Sudden Spurt of Ruby and Alex “Publicity”

All of a sudden, the blogs and news sites are filled with Alex and Ruby. Take a look at these two. They are the best:

Fog City Journal. A personal account of Alex’s grand opening complete with lots of pictures. Looks like every important person in the Newsom administration attended. I’m beginning to think Alex still strongly supports Newsom’s reelection. Poor old Ruby. Alex and Gavie popular as ever while shes exists in a sort of bloggers’ twilight zone. One thing in her favor–maybe. Her friend, Emily Morse, attended and was pictured standing next to Alex. He had his arm around her in a rather affectionate way. She can at least give Ruby a rundown on people and happenings minus the hug.

San Francisco Bay Guardian (SFBG). An interesting article by Sarah Phelan headed “Why Did Gavin and Ruby Have Sex?” My take? Sex just plain old feels good and the more we have the better we feel.

Ground Floor Public Affairs Grand Opening!

Just a quickie. Click here for a first-hand account of the opening of Alex Tourk’s consulting firm. After reading this you may agree that he should be running against Gavin.

Too bad his popularity hasn’t rubbed off on Ruby and her book. Maybe she can con him into endorsing it.

Ruby Rippey-Tourk’s Book

You don’t want to miss these links: Dan Noyes I-Team and SFist.

As usual, Dan has scooped everyone on Ruby. He reports that she has completed two chapters of a self-help book. And to cap his scoop, he has a photo of Ruby sitting on a veranda somewhere typing away on her laptop. So far, Dan reports, she is focusing on her own conduct and not that of the mayor.

Among other things, Dan reports, she has apparently suffered from alcohol and cocaine addiction for 20 years and hit rock bottom with her affair with Newsom. These admissions may go far toward explaibing the secrecy around her medical records.

And this interesting fact: Ruby emailed the I-Team this week declining to comment further right now. Her email indicated that she hopes the I-Team can understand her decision not to talk at this time, but she left open the possibility with a closing remark that she would let them know if her situation changes.

My take on these developments: h. brown’s original rumor turned out to be correct in part. So far at least there don’t seem to be any lurid tales about Newsom. And if the book continues to concentrate on her own behavior, a part of my original judgment will turn out partially correct as well.

As usual in rumors, there’s a germ here and a germ there. Now that Dan Noyes has brought new details into the light of the mainstream media, we will learn more as time passes. When the book finally comes out, it is bound to be a best-seller.

Aside 1: The picture of her on the I-Team site is from Ruby’s Facebook page. In the photo, she seems to be allowing her hair to become its natural color. So far, it looks better than the brassy blond bimbo look she sported in the past. She can be an All-American girl and mother if she puts her heart in it.

Aside 2: Her laptop looks like a powerful machine, more a desktop replacement than an easily carried ultra-light.

Aside 3. The veranda she is sitting on appears to border a golf-course. At least the greenery in the background could be mistaken for a fairway. Doesn’t look like San Francisco, though. The horizon is too flat. I think I know where it is, but I am not going to expose my total ignorance by a wrong guess. Besides, she’s entitled to her privacy. And she is entitled to work on her rehab as she chooses. As a 20-year addict, she is going to need all of the assistance she can get. The important thing for her is that she recover, not the techniques used.

Oh, almost forgot. Alex Tourk is holding an open-house this evening to celebrate the formal opening of his Ground Floor Public Affairs consulting business. Many people will undoubtedly attend. We’ll probably learn all about it in the coming days.

I’ll report stuff as it develops.

Women, men, and eternal divergence

Today’s Honolulu Advertiser carried a column by Peter Boylan headed “Fame $$$, good looks—so what?” The title alone caught my eye so I read the whole thing to find out what this guy was talking about.

Imagine my pleasant surprise to discover that he wrote about things I’ve puzzled over for years.

He opened by describing the hullabaloo over David Beckham, who just signed a contract to play soccer with the Los Angeles Galaxy. Beckham has appeared on the cover of several magazines and is widely touted as soccer’s answer to Barry Bonds.

Boylan’s response to the public’s adoration of Beckham–Who gives a Spice!

Spice is a reference to a vocal group that has pretty well passed from the cool scene. Beckham is married to a former Spice girl.

Here is Boylan’s money quote:

“Beckham is another one of those guys whom women fawn over because they are rich, famous and supposedly, good-looking.

“My gripe: Those three attributes also apparently absolve all transgressions and behavioral flaws.”

