Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Most Disgusting Story Of The Year...
...coming in during the figurative last moments of, courtesy of The New York Times' "Vows" section:
This truly is one of the most repugnant "slice of life" stories I've read in years. "Vows," for those aren't aware is Times section that does a snapshot of some interesting couple (straight, gay, whatever) committing their lives together (wedding, civil union, whatever). Though I don't regularly read the section, I know that they've certainly done features on couples who are on their second such ceremony. Not surprising in this day and age.
But, I'm pretty sure there's never been quite a duo like Carol Ann Riddell and John Partilla:
[SNIP]
But, not, apparently, for too long:
[SNIP]
But they managed to get through it all:
One's got to hope and pray that karma is a bitch.
This "deeply in love" couple has put their respective spouses through hell during this process, upended their kids lives in ways that will inevitably leave scars (regardless of how The Times suggests they are spinning in happiness). To add insult to injury, their relationship becomes official in "a small ceremony in the presidential suite of the Mandarin Oriental New York hotel." "Small ceremony"? "presidential suite" -- in an establishment that calls itself "the most breathtaking luxury hotel in New York"? And all of this -- the history of their mutual adultery and how they got to resolve their "feelings" gets celebrated in New York's official "paper of record" -- in the "Vows" section yet!!
How nice that respectable placement must be for their ex-spouses!!
This "deeply in love" couple are the poster children for why much of America sees New York as the nation's narcissistic and self-centered capital - why many of the international "they" hate "us" (i.e., the U.S.).
|
This truly is one of the most repugnant "slice of life" stories I've read in years. "Vows," for those aren't aware is Times section that does a snapshot of some interesting couple (straight, gay, whatever) committing their lives together (wedding, civil union, whatever). Though I don't regularly read the section, I know that they've certainly done features on couples who are on their second such ceremony. Not surprising in this day and age.
But, I'm pretty sure there's never been quite a duo like Carol Ann Riddell and John Partilla:
Ms. Riddell was a reporter and anchor on WNBC television in New York and a mother of two. A glamorous, petite woman with a strong handshake and stronger opinions, she is not the type to be easily dazzled, yet she was struck by Mr. Partilla’s exuberance.
“He bounds into a room,” said Ms. Riddell, who was 40 when they met. “He doesn’t walk in, he explodes in.”
Mr. Partilla, then a 42-year-old triathlete and a president of media sales at Time Warner, recognized a kindred dynamo. “She’s such a force,” he said. “She rocks back and forth on her feet as if she can’t contain her energy as she’s talking to you.”
The connection was immediate, but platonic. In fact, as they became friends so did their spouses. There were dinners, Christmas parties and even family vacations together.
So Ms. Riddell was surprised to find herself eagerly looking for Mr. Partilla at school events — and missing him when he wasn’t there. “I didn’t admit to anyone how I felt,” she said. “To even think about it was disruptive and disloyal.”
[SNIP]
But, not, apparently, for too long:
“I’ve fallen in love with you,” he recalled saying to her. She jumped up, knocking a glass of beer into his lap, and rushed out of the bar. Five minutes later, he said, she returned and told him, “I feel exactly the same way.” Then she left again.
As Mr. Partilla saw it, their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly. “Pain or more pain,” was how he summarized it.
“The part that’s hard for people to believe is we didn’t have an affair,” Ms. Riddell said. “I didn’t want to sneak around and sleep with him on the side. I wanted to get up in the morning and read the paper with him.”
With that goal in mind, they told their spouses. “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Partilla, who moved out of his home, reluctantly leaving his three children. But he returned only days later. Then he boomeranged back and forth for six months.
[SNIP]
But they managed to get through it all:
All they had were their feelings, which Ms. Riddell described as “unconditional and all-encompassing.”
“I came to realize it wasn’t a punishment, it was a gift,” she said. “But I had to earn it. Were we brave enough to hold hands and jump?”
They did jump. Both officially separated from their spouses by late 2008, though they waited until July 2009 before moving in together.
“I didn’t believe in the word soul mate before, but now I do,” said Mr. Partilla, who is 46 and in January is to become a chief operating officer of Dentsu, a Japanese advertising agency.
They finalized their divorces this year. “I will always feel terribly about the pain I caused my ex-husband,” said Ms. Riddell, 44 and working freelance. “It was not what I ever would have wished on him.” Or on her children.
“My kids are going to look at me and know that I am flawed and not perfect, but also deeply in love,” she said. “We’re going to have a big, noisy, rich life, with more love and more people in it.”
On Nov. 15, the couple were legally wed at the Marriage Bureau in New York by Blanca Martinez of the City Clerk’s office.
Then on Dec. 11, Ms. Riddell donned a Nicole Miller strapless gown for a small ceremony in the presidential suite of the Mandarin Oriental New York hotel. As if on cue, the hotel room phone rang as she began to recite her vows.
One's got to hope and pray that karma is a bitch.
