe a workable goal in '04 is to read a new nonfiction book each week? I do have a stack on the headboard.
And then Howard Dean makes nice: So a small part of me was hoping for a huge, sturm-und-drang soul-searching crisis of conscience in the Donkey Party following Howard Dean's broadside toward Terry "Why do I still have my job?" McAuliffe. But no -- they kissed and made up, if the 12/30 NYT story "After Complaint, Dean Explains Himself to Party Chairman" is anything to go by. The other candidates, however, are in a grudge-holding mood. Cryptorepublican Joe Lieberman charges that Dean will "melt" in the face of Republican attacks (WaPo, 12/30).
The War on Fat hits Wall Street: 2003 is the year fat became a menace; the phrase "obesity epidemic" is now fairly established in health, lifestyle and business journalism -- and the Op-Ed page. The WSJ's 12/30 commentary, "Mad Cows and Other Animals" lays out a great argument for looking carefully at the science that backs up or refutes claims of epidemics and infections, but hauls out the whole "fat people are the real problem" canard at the end of the piece.
My guess: fat is the new gay -- i.e. a "lifestyle" that is presumed to be voluntary and therefore subject to condemnation by self-appointed moral watchdogs who ascribe certain values (or lack thereof) to the fat. There are differences -- one can become fat or thin far more easily than one can become gay or straight, which suggests a certain biological hard-wiring in the sexuality department that's not necessarily there in the food one -- but we seem to have found a new group to typify what's wrong with this country. I predict a wave of mainstream editorial backlash from those with avoirdupois.
Whither Bush? Two WaPo Op-Ed columnists go head-to-head over the strong feelings our current commander-in-chief inspires. Robert J. Samuelson's "Fearful loathing ..." puts forth the intriguing hypothesis* that:
(Bush's) fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority -- something that makes them feel better about themselves.
while E.J. Dionne argues in " ... Or a Rational Response?"
Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.
The real pity is that Dionne argues neither wisely nor well -- statements like "Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological" only make the Democrats look like suckers -- precisely the opposite point you want to take away when the argument is "This president is a hypocrite who says one thing and does another." When The Daily Show's "Bush v. Bush" debate is the most incisive demonstration of Presidential hypocrisy, someone's not doing their job, liberal media columnists.
* And one that I've seen in online discussions again and again. There are plenty of reasons to loathe the current administration; "because they make me feel unpopular" is one of the more worthless ones I've seen. Try the cronyism, the systematic disassembling of envirnomental, reproductive and labor policies, the Patriot Act ... the list goes on. Get bent out of shape because your values are besieged, not your popularity.
One step forward, one step back: The WaPo runs a census story showing "Minorities, Women Gain Professionally." It's a refreshingly level-headed look at where diversity trickled into the workplace and how. By contrast, the May 26, 2003 BusinessWeek cover story "The New Gender Gap" -- which is now running in the current Reader's Digest -- gets all worked up because girls actually perform as well, or better than boys in school, and within mere paragraphs talking about how there are now more women in college then men, warns "Corporations should worry, too. During the boom, the most acute labor shortages occurred among educated workers -- a problem companies often solved by hiring immigrants. When the economy reenergizes, a skills shortage in the U.S. could undermine employers' productivity and growth." What -- because all those educated women aren't going to be working? (And don't cite the dropout rate once women become families; according to a 12/30 WSJ article, "Luring Moms Back to Work," employers have finally realized that they'll lose good people if they persist in thinking of workers as automatons without lives.)That's the least of the logical problems in this poorly-reasoned piece. Anyway -- just in case you were feeling good about those professional gains, remember there are people out there who are a little worked up that women have the nerve to excel once they've got the opportunity. (Do a Google Search and see for yourself, or read the letters in response to the article.)
The human face of the war: The Army Times took the rare step of putting faces to those killed -- kind of nervy given that the DOD has banned media coverage at Edwards or any other AFB because they don't want the images of our citizens coming home in coffins to hit the news, and they've taken to complaining to reporters' bosses over coverage that fails to accept PR spin as objective truth. See who has been killed over there; these are our fellow citizens, and they should be remembered. Jimmy Breslin writes on the decision to do so with Newsday's 12/30 "Their Photos Tell the Story."
If you're that upset, you should just start a weblog: I was reading the ombudsman's column at NPR, and am torn between reassurance that someone is paying attention to grammatical vagaries in daily speech and is therefore big on standards (viz. yesterday's entry) and irritation that these people apparently have nothing better to do than ask why people don't say "You are welcome" when someone tells them "Thank you."