Holy Schiese, Bratman! Is he talking about Gavie Nusie? Does this columnist from Honolulu have a direct line to SF politics?

Here’s Nudie, a guy whose deceit and betrayal have been a matter of public record since February 1, 2007, and rumored for months if not years before then.

Now, the guy enjoys a 70%-plus approval rating and is certain to be reelected in November. Still, residents of SF absolve him of all sins. What gives? Is their forgiveness because, in Boylan’s words, he is “rich, famous, and supposedly good-looking.”

Sure, SF’ers rationalize their approval. Yes, he made a mistake. We all make mistakes.

True. We all make mistakes. But not many make THAT mistake. Newsie is in a rather small group when it comes to THAT.

So, he’s an exception. So what? Don’t confuse my pre-conceived emotions with facts. He may be a Vanity Fair centerfold, but he’s our really, really, really good looking Vanity Fair centerfold. Even Kimberley admires his equipment. You can’t argue with a babe that good looking, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, we hereby, in full possession of our hedonistic faculties, vote to absolve him of any and all past, present, and future transgressions. We said it. We’re right. That’s it.

Ah, cynicism

Anyway, Boylan’s article has a heck of a lot more interesting observations on the human condition. Check it out. You’ll like it. If you’re a woman, you’ll find some insights into the male brain. If you’re a man, you’ll identify with his viewpoints.

Unless you’re rich, famous, and good looking.

Sex in the City

I stumbled across Emily Morse’s blog “Sex with Emily” on 7×7sf today. After forcing my self to read every single word and study every single picture in every single blog, I was on the verge of calling the moving company and heading back to SF.

Here’s a sampling of the topics she covered: swinging, small town sex, sober sex, a spot called Harlot where people spend an evening and a night engaging in sex with acquaintances and strangers alike, sex in San Francisco (who’s doing it? everybody), women talking about sex, and so on seemingly ad infinitum.

I had the distinct impression that everyone in SF was preparing for sex, having sex, recovering from hangovers after sex, and planning the next encounter. This is paradise, I figured.

Then I stumbled across Askmen.com, a site for everything about men, which means looking for sex. The most interesting feature I found was an article headed Top Ten: Pickup Cities. Here’s the list.

(1) New York City, (2) Boston, (3) Miami, (4) Los Angeles, (5) Denver, (6). Seattle, (7) Chicago, ( Austin, (9) Las Vegas, (10) Nashville. Notice any conspicuous absences?

At the end of the article, the mag invited comments about the story and the list. One comment grabbed my attention. A European guy asked “Why do you need this story? American girls are easy. You can pick them up ANYWHERE.” Not an exact quote, but the gist is there including the CAPS.

Why did I find his comment interesting? I’ve mentioned for years that sex isn’t restricted to SF. Heck, I’ve had my own list of top flight cities for a long time. Most are heartland towns, but I’ve included cities like Agana (Guam), Manila, Taipei, Naha (Okinawa), and the whole Kanto Plains area around Tokyo.

As I typed the above, I suddenly thought about the comment “American girls are easy” in Askmen.com’s article. The comment brought up a series of memories. I recalled a line from the television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The bit of dialogue was heart-rending. Spoken by Sarah Sidle (played by Jorja Fox) to Gil Grissom (played by William Peterson), her line was a haunting reminder of the emptiness of many lives devoted to the pursuit of sex with anyone. She said wistfully that she had been “looking for validation in inappropriate places.”

I can’t begin to count the number of guilty and lonely young girls and, yes, middle-aged women who confessed similar feelings to me, a complete stranger, when I taught college. Their stories were filled with regret and the guilt of having harmed family, friends, and self.

One of them talked about a tune from the 27-year old movie Urban Cowboy. The song, “Lookin for love (in all the wrong places), she said, told her story and aptly described the loneliness and meaningless of sex with countless strangers. I always listened politely and sympathetically, but I never knew how to respond. Maybe they just needed an ear.

These memories led me to wonder if the stage we have reached in our atomistic social structure is permanent? Do we live lives without lasting human connections? I hope not. Maybe this phase in our evolution will pass.

Sidelights. Another superfluous mention of Ruby Rippey-Tourk in Matier & Ross’s column. The insertion of her name has no relevance to the story at all and should not have been included. I’m actually beginning to feel sorry for her.

Political Rehab

We need a rehab program with strenuous interventions for talking heads addicted to asking stupid questions and politicians addicted to solemnly answering them.

