Category: Op-ed roundup

Yesterday E&P reported that, in order to email an NYT op-ed columnist, you had to be a subscriber to TimesSelect. NYT email addresses, once prominently displayed at the bottom of columns, have been replaced by a members-only form that can be accessed only through TimesSelect.

That was yesterday. Today, the enterprising gang at Jossip have gamed the system, lifting the requisite HTML code to craft email forms for each of the current eight columnists. We tested it out and sent an email to Frank Rich saying hi and inviting him to comment on the topic of "Does The New York Media Really Love Showtunes?" We think he's qualified on the subject. We'll let you know if we hear back, and if he agrees to meet us at a West Village piano bar to sing live. In the meantime, chat up David Brooks here or shyly compliment Tom Friedman's mustache here.

NYT busts out the velvet rope for VIP staffers [Jossip]
Want to e-Mail a NY Times Columnist? Better Subscribe to TimesSelect [E&P]

In yesterday's NYT mag excerpt from her upcoming book "Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide," Maureen Dowd looks at why it's hard for a smart, sexy, sassy, independent thinking woman to catch and keep a man, folding in ruminations on magazine cover lines, ruffles and bows, who pays for dinner and why, when Harvard Business School is hot (and to whom), and why everybody oughta have a maid.

Since I am a soft, mysterious cat (read: an unmarried woman of a certain age, though feel free to be uncertain downward when guessing it), I will leave this one to unjaded and uncynical Fishtern Maureen Miller in "Maureen on Maureen," what we hope will become a regular feature here on Fishbowl. Take it away, Maureens!

What a fun, sexy time for Maureen Dowd! It's not just the shoes; Dowd herself said as much about her new book in an interview.

And how we love MoDo's manifesta, which Matt Drudge has already dubbed "The Red-Shoe Diaries" for its noir-ish accompanying photo. This week's New York Times Magazine metaphorically smacks The Man upside the head with a spatula via the crackling "What's a Modern Girl to Do?", excerpted from November's Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide. Within hours, the once and future op-ed queen returned to her rightful throne at the number-one spot on the MEL list. I'd say TimesSelect be damned, but this one, thankfully, was gratis.

In the past, I've taken issue with Dowd's brand of screwball feminism ("screwball" in the Hepburn and Tracy sense.. For this previous inspiration, see January 13, 2005's "Men Just Want Mommy," where we first heard her oft-repeated quip that "art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection." In the aftermath of the hype behind the spineless Kunkelites, though, who ask we do nothing less than to reject men who don't deserve us first, I say," good show"! It's nothing less than refreshing to see La Dowd take these sad-sacks on for their solipsism and expose the predators within. (Ed. That's our Fishterns, wishy-washy and unopinionated! Can we pick our Maureens or what?)

A Publishers Weekly advance review complains that Dowd's anecdotal -- i.e. East Coast-centric—approach is "slapdash" without the "slash and burn" of Bushworld, but her breeziness works to better effect in the magazine essay form. Incidentally, the pop of the prose also undermines Dowd's claim that it's "increasingly apparent that many women would have to brush up on the venerable tricks of the trade: an absurdly charming little laugh, a pert toss of the head, an air of saucy triumph, dewy eyes and a full knowledge of music, drawing, elegant note writing and geography," as it is arguably the literary equivalent of the calculated giggle. I'll take a page out of Dowd's handbook, though, and "avoid all sarcasm" on that one. That is, I'll admit I enjoy it, one salty Irish Catholic broad to another. (Ed. For the record, this salty Jew is with you). Say what you want about Dowd's op-ed screeds; when she's on the cultural commentary she does best, she's one funny gal. No barbs to be had here, just the old patented cute 'n clever, though I excerpt my favorite lines below:

• "Jurassic feminists shudder at the retro implication of a quid profiterole."
  
• "After Googling and Bikramming to get ready for a first dinner date, a modern girl will end the evening with the Offering, an insincere bid to help pay the check."
  
• Dowd also remarks that "the key to staying cool in the courtship rituals is B. & I., girls say -- Busy and Important." Funny, I always thought the key to staying calm when a-courtin' was a glass or two of G&T (or is that "T.M.I."?) (Ed. LOL!)

[H]istory professor Cynthia Russett, quoted as saying that women are "turning realistic," is happy to go public with her outrage. Says Russett, 'I may have used the word, but it was in the context of a harsh or forced realism that I deplored. She made it sound like this was a trend of which I approved. In fact, the first I heard of it was from Story, and I'm not convinced it exists.'

I'd take on more of the substance of the article, but I think I'm going to have to take a moment for Me Time instead. The whole schpiel, I fear, left me cringing in recognition. I regret I can only dream that I, like the women Dowd cites in her "courtship" passage, C.B.B. -- "can't be bothered" -- by this. Her romp through the gender wars has left me, in one way or another, "malleable and awed." Guess that makes me an Ivy League postfeminist statistic after all.

(Ed. Maureen -- both Maureens, actually -- always be bothered. What's the point otherwise? That's just one salty Jew's opinion.)

(P.S. Gentlemen, that stuff I write on the blog about not being able to cook was just a joke. Did you know you can make eggs in the microwave? It's true!)

Maureen Dowd returns from her hiatus, scorning Iraq fatigue and reclaiming her place atop the Op-Ed pages -- and MEL -- by asking a simple question: why is President Bush ignoring the woman camped out at the end of his Crawford driveway? Her son died in Iraq, and she's obviously upset. Bush could clearly swing by on a daily bike ride or five to extend his condolences and hear her out. And yet:

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.