Today's NYT lifestyle snapshot: This was actually published on 12/25, a nice little thumb in the eye of the conceit that we're all about the family togetherness at Christmas: "Divorce Decor: Three's A Crowd." Not having ever been divorced, nor having parents who were, these kinds of conflicts that can really shape other people's daily lives are something I can only read about and imagine.
The rich have less taste than you and I: One of the reasons I can't stomach InStyle is its false premise that someone's personal style was the Factor X that led to their fame, especially in an age where starlets are more craftily packaged than an iPod, and any individuality or taste usually gets called out as bad. Another reason: because the rich-n-famous InStyle features usually have such pedestrian and boring taste; if their style were food, it would be a supersized fries serving from McDonald's. (I always figured that actual taste or style meant knowing what you liked and being willing to pass on what you didn't, as opposed to cramming your life with crap other people think looks good.) If the 12/29 NYT review "'Life of Luxury': Caviar Dreams and Bling-Bling Wishes" is any indication, there are a lot of wealthy people subscribing to the french fry myth of personal style.
Let's not blame Canada: Tara Parker-Pope argues in the WSJ's 12/30 "U.S. Mad-Cow Inspections Lack Teeth":
If the industry and government can simply blame Canada for the problem, it will be far easier to resist making the changes needed to bring U.S. testing and safety standards up to the rules adopted by other countries. And it will be that much longer before consumers can truly feel confident in the safety of the U.S. beef supply when it comes to preventing bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE.
and then goes on to give anyone who hasn't read Fast Food Nation or The Jungle the permanent heebie-jeebies about eating mass-produced meat in this country. Stories like this are why I insist that we cut back on meat and patronize a butcher who offers cuts from certified grass-fed animals. Just say no to big beef business!
Who will speak for little Taylor? It must be good to be Margaret Talbot and make your living by writing about how well-meaning yuppies are traumatizing their children through overscheduling and self-esteem crises. Her latest broadside against our presumed Kinderfeindlichkeit is in the Dec. 2003 Atlantic Monthly, "A Stepford for Our Times," It's fairly light as far as her work goes, with only one paragraph talking about how we abuse our kids, and actually spends an equal amount of time contending that 1970s housewives had it easy compared to those of us who came of domestic age in the post-Martha era and the movie completely misrepresents what repressive housewifery is like. I should point out here that Ira Levin went on the record in Ms. Talbot's other regular employer, the New York Times Magazine, as saying the movie completely blew the point of his novel, so perhaps basing one's arguments on what Stepford really means for the kiddies on said misinterpretation of the source material isn't the most solid move.
In short, winter in Los Angeles is completely alien. San Franciscans wander around in leather jackets and a lot of Prada (or Prada-esque) clothing and pretend that the city really is Paris on the Pacific. Washingtonians vacillate between panicking over the snow and just dealing with it (it depends on whether or not you can drive in the snow, and whether or not your commute requires a few blocks of slogging through DC's always-cleared-last streets), and developing a bone-deep dislike of your winter coat some time around February. Upstate New Yorkers -- or at least the ones I observed while living up there -- are basically hale and hearty walking L.L. Bean ads. (I used to see people skiing to work on especially blustery days.)
Here? Miniskirts and Ugg boots. The only thing this winter has in common with any of the other ones I've lived through is that once again, I am using mango body butter and coconut body butter like they're going out of style, because everything dried out at once.
Megachurch! It's a fun word to say like a panicky Japanese anime character: "ME-GA-CHURCH!" It's also a growing phenomenon. Those of you who did surf through Christianity Today after yesterday's link know what I'm talking about; the rest of you can read the CSM's 12/30 article, "The Rise of the Megachuch." Scary "you can leave the Church, but the Church never leaves you" moment: when I read, "Gone are traditional religious dogma, rituals, and symbols, replaced by uplifting songs and sermons," and immediately recoiled. Part of the reason I still identify as culturally Catholic is because: a) I feel the dogma, ritual and symbols provide a historic and intellectual context to the faith, thus buffering it against johnny-come-lately charlatans (Also, I'm snobby enough to prefer the antique charlatans that occupied the Papal seat through the dark and middle ages); b) I like feeling tied to my ancestors through something that's thousands of years old; c) Rituals and symbols are both handy meditational aids and cues to shift from a hyped-up state into a more meditative one, and that reflectiveness is spiritually beneficial, and d) Simply believing in a higher power that actually cares about us, and therefore lends our existence a greater and more timeless meaning than it would have otherwise is a pretty damn uplifting concept unto itself; I don't need a primer in positive thinking just in case the central message of Christianity hadn't sunk in. I've been to revivals and come out near a nervous breakdown; I can't imagine religion as a Yay-God-Yay-Us! pep rally, which is what the whole megachurch experience sounds like. But it apparently works for many other people.