In case you haven’t noticed, some of the questions are so dumb even a caveman could come up with them. Others are dumber still, requiring the skills of a squid, And at the bottom of the dumb barrel, we have the dumbest questions in the universe of dumb questions coming from the fertile gristle of the fabled “American people” politicians are so fond of evoking.

Here’s the latest of the dumbest of the dumb questions from the recent Democratic presidential candidates’ debate. “How would you, Senator Obama, respond to the criticism that you aren’t black enough, and you, Senator Clinton, to the criticism you aren’t feminine enough?”

My, Gawd!!!! This is breathtaking!!! But it isn’t the most breathtaking part of the debate. Both Senators Obama and Clinton actually responded in their most senatorial manner. I mean, they were so serious my heart almost bled for them until sanity swept over me and I started laughing so hard my skintight Hanes briefs fell off.

Just once, I’d like to hear a politician respond honestly, like this: “That question is so dumb it doesn’t deserve a reply. I refuse to lend my good name to its idiocy. If anyone believes I ought to answer the question, please vote for my opponent. On Election Day, I want only intelligent people voting for me. And if you, Mr. Moderator, ask another stupid question, I’ll walk out of this idiotic sham.”

I’ve observed something like this only once. In a debate between Bill Clinton and George Bush the Elder, Clinton responded to a statement (don’t remember the subject of it) from an audience member with this observation: “If you believe that, vote for George Bush.”

At those words, Bush’s head snapped around like a fish hooked by a snagger and looked at Clinton who ignored him. I’m probably the only one besides Bush who caught Clinton’s message.

Political debate in this country has become nothing more than a showcase for stupidity. Maybe that’s natural. Voters claim to vote the issues, but in truth, they are more likely to mark a ballot for many other reasons, not the least of which is high emotion and a candidate’s appearance.

I’m reminded of an idea for a cartoon I once dreamed up. A middle-aged couple sits in their living room discussing politics. For want of more descriptive names, I called them Mr. and Mrs. Balloonhead. Their conversation goes something like this.

• Mrs. B: Who are you voting for this year, Dear?
• Mr. B: I’m undecided, Dear.
• Mrs. B: Who are you undecided in favor of, Dear?

In my mind, that’s a pretty apt summarization of American voting patterns. The seriously undecided voter is a rapidly disappearing figure.

Fill in the blank

I’ve noticed a new buzz phrase finding its way into the media lately. I call it the “fill in the blank” excuse. The following example illustrates how it goes:

A highly-popular professional football player is arrested for his involvement in the illegal and cruel activity some call dog fighting. When asked how they felt about the matter, many members of the public and the player’s teammates offered the fill-in-the blank response.

“His job is to win football games.”
“Our job is to win football games.”

The subtext below these statements is simple: whatever he did is okay as long as he wins games.

I wondered when I heard these responses if it’s okay to (murder someone) (beat the hell out of your wife) (fry your kid in a microwave oven) (toss a dog out of a speeding car in heavy traffic) (all of these) (none of these) as long as he wins games.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to celebrities, sports figures, politicians? Does anything go as long as they do their jobs? It seems so. In Los Angeles and San Francisco it apparently doesn’t bother many people if their mayors run women through their offices like units on an assembly line.

It doesn’t seem to bother too many Republicans, either. Their hero of the moment in the presidential primaries, Rudy Giuliani, has had an extended run through three highly visible sex scandals during his tenure in public office.

Although the current emphasis on “doing their job” doesn’t surprise me, it is puzzling to say the least. It speaks directly to a collapse of morality, civility, and good order in society, not to mention the amount of public monies expended when government officials get caught with their pants down.

I am puzzled that the American public isn’t concerned that an elected official is admittedly guilty of lying, deceit, and betrayal. How can any individual with those tendencies “do his/her job?”

It’s your turn now to test my fill-in-the blank paradigm (love that word). Think about someone you know and make a statement like this about him/her: Yes, he/she is guilty of (fill in the blank), but it’s okay as long as he/she does the job.

See if you can think of an act beyond the bounds of acceptability, an act so egregious and disgusting that the act alone proves unfitness for the position held.

I’ll bet if the person is someone you like, you’ll find no boundaries. But if it’s someone you don’t like, no act will be permissible.

Apparently, it’s all about human nature, right? We’re all only human (I dispute that myth). What’s your take on permissiveness when it comes to the likes of Lohan, Hilton, Spears, Villagairosa, Newsom, Vick, and countless et al’s”

Have we become a nation of morally and ethically challenged but technically competent individuals?

Sunday philosophical presentation completed. Time for the serenity of the golf course.