I was unique in that I was a kind of black that white people could accept.

Lena Horne cut a special figure in the pantheon of African American entertainers. As she explains, she could “pass” for white, which allowed whites in a thoroughly pre-Civil Rights era to acknowledge Horne as a proper entertainer, rather than comic relief as was the norm with black actors in Hollywood. Horne famously refused to take roles in movies that would portray her as a maid or any other person of service. Like Jackie Robinson did from within the confines of major league baseball, Horne used her stature in Hollywood to subtly but powerfully change the American perception of blacks. When your little white children proclaim they want to grow up to play baseball like Jackie Robinson or sing and act like Lena Horne, it becomes much more difficult to perpetuate stereotypes about blacks’ inferiority.

Horne was blacklisted during the Red Scare for suspected ties to various so-called seditionist and communist groups, but was undeterred. She marched on Washington, worked with politicians on pro-integration measures, and as a USO entertainer during WWII, even refused to perform before segregated troops.

For those of us too young to have enjoyed her live show at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1957, Horne might be better remembered as the lady who taught Grover how to get over his shyness on Sesame Street.

Horne was as classy and cultured as entertainers come and was the last of her kind. We’re unlikely to see another performer quite like her again.

YouTube is the best and worst thing to have happened to “having people over”. “Did you see that video of the (insert baby, cat, celebrity, etc) doing that thing?” might now be a zeitgeist question––something asked during a social lull to deliver us from the awkwardness and pitfalls of conversation, or maybe it’s just a symptom of our truncated attention spans.

I say this is an avid abuser of such videos, having observed this cumulative behavior firsthand in my own social circle. Of course the reward is often great––who can’t use a good belly laugh after dinner, among friends? Maybe pats on the back ensue if the gag really kills––physical human contact courtesy of YouTube: alienating and bringing people together since 2005!

This should not be news, as most of you have doubtless sought refuge in these brainless larks for years now, but as I have witnessed a surge in this type of activity in the sphere around me, it feels appropriate to share some of the greatest hits, and to ponder why this should be in the first place. The answer is elusive. Have we run out of things to say to each other without a topical video to serve as the catalyst? Hopefully this is just a phase and the cycle will be broken before long, as I do miss the old days when the computer didn’t invade all our gatherings. It’s not that I don’t enjoy these escapades, I just can’t help but feel that as we constantly reach for these as social lubricant, our intelligence dissipates ever-so-slightly. But forget this over-intellectualized assessment of our idle time for a moment and indulge in some cheap laughs.

The Bravo network has helped define reality television over the last several years and, topically speaking, they continue to reinvent it (the format is usually recycled). Despite justified skepticism and critical ridicule, competition reality shows have managed to insert marketable stars into the national consciousness. Even some losers make their mark: Jennifer Hudson was an American Idol runner-up and she went on to win an Oscar. But can the world of fine arts emerge from the reality television machine unscathed? Apart from, say, Project Runway or Top Chef, which involve displays of actual skill, Work of Art: The Next Great Artist will be a somewhat more cerebral group than we are accustomed to seeing on reality shows. Or at least that might be the assumption.

From the previews available (it debuts June 9), it is clear that heated emotions and drama can run as rampant in the supposedly enlightened world of visual art, as they can in a gaggle of teenage girls vying to be supermodels. Which is such a relief. As a social experiment, reality television does what it seems to have been promising all along: it turns people into maniacs who thrive on cheaply-begotten exposure and the promise of, what else, fame and fortune. Which is of course why we’re all so enthralled. With quotes like these how could we not be?

“I don’t want to work with your poisonous attitude.”

(Through tears) “I want my work to show in museums.”

“I’m not responsible for your experience of my work.”

“You give performance art a bad name.”

This is as good a soap opera as anything Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum could have dreamed up! The judges involved are critics (Jerry Saltz), gallerists (Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, Bill Powers), auctioneers (Simon dePury), and general aficionados (China Chow serves as host), whose sharp wits will surely be a big part of the fun.

