Yablonowitz's Open Salon Blog

I Don't Read Your Open Salon Posts and You Don't Read Mine

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:06:25 -0400

Just about every time I start cursing at you assholes on Open Salon who ignore the few posts I bother making these days, I realize that I don't read any of your posts. So maybe I should stop being such a fucking narcisstic hypocrite, eh?

Seriously, Open Salon is a nightmare train for the ego. On an intellectual level, the communal concept of a place to read good writing and try to share some of your own with supposedly a built-in audience is a nearly irresistible opportunity for a writer. But after a few weeks, you realize there is no rhyme or reason for what gets read, rated and discussed.

At least that's what you tell yourself when you spend a couple of hours on something that gets one fucking rating and a comment that's only a fractured sentence tangentially related to the topic at hand.

And then you get those emails from writers letting you know every time they fart out a post. My first thought when I get those is to assume the writer has a blinding personality disorder. Not self-conscious enough to realize how desperate for approval they appear.

If those fuckfaces had any self-respect, they'd just post their shit and let the chips fall where they may. And no one will know that you get on your blog every five minutes for two days after your post.

Like I do after I post.

Then there are the douchebags who write navel-gazing blogs about the gross injustice of the Open Salon system and the insular, self-perpetuating popularity contest this “community” has become with crass openly agreed-upon mutual self-fucking relationships where one poster will always rate another as long as that poster rates theirs. Actually, wait, I hate that shit too. And there's lots of it. Or at least there was when I paid attention. But I'd never write anything about it because I'm no fucking whiner. It's about the writing, not the reception.

A good writer doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks of what they wrote. A good writer just focuses on what they're writing about and makes sure it's as truthful to the subject as they can get. They don't need validation from other mopes on a forum for either failed writers or wannabe hack writers.

So I've come to the conclusion that I must, in fact, be a shitty writer because I'm constantly looking for validation from people in this online community. And I fucking hate every single one of you who don't read,, rate and comment on what I wrote.

Only I've probably read less than 15 full posts since I've been on this ridiculous masturbatory community. I don't really care what you have to write about. Because your posts look funny – either your typeface is off or your photos are poorly sized or your topic is trite, banal, or incomprehensible. But, then again, how the hell would I know since I don't even read the first paragraph.

This makes everything so unbearably embarrassing and if I don't fully come out and say it, it'll just continue to feel like the elephant in the room whenever I post. What kind of rotten human feels butthurt when he doesn't get attention even though he is actually MORE inattentive then the assfaces he's sore at?

This kind of rotten human being (points at self).

This isn't really an apology, I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure I'm still going to write shit every now and then and I'm pretty sure I'll pathetically seek out the (few if any) responses with an obsessive fixation indicating serious personal ego deficiency. And I'll probably not read, rate, and comment on other posts because once I'm done writing, I'm out of time and don't have the attention to read whatever blather you bother shoving out there. So while I'm saying “fuck you for not giving a shit about me,” you can take calm yourself by saying the same goddamned thing about me.

Please rate this.

Fuck you.

I Miss Andrew Breitbart

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:04:28 -0400

I feel strangely saddened and lonesome now that Andrew Breitbart has blocked me from following him on Twitter.

And I'm not even joking.

Ever since the videos of his unhinged, irate, quasi-lunatic verbal diarrhea aimed at Max Blumenthal and Mike Madden were posted on Salon, I found myself strangely charmed by his recklessness, his mad scientist persona and his complete devotion to a pre-conceived political narrative in which liberals wield power through racial politics. The ridiculousness of him is almost intoxicating – and so I quite eagerly added him to my Twitter feed.

I am not a political blogger or someone who has many followers (think I'm at 19 now). I'm a little minnow in the Twitter pond whose replies are never acknowledged by the 27 Twitter accounts I follow. But it's not from lack of trying. I TRY so hard to be witty in my character-restricted responses. The people I follow, however, are far too busy and important to ever retweet me or even reply. Sad face.

The following/followers dynamic of Twitter reminds me of high school. Those with followers in the 1,000's are the glitterati of the school – the jocks, the popular kids, the rich kids, etc. They follow each other and comment or retweet each other incestuously as their banter slowly gains a following. (Roger Ebert is a noted and wonderful exception to this phenomenon, he retweets followers every day.)

So it was with pure unadulterated excitement that none other than Andrew Breitbart retweeted a reply I sent to him. My heart (with its recently-repaired atrial septal defect), was racing. This coarse blowhard with more than 17,000 followers retweeted a comment from little old me, sitting at home in my downtrodden, unemployed state. He saw potential in me! He cared. He wanted his 17,000 followers to know what I thought about him.

Not only that, but he retweeted me two more times and replied directly to me a few others. If you don't mind, I will re-live the most glorious post-laid off week of my life with a re-cap of our interaction. I do this more for my own sense of nostalgia than for your enjoyment as a reader because the wit I employ is weak.

