Robert David Sullivan

Left-wing bias on prime-time TV?

Macleans critic Jaime Weinman looks at left-wing bias on prime time TV, the topic of a new book by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro:

I get that Shapiro might look at TV, which is made mostly by people with socially liberal attitudes, and get upset. But first of all, there’s no alternative to television with a social or political point of view, not if you want shows to be entertaining. A good show will reflect its’ creators experiences, opinions and lives to some extent; if they try to airbrush anything from their own experiences from the show, the result will be a bland show that fails. Attitudes and beliefs are a part of anything that’s any good, and even things that aren’t. And besides, trying to leave them out doesn’t really work; Jay Leno is bland because he will not express a point of view in his comedy, but certain assumptions (right, left or some weird combination of the two) are encoded into many of the bad jokes he tells.

I agree that there's not much of an audience for scripted shows that bend over backward to avoid any kind of political view. A bland talk-show host like Leno gets viewers (at least after prime time), but how many people would want to watch a scripted comedy with someone like him in the lead?

And as Weinman points out, liberal bias in prime time seems limited to social issues like gay rights and gun control. (Abortion is a glaring exception; characters can talk about being pro-choice, but they can only excercise that right on shows that few people watch anyway, like Friday Night Lights.) Economic issues are another matter. Very few TV characters are in labor unions, and low-income Americans are rarely shown except as victims/perpetrators of violent crimes and in "poor people get along just fine" comedies like My Name Is Earl and Raising Hope. Prime time TV actually seems much less overtly liberal than in the days of All in the Family and M*A*S*H.

Coincidentally, the TV clip below has recently become a minor Internet meme. I hope the conservative watchdogs get this commie sitcom (still being repeated 50 years later!) taken off the air, or at least balanced with The Joe Arpaio Show.

 

Anti-marriage gays & anti-gay straights both on the wane?

Andrew Sullivan recently had another go at the "gay left" and its supposed opposition to gay marriage, prompted by the release of marriage skeptic Michael Bronski's new book A Queer History of the United States.

It has always seemed chilling to me that gay leftists — when pushed to say what they really believe — want to keep gays in some sort of glorious, oppressed, marginalized position, until the majority agrees with the gay left's view of human nature, and revolutionizes straight society as well. This will never happen (and in my view, shouldn't).

Sullivan backed off a bit in a subsequent post, more or less admitting that the separatist strain in the gay rights movement is now pretty much limited to its oldest members. I'm not aware of any polling that has broken down the gay community by age groups, but my anecdotal impression is that the "Why would we want to get married?" crowd within the gay community is skewed toward the over-50 set, parallel to the "Why would we let them get married?" crowd in the general population. (In both cases, there is a small number of younger people who share the view of these elders, mostly for the security blanket of religious or ideological orthodoxy.)

I also think there's been a convergence among gay and straight younger Americans on attitudes toward sexuality and monogamy. That is, both groups endorse a period of exploration and experimentation in young adulthood, followed by a committed relationship and, in many cases, raising children. And even as gays and lesbians have sought marriage equality, the definition of monogamy has loosened a bit in straight society. I don't mean that actual cheating is condoned, but my impression is that some former taboos (watching porn, having "work spouses," enjoying flirtatious glances at the gym) aren't as marriage-threatening as in previous generations. I don't know if properly supervised lap dances are kosher for straight married people yet (as they are for many gay couples), but if they're seeking advice from Dan Savage, it seems only a matter of time.

Less repressive and patriarchal attitudes among straight people mean that gays and lesbians would have to really step things up to remain a separate, revolutionary force in American society, and I don't think many of us have the energy or inclination for a sexual arms race. I'm certainly not capable of doing anything to shock the straight(-appearing) college kids I see every day on the Orange Line.

Are we to demand that gay couples break up every few years (maybe each time someone gets a new ATM card) or get drummed out of the queer community? I'd rather just declare victory on the marriage front and enjoy the peace.

Note: I've worked with Michael Bronski back in my Boston Phoenix days, and he's a provocative and entertaining writer with a fine sense of humor — not the kind of stern militant that some might associate with the term "gay left."

Another theory on why Bill Keller thinks Twitter is icky

Last week I speculated that New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has a bias against social networking because the executive editor of the New York Times is too busy fending off people trying to kiss his ass to spend a lot of time on Twitter and Facebook.

I Hate the New York Times has another theory behind Keller's rant, which is that the Gray Lady simply hates all forms of fun enjoyed by normal people, such as cursing and going to flea markets. Of course, this strengthens rather than competes with my theory of of Dumontesque elitism.

