Monday, December 31, 2018

Today, Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins) Reminds Us That Today's Troubles Are An Echo Of An Awful Environmental Disaster At The Beginning Of This Decade (2010)

The e-mail that brought today's 'toon to the blogger's In Box also contained the following message from Tom/Dan:

Hey all,

Week two of holiday evergreens — this one is a reprint from 2010, originally inspired by the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Here's to a happy New Year's holiday, and a happier new year. Your regularly scheduled timely content will resume next week — at least as timely as it's possible for a weekly cartoon to be, in an era in which the news cycle blasts us in the face like a firehose on an hourly basis and time has no meaning!

Until then,

Dan/Tom

As the worst year this blogger has ever endured, right up to this last day of miserable 2018, if this blog expresses a (fair & balanced) hope for a better 2019, so be it.

[x TMW]
Doomsday Bomb
By Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)


Tom Tomorrow/Dan Perkins

[Dan Perkins is an editorial cartoonist better known by the pen name "Tom Tomorrow." His weekly comic strip, "This Modern World," which comments on current events from a strong liberal perspective, appears regularly in approximately 150 papers across the U.S., as well as on Daily Kos. The strip debuted in 1990 in SF Weekly. Perkins received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Excellence in Journalism in both 1998 and 2002. When he is not working on projects related to his comic strip, Perkins writes a daily political blog, also entitled "This Modern World," which he began in December 2001. More recently, Dan Perkins, pen name Tom Tomorrow, was named the winner of the 2013 Herblock Prize for editorial cartooning. Even more recently, Dan Perkins was a runner-up for the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.]

Copyright © 2018 This Modern World/Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Today, Bon -AppĆ©tit- En Train De Lire — Thanks To BoBo Boy (David Brooks)

"Youneverknow" (one word) was designated the most important word in the English language by Joaquin Andujar, a fire-balling major league pitcher and self-described linguist, in response to an off-the-wall-question about his favorite English word by a radio interviewer. And, that excellent word sums up this blogger's reaction to the 2018 Sidney Awards that recently were conferred by David Brooks (known as BoBo Boy in this blog because of his breakout book at the dawn of the 21st century , Bobos in Paradise. As this blogger went through the list of the best long-form essays in a brutal year, he thought — again and again — "Youneverknow." If this is a (fair & balanced) survey of the best non-fiction writing in 2018, so be it.

PS: Look at the Directory below and click on the [bracketed number] to go to that essay; click on "Back To Directory" to return to the top of the page.

Vannevar Bush hypertextBracketed numericsDirectory]
[1] Posted December 24, 2018 — BoBo Boy (David Brooks) Unveils The 2018 Sidney Awards, Part I
[2] Posted December 27, 2018 — BoBo Boy (David Brooks) Unveils The 2018 Sidney Awards, Part II

[1]Back To Directory
[x NY Fishwrap]
The Sidney Awards, Part I
By BoBo Boy (David Brooks)


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

At the end of every year I give out the Sidney Awards to celebrate and recommend great examples of long-form journalism. I do it so that we can step out of the daily rush of events and read things that are broader and more reflective.

This year there were a lot of great essays on the shame culture and the out-of-control viciousness of online life. There were a lot of great essays about our brutal, angry transitional historic moment. And there were a lot of great essays about tigers. Don’t ask me to explain that last one.

The first of the Sidneys, named for the philosopher Sidney Hook, is Helen Andrews’s essay “Shame Storm” in First Things. It is an amazing description of online viciousness. In 2010, Andrews was on a panel about conservatism with her ex-boyfriend, Todd Seavey. Instead of talking about the subject of the panel, Seavey went on a long rant about what an allegedly cruel person Andrews was, all of it televised by C-Span2.

When it was posted on YouTube, the clip got half a million hits in the first 48 hours. The wave of vitriol against Andrews built over time and got more vicious. Andrews couldn’t find a job for 18 months. She eventually escaped to Australia, but when she released a think-tank report there, she was still attacked by an Australian member of Parliament because of the clip. It never goes away.

“The more online shame cycles you observe,” Andrews writes, “the more obvious the pattern becomes: Everyone comes up with a principled-sounding pretext that serves as a barrier against admitting to themselves that, in fact, all they have really done is joined a mob. Once that barrier is erected, all rules of decency go out the window.”

Most of us have certain stereotypes about the European far right — that it’s just a bunch of blood-and-soil racists. But in an essay in The New York Review of Books, “Two Roads for the New French Right,” Mark Lilla shows that there’s a lot more going on. He found a group of Catholic conservative intellectuals who argue that social conservatism is the only viable alternative to neoliberal cosmopolitanism and who are all fans of Bernie Sanders.

They believe that both the European superstate and global capitalism undermine the cultural-religious foundations of European civilization. They are strongly environmentalist, feel that economic growth should be subordinated to social needs, believe in strong social support for the poor and limited immigration. As Lilla notes, they have a very coherent, communitarian worldview. I found the essay uplifting because it shows that in times of political transition, ideas get shuffled and reassembled in new and impressive ways.

In a post called “How This All Happened” for the Collaborative Fund blog, Morgan Housel walks us through 73 years of American economic history. He shows us how many economic phases there have been. And how each phase led to something unexpected.

“If you fell asleep in 1945 and woke up in 2018 you would not recognize the world around you. The amount of growth that took place during that period is virtually unprecedented. If you learned that there have been no nuclear attacks since 1945, you’d be shocked. If you saw the level of wealth in New York and San Francisco, you’d be shocked. If you compared it to the poverty of Detroit, you’d be shocked. If you saw the price of homes, college tuition, and health care, you’d be shocked. Our politics would blow your mind. And if you tried to think of a reasonable narrative of how it all happened, my guess is you’d be totally wrong.”

In “How Did Larry Nassar Deceive So Many for So Long?” in The Cut [in New York magazine], Kerry Howley blows up the conventional telling of the American gymnastics sex abuse scandal. The story is generally told as a large group of victims finding their voice and “breaking their silence.” But Howley shows that they were telling their stories all along, to every relevant authority. It’s because the abuser, Nassar, had built up an edifice of trust that people couldn’t see the monstrosity that was taking place literally in front of their eyes. Nassar abused many of these young girls while their parents were in the room. He just told them he was doing a medical procedure he called a “sacrotuberous-ligament release.” He might still be doing it today if a police officer hadn’t discovered his hard drives, with 37,000 child porn images on them. It was the hard drives that finally persuaded the world, not the women and their repeated warnings.

