NightBlogger

Louis Bayard
Salon
Casual observers might be excused for thinking of Gore Vidal in posthumous terms. A twilight pall suffused his most recent memoir, “Point-to-Point Navigation,” which described the death of Vidal’s longtime companion even as it ladled out retribution against longtime enemies. Many of those enemies have likewise passed on, and in recent appearances, Vidal has had to squeeze his proud, patrician figure into a wheelchair.

The old lion may be enfeebled, but he still has teeth. Doubters are referred to Deborah Solomon’s recent New York Times Magazine interview, in which Vidal responded to the question “Were you chaste?” with a line that Groucho Marx might have coveted — “Chased by whom?” — and succinctly described his feelings on the death of William F. Buckley: “I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred. More

Photo Christopher Peterson

“It seemed obvious to the ‘ladies’ that there was some big ‘number’ I had just left … ‘Good morning,’ I would say. ‘Good morning,’ they would answer. And then I would get into this long black limousine with its uniformed driver, and we would glide off into the early morning light.” — Barbara Walters, “Audition”

Heather Havrilesky
Salon.com
I know I do. And I can only hope that, by compiling complicated analyzes of deeply trivial televised entertainments, I can be like a beacon unto all of the overeducated but ultimately shallow and unfocused young people out there, and encourage them to train their powerful minds not on big, important questions and problems, but on trifles and whimsy. Remember, whippersnappers, if you don’t have the energy to be inspiring and famous and powerful and serious — or the thought of that life makes you want to crawl into bed with a bottle of red wine and a 10-pound brick of chocolate — that doesn’t mean you can’t do something kind of fun and lively and ultimately pointless but reasonably well-paid. Read more

Pic courtesy of Zac-Attack

This from Salon.com:

[The]…New York Times article by David Barstow, documenting the Pentagon and U.S. media’s joint use of pre-programmed “military analysts” who posed as objective experts while touting the Government line and having extensive business interests in promoting those views, is very well-documented and well-reported. And credit to the NYT for having sued to compel disclosure of the documents on which the article is based. There are significant elements of the story that exemplify excellent investigative journalism.

At the same time, though, in light of questions on this very topic raised even by the NYT back in 2003, it is difficult to take the article’s underlying points seriously as though they are some kind of new revelation. And ultimately, to the extent there are new revelations here, they are a far greater indictment of our leading news organizations than the government officials on whom it focuses.

Read more