Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Yesterday: Good/Bad

Yesterday was a wonderful day for David Burnett. The Washington Post did a front page Style section story about his book and his show.

In addition, online, the Post posted a photo gallery that was quite stunning:

On Saturday, Roxanne Roberts wrote a column in the Post that described how wonderful the show and party were. And the most recent news piece we today. I'm sure you will enjoy this special insightful video,

Moving on to me... Because we know that in the end, it is all about me. I was going to write about the world of publishing within the context of David’s success because once again, the publisher did pretty much nothing but our team (Johanna, Cathy and Halle), were relentless in their pursuit of David’s well deserved attention. But I’m not going to do that because there is simply so much going on in the world that needs my attention. (David is doing OK without me).

When I was on my treadmill yesterday watching Geithner talk to the nation, I first thought, “He’s twelve years old, and his speech pattern is stilted, how will he save the nation?” Then I thought, “Wasn’t he part of the problem when he worked at the stock exchange?” (I know thoughts don’t require quotations, but they seem to make a statement a little more effective—kind of like parentheses). Anyway, as I watched him say pretty much nothing in his stilted uncomfortable way, I was also watching the stock market drop 382 points. This was unexpected—at least from my pea brain of an understanding of what I thought would happen. I actually expected that with the President’s press conference and fierce attack on partisan politics, and the Geithner pronouncements, the stock market would go up. Based on all of these mistakes, I have decided not to ever try to understand anything about the economic situation in the world.

So let’s just talk simple political realities. The President was terrific, and he said Geithner would be specific and we would all rejoice. . Geithner was neither specific nor encouraging.. The American public has disappointed expectations. In addition, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats made a terrible mistake. They wrote a stimulus package that was filled with pork instead of stim. (Stim is my word for things that work to make the economy work—it’s a new word but it will be used so frequently after this blob, that it will be in the dictionary in 2010 and you will have had the privilege of seeing it before the rest of the reading public.). The Dems gave the Repubs fodder for their case against the Bill. This led to more partisan squabbling and in the end, the bill passed. But now, the talk, just as it was for the last two multi-billion dollar loan packages, is that we would have been better off doing nothing. If I were a psychologist, I would call this passive aggressive economic theorem.

Not that I’m opposed to doing nothing and let the results define themselves --in every walk of life. But the trillions of dollars we seem to be throwing at all these problems are are not resulting in helping the people who are losing their jobs and homes and can’t feed their families, find work or a soup kitchen. Oops I’m back on the economic situation and I’ve already said I know nothing so I have no credibility.

Let’s change subjects and talk about the woman with the octuplets and 6 other children (3 on disability), at home. The one who the media say is trying to look like Angelina Jolie. And why not. If she looks like Brunhilda, is anyone in the viewing public going to give a damn about her? My guess is that, although we will not feel sympathetic about her situation—no matter what, if she was a beast, the TV people would be paying absolutely no attention and there would be nothing for the network news to babble about. Who cares about this woman and, quite frankly, her children? The taxpayer? The clergy? The medical profession? People who can’t have children? Angelina Jolie’s publicist? Maybe the real solution for this single unemployed woman is to have Angelina and Brad adopt 5 or 6 of the kids. Here’s a brilliant idea. Maybe all the celebrities (entertainment, sports, corporate, and bankers), should do a show. Just like in the old Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney movies, they could do a show and raise enough money to save the nation. Yeah, that I can understand. We’re just sayin’….Iris


Anonymous said...

Welcome to my profession. Not the Brangelina or Brunhilda thing - the down 382 thing. And we are as baffled as you and Pepe' le Pew on some of these stimulus items.

Lots of economic blame to go around, but it does my heart good to see you spread it evenly (like peanut butter, but thats a whole nother blog for you down the road).

Anonymous said...

I agree with you on the Secretary of Treasurey...what in the world was the Obama administration thinking. The bailout too! After the President fired up the nation during his inauguration....then only to be disappointed by Nancy Pelosi and David Obey...what a....never mind.

Matt (Italy)

Unknown said...

one day i went shopping outside,and in an ed hardy store,I found some kinds of ed hardy i love most they are Your website is really good Thank you for the information ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing ed hardy shoes ed hardy shoes don ed hardy don ed hardy ed hardy clothes ed hardy clothes ed hardy bags ed hardy bags ed hardy swimwear ed hardy swimwear ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans ed hardy mens ed hardy mens Thank you for the information

links of london said...

As a child who sought to be more attractive links of london chains , it is a little peculiar that I didn t like links of london animal charms such as ornaments, animal charms earrings and rings in the opening. links of london classic smiley To tell the candor, I didn t think charms is unusual and classic smiley charm I thought that the designs were too related. For example, links of london letters charms many charms were just minimal chains and they couldn t letters charm magnetize my interest at all.