Right. Because there has been such a dearth of creativity in the South over the last hundred years. If the South gives back Hollywood degeneracy, the North should return rock and roll, jazz, blues, and country music. It should give back some of the greatest literature of the 20th century. And what would Manhattanites do if they can’t indulge their occasional taste for barbeque or soul food?
I understand that the last fifty years have been hard on Self-Satisfied Yankee Elitists, as conservatives seized political power in part by using them as scapegoats. And I suppose turnabout is fair play. But the only thing sorrier than a southerner refighting the Civil War is a New Yorker trying to beat him at the same game.
Feder makes an unfortunate hit-and-run attack on Tom Delay, the GOP's bygone equivalent to Nancy Pelosi, by referring to his 'illegal' redistricting plan and 'indictment'. Hmm, whatever happened to that 2005 indictment? The answer is that was so pathetic that even aspiring documentary film star and Democratic activist prosecutor Ronnie Earle has foreseen that he will bequeath this fishing expedion to his successor, since Earle lacks the guts to admit he doesn't have a case that would stand up in court.
Otherwise, I suppose Feder is to be commended for timidly criticizing Hendrik Hertzberg - and the dying-on-its-feet New Yorker magazine. I've had correspondence with Hertzberg and can testify that, like most political writers, he is far more generous and tolerant in private than he appears to be in public writings. Perhaps the real problem is that there is little challenging of the readership of a publication or the audience of a television program - 'narrowcasting' the way you have rigid radio-programming for example (classic rock, urban contemporary, country and western, etc.). The New Yorker, for example, has always been politically on the Left, but has grown much more obsessive and dogmatic about it since David Remnick took over as editor. As a result, its 'Notes and Comment' section is almost entirely predictable, and its reporting on politics has to be understood as representing the point of view of the national Democratic Party. I want writers to tell me what I don't know, not confirm what I already know, and for that reason and others I'm not renewing my subscription to the weekly, which toggles schizophrenically between leftist ideological cant on the one hand, and worship of right-wing lifestyles of the rich and famous on the other.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 7 May 2009 at 01:09 PM
Delighted to see Hendrick Hertzberg taken down a few notches. I have decided to let my New Yorker subscription lapse, and I am a lifetime subscriber.
Hertzberg's sneering has gotten suffocating and although I am a Democrat, his blather about Obama, which could have been faxed over from Chicago for all I know, was dull.
Frank Rich, Katha Pollitt, etc. make me think. I may agree with them but even when I don't they are presenting some discourse, not just cliches and predictable droning.
Folks, send a message. Of all the excellent writers in the big wide world, they are trying to stick us with him. Just say no. (I'm rooting for Timothy Egan, who is underutilized at the NYT.)
#2 Posted by Nancy Jean P., CJR on Thu 7 May 2009 at 02:23 PM
I will gladly give up the occasional barbecue and Carey Underwood to get rid of kow-towing Southern "Democrats-In-Name-Only" and get, in exchange, reasonable gun control and an end to the belief that all the problems of our country can be solved with mandatory school prayer.
As for Bill Clinton, let's recall Nafta, welfare "reform" and so much else that was captured in Michael Moore's comment that, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this country ever had."
#3 Posted by PaperBoy, CJR on Thu 7 May 2009 at 03:36 PM