Speaking of religion as a team sport: David Brooks continues his clumsy exegesis on the moral life of yuppies, this time talking about how denominationally flexible we are compared to other nations. Key idea (which ties into the megachurch point above): "Many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously. As the historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote, 'During the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, religion prospered while theology slowly went bankrupt.' This tendency to emphasize personal growth over any fixed creed has shaped our cultural and political life." For a better look at the point Brooks at stabbing at before getting to his column's punchline, I recommend reading the Economist's Dec. 18 story on spirituality in India, titled "The Swamis." The quote which Brooks could have actually used in his column: "So in India, in contrast to a western country of Sunday churchgoers, the religious life 'is not divorced from public life.' In the West, religion has become an 'antiseptic distilled water.' In India, it is like the holy river Ganges: 'It looks muddy, but it is there.'"
Reading Rainbow: Jason Kottke is going to read 52 different magazines in 2004. What a wonderful resolution! It's so totally one I could keep, given my current reading list. I subscribe to or read weekly/monthly/when it comes out: Reason, U.S. News and World Report, Utne Reader, Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, Allure, Lucky, Vogue, Budget Living, Real Simple, Mental_Floss, ReadyMade, Bust, Wired, Scientific American, ESPN. The one I'm dropping in 2004: Cooking Light. The ones I'm hoping to pick up or return to: Bitch (I need to get over them rejecting my pitches), MIT Technology Review, Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, New Yorker, Business 2.0, Columbia Journalism Review, Cook's Illustrated, Skeptical Enquirer, Discover. The ones I'm mulling: Yoga Journal, Asimov's, Fantasy and Science Fiction, The Baffler, Relevant, Bas Bleu.
Peter Carlson writes in the 12/30 Magazine Reader column in the WaPo that 2003 was a really weird year in magazines. Here's hoping 2004 is as delightfully strange.
Reviewing this list makes me also want to resolve to read more books; I did too much escapist reading this year, with very little structure or discipline. Maybe a workable goal in '04 is to read a new nonfiction book each week? I do have a stack on the headboard.
And then Howard Dean makes nice: So a small part of me was hoping for a huge, sturm-und-drang soul-searching crisis of conscience in the Donkey Party following Howard Dean's broadside toward Terry "Why do I still have my job?" McAuliffe. But no -- they kissed and made up, if the 12/30 NYT story "After Complaint, Dean Explains Himself to Party Chairman" is anything to go by. The other candidates, however, are in a grudge-holding mood. Cryptorepublican Joe Lieberman charges that Dean will "melt" in the face of Republican attacks (WaPo, 12/30).
The War on Fat hits Wall Street: 2003 is the year fat became a menace; the phrase "obesity epidemic" is now fairly established in health, lifestyle and business journalism -- and the Op-Ed page. The WSJ's 12/30 commentary, "Mad Cows and Other Animals" lays out a great argument for looking carefully at the science that backs up or refutes claims of epidemics and infections, but hauls out the whole "fat people are the real problem" canard at the end of the piece.
My guess: fat is the new gay -- i.e. a "lifestyle" that is presumed to be voluntary and therefore subject to condemnation by self-appointed moral watchdogs who ascribe certain values (or lack thereof) to the fat. There are differences -- one can become fat or thin far more easily than one can become gay or straight, which suggests a certain biological hard-wiring in the sexuality department that's not necessarily there in the food one -- but we seem to have found a new group to typify what's wrong with this country. I predict a wave of mainstream editorial backlash from those with avoirdupois.
Whither Bush? Two WaPo Op-Ed columnists go head-to-head over the strong feelings our current commander-in-chief inspires. Robert J. Samuelson's "Fearful loathing ..." puts forth the intriguing hypothesis* that:
(Bush's) fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority -- something that makes them feel better about themselves.
while E.J. Dionne argues in " ... Or a Rational Response?"
Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.
The real pity is that Dionne argues neither wisely nor well -- statements like "Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological" only make the Democrats look like suckers -- precisely the opposite point you want to take away when the argument is "This president is a hypocrite who says one thing and does another." When The Daily Show's "Bush v. Bush" debate is the most incisive demonstration of Presidential hypocrisy, someone's not doing their job, liberal media columnists.
* And one that I've seen in online discussions again and again. There are plenty of reasons to loathe the current administration; "because they make me feel unpopular" is one of the more worthless ones I've seen. Try the cronyism, the systematic disassembling of envirnomental, reproductive and labor policies, the Patriot Act ... the list goes on. Get bent out of shape because your values are besieged, not your popularity.