...for every bizarre activity [New York Times writers] praise, there is another relatively harmless pastime they disparage.  Why?  Maybe it’s too lowbrow.  Maybe it’s because the fans of said pastime are presumed to be illiterate proles who don’t understand the consequences of their actions.  Or maybe it’s for the opposite reason — the pastime is question has gotten too popular with the hip, trend-chasing urbanites whom the writers fondly imagine comprise their core readership.  There must be something dangerous about it.

Enduring stereotype of the day: Nasty nuns

Boing Boing reports on a study with the not-too-shocking conclusion that religious people feel more guilt about having sex than nonbelievers do. The site hypes the story with the stock photo at right of a gargoyle-like (and obviously sexually repressed) Catholic nun wielding a knuckle-rapping ruler.

But the study notes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, and Baptists all show more bangers' remorse than Catholics do. And having grown up in the '70s rather than the '30s, the nuns I encountered in Catholics school were more likely to be modern, real-world women than central-casting hags. They certainly didn't encourage casual sex, but they weren't big on telling kids they'd go to hell for wanking off.

This is another way in which the Catholic Church's memorable imagery (including nuns' habits) is used against it in the mainstream media. Bill Donohue should denounce Boing Boing for this calumny.

Related: "Why are American Catholics so gay for gay rights?"

Big shots who don't need social media don't understand why us nobodies use it

My guess is that New York Times executive editor Bill Keller gets all his phone calls returned. I'll bet that he has party invitations for every night of the week and has strangers trying to get his attention at every conference room and cocktail bar he steps into. I don't think he means to brag about this, but that what he's doing when he wonders aloud why we need stuff like Twitter and Facebook:

The most obvious drawback of social media is that they are aggressive distractions. Unlike the virtual fireplace or that nesting pair of red-tailed hawks we have been live-streaming on nytimes.com, Twitter is not just an ambient presence. It demands attention and response. It is the enemy of contemplation. Every time my TweetDeck shoots a new tweet to my desktop, I experience a little dopamine spritz that takes me away from . . . from . . . wait, what was I saying?

My mistrust of social media is intensified by the ephemeral nature of these communications. They are the epitome of in-one-ear-and-out-the-other, which was my mother’s trope for a failure to connect.

I’m not even sure these new instruments are genuinely “social.” There is something decidedly faux about the camaraderie of Facebook, something illusory about the connectedness of Twitter. Eavesdrop on a conversation as it surges through the digital crowd, and more often than not it is reductive and redundant. Following an argument among the Twits is like listening to preschoolers quarreling: You did! Did not! Did too! Did not!

You're right, Bill. (You don't mind my using your first name, right?) There is something faux about Facebook, just like there's something phony about New York Times columns written in the first person. I'd much rather hear your views about social media in person, with an opportunity for meaningful discussion, than read your argument after it's been edited for New York Times house style and cut down to standard column length. (And I'll bet there are some great unprintable stories you can share on the subject, perhaps involving a Pulitzer Prize winner getting busted for "sexting" at a White House dinner.)

10 more worst things about Boston

I wasn't aware of it when I posted my list of 10 things that bug me about Boston (including the Filene's Pit, the cap on alcohol licenses, and the running out of town of Sam Yoon), but John Keith had beaten me to it with his own Top 10 list on the Charlestown Patch site.

His list is completely different and includes too-frequent trash pick-ups (which mean garbage bags lining sidewalks too much of the time) and the madness of wearing flip-flops while walking through a city filled with dog poop.

The only one I'm dubious about is "Boston Common abuse," since I wouldn't mind a Shake Shack there.

The 10 worst things about Boston

There's a lot to love about Boston. It's in much better shape than it was 40 years ago, when there was some doubt over whether it would recover from decades of rot and self-destruction. It's now firmly in the top tier of livable, walkable, and economically sustainable American cities.

And yet... There are still things that frustrate me about the Hub. Here are 10 things that still make me squrim.

1. The Filene's Pit. The Filene's department store (and its iconic bargain basement) closed in September 2007, and what was one of the city's leading tourist attractions is now just a facade next to a fenced-off hole in the ground. A plan to build condos and office space there is dead, and a recent condo-building spree seemingly everywhere downtown except the pit will probably kill any demand for more units.

Mayor Menino blames the economy and the rotten planning of the developer that tore down the building, recently telling the Herald, “The hole is going to be there until those folks from New York understand we in Boston know how to do development. And just because they can’t get development done, that’s not my fault.” But Menino justifies his record-setting tenure (he's been mayor since 1993) and tight control of the Boston Redevelopment Authority by saying that he's able to get things done rather than worrying about such things as a "vision" for the city. Would an inexperienced mayor really do a worse job of saying "not my fault"?