I suppose some background information is in order first. If you follow Breitbart, you soon realize that he tweets just like he acts – obsessively, barely comprehensibly and, most importantly, self-righteously. He is convinced that Eric Boehlert of Media Matters is THE key target for his crusade and frequently goes after him (well, the two actually go after each other in a way where you can almost cut the sexual tension with a knife).

Last Friday, Breitbart launched a series of Tweets at Boehlert for some reason or another. Like all within a few minutes of each other. I could actually picture him sitting in the tub with his laptop staring at his Twitter feed after each post waiting for Boehlert to reply and, when he didn't, he'd fire off another one hoping to finally instigate a response.

I felt the need to comment on this behavior and wrote:

@andrewbreitbart See how many more times you can tweet about @ericboehlert. Me thinks you doth protest too much.

Stunningly, he retweeted me! The first (and, still, only) person to retweet me. Unswayed by my observation, Breitbart continued his compulsive angry need to rip into Boehlert with at least three additional tweets. With my ego swelling, I replied again:

@andrewbreitbart I'm assuming @ericboehlert is getting the paperwork done for the restraining order. Exactly how THIN is your skin?4:56 PM Apr 23rd

Again a retweet! I was flying high. I'd finally penetrated into the new media talkingheadosphere. I could already see the NY Times blogger debate unfolding. Then, to my utter astonishment, Breitbart replied directly to me.

AndrewBreitbart @yablonowitz said the guy whose last 3 tweets are about me, someone who has never met you nor cares a whit about you.5:22 PM Apr 23rd

I think I treasure this one the most because of it's awesomeness – the misspelling of “wit” and the notion that I might find it insulting that he doesn't care about me. (Actually, I do now, but I didn't at the time).

So I suddenly, and for the first time, got pretty hooked on Twitter. Interacting with a bone fide deranged new media mogul was a thrill. I would reply to about every other Tweet from Breitbart, hoping for another response from someone who should be, like all the other People of Status on Twitter, completely ignoring me.

Another obsession of Breitbart's is his conviction that “the left” wields immense power over, and I'm not kidding here, white men who disagree with them by calling them racists. In Breitbart's universe, the new victimized demographic are white men. He's obsessed with finding proof that “the left” bashes its opponents by convincing the media that they (ie – mostly white men) are racists (his current focus is on disproving the widely circulated claim that black congressmen on their way to the health care bill vote were called the “n” word.)

I took issue:

@andrewbreitbart Keep shining that light on white, male victimhood. I mean, just look at all the homosexual, black conservatives at Goldman.9:11 AM Apr 26th

He replied:

@yablonowitz goldman, that bastion of democratic party donations? i'm now associated with them? talk about sophistry.9:13 AM Apr 26th

@andrewbreitbart Nice try. Would prefer if you ripped on Dems for Goldman connections rather than defend the most well-off demographic.9:34 AM Apr 26th

As I recount this, tears are welling in my eyes. Look what we had together. Meaningless, abbreviated, insignificant dialogue. But I'll take any dialogue on Twitter I can get. I continued to try to engage Breitbart, I was honored he was even talking to me. I was getting new followers. I was on top of the world.

Somewhere, though, it all went bad. I think it was my obsessiveness with him. I became Andrew Breitbart and I think that is what, ultimately, caused him to block me. Either that or the fact that I made a couple of remarks admiring the hair quality of the people who work for him.

To wit:

@andrewbreitbart I will give you this - you and your staff have the best hair in the blogosphere.10:15 AM Apr 26th

@yablonowitz you're on fire! i can tell you're smarting at your confidence to attack me head-on. fight on!10:16 AM Apr 26th

@andrewbreitbart I'm too intimidated by your Brentwood "boostraps" hardship life to fight you head on.11:20 AM Apr 26th

(I misspelled “bootstraps” Ooops!)

@andrewbreitbart @jamesokeefe Hairstyles of the white and angry.#1970s, #angularhair, #prell http://twitpic.com/1iqhb 35:21 PM Apr 26th

@andrewbreitbart Are you in the bath, tweeting, with your champagne right now? Cuz that is the hottest way to take down liberal elites. 10:58 AM Apr 27th

When he gets out of the tub @EricBoehlert When will @andrewbreitbart correct this 100% fake report from his site?http://tinyurl.com/2ewjozj9:26 AM

Those items sound more like what you two need to play Twister. @andrewbreitbart @EricBoehlert You have a pager, a countdown clock & lotion.10:03 AM Apr 28th

Thinking of naming my chicken "Breitbart". See who lays more eggs per day. @andrewbreitbart2:02 PM Apr 28th

(It's true, we're getting chickens!)