But if it's so efficient then surely a moment can be spared to entertain a visitor, especially one that's getting such a high profile? About an issue that is so dividing the country? Days after 16 marines from one community in Ohio were killed?

MoDo says he can't because he is "selectively humane," invoking 9/11 losses and the freedom of oppressed Iraqis. "But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

And, with that, MoDo is back.

Why No Tea and Sympathy? [NYT]
Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced [NYT]
Insurgents Hit Baghdad; Doubt Voiced on Charter [WaPo]
At Texas Ranch, Bush Controls Agenda [WSJ]
Steven Vincent, Murdered In Iraq, E. Village Legend [NYO]

Update: Drudge has an account of Cindy Sheehan's warm comments about meeting with Bush last year, which contrasts markedly with her comments this year.

Maureen Dowd has returned to the pages of the NYT after taking time off for book leave. Sadly her return column addresses the death of her mother, who was a frequent figure in her work (and had topped MEL numerous times to boot). We would have heralded MoDo's return in any case, but this column is truly a marvel, a sweet, funny and inspiring celebration of an obviously remarkable woman. We teared up, we admit it. MoDo, we're so sorry for your loss but if we may say so we're so glad for the 97 years of accumulated warmth and wisdom your mom shared with you. Thank you in turn for sharing it with us.

A Woman Who Found a Way to Write [NYT]
Margaret Dowd, 97; Font of Advice [WaPo]

Today's op-ed by Paul Krugman is not optimisitic that Karl Rove will pay any piper. It's his America; we're all just living in it. Look for this one to top MEL very soon.

Krugman has clearly watched all this unfold with a heavy heart. What should be a cut-and-dried case of wrongdoing is being defended, spun and respun by the stalwarts of the right into yet another instance of Republican straight-shooting over puny left-wing lies: "[T]here are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern."

Rove, he says, understands that the truth is less important than the message; and besides, with enough voices echoing behind you, it sounds a lot like truth.

Krugman's column is a good backdrop for the daily revelations about this case, which I jump on every day, and which is probably the intention. Today's well-timed revelation that NOVAK told ROVE about Plame? Just another version of the truth, another herring on a path literally strewn with them, red or otherwise (ew. Smelly path). Stonewall the press, starve them for information and they'll jump on the scraps you throw out little by little. Keep 'em busy, right? Wow. The real truth of the article: Rove is very, very good.

In the meantime, "Fantasia" images never get old. No. I'm not talking about "American Idol."

Karl Rove's America [NYT]

Update: It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, but nonetheless we were right: Krugman's at number one on MEL, at least until the next gay-themed scientific study comes out.

This just in: apparently Maureen Dowd returns from book leave in two weeks! Tomorrow the last of her replacement columnists, McSweeney's alum and "Assassination Vacation" author Sarah Vowell, will step into her broadsheet shoes and fill her column inches on the New York Times opinion pages, filing four columns in all. A note of interest: Vowell is the third woman to stand in for MoDo, following Stacey Schiff and Patricia Nelson Limerick, breaking the all-male op-ed streak that was ushered in by MoDo stand-in Matt Miller, and which was the subject of some rumblings about how it might not be enough just to employ male op-ed writers who really, really like their wives. No word on whether one has anything to do with the other but regardless we'll be happy to have our MoDo back (even though we're sure Vowell's column will be delightful).

In this week's New York Observer, Sheelah Kolhatkar ponders the Estrichian question of where the women are on the op-ed pages...but all she has to do is look to the New York Times to see them right on top of the Most Emailed List!

Guest op-ed contributor Matt Miller is no woman (unlike the columnist he replaced, the book-left and very womanly Maureen Dowd), but that doesn't mean he's not pulling for the ladies in his MEL-topping effort from this week, locking in the number-one spot from yesterday's column, "Listen to my wife" (and yes, he actually says "take my wife" in the piece), in which he agitates for an evolution in the workplace to accommodate the myriad talents of careerists-cum-child rearers. Aw. He thinks his wife is good.

Meanwhile, John Tierney's offering from Tuesday has already shot up to the top of MEL 7 - an impressive feat for a recent article. The topic? "What Women Want." Just like that swoony Mel Gibson, he finds his way into the hearts of women - and Times readers.

Meanwhile, the title of MoDo's book? "Are Men Necessary?" Who knows, but clearly women are. See Estrich? Problem solved!

Listen To My Wife [NYT]
What Women Want [NYT]
Daughters of Maureen...Hello? [NYO]
Related: Girl Fight [Slate]

Update: at Salon, Katharine Mieszkowski wraps it all up with a delightful feminine touch in today's Wives of the Times.

From Sunday's new NYT op-ed pages:

Between Terri Schiavo and the pope, we've feasted on decomposing bodies for almost a solid month now.

Thanks, Frank (Rich, not Bruni. Though if it were it would still make us hungrier than this).

Why mock them the columnists ourselves, when other people do it so much more efficiently?

Shorter Brooks, Hoagland, Will, Broder and Kristof ("If I write about famine, no one can make fun of me") here.

TAPPED has a helpful digest of the weekend's op-eds for people who have "just recovered from a persistent vegitative state." (Their words, not ours. We were going to spend the entire day pretending that the elephant in the room was really just an exceedingly large coffee table.) Some excerpts:

· David Brooks. Republicans irresponsibly govern irresponsibly, Democrats irresponsibly fail to collaborate in Republican malgovernment.
· Nicholas Kristof. Class warfare!
· Maureen Dowd. I'm definitely satirizing something here.
· George Will. Republicans are getting so crazy, I think they're getting crazy.

And per the scandal du jour this time last week: that's one pink box for the NYT!