This "deeply in love" couple has put their respective spouses through hell during this process, upended their kids lives in ways that will inevitably leave scars (regardless of how The Times suggests they are spinning in happiness). To add insult to injury, their relationship becomes official in "a small ceremony in the presidential suite of the Mandarin Oriental New York hotel." "Small ceremony"? "presidential suite" -- in an establishment that calls itself "the most breathtaking luxury hotel in New York"? And all of this -- the history of their mutual adultery and how they got to resolve their "feelings" gets celebrated in New York's official "paper of record" -- in the "Vows" section yet!!
How nice that respectable placement must be for their ex-spouses!!
This "deeply in love" couple are the poster children for why much of America sees New York as the nation's narcissistic and self-centered capital - why many of the international "they" hate "us" (i.e., the U.S.).
Labels: disgusting rich, New York Times
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
More Dowdy Times Writing
Jack and Jill catches Maureen Dowd once again having it both ways -- getting ugly rumors into the mainstream, by blaming others for spreading the rumors! While I thank the J&J crew for pointing out that it was conservatives -- including yours truly -- who debunked the "whitey" rumour, I should stress one thing. In fact, I should have made this clearer in my original post: With the exception of the first Kitty Dukakis-burning-the-flag story, my experience with this urban legend is that it rarely went further than conservative circles.
In other words, there was always this internal whisper that that picture/video was "out there." I can't recall whether these urban legends ever got much traction beyond the right's inner conversations. Again, the first one involving Kitty Dukakis is a major exception. Indeed, it may well have been that experience from that incident prevented subsequent ones from spreading much further.
|
In other words, there was always this internal whisper that that picture/video was "out there." I can't recall whether these urban legends ever got much traction beyond the right's inner conversations. Again, the first one involving Kitty Dukakis is a major exception. Indeed, it may well have been that experience from that incident prevented subsequent ones from spreading much further.
Labels: Maureen Dowd, New York Times
Thursday, February 21, 2008
McCain Vs. The Gray Lady
McCain and the female lobbyist -- improper in more ways than one?
McCain today denied any romantic relationship with -- or pushing legislation favorable to -- Vicki Iseman:
Still, this story hinges on the word of McCain vs. the New York Times. Will the conservative base, which hates the New York Times more than it does McCain (I think) rally to his side, as they would if this were about George W. Bush?
We'll see.
UPDATE: The story behind the story, from The New Republic.
UPDATE II: Greg Sargent over at Talking Points Memo's The Horse's Mouth finds much to criticize in the Times piece.
|
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.This is the story that McCain managed to keep from being printed back in December.
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.
It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.
McCain today denied any romantic relationship with -- or pushing legislation favorable to -- Vicki Iseman:
"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization," McCain said Thursday.The Times story certainly doesn't have a "smoking gun" -- or stained dress -- in proving an affair between McCain and Iseman. However, the key role of McCain's former right hand main, John Weaver, (the only aide mentioned prominently) gives it a certain power.
"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," the Arizona senator said.
Earlier, in a statement issued by his presidential campaign, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
Still, this story hinges on the word of McCain vs. the New York Times. Will the conservative base, which hates the New York Times more than it does McCain (I think) rally to his side, as they would if this were about George W. Bush?
We'll see.
UPDATE: The story behind the story, from The New Republic.
UPDATE II: Greg Sargent over at Talking Points Memo's The Horse's Mouth finds much to criticize in the Times piece.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, John McCain, New York Times
Monday, June 25, 2007
Rupert's Rise
The New York Times profiles the Murdoch media empire.
Noted without comment.
|
Noted without comment.
Labels: New York Times, Rupert Murdoch
Friday, June 08, 2007
Dept. Of Missing Information
The New York Times' slogan is still "All the News That's Fit To Print."
Consider this nice article on presidential pardons -- particularly whether George W. Bush should pardon former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Note this passage:
Leave aside the connection between Clinton's "popularity" and the Rich pardon. Shouldn't the writer have mentioned this little point, i.e. that Libby was one of Rich's lawyers who pushed the Clinton White House for a pardon?
No, that information does not have direct bearing on whether Bush should pardon Libby, but it is rather material to the question of how presidents in general are occasionally lobbied in the pardoning of certain individuals. The info would have also put Adelman's "of all things" line in a rather ironic light.
Yet, not one mention of the Rich-Libby relationship. Guess it wasn't "fit to print."
|
Consider this nice article on presidential pardons -- particularly whether George W. Bush should pardon former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Note this passage:
Kenneth L. Adelman, the former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and one of Mr. Libby’s prominent supporters, said he did not believe a pardon of Mr. Libby would have any bearing on Mr. Bush’s legacy.
“Clinton is very popular in the world, and he pardoned Marc Rich, of all things,” Mr. Adelman said. (Mr. Rich was a fugitive from charges of conspiracy, tax evasion, racketeering and violating United States sanctions by trading oil with Iran when Mr. Clinton pardoned him.)
Mr. Adelman said he was chagrined by what he described as the president’s inconsistent application of loyalty, which he said seems to be cutting against Mr. Libby after having played out in favor of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “who were palpably doing a terrible job.”
