Robert Rauschenberg, one of America’s most prominent and prolific visual artists of the post-war period, died Tuesday. He was 82.
Much is sure to be written in the coming days and weeks about the work, meaning the artistic work, of Rauschenberg—and that attention is much deserved. But there will likely be much less said of his political work, which, though perhaps less transformational than his art, is certainly worthy of some praise, as well.
Clinton was for economists before she was against them.
As I mentioned yesterday, in the course of pushing her gas-tax holiday, Yale and Wellesley educated anti-elitist Hillary Clinton dismissed economists’ critiques of her plan by saying, “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”
Except, of course, when she does. . . .
Take, for example, this February campaign ad touting the Clinton plan for universal health care:
You know it is truly the silliest of silly seasons when journalists get audibly excited (as WNYC’s Brian Lehrer did last week) because they get to take a break from covering Rev. Jeremiah Wright in order to cover what is being called an “actual issue.” I say the silliest of silly because that “issue” is the John McCain/Hillary Clinton proposal for a summertime federal gas-tax “holiday.”
Reading through reports on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding an Indiana voter ID law, and reading about the rules imposed by Indiana’s Republican legislature on potential voters—most notably presentation of a valid, unexpired, Indiana state or US federal government-issued photo ID at the polls before voting—my mind quickly leapt to the image of Seinfeld’s infamous Soup Nazi. That character (based on real-life New York soup-maker and martinet Al Yaganeh) was famous for offering the most coveted cup of soup in the city, but to deal with the long lines that formed at lunchtime, the soup man imposed a set of strictures—know what you want in advance, no questions, substitutions, or special requests, move to the left after ordering, cash only, have your money ready—that it struck fear in the hearts of many customers. If the sense of intimidation lead to hesitation or an inadvertent violation of a rule, the chef would deny service with the shouted admonition, “No soup for you!”
That little cheer you heard on Tuesday afternoon, rising above the noxious symphony of a thousand backhoes and jackhammers that serves as the soundtrack for lower Manhattan these days, well, that was me, celebrating the news that the embattled head of New York City’s Department of Buildings, Pat “Splat” Lancaster, had finally stepped up and stepped down.
Lancaster, who has served as Commissioner for the entire reign of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was originally tasked with modernizing the DoB. . . which, under Bloody Mike, meant making it run more smoothly so that developers (don’t call them greedy, just call them Mike’s “base”) could demolish old New York, build their banal office towers, super-luxury high-rises, and boondoggle developments, and cash out before term limits forced a change at City Hall.
And to that end, I’d have to say Lancaster’s tenure has been an, er, um, smashing success.
Mr. Clark Hoyt
Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
public@nytimes.com
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
It has now been nine days since reporters at ABC News told us of “dozens of top-secret talks and meetings” held in the White House by senior Bush Administration officials to discuss in fine detail the interrogation techniques to be used on so-called “high value al Qaeda suspects,” and it has been one week since ABC told us that President Bush knew about these meetings and approved of the result—namely, the torture of certain detainees by CIA interrogators.
I make note of this timeline because, as of this writing, I am still waiting for the New York Times to report on these revelations.
News broke late Thursday that a city buildings inspector had been arrested and charged with lying to New York City authorities about an inspection he was supposed to have performed earlier this month on the crane that collapsed in Turtle Bay on Saturday, killing seven and injuring dozens more. Concerns about the stability of the crane were called in to the city’s 311 complaint line on March 3rd. The inspector, Edward J. Marquette, never visited the construction site, but filed falsified reports claiming that he had.
The head of the NYC Department of Buildings, Patricia J. Lancaster, who, amazingly, still has her job, suspended Mr. Marquette, and sought to have the last six months of his inspection reports reexamined. But, it should be noted, that discovery and investigation of the inspector’s alleged criminal activity was conducted by the City’s Department of Investigations, and not Lancaster’s DoB.
If you were in Washington, DC, on Monday evening, perhaps you were lucky enough to attend the official release of A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq (I was not so lucky—so, h/t Jason).
I know what you’re thinking: another plan, another press event, another way to say nothing and do less. . . but in this case, you are quite possibly thinking wrong.
You might want to read the whole report (available as a pdf—see link on this page) and decide for yourself, but let me try to quickly explain why I think this plan might be different. . . .
The giant crane that fell Saturday in the Turtle Bay neighborhood of Manhattan killed at least four, with three still missing. One of the missing is an employee of the bar called Fubar, which occupied the ground floor of the townhouse on 50th street that was reduced to rubble by the toppled crane.
Fubar, of course, comes from what is most commonly believed to be the WWII-era acronym for Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition—and FUBAR is what New York is becoming under the building boom ushered in by the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
With the official resignation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer now out of the way, it appears that the establishment media can get back to reporting on what by all accounts clearly matters most in this scandal: the sex.
Below all the stories about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s imminent demise, the calls for his resignation, the indignation about his behavior, and the general air of schadenfreude about a guy whose overreach exceeded his hamfisted grasp, there is an article in today’s New York Times that basically says this: When it comes to pursuing a prosecution of Spitzer, the Feds have nothin’.
From the nanosecond after the New York Times posted its story about Governor Eliot Spitzer’s use of high-priced prostitutes (the story has been repeatedly updated, and, to be honest, only details one interaction, though the implication seems to be that Spitzer was a regular client), tongues were wagging, keyboards were clacking, and thumbs were making whatever noise they do while texting. Everybody had the same outraged, indignant question: What in god’s name was Spitzer thinking?
Well, almost everybody. Well, at least, kind of. . . I’ll explain below the fold.
There was much ado ‘round the ‘sphere yesterday about a pair of electoral maps published by SUSA, each of which show the potential Democratic nominee beating the prospective Republican one—though Senators Obama and Clinton would likely take different paths to electoral college victory over John W. McCain.
That both Democrats are now projected to win is great news, but the difference in the way that they win—the states that each would take to gain the requisite number of votes in the Electoral College—is not inconsequential.
While I tend to be wary of establishment media stories about infighting among Democrats, today’s Washington Postarticle about dissention and vicious fights among Hillary ’08 staffers gives plenty of examples and names lots of names.
And one name that comes up often and almost never in a good way is that of pollster “Chief Strategist” Mark Penn.
Shorter WaPo: Clinton won on Tuesday in spite of Penn, not because of him.
President George W. Bush, who has until now refrained from making a public choice in the race for his successor, will be forced by circumstances to endorse John McCain today.