Andrew Sullivan has forced me to do something I really don’t want to do — award two separate Sidney awards to the same writer in the same year. But his work for New York magazine this year has really defined the era. His two masterpieces are “The Poison We Pick,” on the opioid crisis, and “America’s New Religions,” on political fundamentalism. If you want to understand America in 2018, those essays are a good place to start. ###

Another batch of Sidney winners will land Thursday.

[See below for the author info about BoBo Boy (David Brooks).]


[2]Back To Directory
[x NY Fishwrap]
The Sidney Awards, Part II
By BoBo Boy (David Brooks)


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing
created at TagCrowd.com

In her essay “Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex?” Kate Julian takes a question that seems to have a simple answer (porn) and shows that it has a complex answer. In one striking part of the essay, which appeared in The Atlantic, Julian shows that fewer young people are having the kind of relationships that lead to sex. In 1995, 74 percent of 17-year-old women had had a special romantic relationship in the preceding 18 months. By 2014, only 46 percent of 17-year-olds had ever had a romantic relationship of any kind.

Having lived much of their social life online, many young people expressed concern that they hadn’t developed the skills they needed to read possible partners in live, face-to-face situations. How do you tell if someone thinks you are special or just wants to be friends? In addition, nearly a fifth of Americans aged 18 to 29 believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment.

From The New Yorker, I recommend Dexter Filkins’s “A Saudi Prince’s Quest to Remake the Middle East.” In one essay, Filkins weaves together the Middle East’s geostrategic situation, its economic situation and how each of the major players, from Jared Kushner to Iran, is grasping for something.

It’s all built around a profile of Mohammed bin Salman [MBS], the young Saudi leader. Years ago, MBS asked a Saudi bureaucrat to help him appropriate a property. When the official said no, he received an envelope with a single bullet inside. Last year, MBS replaced Mohammed bin Nayef as crown prince. Bin Nayef had been summoned to the palace and surrounded by guards. His cellphone was taken away and he was forced to stand for hours — in excruciating pain because of an old injury. Just before dawn, bin Nayef agreed to surrender his position.

In “The Constitution of Knowledge,” in National Affairs, Jonathan Rauch argues that the marketplace of ideas is like a funnel. Millions of people float millions of hypotheses every day. Society collectively tests these ideas, bats them around or ignores them, and only a tiny few make it out the narrow end of the funnel, where they are declared useful or true.

But, Rauch says, the funnel is no more. Internet trolls simply overwhelm the system with swarms of falsehood. There used to be an implicit honor code — truth exists, credentials matter, what hasn’t been tested isn’t knowledge — but the honor code has been swept away. Most fringe information used to get ignored. But today, it can’t be ignored because a lot of it is spewed by the president of the United States. Rauch shows that the national conversation had an architecture, which has now been reduced to sand.

It’s hard to write about what religious faith feels like. Tish Harrison Warren does it compellingly in “True Story” in The Point. As a kid she just loved going to church. Then as an adult she learned about the church’s sins — the narcissism, abuse, sexism. But she still became an Anglican priest. The nice side of church, she writes, is the day-to-day goodness, the teenage boy still sweet enough to rest his head on his mother’s shoulder during the sermon, the young man who gives an elderly friend a ride, the way the members see themselves as a community of forgiven sinners.

“Each Sunday during communion, when the members of my church come to the table, I watch their faces. Many tired. Some sad. Some lit up with joy. One kid who has special needs approaches me like he’s won the lottery. His voice rises, ‘Oh boy! Oh boy!’”

Chinese art prices are through the roof. In 2010, a vase with a starting price of $800,000 sold in a suburban London auction for $69.5 million. Coincidentally, Chinese art is now routinely looted from Western art museums. In “The Great Chinese Art Heist,” in GQ, Alex Palmer walks us through these “Mission Impossible”-style robberies. He also captures the nationalist fervor driving the frenzy.

Most of these pieces were looted from China centuries ago by foreign soldiers. The price of each piece is determined partly by quality, but also by how closely it is associated with one of China’s most inglorious defeats. Stealing the items back is nationalist revenge.

I mentioned in my last column [above] that there were several excellent essays this year on tigers. My favorite is “Man-eaters” in The Ringer, in which Brian Phillips explains: “The arrival of a tiger, it’s true, is often preceded by moments of rising tension, because a tiger’s presence changes the jungle around it, and those changes are easier to detect. Birdcalls darken. Small deer call softly to each other. Herds do not run but drift into shapes that suggest some emerging group consciousness of an escape route.”

Sidney nominees are gathered by a completely haphazard, random process. But I couldn’t do it at all without the annual help of Robert Cottrell of The Browser; Robert Atwan, who directs the Best American Essays series; and Conor Friedersdorf, who produces a Best of Journalism newsletter each week. ###

[David Brooks became an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times in September 2003. His column appears every Tuesday and Friday. He is currently a commentator on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He is the author of Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There (2000), On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense (2004), and The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (2011). Most recently he has written The Road to Character (2015). Brooks received a BA (history) from the University of Chicago (IL) and he is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.]

Copyright © 2018 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Roll Over, Santino "Sonny" Corleone — Amy Davidson Sorkin Has Made Her Bones As A Handicapper Of The 2020 Race

As the dreariest year in memory grinds to toward the slog's end, this blogger succumbed to a consideration of the run-up to the US presidential election of 2020. Will the Dumbos rise up and take back the GOP from the sleazy grasp of the Horse's A$$ in the Oval Office? That is one of the big — perhaps the biggest — questions about the coming final half of the worst presidency in US history. If this is the (fair & balanced) consideration of the greatest political quandry of the 21st century, so be it.

[x New Yorker]
Republicans Who Could Run Against Trump
By Amy Davidson Sorkin



TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

Like many people, James Comey, the FBI director, has been thinking about the best way for the Presidency of Donald Trump to end. Interviewed in New York last week, Comey said that his own, possibly “weird” thought is that impeachment is not the ideal course; for one thing, it would let voters “off the hook” in 2020. “We need a clear jump upward, and it will come from tens of millions of Americans,” he told his interviewer, Nicolle Wallace. But Comey put the burden on the Democrats, saying, “They have to win.”