Leave aside the connection between Clinton's "popularity" and the Rich pardon. Shouldn't the writer have mentioned this little point, i.e. that Libby was one of Rich's lawyers who pushed the Clinton White House for a pardon?
No, that information does not have direct bearing on whether Bush should pardon Libby, but it is rather material to the question of how presidents in general are occasionally lobbied in the pardoning of certain individuals. The info would have also put Adelman's "of all things" line in a rather ironic light.
Yet, not one mention of the Rich-Libby relationship. Guess it wasn't "fit to print."
Labels: journalism, New York Times, pardon, Scooter Libby
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Times, They Are A Changing...
...they're just not telling anybody.
Sam Tanenhaus' NYT "Week In Review" essay tries to make a tenuous allegorical link between Jerry Falwell's death and Paul Wolfowitz's resignation from the World Bank on the potential falling decline of the American conservative movement.
It is something of a stretch. However, what immediately undermined the premise for me as I read it in the Sunday paper (dead-tree version) was this sentence:
The sentence called the piece into question because of its historical inaccuracy: House Rpeublicans impeached Clinton; the Senate, of course, failed to convict him.
Well, lo and behold, this is what we find, when we go to the story on The Times' website:
There is no editorial note anywhere on the page to take note of the change. So, what, The New York Times didn't think anyone would notice?
|
Sam Tanenhaus' NYT "Week In Review" essay tries to make a tenuous allegorical link between Jerry Falwell's death and Paul Wolfowitz's resignation from the World Bank on the potential falling decline of the American conservative movement.
It is something of a stretch. However, what immediately undermined the premise for me as I read it in the Sunday paper (dead-tree version) was this sentence:
And after failing to impeach Mr. Clinton, House Republicans, far from retreating into caution or self-doubt, kept up the pressure and turned the 2000 election into a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s character.Here's a shot of the piece:
The sentence called the piece into question because of its historical inaccuracy: House Rpeublicans impeached Clinton; the Senate, of course, failed to convict him.
Well, lo and behold, this is what we find, when we go to the story on The Times' website:
And after failing to win a conviction of Mr. Clinton following his impeachment, Republicans, far from retreating into caution or self-doubt, kept up the pressure and turned the 2000 election into a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s character.Emphasis added.
There is no editorial note anywhere on the page to take note of the change. So, what, The New York Times didn't think anyone would notice?
Labels: New York Times
Monday, March 26, 2007
After Jayson B. & Judith M...
...thank goodness, the New York Times' fact-checking policies have become more stringent.
Oh, wait. Um, never mind:
|
Oh, wait. Um, never mind:
Big trouble at the New York Times Magazine this morning, as an editors' note reveals that one of the women who appeared in last week's cover story on female Iraq veterans never served in Iraq and might have made up much of what she told reporter Sara Corbett in her interview.Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that The New York Times is not an A-plus quality newspaper -- but it may have become convinced that it once was.
In the original article, 27-year-old Amorita Randall (pictured) claimed to have been stationed in Iraq during 2004. She also said that she suffered a brain injury during a roadside attack, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D. Today, the Times writes that, "Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did."
Labels: fact-checking, journalism, New York Times
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Gray Lady Discovers Blonkies
If white kids into black music are "wiggers," obviously, black kids who like white music, must be "blonkies"! Thank you, New York Times for discovering this amazing trend:
Who indeed?
Finally, the New York Times can allow these invisible blonkies to come out of the closet and admit that, you know, they might actually like punk rock!! What's next?
Thank you, New York Times, thank you!!! I can now die and go to punk-rock heaven and mosh in peace!
P.S. The above quote from the story should be prime source material for anyone attempting to write a parody of a New York Times article. (Hat-tip: Gawker)
UPDATE: The Gawker piece was written by this blogger who I am kicking myself for not discovering earlier. Being the hard-working black man that he is, he gets around: This piece on the dynamics of the all-black head coach Super Bowl is one of the funniest things I've read in some time.
|
WHEN Douglas Martin first saw the video for Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” as a teenager in High Point, N.C., “it blew my mind,” he said. Like many young people who soothe their angst with the balm of alternative rock, Mr. Martin was happy to discover music he enjoyed and a subculture where he belonged.Black kids into indie rock! Who would ever think such a thing would exist?
Except, as it turned out, he didn’t really belong, because he is black.
Who indeed?
Finally, the New York Times can allow these invisible blonkies to come out of the closet and admit that, you know, they might actually like punk rock!! What's next?
Thank you, New York Times, thank you!!! I can now die and go to punk-rock heaven and mosh in peace!
P.S. The above quote from the story should be prime source material for anyone attempting to write a parody of a New York Times article. (Hat-tip: Gawker)
UPDATE: The Gawker piece was written by this blogger who I am kicking myself for not discovering earlier. Being the hard-working black man that he is, he gets around: This piece on the dynamics of the all-black head coach Super Bowl is one of the funniest things I've read in some time.
Labels: indie rock, New York Times, punk, white liberal-media patronization
