Monday, April 24, 2023

Darryl on the Firing of Don Lemon by CNN (Washington Post)

 

CNN fires longtime host and anchor Don Lemon
When Nikki Haley made ageist comments about the president, Don Lemon said, essentially, you're no spring chicken yourself, honey. She rightfully took umbrage and opportunistically decided to play the sexism card.

What chafes is that Haley's perfunctory slur against the president went unrebuked and unapologized for, but CNN nevertheless roared to defend her honor as a woman. (Whicn smacks of sexism too, but that's another topic.)

As usual, Republicans can dish it out but can't take it. They called Hillary a murderer and satanist, but when she called them deplorable, it was a bridge too far.

The situation with Lemon and Haley involved sharp words between two grown people. I say those two grown people could have worked things out.

But the situation with Biden involves a huge portion of the media bullying one person because of an immutable physical characteristic, his age. They have extended this to an entire class of people: ie, no one over 70 or 75 should run for president. Now that's ageism!

In such cases of media and political bullying, the victim usually has no recourse. Joe and Hillary can't pull a Nikki Haley. They can't get half the people in the media fired for calling them demented or corrupt. They just have to hunker down and take it.

Nikki Haley, however, gets to wrap herself in estro-victimhood because a boy had the temerity to slap a girl back, and playground rules say that can't be done.

And CNN gets to virtue signal that they were protecting a damsel in distress -- all damsels in distress! -- when in fact they found a handy pretext to dump a low-rated anchor without being accused of racism or homophobia.

Meanwhile the network lurches ever rightward.

(Published in the Washington Post, April 24, 2023.)

The article upon which the comment was made:










Sunday, April 23, 2023

Young Bloomsbury

 




Philosophically I have to praise Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre. It is their existentialism and savoir faire that I most admire in philosophy. 

When it comes to the day to day affairs of intellectuals and artists, I have to imagine myself cavorting with the Blooms berries. I'm sure I would have loved Lytton Strachey and published a bit more than I have in the Hogarth Press. 

As I read Young Bloomsbury by  Nino Strachey, I see immediately that theirs is a world I would love to inhabit. The people I know, with rare and wonderful exceptions, are unable to reject the possessiveness and jealousy, the fear and insecurity, of those who clutch their partners (as long as they can), rather than have the intimacy and camaraderie of a garden filled with like-minded, passionate psyches. We have to ask if Bloomsbury would have been a happier, even more successful clan if they had the benefit of friendly laws involving same sex relationships we have today. They were courageous to live bisexual lives in all the fullness of being, following Simone De Beauvoir's brilliant recommendation:  

“In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.”
― Simone de Beauvoir



Lytton Strachey by Carrington



Read the brief, marvelous essay on a showing of their work at the Tate:

 https://thewire.in/culture/painting-circles-loving-triangles-bloomsbury-groups-queer-ways-seeing


Cheers,

Jack