In response, Trump tweeted that Comey had “just totally exposed his partisan stance by urging his fellow Democrats to take back the White House in 2020.” (Comey says that he’s an independent.) He added, “Comey had no right heading the FBI at any time, but especially after his mind exploded!” The date and the circumstances of the alleged detonation were not clear, but the message was: to speak about confronting Trump at the polls is to speak as a Democrat.

There’s some practical truth to that. Given that the Republicans, particularly in Congress, have largely ceded their party to Trump, the 2020 campaign seems headed toward a contest between him and the Democratic nominee. The Democrats now have to decide what kind of candidate they want. But why should the Republicans be let off the hook? Those who don’t share Trump’s more corrosive views often wallow in the perception of their own powerlessness. Yet they have options, if they choose to use them, including one that the Democrats don’t. They can challenge Trump in the primaries.

Trump knows that, which is why his campaign is already working to engineer a preƫmptive endorsement in the New Hampshire primary, the first in the nation, from the state Party, which traditionally remains neutral. He could be much more vulnerable by August of 2020, when the Republican National Convention meets in Charlotte, North Carolina, depending on, among other things, how the Mueller investigation develops. (Last week, forty-four former senators, ten of them Republicans, signed an open letter, urging the Senate to uphold the rule of law; it reads like a foreshadowing of a crisis.)

One Republican who has been openly considering a run against Trump is John Kasich, the outgoing governor of Ohio, who was the last candidate to drop out of the 2016 Presidential primaries. He has been to New Hampshire twice recently, and his advisers have spoken out against the attempt to change the state Party rules. Still, Kasich told The Columbus Dispatch last week, “Maybe the Lord will say, ‘John, enough of you for 30 years, enough of you. Go sit somewhere in the corner, shut up for awhile.’ ” He is not alone in this wavering. “I do hope that somebody else runs in the Republican primary,” Senator Jeff Flake, of Arizona, who will retire next month, said in October. But, he added, “I don’t see that happening in my case.” Ten days later, he said, “I’m not ruling it out—but I need a break.”

Perhaps a way to speed matters up is to put some more names on the table. Mitt Romney, once a vocal opponent of Trump, was just elected to the US Senate from Utah, and so he has an active political operation. Romney’s old running mate, Paul Ryan, who is retiring as Speaker of the House, and liked to hint, when convenient, that he was not happy with the President, might want to prove that he meant it. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, left her job as Trump’s UN Ambassador with her dignity intact—a harder trick than winning some primaries—and may be positioning herself for a post-Trump moment. Why wait until 2024? Aside from Romney, several other senators could be potential challengers. Rob Portman, Kasich’s fellow-Ohioan, had considered running in 2016, and withdrew his endorsement of Trump after the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, most recently showed her independence with her “No” vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Susan Collins, of Maine, a frequent Trump critic, voted the other way, but that might prove useful with GOP primary voters. Last month, Bob Corker, of Tennessee, who is also retiring, said, when asked if he might run in 2020, that he hadn’t “ruled it out.” In September, when Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, who talks a lot about his problems with Trump, was asked the same thing, he said that the “odds are a lot higher that I run for the noxious-weed-control board of Dodge County [NE].” But he allowed that such odds were better than zero.

Anti-Trump conservatives, some of whom have been raising money for a potential, still unnamed challenger, attended a conference last week in Washington called “Starting Over: The Center-Right After Trump.” Larry Hogan, a Republican who was just overwhelmingly reĆ«lected governor of Maryland, a blue state, was the opening speaker. Charlie Baker, of Massachusetts, and Phil Scott, of Vermont, are other moderate Republican governors who have been mentioned as Never Trump standard-bearers. For that matter, why shouldn’t Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Republican, run as one again, if only for the chance to take part in primary debates and speak directly to Republican voters? (He was an adept supporter of red-state Democrats in the midterms, outmaneuvering the NRA in some races.) He could remind them that there are other visions of what being a Republican has meant and can mean.

Many people may not see the point, wondering if, at this stage, the GOP is worth reviving. But a national journey away from Trumpism requires some middle ground. So does a healthy electoral system. The obvious cost to potential challengers is that Trump would attack—with tweets and smears. But that tactic works partly because other Republican politicians vouch for him; a real, sustained challenge might reveal what is strength and what is show.

Therein lies what may be the most compelling reason for not just one Republican but several to get into the race: a chance to tell the truth. Without opponents, Trump will saunter through the primaries, plying voters with whatever made-up stories about gangs and the wall and conspiracies he likes.

Last week, Comey said, “All of us should use every breath we have to make sure that the lying stops on January 20, 2021.” Wallace, a journalist who has worked on Republican campaigns, asked, “Would you ever run?” Comey replied, “No,” adding, “You don’t have to run for office to be useful to your country and your community.” “But it helps,” Wallace said. It certainly does. ###

[Amy Davidson Sorkin became a staff writer in 2014. She has been at The New Yorker since 1995, and as a senior editor for many years focused on national security, international reporting, and features. Sorkin helped to reconceive the online version of the magazine, where she served as the site’s executive editor and the editor of Daily Comment. She is a regular Comment contributor for the magazine and writes a Web column, in which she covers war, sports, and everything in between. Sorkin received an AB magna cum laude (Social Studies) from Harvard University (MA). And she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.]

Copyright © 2018 The New Yorker/CondĆ© Nast Digital



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Friday, December 28, 2018

Roll Over, Patrick Henry — You Aren't The Only Patriot Who Smelled A Rat... (Only 223 Years Later)

In 2008, this blogger received an invitation to attend a campaign meet'n greet during the primary season that was extended by the Obama for President organization. The RSVP-process required a Facebook account. The blogger signed up for a Facebook account — not realizing the role that Facebook was seeking to establish in the US political system. In fact, it was only years later, that FAcebook had sold access to Facebook subscriber data to organizations frontiing for the Russian intelligence agencies that were seeking to manipulate the US election of 2016 in favor of a candidate that the Russian government deemed most friendly to Russian interests. When Patrick Henry was offered an appointment to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he declined to participate and offered an explanation that went something like this: "I smelled a rat and stayed away." In 2010, while he was an inactive Facebook subscriber, this blogger went to a nearby theater and watched "The Social Network" and left the theater with the strong odor of vermin in his nostrils. The film portrayed the twisted path that Mark Zuckerberg followed in launching Facebook in 2004. The blogger fired up his computer and began the process of getting out of Facebook. If this is a (fair & balanced) sense of virtual relief, so be it.,

[x NY Fishwrap]
How To Delete Facebook
By Brian X. Chen



TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

You may have decided enough is enough: It’s time to delete Facebook.