UPDATE: As of May 2014, a new developer is rehabbing the Filene's building and starting construction on a 625-foot tower that will replace the "pit." The Boston Globe reports that the Filene's building will be occupied by a supermarket and by the first American store of the Irish clothing chain Primark (which Globe fashion writer Christopher Muther describes as "a company known for $13 sneakers and $3 sunglasses" that won't do much to improve Boston's fashion sense).

Winthrop heads Top 10 in usage of MBTA's "The Ride" program

At Universal Hub, John A. Keith alerts us to the arrival of the MBTA's "Blue Book," which contains data on ridership for all of the T's stations and services.

What caught my eye was the section on The RIDE, which is a door-to-door van service for the elderly and disabled. Costs for the program are soaring with increased usage, and the Boston Globe recently reported that the RIDE eats up almost 10 percent of the T's budget while accounting for less than 1 percent of all service. (Disclosure: My parents in Malden, who can no longer drive a car, use the RIDE and are generally very happy with it.)

I was curious about which communities depend most on the RIDE, so I compared the Blue Book data to the latest Census population figures to come up with a per-capita measure. The top 10 cities and towns are listed below.

Winthrop isn't a huge surprise at No. 1, since it's a small peninsular town with no train service. I wonder whether a regularly scheduled (and publicized) shuttle service to get people on and off the finger of land would take some pressure off the RIDE, which is a taxi-like appointment service. Of course, the RIDE might also become more efficient as more of its users become adept with smartphones and can schedule needed trips with a few keystrokes instead of calling the T a day in advance. (I don't see any RIDE apps on the T's website yet.)

Gingrich doesn't need an explicitly racist strategy when an anti-urban one will do nicely

Paul Waldman writes about Newt Gingrich's ability to "pick at the scab of racial resentment," citing his characterization of Barack Obama as a "food stamp president." Waldman also recalls Gingrich's racially tinged mocking of a Clintonian initiative:

You may remember that in 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a large crime bill with many features in it, including money to hire 100,000 new police officers. But when Gingrich mounted his campaign against it, he focused on one tiny element: "midnight basketball," something that actually began under the George H.W. Bush administration, to give kids at risk of joining gangs something else to do. Midnight basketball, Gingrich argued relentlessly, told you everything you needed to know about Clinton's plans to give your hard-earned money to people who didn't deserve it. "Midnight basketball" became the "welfare queens" of the 1990s.

This is an excellent example of how much racial resentment is intertwined, and possibly even subordinate to, the Republican Party's hostility to urban America. Big-city residents of all races share one thing with African-Americans: Very few of them vote Republican, and the GOP doesn't lose anything by using them as political foils. Even in Republican primaries, there are proportionately few votes in densely populated areas*, so it makes sense to encourage, and feed off, suburban and rural voters' resentment at their tax dollars going to solve urban problems (a phenomenon that can be found in almost every state).

Midnight basketball is a perfectly reasonable idea to most big-city dwellers of all races, and well worth the cost if it reduces crime by even a slight amount. But if you think that safe streets (like health care) is a finite resource rather than a universal right, it doesn't make any sense to divert tax money to the most hopeless cases. Better to help the police maintain safe streets in the suburbs than to fight a lost battle in inner-city neighborhoods.

According to Waldman's post, Gingrich went on Meet the Press and scoffed at the charge that "food stamp president" is a racially charged phrase, adding that Obama "follows the same destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit."

The specific reference to Detroit, not at all representative of the current health of urban America, is surely no accident — not just because it's mostly black, but because I suspect that most GOP voters feel that, the Disneyfication of New York notwithstanding, all major American cities are eventually going to fall apart as badly as the Motor City has. Just as the GOP elites believe that all entitlement programs, from Food Stamps to Medicare, are doomed to collapse and thus not worth saving.

*In New York's 2008 Democratic primary, Manhattan cast almost three times as many votes as Long Island's Nassau County; the ration was exactly reversed in the GOP primary. Same thing in New Jersey, when comparing Newark's Essex County to suburban Morris County. And in Georgia, the biggest sources of Democratic votes were in DeKalb and Fulton counties, which include Atlanta and nearby suburbs; in the GOP primary, sprawling Cobb and Gwinnett counties were at the top.

 

Jacob rules boy's names in US, but Wyatt is king in Montana

The top baby names of 2010 for each state were released by the Social Security Administration today. Check it out to cluck disapprovingly of your neighbors.

To get a sense of geographical variations, I made a list of the top boy's and girl's name in each state that was not in the national Top 10. In other words, these are the names that you'll hear screamed across the food court at the local mall but aren't so common in other states.