One step forward, one step back: The WaPo runs a census story showing "Minorities, Women Gain Professionally." It's a refreshingly level-headed look at where diversity trickled into the workplace and how. By contrast, the May 26, 2003 BusinessWeek cover story "The New Gender Gap" -- which is now running in the current Reader's Digest -- gets all worked up because girls actually perform as well, or better than boys in school, and within mere paragraphs talking about how there are now more women in college then men, warns "Corporations should worry, too. During the boom, the most acute labor shortages occurred among educated workers -- a problem companies often solved by hiring immigrants. When the economy reenergizes, a skills shortage in the U.S. could undermine employers' productivity and growth." What -- because all those educated women aren't going to be working? (And don't cite the dropout rate once women become families; according to a 12/30 WSJ article, "Luring Moms Back to Work," employers have finally realized that they'll lose good people if they persist in thinking of workers as automatons without lives.)That's the least of the logical problems in this poorly-reasoned piece. Anyway -- just in case you were feeling good about those professional gains, remember there are people out there who are a little worked up that women have the nerve to excel once they've got the opportunity. (Do a Google Search and see for yourself, or read the letters in response to the article.)
The human face of the war: The Army Times took the rare step of putting faces to those killed -- kind of nervy given that the DOD has banned media coverage at Edwards or any other AFB because they don't want the images of our citizens coming home in coffins to hit the news, and they've taken to complaining to reporters' bosses over coverage that fails to accept PR spin as objective truth. See who has been killed over there; these are our fellow citizens, and they should be remembered. Jimmy Breslin writes on the decision to do so with Newsday's 12/30 "Their Photos Tell the Story."
If you're that upset, you should just start a weblog: I was reading the ombudsman's column at NPR, and am torn between reassurance that someone is paying attention to grammatical vagaries in daily speech and is therefore big on standards (viz. yesterday's entry) and irritation that these people apparently have nothing better to do than ask why people don't say "You are welcome" when someone tells them "Thank you."
Today's NYT lifestyle snapshot: This was actually published on 12/25, a nice little thumb in the eye of the conceit that we're all about the family togetherness at Christmas: "Divorce Decor: Three's A Crowd." Not having ever been divorced, nor having parents who were, these kinds of conflicts that can really shape other people's daily lives are something I can only read about and imagine.
The rich have less taste than you and I: One of the reasons I can't stomach InStyle is its false premise that someone's personal style was the Factor X that led to their fame, especially in an age where starlets are more craftily packaged than an iPod, and any individuality or taste usually gets called out as bad. Another reason: because the rich-n-famous InStyle features usually have such pedestrian and boring taste; if their style were food, it would be a supersized fries serving from McDonald's. (I always figured that actual taste or style meant knowing what you liked and being willing to pass on what you didn't, as opposed to cramming your life with crap other people think looks good.) If the 12/29 NYT review "'Life of Luxury': Caviar Dreams and Bling-Bling Wishes" is any indication, there are a lot of wealthy people subscribing to the french fry myth of personal style.
Let's not blame Canada: Tara Parker-Pope argues in the WSJ's 12/30 "U.S. Mad-Cow Inspections Lack Teeth":
If the industry and government can simply blame Canada for the problem, it will be far easier to resist making the changes needed to bring U.S. testing and safety standards up to the rules adopted by other countries. And it will be that much longer before consumers can truly feel confident in the safety of the U.S. beef supply when it comes to preventing bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE.
and then goes on to give anyone who hasn't read Fast Food Nation or The Jungle the permanent heebie-jeebies about eating mass-produced meat in this country. Stories like this are why I insist that we cut back on meat and patronize a butcher who offers cuts from certified grass-fed animals. Just say no to big beef business!
Who will speak for little Taylor? It must be good to be Margaret Talbot and make your living by writing about how well-meaning yuppies are traumatizing their children through overscheduling and self-esteem crises. Her latest broadside against our presumed Kinderfeindlichkeit is in the Dec. 2003 Atlantic Monthly, "A Stepford for Our Times," It's fairly light as far as her work goes, with only one paragraph talking about how we abuse our kids, and actually spends an equal amount of time contending that 1970s housewives had it easy compared to those of us who came of domestic age in the post-Martha era and the movie completely misrepresents what repressive housewifery is like. I should point out here that Ira Levin went on the record in Ms. Talbot's other regular employer, the New York Times Magazine, as saying the movie completely blew the point of his novel, so perhaps basing one's arguments on what Stepford really means for the kiddies on said misinterpretation of the source material isn't the most solid move.