There have been months — or is it years now? — of bad news about the social network. In October, Facebook revealed that a security vulnerability exposed up to 50 million accounts to being hijacked by hackers. Through the vulnerability, a hacker could take over your account — meaning anything you ever posted on Facebook, or even apps that you connected with using your Facebook account, could have been infiltrated.

“People’s privacy and security is incredibly important, and we’re sorry this happened,” the company said at the time. “It’s why we took immediate action to secure people’s accounts and fix the vulnerability.”

The breach followed a scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, the voter-profiling firm that got its hands on the private data belonging to millions of Facebook users. More recently, The New York Times reported that Facebook gave other technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it had previously disclosed.

Maybe you are just tired of the partisan yammering and updates from the six-degrees-of-friends.

I have some firsthand experience with all of this. After the disclosure of Facebook’s breach, I felt my trust in the social network was broken. So I pulled out my data from Facebook and purged the account. What I found out about the process: The more you have integrated Facebook into your life, the more time-consuming it will be to delete it.

To make account deletion as painless as possible, here is a step-by-step guide. I also included steps on breaking up with Instagram, Facebook’s photo-sharing app, for those looking for a cleaner getaway.

Step 1: Assess what you might lose

Before you commit to breaking up with Facebook, it’s important to handicap the potential collateral damage. Some products and services are deeply integrated with Facebook and could become difficult to use without the social networking account.

The quickest way to test the waters is to deactivate your Facebook account, which is essentially an account suspension that can immediately be reversed. To deactivate, you simply click through your settings and select “Manage Your Account.” Then click the button marked “Deactivate your account.”

When I did that, I noticed I could no longer run Instagram ads to promote my dog’s Instagram account because the advertising tools are directly tied to Facebook. So if you are a business owner who advertises products on Instagram, deleting Facebook would cut off that marketing channel.

Deactivating my account also broke access to apps and websites that I used my Facebook account to sign up for. I found I could no longer easily get into Pinterest because I had used my Facebook account to register for the virtual scrapbooking service. To regain access, I reactivated my Facebook account and then went into my Pinterest settings. Once there, I disconnected the Pinterest account from Facebook and reset my Pinterest password. Then I logged back in to Pinterest with my email address instead.

For other apps, like Spotify and ChefSteps, I similarly disconnected the apps from my Facebook account. Then I reset the passwords for those services to regain access with my email address.

Doing all of that was a pain. But the exercise was worth it to ensure I wouldn’t break my accounts for other sites.

Step 2: Download your data

Now that I knew I could safely delete Facebook, I started pulling my data out of the social network. That means any personal information that I had collected in my account, including my photos, message transcripts and friends list, and that I did not already have copies of elsewhere.

To help with this, Facebook offers a comprehensive tool called Download Your Information, which can be found in the site’s settings. Using this tool, you can decide what types of data you want to grab.

I requested a copy of all my data. Facebook took about an hour to assemble all the information into one file that measured about 700 megabytes. The file took about 10 minutes to download, and the information was organized into folders for different types of data, like photos, search history and messages.

Pulling your information off Facebook doesn’t mean you are removing it from the company’s servers, though. More on that in a bit.

Step 3: Hit the delete button

After making sure I had a copy of all the Facebook data I cared about, it was time to do the deed. In Facebook’s settings menu, I clicked the button “Your Facebook information” and then clicked “Delete Your Account and Information.”

Finally, I clicked on the blue “Delete Account” button. A prompt popped up asking for my password. Then a box showed up warning that deletion was permanent. I wasn’t fazed — and hit the button.

Step 4: Resist getting back together

But wait. After hitting delete, my Facebook account was not actually erased, despite all the hoops I had jumped through. The site said that my account was scheduled for permanent deletion after 30 days, and that if I logged in again, I would have the option to cancel the deletion request.

This grace period is here so people can change their minds. In addition, the entire deletion process may take up to 90 days to purge all backups of your data from the company’s servers, according to Facebook. In other words, be patient.

Step 5: Delete Instagram

If you also want to get away from Facebook’s clutches by removing your Instagram account, that process is much easier. That’s because Instagram is not nearly as wide-reaching as Facebook; you don’t use your Instagram account to log in to other apps, for instance.

Here are the steps: Inside the photo app’s settings, you can select an option to download a copy of your data. From there, Instagram will email a link to download the file. This process took about 10 minutes for my account. Then you can visit the Delete Your Account webpage and click through the buttons to kill your account.

I confess I did not personally follow through with this. I kept my Instagram account because I like keeping in touch with friends there.

Step 6: Ensure there is no tracking

After ending a romantic relationship, have you ever blocked your ex on Facebook so that he or she can’t follow you around? You should do the same after breaking up with Facebook to make sure the site stops tracking your browsing activities.

Be extra thorough about eliminating tracking methods that Facebook and other sites use to follow you. That includes clearing your web cookies, resetting your advertising identifier and installing a tracker blocker. For these steps, follow my previous guide about fighting targeted ads to safeguard your smartphone, tablet or computer.

After I completed these steps myself, there was no sense of closure as I had expected. That’s probably because I knew I might end up reversing the Facebook deletion for the sake of writing instructive articles like this one. I have 30 days to decide. ###

[Brian X. Chen is the lead consumer technology writer for The Times. He reviews products and writes Tech Fix, a column about solving tech-related problems. Before joining The Times in 2011 he reported on Apple and the wireless industry for Wired. Chen received a BA (English language and literature) from the University of California at Davis.]