As the competition’s first challenge—the artists were paired off and asked to make portraits of each other—rattled toward its conclusion (the usual dramatic “voting-off” shenanigans), I found myself paying less and less attention to the (overwhelmingly dire) work and more to compiling a list of sententious quotes: “Wall power, that’s what you want” (de Pury); “To you, it’s a portrait, but to no one else will it ever be a portrait” (Saltz); “I’m getting falling leaves, is what I’m getting off this” (Powers), and the definitive “There’s no excuse for a bad painting” (Saltz again).   -ArtForum

It’s one thing to take joy in others’ suffering when being delivered from one social class to a higher one is at stake, but when we have a group of well-educated, ostensibly intellectual people throwing fits and breaking down on cable TV, it gets too good not to watch. Will this show find the next great artist? Highly doubtful. But as far as viewers are concerned, the personal success of reality show contestants is rarely the point.

An ever-increasing phenomenon on the streets of the civilized world is text-walking. That is, people sending text messages while walking around in public, often in crowded areas and intersections, without regard for their surroundings. This is a bad thing of which I am a culprit and a victim. My ire at people bumping into me because they were lost in the urgency of personal satellite communication is nearly equal to the ire I direct at myself for being a perpetrator of the same. As texting has become more essential to people’s daily lives, this type of behavior may be unavoidable. We just have to acknowledge that we might get run over by a bus if we don’t exercise more caution. But this is  inconsequential compared to the next wave of portable devices that will bring with it a reign of terror: 3D glasses that project video on the inside of the lenses, thereby omitting the outside world from view.

Apple has begun designing a special headset called iSpecs that will do just this.

The application explained the form would allow the user to ‘relax while viewing image based content on the head-mounted device because he does not have to hold onto the portable electronic device.’

The gizmo would also be fitted with a camera to stream video from the outside world. Infrared sensors embedded in the frames would detect if anyone approached the wearer, and the real-time video would pop up on a screen inside the glasses.

This would help users feel more at ease wearing the glasses in public. – Daily Mail UK, April 12, 2010

Just what we need: plugged-in zombies wandering around in public blindfolded––or, as the case would be, glued to the newest high-octane installment of the Transformers franchise.

All criticisms and potential misuses aside, this device is of course incredible. A childhood dream come true. But the implications are far greater than we realize. We can already watch videos and access the internet on portable computers and phones, all of which have effectively ruined the old notion of “idle time” (you’re not exactly idle if you’re simultaneously blogging, tweeting and shopping while you wait for the bus). The simple pleasures of staring into space, whistling a tune, or just imagining something that isn’t being broadcast directly in front of your retina, are fleeting. Appreciating this loss is not the domain of luddites alone.

Oh Pat. You’re so brave to write an editorial rebutting Frank Rich’s denunciation of Obamacare naysayers, whom Rich points out are predominantly white male bigots (not in so few words).

Pat Sajak has long been a poster boy for wholesome, conservative America, so in one sense it’s pleasing to see him get fired up about something consequential. And in another sense it’s good to see he can write and spell so well. Glad he’s earning that big salary.

But whatever Sajak’s intentions may be, his opinions are nearly absent from his editorial. He pokes fun at Rich’s views yet offers little more than this as an alternative:

Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”.  (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?       - Human Events.com, March 29, 2010

Poor Pat. He’s so put-upon by “post-racial America”.

Rich’s characterization of the situation is considerably more substantial:

To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance. - New York Times, March 27, 2010

It seems that what ires Sajak most is Rich’s analytical skills: yes, they are his opinions, but they are also historically-informed and well-researched. Sajak’s simplistic appeal for an apology simply underscores a fundamental problem with the layman’s comprehension of politics and policy––that there should be a personal aspect to any of it. Indeed, policy makers must possess a heavy dose of objectivity to carry out their duties properly, yet their egos occupy so much space that matters of great public concern end up becoming personal screaming matches between camps. This, Pat Sajak, is how you’ve gotten it all wrong.