I read your column from 1998, and didn't find it lame. It was a slice of real life and I love how you write that way. At the time, I was knee deep with preschool & kindergarden activities - working in both classrooms. If a discussion went above that level, I probably wasn't listening too deeply! But of course I knew about Bill & Monica, but only superficially. Something about a cigar, yada, yada, yada and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and impeachment. That's about all I caught, then it was on to helping 5 year olds about writing stories...which was about 3 sentences long including a beginning, middle and end! That was also about the length of the Bill & Monica story in my mind at the time.
I do t think you missed much. I looked back at that column and it read to me as if I just felt like I had to say something. Anything. I wouldn’t write that column today.
Me, too! Sometimes I reread and find errors. Typing on the phone is tricky! Usually, I just say to heck with it and hope people who read it get the gist.
On your column - yeah, I see what you mean. You would have more to say on this for sure. Still, I also love it when you write as an observer, like you did. It reads more like a passage in a good book, without a hard message to it, which is enjoyable, too.
I never understood the animus directed at Lewinsky except for, you know, misogyny. I appreciate your willingness to admit your own mistakes about this. We all make them. When I think back to some of the things I have said and written it's enough to make me want to go hide in a hole.
Well, I'm sure not going to comb through everything I've written since 1979 because I'd be spending the rest of my life mea-culpa-ing. But the column I wrote WAS lame.
Not your point, but...I'm surprised that's on the menu, given it happened 23+ years ago. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been plenty of scandals in Washington since then.
I'm tired of seeing the shame mostly shift to the woman involved. Our English language needs to retire some terms attached to women.
I could be wrong-- I'm not an expert-- but it isn't my impression that she comes of the socialite class. Part of why she was never treated as Glamorous Tempting Treat in the press....
No, she doesn’t come from that but plenty of people come from reduced circumstances, are involved in some fabulous scandal, and then work that into a lifetime of parties and yachts. That was always MY goal, anyway.
For reals, could you give instances? I swear that I'm not just trying to be contentious. I can't really think of any. Not even on an unenduring basis, picked up as demonstration pets by people of another set of political convictions.
I guess I'm thinking B-list celebrities and I don't want to be unkind, but Patty Hearst comes to mind. But then, she didn't come from reduced circumstances, did she? So maybe my goal is stupid.
Please let me know if you think of any. I'm actuated by three things:
(1) I can't think of an instance.
(2) My experience with the US upper crust is that birth and wealth are the entrees. Nothing else.
(3) That old refrain of women who testify to being ill-treated* "doing it for fame," and thus scoffed at.
* I'm well-aware that Lewinsky was staunch to the point of heroism in claiming her own volition at the time. I'm just kind of relieved that she's more recently said quietly that that was true, but that she sees things a little differently now.
Let me add to the list.
The MAGAmosa. Rancid orange juice with a shot of chlorox.
The Bloody Stephen. Tomato juice, Russian vodka and olives impaled on a wooden stake.
Rudy on a Tooty. A tumbler of scotch with a splash of Just for Men.
Pence on the Fence. A shot of no-fat milk with a whole milk chaser.
………
See, I was too lazy to explore this, but may I also add: The Donald. Warm Bud with a hint of flop sweat
Never mind. Yours are better.
Mother would approve of that last (non-alcoholic) one! 😆
I read your column from 1998, and didn't find it lame. It was a slice of real life and I love how you write that way. At the time, I was knee deep with preschool & kindergarden activities - working in both classrooms. If a discussion went above that level, I probably wasn't listening too deeply! But of course I knew about Bill & Monica, but only superficially. Something about a cigar, yada, yada, yada and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and impeachment. That's about all I caught, then it was on to helping 5 year olds about writing stories...which was about 3 sentences long including a beginning, middle and end! That was also about the length of the Bill & Monica story in my mind at the time.
...5 year olds LEARN about...
I do t think you missed much. I looked back at that column and it read to me as if I just felt like I had to say something. Anything. I wouldn’t write that column today.
Don’t. I wish I could edit comments here.
Me, too! Sometimes I reread and find errors. Typing on the phone is tricky! Usually, I just say to heck with it and hope people who read it get the gist.
On your column - yeah, I see what you mean. You would have more to say on this for sure. Still, I also love it when you write as an observer, like you did. It reads more like a passage in a good book, without a hard message to it, which is enjoyable, too.
I never understood the animus directed at Lewinsky except for, you know, misogyny. I appreciate your willingness to admit your own mistakes about this. We all make them. When I think back to some of the things I have said and written it's enough to make me want to go hide in a hole.
Well, I'm sure not going to comb through everything I've written since 1979 because I'd be spending the rest of my life mea-culpa-ing. But the column I wrote WAS lame.
Not your point, but...I'm surprised that's on the menu, given it happened 23+ years ago. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been plenty of scandals in Washington since then.
I'm tired of seeing the shame mostly shift to the woman involved. Our English language needs to retire some terms attached to women.
Imagine the menu that focused on Trump's scandals...
Exactly! But what an appetite turn off that would be!
She's an amazing person.
I'm glad she's having a resurrection.
I'm so impressed by what she's doing in it.
Same here. She could just be a socialite with a past.
I could be wrong-- I'm not an expert-- but it isn't my impression that she comes of the socialite class. Part of why she was never treated as Glamorous Tempting Treat in the press....
Actually, her family had a little money in southern California, but I guess we'd have to define "socialite." And who has time for that?
No fear. I'm done.
No, she doesn’t come from that but plenty of people come from reduced circumstances, are involved in some fabulous scandal, and then work that into a lifetime of parties and yachts. That was always MY goal, anyway.
As I recall, plan B was to become an Heiress. It could happen. You never know!
Yeah, well, I forgot to have rich relatives, so that is turning out to be a non-starter.
For reals, could you give instances? I swear that I'm not just trying to be contentious. I can't really think of any. Not even on an unenduring basis, picked up as demonstration pets by people of another set of political convictions.
I guess I'm thinking B-list celebrities and I don't want to be unkind, but Patty Hearst comes to mind. But then, she didn't come from reduced circumstances, did she? So maybe my goal is stupid.
Please let me know if you think of any. I'm actuated by three things:
(1) I can't think of an instance.
(2) My experience with the US upper crust is that birth and wealth are the entrees. Nothing else.
(3) That old refrain of women who testify to being ill-treated* "doing it for fame," and thus scoffed at.
* I'm well-aware that Lewinsky was staunch to the point of heroism in claiming her own volition at the time. I'm just kind of relieved that she's more recently said quietly that that was true, but that she sees things a little differently now.