Copyright © 2018 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Roll Over, Duncan Hines — This Blogger Created His Own Adventure In Good Eating On December 25, 2018

Today's essay struck close to home as this non-cooking blogger sought out a restaurant for a meal on December 25th and usually settled on an Asian-food restaurant. In 2017, for example, the blogger made his way to a popular Chinese restaurant in his 'hood and discovered that the holiday menu had reduced offerings: no Peking duck. And the blogger thought, "Bah, Humbug!" So, in 2018, the blogger decided to move to another restaurant. This time, he landed in a Japanese steakhouse where he was an infrequent patron. The restaurant proper was a large room with more than a dozen grilling stations with grillside seating for the customers. The cooks, decked out in tunics and chef's hats presided over each grill and the shtik ran the gamut of causing the grill fire to flare up with a squirt of cooking oil and performing acrobatic cooking — tossing the food and catching it and even tossing a bite of cooked meat into the open mouth of a diner. ("pp, ah!") and a lot of spatula clanging on the grills. This blogger eschewed the pandamonium and went into an adjacent bar area that was quieter with more conventional meal service. The manager waited on the blogger and he made conversation about the size of crowd and she replied,"It's still early. Before long there will be a blocklong at the door. And when the blogger departed, after a meal of sushi — California rolls (uramaki), nigiri, and sashimi — he encountered a line of waiting customers that seemed a blocklong. If this is the (fair & balanced) account of an adventure in good eating, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Nothing Is More American Than Chinese Food On Christmas
By Lillian Li


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

When my mother first came to America over three decades ago, she waited tables for five years at a restaurant called Forbidden City in Ann Arbor, MI. She quit when she became pregnant with me, but I grew up hearing stories about her time as a waitress. Stories about stingy customers and cooks she tried to avoid — and the busiest day of the year: Christmas.

“I always got my pick of the big party tables,” she told me. “Entire families, including grandparents, would come for dinner.”

I knew that Christmas was a busy day for Chinese restaurants, and I assumed that she hated that shift. But I was wrong.

“All the customers were in happy moods,” she corrected me. “And gave us blessings.”

“And,” she added, “we could make good tips.”

As most Americans know: Chinese restaurants almost never close on Christmas. Early Chinese immigrants were not Christian, and losing an entire day of sales for a holiday they didn’t understand did not make economic sense, especially when Chinese restaurants occupied a tenuous position in America. It’s hard to imagine now, when there are over 40,000 Chinese restaurants in the United States (McDonald’s, for scale, has just over 14,000 restaurants), but before Americans were crowding into Chinese restaurants for Christmas dinner, they were more interested in crowding these restaurants out.

In Eating History: 30 Turning Points in the Making of American Cuisine (2009), Andrew F. Smith explains that Chinese restaurants proliferated during the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, catering to Chinese miners and railroad workers. After the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed as a result of worries that Chinese immigrants were stealing jobs from white men, labor unions set their targets on Chinese restaurants. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, published a pamphlet in 1902 subtitled “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism.”

Labor unions even organized boycotts against Chinese restaurants, according to research by Gabriel J. Chin and John Ormonde. These boycotts rarely succeeded in their aim of driving the restaurants out of business. As one union organizer lamented, “A lot of union men seem to have, I am sorry to say, a fancy for chop suey.”

The unions next attempted to get a law passed barring white women from Chinese restaurants, exploiting public fears that the Chinese were a kind of “moral contagion.” White women were flocking to these so-called dens of iniquity in part because they were a way to escape rigid racial and gender expectations. Chinese restaurants may have allowed white women to smoke opium, but they also employed them in a time when only around 15 percent of women had jobs outside the home.

Jewish and African-Americans also patronized those early Chinese restaurants in noticeable numbers. As one newspaper from 1892 put it so delicately, “Whites, blacks and Mongolians mingled without sign of prejudice.”

Chinese restaurants used to be one of the few public places that welcomed African-American diners, according to Yong Chen’s Chop Suey, USA: The Story of Chinese Food in America (2014). In A Kosher Christmas (2012), Rabbi Joshua Plaut writes that Jewish customers were welcome in Chinese restaurants because “Chinese owners and waiters had no history of prejudice toward Jews.” It makes sense that Chinese restaurants were a destination for Jewish families on Christmas — they were among the only ones open, both literally and metaphorically.

The summer before I went to graduate school, I got a job waiting tables at a bustling Chinese restaurant. Lines sometimes went out the door and parties of 10 to 15 packed my tables. The restaurant was known for its Peking duck, carved tableside and then wrapped in flour pancakes by the servers. My first week on the job, in a sweltering July, one of my co-workers caught the terrified grimace on my face and said, “You think this is bad, wait until Christmas.”

I didn’t make it until Christmas. I barely made it until the end of July. And after I turned in my name tag, I avoided Chinese restaurants for almost a year after. My brief time as a Chinese restaurant waitress illustrated the perpetual foreignness I’d always felt as a Chinese-American, the foreignness I’d seen my parents, as immigrants, struggle with even decades after they’d received citizenship.

The customers I served saw me, and my co-workers, not so much as people as the furniture of the restaurant, and talked about us as if we couldn’t hear, or understand, what they were saying. My experience as a waitress was one more glaring reminder that to be Chinese in America is to be always on the outside looking in.

But the Christmas crowds now make me think of something else. Chinese food on Christmas has become, according to Rabbi Plaut, an acceptable alternative for anyone looking outside the usual holiday celebrations. Google Trends has found that more people search for “Chinese restaurant open” during the week of Christmas than any other week of the year.

It seems like proof that Chinese food and culture is finally part of mainstream America: Chinese restaurants have managed to become as culturally American as milk and cookies for Santa.

I used to feel lucky to have avoided the dreaded Christmas shift, but now I wonder if I might have actually enjoyed being a part of everyone’s celebration. And my mom was probably right about the tips. ###

[Lillian Li is a Lecturer in the Department of English of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. She teaches English composition courses and also works in the UM writing workshop. Li is the author of Number One Chinese Restaurant: A Novel.(2018). She received a BA (English language and literature) from Princeton University (NJ) and an MFA (fiction) from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.]

Copyright © 2018 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Wednesday, December 26, 2018

How The Horse's A$$ In The Oval Office (Very Likely) Met Tony (Schwartz) While Dreams Of The Oval Office Danced In An Equine Head

It is very likely that the Horse's A$$ in the Oval Office has never read a book and it is a certainty that he has never written a book despite the fact that he is listed as "the author" of The Art of the Deal (1987). That book was ghost-written and today's essay reveals how that dreary business has emerged. The Art of the Deal, Trump University, and the Atlantic City hotel and gambling casino are as genuine as 3-dollar bills. If this is a (fair & balanced) exposure of fraud, so be it.

[x The Baffler]
American Ghostwriter
By Sean Patrick Cooper


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

The prognosis for American journalism is not good. In due course, the cancerous forces of Google, Facebook, and algorithmic optimization will complete the terminal ravaging of the journalistic trade from the inside, chewing through it vital organs one newsroom at a time, hollowing out its traditions and lore. Journalists and editors will grieve the demise of their beloved calling, which once nourished the sacred democratic principle of holding those in power to a sustained public accounting—and, on occasion, created a kind of widely accessible art form. Now, however, as journalism slouches toward oblivion, it churns out high-outrage, low-grade content for its web-addled audience, who click and share anything that flatters their ideological preconceptions.