Nationally, the top boy's names are Jacob, Ethan, Michael, Jayden, William, Alexander, Noah, Daniel, Aiden, and Anthony. For girls, the top names are Isabella, Sophia, Emma, Olivia, Ava, Emily, Abigail, Madison, Chloie, and Mia.

BOY'S NAMES OUTLIERS (highest in state not in Top 10 nationally)

(rank within state in parentheses)

Several names are quite popular in states with a lot of white rural residents but don't show up very high in the national rankings. For example, Mason is the most popular boy's name in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, but it's 38th in California and 31st in New York, leaving it 12th nationally. The Irish-accented Ryan is still No. 1 in Massachusetts, but it's 23rd nationally.

I don't know why Brayden (40th nationally) is at No. 3 in Kentucky, but I wonder if there's a sports-related reason. It's comforting to see the ultimate Western name, Wyatt, in the top spot in Montana even though it's 57th nationally.

Boston packs in working-age people, San Francisco bends toward seniors

After crunching Census data to come up with a "diversity density" index, I ran the numbers on age groups to see find the greatest concentrations of children, seniors, and working-age residents. Boston fares pretty well on the last category.

Boston's Suffolk County, which ranks 7th in overall population density, finishes a strong 6th (overtaking Hudson County, New Jersey) if measured only by the number of residents between ages 18 and 65 per square mile. It ranks 8th in the density of both children and seniors.

Boston and San Francisco pack about the same number of children per square mile: 2,469 for Suffolk County and 2,547 for San Francisco. But the California city has considerably more seniors: 2,553 per square mile versus 1,341 per square mile in Suffolk County. Indeed, San Francisco is the largest county outside of Florida with more seniors than children. One reason may be the extremely high cost of housing there, combined with a state property-tax law (Proposition 13) that gives homeowners an incentive to stay in place rather than move to smaller quarters or more affordable communities.

The Hub also seems to have a stronger working-age population than Philadelphia does. Philadelphia County is pretty close to Suffolk County in both children per mile (2,679 vs. 2,469) and seniors (1,377 vs. 1,341). But Suffolk has a higher concentration of residents between 18 and 65 (8,710 per square mile vs. Philly's 6,659 per square mile). This suggests that Boston is better at attracting (and keeping) residents who are more likely to be in the workforce and less likely to need city services.

Boston, Malden, Lowell have high "diversity density"

In an earlier post, I listed the 20 US counties that rank highest in "diversity density," a measure that combines racial diversity with populaton density to get a sense of "the likelihood of running into people of several different races during a brisk walk across town." Only New York and San Francisco scored higher than Boston.

This time I'm looking at Massachusetts cities and towns, and my hometown — and current residence — of Malden ranks near the top. (Photo at right is of the central business district a couple of years ago.)

Again, I based the rankings on newly released Census data. I defined "diversity" as strong representation for at least three of the racial groups for which the Census Bureau collects data. So I calculated the percentage of the population who didn't claim membership in either of the racial groups that were the two largest in each particular city or town. Then I came up with the population density for that subpopulation.

*The Bay State as a whole is 76% non-Hispanic white and 10% Hispanic, leaving 14% in other groups: 6% black, 5% Asian, 2% two or more races, and less than 1% identifying as American Indian, Native Hawaiian, or "other." In Boston, 31% of the population does not belong to either of the two leading racial groups, which are non-Hispanic white and black.

20 COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE WHO DON'T BELONG TO THE TWO LARGEST RACIAL GROUPS IN THAT COMMUNITY

(compared with rank in overall density)

Note: Winthrop, Melrose, Quincy, Belmont, and Salem are among the 20 most crowded cities and towns in the Bay State but did not make this diversity list. Counties that rank higher on diversity density than on overall population density are in bold.

1. Boston: 3,909 (4)
2. Cambridge: 3,763 (2)
3. Somerville: 3,751 (1)
4. Malden: 3,204 (6)
5. Everett: 3,106 (5)
6. Lowell: 2,094 (14)
7. Chelsea: 2,018 (3)
8. Lynn: 1,699 (11)
9. Brockton: 1,191 (27)
10. Springfield: 1,164 (22)
11. Revere: 1,159 (8)
12. Medford: 1,061 (15)
13. Brookline: 961 (10)
14. Worcester: 942 (20)
15. Watertown: 869 (13)
16. Waltham: 841 (21)
17. Randolph: 757 (32)
18. New Bedford: 724 (23)
19. Arlington: 673 (12)
20. Lawrence: 625 (7)