@andrewbreitbart Jim Hoft may win biggovernment.com staff hairstyle contest. Which is quite an honor considering the competition.6:42 PM Apr 28th

Now somewhere in that series of unreplied-to tweets, Breitbart turned on me. What I had thought was at least a light-hearted tete a tete apparently got too uncomfortable/irritating for Breitbart and the next thing I see is:

@yablonowitz blocked. bye!10:06 PM Apr 28th

He didn't even give me a reason. He just dumped me. Out in the cold. No more retweets, no more replies, no more acknowledgment in the Twitterverse of my existence. What did I do wrong? Was it the hair jokes? I mean look at this guy:

Not only did Jim Hoft write a completely ridiculous article about a “SWAT” team that the Obama Administration deployed to fend off old lady tea partiers (entirely false), but he was yet another biggovernment.com writer with very impressive hair. What's more, if it IS the hair, than Breitbart has serious blinders on because, just the next day, he made fun of Eric Boehlert's beard and another follower's mullet.

He's been called an asshole, a racist, a douchebag, and many, many other names from followers that he doesn't block.

What did I do, Andrew? Why you got to do a brother like that?

I kind of like you, man.

What I've Learned While Unemployed

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:03:49 -0400

Introduction:

Part 1 - Loading the Dishwasher

Hitler Has a Bad Year

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:08:51 -0400

Hitler's had a rough year.

First he found out about the housing bubble:

Then he had to be told about Michael Jackson's death:

He couldn't find Wally for the life of him:

And now he just found out about Ted Kennedy:

I Didn't Know You Cared About Ted Kennedy

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:08:59 -0400

_{Regard for Ted Kennedy in death.}

I'm sorry, I didn't know you cared.

I thought you thought Edward Kennedy was a punchline, a joke, a bad example, someone to be afraid to be associated with. I didn't realize you thought of him as "one of the greatest legislators of our time."

All I seem to remember are endless booze jokes, petty marginalizing talk and a fixation on his intractable liberalism as though it were a toxic character trait. Did I miss something? Was all this acknowledgement of his effectiveness, compassion and consensus-building airing on another channel, spoken by another politician or brought up by a different late night talk show host than what I saw growing up over the past 30 years?

I see Democratic and Republican senators at the memorial service for him including Max Baucus, from my own home state, the anti-Kennedy, the shadow, the spineless spindly compromiser to birthers and death panel advocates. I can only imagine what Ted thought about Baucus' handling of the healthcare bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

There's Bill Clinton, the man who pompously and cynically bragged to Congress that "the era of big goverment is over" - an all-too-clear signal that the Democratic Party had appropriated the talking points of the very things Kennedy fought against. A thumb in the nose to those whom Ted Kennedy worked to give dignity to.

And just look at the somber and respectful tone of the media as they adorn their screens and newspapers with pretty, meaningful graphics filled with both gravitas and enduring respect, as if they had always loved Ted Kennedy. As if they never repeatedly marginalized, condescended and kicked the caricature of him they created over and over again.

Republicans are even eulogizing him, talking in grandiose terms of all the wonderful qualities he exhibited in his time in the senate. Weren't they the ones who most often used Kennedy as a symbol for what all politicians should avoid? With teeth bared, didn't they mockingly refer to John Kerry, during his 2004 presidential run, as "Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet"? Now they're willing to extoll his bipartisanship, his ability to find common ground with others? Now he's not the electoral boogeyman that they hung over all their Democratic rivals' heads to make them prove how much they were NOT like Ted Kennedy?

What is going on here?

I think I know. Congress is in a new era, Kennedy's success can be lionized because he is now so quaint, so non-threatening. There are no forces of principled Democratic leadership anymore. You can gracefully eulogize the dead of your enemy when you are the one who came out on top. You can praise the attributes of your foe after you have claimed victory. Look at the Democratic Party now - rich in numbers, rich in money, but so weak and poor on leadership, ideas, conviction and determination. The system has no larger-than-life enemies anymore.

Bloggers, the occasional principled senator or representative, the journalist with integrity, are all blown across the fractured media and political landscape now and there is no defining core anymore because money has taken its place. We know what the death of Ted Kennedy means. It means there is no longer any example for the Democratic Party to follow. We know that healthcare reform...REAL healthcare reform is far less achievable because the bloviators and compromisers have taken over the core of ideas and their pockets are lined with healthcare industry and Wall Street dollars. There is no Democratic majority, not in the way you used to think of when Ted Kennedy was still in the senate. Now there is the Establishment Party and the Religious Party. And the common ground they can find will bless the connected and reverant, not the poor, the working class, the discriminated or the vulnerable.

This newfound love of Ted Kennedy is revealing in its exhuberance - the transperancy of the hertofore unexpressed respectful mythologizing is telling us something. There was a reason he was so hated when he was alive and there is a reason he is now so revered in death.

_{Regard for Ted Kennedy in life.}