Sundered from all the now-obsolete protections and best practices of a free and independent press, journalists will do what displaced workers everywhere must: get on with the necessary business of making a living. And a select few will fall into what is perhaps the grimmest possible simulacrum of journalistic endeavor: they will join the now burgeoning market for luxury ghostwritten memoirs.

Among a handful of competitive outfits offering these ghosted biographies, two in particular, LifeBook and Story Terrace, have established themselves as the lead providers of compelling life sagas for an exclusive if international customer base of moguls, C-suite executives, and titans of industry and finance. Publishing hundreds of small-batch editions in recent years, with prices as high as $8,000, these ghost houses have found a way to once again make good money employing journalists writing for the printed page—if not good money for the journalists, then at least for themselves and their investors.

Last November, while tracking the growth of this nascent post-journalism narrative marketplace, I came upon a job listing posted by LifeBook. The firm certainly presented itself well. Based out of a renovated barn in the lush rolling county an hour south of London, LifeBook has carved out a prosperous niche as the biographer of first-resort for the global ruling class. The job notice explained that the company was looking for an experienced former journalist to become their next American Ghostwriter. Although that sounded less like the description of a secure job than the title of a Philip Roth novel, it was, indeed, a paying gig, and unlike many opportunities in freelance journalism, it offered the American Ghostwriter the potentially steady work of writing three books at one time. The ideal candidate, the listing informed me, would be fluent in the tradecraft of narrative, character, structure, and descriptive scene detail. Once hired, the American Ghostwriter would partake in the “extraordinary exercise of tracking people back to their childhood and their heritage.”

Founded in 2012, LifeBook was clearly a standout concern in the silent- author industry. Unlike other ghost houses offering all forms of scribe-for-hire writing, from penning “Thank You” cards to a keynote speech, LifeBook focused its consumer product line on a single $9,000 luxury item: a two-hundred-odd page book handcrafted in a London bindery, wrapped in fine linen covers, and embossed in gold letters. Written by someone not unlike myself, a journalist who applied care and concern to the story itself, the exquisite presentation enshrined a hagiographic narrative of the subject’s successful career in (usually) business, real estate, or finance, interspersed with scenes of choice family vacations and holidays in exotic locales. Indisputably at the top of the ghost-memoir class, a LifeBook biography was an heirloom-quality depiction of a life well lived.

The Birth of the Author

Curious about the career prospects facing and many thousands of other displaced journalists, serving the same maximum leaders of commerce that, with hipster-digital elan, have gutted modern journalism, I applied for the American Ghostwriter position. Not long after the new year, I received an invitation to a phone interview with Tom, a project manager at LifeBook.

In a hearty and enthusiastic British accent, Tom explained the streamlined operations underpinning the LifeBook machine. Once the LifeBook sales team took the order from a new customer from a client base now spanning fifteen countries and counting, an interviewer was dispatched to the home of the LifeBook subject. The subject (referred to, in the morale-boosting but entirely misleading company argot, as the Author) shared his or her life story during a carefully structured series of a dozen or so in-person interviews, over several months. With questions ranging from a subject’s earliest memory to the source of the family’s wealth, the script ensured that the interviewer would fully capture the Author’s major life events and milestones. Then it would be my job, as the Ghostwriter, to take the raw audio tapes, ninety minutes or more, and spend no more than two business days to turn them into biographical prose.

As Tom, my own interviewer, informed me, this was less Boswellian homage to a captain of finance or industry than glorified ventriloquism, in which the Author called upon the American Ghostwriter to play the dummy. “The one thing we don’t really want is a Ghostwriter going a bit haywire and making up a load of stories,” Tom told me. “The Ghostwriter is hopping into the Author’s shoes, getting into their head and writing their story as if it were their own.”

Lifestyles of the Rich and Lonely

But while the Ghostwriters were expected to speak fluently of the Authors’ lived experiences, they would have to do it deceptively, as no Ghostwriter would ever approach the Author’s rarefied socioeconomic perch. Upon a LifeBook editor’s acceptance of each three-thousand-to-four-thousand-word excretion, LifeBook would compensate this ghostwriter with a paltry $100. After reviewing a few chapters, the Subject/Author will chime in to provide the ghostwriter with helpful edits on style and structure (actual writing or editing experience here being irrelevant). Sometimes the finished books ran up to forty-five thousand words, Tom said, adding that it was up to the Ghostwriter to make sure the chapters all flowed together. Once the Author approved the final manuscript, the Ghostwriter would receive his or her final installment of the total, which for me would have been a meager $1,100.

Sounding out the breadth of the LifeBook demographic, I asked Tom if the Authors all tended to be older and wealthier. In his reply, Tom sounded upset, as if I had broken with the tactful decorum required of discreet hired hands.

“Not at all, look—” he snipped. “Rather than simply saying, ‘Here’s an Author, there you go, shut up and write the book—” he took a breath to catch himself, before continuing more calmly. “I try to match the ghostwriter as best I can. Because when you’re engaged in the Author’s subject matter you get a better end product.”

LifeBook was the brainchild of the Englishman Roy MoĆ«d, a top executive for a company that had specialized in airline food supply chains. When MoĆ«d’s elderly father had become ill, lonely, and blind, MoĆ«d dispatched a secretary to record and write up his father’s many stories of his life and times. After MoĆ«d observed how much comfort an elderly person took in speaking to someone who sat patiently because they were paid to do so, he had an epiphany: across the global corporate economy there must be scores of other affluent executives like him, too busy for their aging family members but willing to lay down a handsome fee—and thereby mobilize the growing literary reserve army of precariously employed journalists—to ease the guilt of their own neglect.

In short order, MoĆ«d had laid out the main elements of LifeBook’s winning business formula. “The major breakthrough was when I realized that the interviewer and the ghostwriter didn’t need to be the same person,” he told the BBC. This meant that LifeBook could contract any local interviewer at a low rate of $50 per session, with no reimbursement for travel, to drive to the Author’s house, follow the prompt, and record the interview. As long as the interviewer stuck to the script, he or she was sure to produce what the Ghostwriter needed. This audio could then be whipped into a biography by a ghostwriter —and those writers could be anywhere in the world, thanks to the internet’s just-in-time task-rabbiting capabilities.

Enter, Ghost

There was a certain grimly apt symmetry in the return of writers to the neofeudal practice of chronicling the personal exploits of the elite and the well born. Indeed, the practice of ghostwriting stretches back at least as far as the fifth century BCE, with imperial scribes writing out the thoughts of their illiterate kings. As the power of emperors and kings expanded, the ghosting assignments became more baroque and demanding. When Nero’s bloodthirsty mother, Agrippina, allegedly poisoned her new beau, Emperor Claudius, it was Seneca who ghosted Nero’s first speech, throttling the people’s anxious alarm over Nero’s power grab, as the plucky young emperor seized the crown from his dead stepfather’s still-warm head.

It wasn’t really until the early twentieth century that the ghostwriting trade expanded beyond the brute and transactional justification of power for power’s sake. In this, as in so many other disruptive endeavors, American society was at the vanguard. By the 1930s, once word got out that the major league sports stars of the day were ghosting their autobiographies, the era’s top ghosts were in hot demand—particularly among CEO’s and other business titans looking to double up on their output of industry speeches and shareholder presentations. Meanwhile, ghostwriters became increasingly important to presidential communications, with Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover all lending their executive brands to ex officio decrees composed by silent pens. (Yes, this was technically ghostwriting in the old Neronic tradition of supplying a mouthpiece to the maximally powerful, but most of these pronouncements followed the basic literary conventions of America’s emergent, and world-conquering, business-advice genre.)

By the mid-twentieth century, ghostwriters became increasingly engaged in the daily flow of communications out of the Oval Office.

They indeed became so dominant in presidential messaging that some White House observers suggested that the mouthpiece model of presidential communications was unethical, or at least unsavory: shouldn’t this greatest of great men put the conviction of his person behind his public utterances? Alas, however, the sheer volume of word-production in the modern presidency made it impossible for the nation’s chief executive to speak for himself. As one ghost booster put it, “I cannot conceive of the president of the United States, or the head of any other large institution, doing his job responsibly and effectively without deploying the fullest range of talent available to him in the conduct of that job.” To delegate effectively was to lead intelligently. And that’s why, for instance, Ronald Reagan had his speeches run through the ghost fingers of as many as fifty White House staffers before the text was ready for public oration. One of Reagan’s top speechwriters, Peggy Noonan, certainly saw no harm in such robust if anonymous massaging of White House messaging. To her, speeches were “part theatre and part political declaration,” as she wrote in What I Saw at the Revolution. “A personal communication between a leader and his people.”

Today, satisfying our appetite for celebrity culture has made the ghostwriter who specializes in books as popular as ever. Everyone from Victoria Beckham to Keith Richards to Donald Trump has tapped a ghost for biography projects. It was almost inevitable, then, that with the public sphere fully infused by the ghostly spirit—with politicians, athletes, and celebrities all calling upon someone else to articulate their most personal thoughts and branded feelings—that ghostwriters would make their spectral move into the realm of our private lives, bringing the story of a family to the luxurious pages of a LifeBook project.

Yachting to the Bottom

Meanwhile, back on our phone call, Tom was explaining that there was one final step before I could join this global cadre of elite ghostwriters. I’d have to pass a writing exam—an approximately three-thousand-word sample culled from the raw audio of a forty-five minute interview.

“Is it paid?” I asked.

“Alas, we can’t offer compensation for the test. This is just to make sure it’s right for you while our editors ensure you’re suitable for a LifeBook project,” Tom said sheepishly. “But it’s just a wonderful thing to be a part of this process—a part of the team!”

I assured him that, compensated or otherwise, I was indeed eager to get into the LifeBooking trade. Tom sent over the audio for the exam, from that of a previously published LifeBook “author” and elderly matriarch Polly Conn, and an excerpt from her final work. “To give you an idea of [the] writing style . . . [here’s what’s been] signed off by Polly herself,” Tom wrote.

It read as follows: “One Easter, we hired a yacht to go sailing. We had planned on crossing the Channel, but the weather was awful and we all felt ill, so we turned back after three hours. We didn’t enjoy it at all! After that, we promised Yvette and Michael that we would have at least one holiday on a boat that we could all enjoy, so Jack chartered a boat in the south of France.”

As I waited for the full audio to load into my transcription software, I became irritated at the grim stretch of unpaid labor before me. There was something perverse about the idea of painstakingly transcribing the bland playtime reminiscences of the leisured rich for nothing more than the putative team-building joy of the intellectual pursuit itself. The same leaders of business and finance who had destroyed most sanely configured publishing enterprises in the course of their culture-wide march toward monopoly were the people I was now to adoringly hymn—without even the assurance of minimal compensation for my labor. As edifying as the LifeBook endeavor might be in vouchsafing me a glimpse into my profession’s prospects over the longer term, I was faltering in my quest.

But then I saw that my own dogged resistance to the re-feudalization of the journalism profession was actually the shared, sad refrain of all the many fallen “legacy media” souls who refused to adapt to the logic of market disruption. Why not take a page out of Roy MoĆ«d’s supply chain corporate playbook? Like the presidents and great leaders of generations past, MoĆ«d’s fortunes rose as he outsourced the narrative labor to the ghosts at his disposal. The future of media, I realized, wasn’t about writing well or sustaining a core democratic institution. It was about delegating to the lowest bidder. I calculated that if I got the LifeBook gig, with this American Ghostwriter’s going rate on a fully commissioned LifeBook project at worst 2.4 cents a word, then I should be able to find someone out there willing to do the writing exam for less than that, and still turn a profit of a few pennies.

Two Cents’ Worth

I promptly logged on to the trusty WriterAccess portal, a massive online clearinghouse for refugees from journalism and academia who hawk their credentials and customer reviews in breathless bids for writing jobs. In a no-nonsense alert, I wrote that I needed three thousand words, stat, at no more than 2 cents a word, from a diligent scribe capable of spinning raw interview audio into error-free paragraphs that flowed as smoothly as glass.

Almost instantly my queue filled up with prospective ghost-ghost-writers and their persuasive offers. A man I’ll call Kenny told me that he had completed fifty orders as a writer on the platform, and promised to do this “Narrative/Memoir-Style Autobiography” within a scant twenty-four hours. Another writer, who described herself “as a former journalist with twenty years of experience,” had, in fact, “done this sort of thing many times.” One of the service’s elite writers wrote in to tell me I was lowballing: “if you really want a good memoir—it’ll require much more than a two-cent writer.” But this dour soul was clearly another slow-to-adapt acolyte of the old print order; her cautions aside, I had dozens of highly qualified scribblers to choose from. A woman I’ll call Faith provided the most thoughtful response. “I have done many of these types of projects. They are always very enjoyable, regardless of the subject,” Faith wrote. “I end up learning a great deal from the individual, their work, and their life.”

I wrote to Faith to tell her that the job (which was in fact another person’s uncompensated job tryout) was hers. And as Faith cranked away on her assignment, I continued to explore the potential LifeBook subjects. There, among the video testimonies and online samples published across the company’s social channels, I found that many LifeBook customers were in fact the children and direct relations of a family’s aging patriarch. Roy MoĆ«d was spot-on in marketing LifeBook chiefly to affluent, adult children, struggling to dispel the mounting guilt they felt over how little they could, or would, comfort their parents as they approached the final stage.

As one LifeBook client noted, the interviewer, Will, did more than simply pay much needed attention to her father-–he got him “talking about things that family members don’t normally talk about. . . . The deeper, perhaps more disturbing things that he hadn’t come to terms with.” She noted that “talking man to man . . . was a very therapeutic process” for her dad. Another happy LifeBook customer: “It’s incredible for him . . . to have a reason to sort of get up, think about the day, [and] get dressed to see Anna the interviewer.”

Certainly, the interviewer’s job was no easy task— adhering to the LifeBook script while doing double-duty as quasi-therapists unwinding their elderly Author’s existential dread. But clearly the most difficult labor fell upon the Ghostwriter, who had to rapidly shape the dozen sessions of audio interviews into a coherent message for the family’s future generations.

Families, Fortunes

Once Faith sent me her version of Polly’s chapter, it became clear that Polly’s LifeBook served much the same purpose as a ghostwritten Reagan speech: a definitive, authoritative word on how the heroic caste of makers and job creators can continue living on, in work and in leisure, atop the socioeconomic food chain

Here, for example, Faith evokes Polly’s childhood memories of cavorting across an idyllic, sprawling Argentinian estate. The effect is less a finely wrought Proustian reverie than a Downton Abbey roll call: “We had a limousine and a chauffeur. . . . I also fondly remember our dressmaker. She worked at home on the smocking for our little dresses. Also, she embroidered. Of course, we had a nanny who was retained to teach us to be young ladies. I have a very vague recollection of them as I was about four years old at the time. While my memory of the chauffeur is vague, I definitely remember the woman who used to do beautiful embroidery.”

I soon realized that there was a different sort of stylistic embroidery at play in the process of depicting Polly’s life story. In employing a ghostwriting firm to bequeath her biography to her family’s future generations, Polly signaled in practice as well as language what it means to maintain the family’s socio-
economic position: the Conns live well thanks to the cheap help of those less fortunate. Drawing out this subtext, Polly, through the ghostwriter’s two-cent-a-word voice, makes it explicit: “There were always a lot of people around. It was how it was done there. The rich people had a lot of poorer people who supported and served them.”

In this fashion, the LifeBook biography was serving as the matriarch’s own savvy brand of content marketing.

Such reminiscing allows the head of a family to show not only how the family money was made—as Polly does in her nostalgia for the Argentinian servants she can only partially recall by name—but also how to hand down the family’s values through the children. “As a Victorian, my mother was very strict with us,” as Faith, parroting Polly, said. “Everything had to be exactly how she thought it should be done. She wanted her daughters to be young ladies,” she said, adding that this was how she and her sisters learned “to be adults when we were quite young.”

But of course, family life is more than the money you make, the dresses you wear, and the hired help you keep. There’s much to be made of how you maintain the home itself. One evening, for example, when a crocodile had found its way to Polly’s estate, her father called the police. But instead of simply removing the animal, Polly’s mother decided: “‘Oh, I want to preserve the skin of crocodile . . . to remind us of how we were saved from what could have been.” Thus, “some people”—more hired hands—“came and took him away to be stuffed and preserved. We had him perfectly preserved. All his nails were there. They put a couple of marbles in for his eyes. He was perfect . . . even all his teeth were there.”

When war broke out and the family made their way back to England, Polly’s “mother had [the crocodile] in the house under the grand piano. When my brother got married, he took it. His wife had it under her grand piano, but she didn’t like it and wanted to get rid of it. He gave it back to us and we had it under our grand piano.” For decades, the thing that had once threatened the family served as a token reminder of their privileged ability to re-imagine the world as a place designed to afford them a safer, better-appointed existence. When the stuffed crocodile was no longer serving its purpose under one or another grand piano, the family “gave it to the gardener. And that was the end of the crocodile.”

Dummy Out

With the Polly chapter duly transcribed, smoothed into Polly’s own narrative voice, and properly formatted, I added my name and sent it on. The act of affixing my byline to someone else’s grunt work gave me a sense of the possibilities that would open up after gaining a toe-hold in the new luxury ghost marketplace. I dimly envisioned the comfortable career of becoming a mid-list American Ghostwriter for the global power elite—delegating the nuisance of actual writing to those still crawling their way up the ghosting ladder. While it was poorly compensated, it at leased promised to be steady work: diligently curating the preferred content marketing strategies of the world’s wealthiest families.

Alas, my own disruptive delegation strategy proved a mistake. When I opened my email the week after submitting Faith’s chapter as my own, I found that I had not landed the gig. With much formality Tom wrote: “I am sorry to advise that your submission did not match the author’s style and voice accurately enough. . . . As this is such a personal project for our authors, we really need to ensure that the books are right the first time to meet our authors’ requirements.”

I’d hoped that the refeudalized journalism economy might have supplied me a viable perch as a favored servant of the affluent, penning soul-less hagiographies but using my pen nonetheless. But it was not to be. There was something bracing, at this stage of our cultural oligarchy’s global consolidation, to be archly informed that you don’t have the stuff to channel the sunset reminiscences of the one percent. I felt a queasy flash of affinity with the Conn’s stuffed heirloom crocodile, forever silent and accumulating dust in the attic. ###

[Sean Patrick Cooper is a journalist and essayist who has contributed to The New Republic, n+1, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Baffler, Tablet, UnDark, The Atavist, The Awl, and others. He received a BA (English literature) from Rutgers University (NJ) and. an MA (journalism) from New York University (NYC). At NYU, he was a Department Fellow in the Literary Reportage Program.]

Copyright © 2018 The Baffler



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2018 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves