Political correspondent-turned-podcast star Barbaro married fellow Yale grad Timothy Levin in 2014 and has reportedly been known to make references to his husband on “The Daily.”...I listen every day and have never noticed such references, and I think I would have. I love the gentle male voice but it had never occurred to me to think about the man's sexual orientation or whether he was married.
A source added of Barbaro and [Lisa] Tobin: “They work very closely together … part of the show’s success is this team’s close work.” The source said there is “nothing inappropriate” about the relationship.Barbaro, we're told, had already broken up with Levin before getting involved with Tobin. (Too bad the headline creates the opposite impression. The headline is also bad for having a misplaced modifier that makes it look like Levin is dating Tobin.)
A gushing Vanity Fair profile this week dubbed Barbaro “the Ira Glass of the New York Times”...Ha ha. So true. The voice!
VF’s piece added that the scene at the Times “can often resemble a large high-school cafeteria.” It seems like Barbaro and Tobin’s courtship has been the talk of the cool kids.I'm just worried the relationship might go bad and mess up the show I love. But I'm sorry somebody's marriage broke up. Is there anything to say about the fact that a man who was married to a man is now interested in a woman? Marriages break up, even gay marriages. I guess, when your new partner is the opposite sex from your old partner, it highlights that your old partner lacked something that you seem to want now, but there are always differences when you switch from one individual to another, and no one outside of the relationships has a basis to know what were the differences that really mattered.
Back to today's show, about the Democratic Party. Here's the info page about it, "The Democrats' Comeback Plan/The party's seemingly narrow strategy for the 2018 midterm elections belies its big hopes for the future" — which sounds more optimistic about the Democrats than the show actually is. The show is much better than that headline makes it sound (and don't get me started about how confusing the word "belies" is).
Posts
50 comments:
"and no one outside of the relationships has a basis to know what were the differences that really mattered."
I can think of one major difference between Lisa and the ex-husband.
Damning with faint praise.
Anybody compared to Ira Glass should be offended.
I'm just worried the relationship might go bad and mess up the show I love.
...and another chunk of my respect for you (and I do respect you) is gone. The Daily Show and shows like it, are one of the more destructive forces in American life today. They exist to misinform and enrage.
it highlights that your old partner lacked something that you seem to want now
Somebody crank this meatball over the fence, please.
I wonder when the left is going to go after Levin.
...and no one outside of the relationships has a basis to know what were the differences that really mattered.
The vast majority of people outside the (original) relationship know the difference that really matters. The people inside that relationship did not.
Sexual fluidity is determined by where the fluids go.
Gahrie said...
The Daily Show and shows like it, are one of the more destructive forces in American life today.
The NYTs Daily podcast is unrelated to The Daily Show.
“Born that way” is SO yesterday.
The podcast is tedious. Maybe it's a woman thing.
Best restroom door design, H/T Timblair via Iowahawk
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjRiP2JVAAAU0nC.jpg
I favor the first few minutes of Klavan's podcast, the funny monologue, for analysis. Humor gets to analysis a thousand times faster than posturing.
Though Klavan himself has gone round the bend, dogmatizing Jesus.
The NYTs Daily podcast is unrelated to The Daily Show.
Does it differ in any material way?
Hmm.
Workplace relationship
Looks like there's a significant age difference.
They may have the same "manager" but he's The Talent while she is a faceless producer
He's no longer with the husband but it looks like they are technically still married (willing to be corrected on this)
I thought we were supposed to be better than this now
"it highlights that your old partner lacked something that you seem to want now"
Young lady ( being old is relative - I am 14 years your senior) what about YOU lacking something in a marriage.
In a marriage ( was married 49 years) each one lacks something that the other desires. So in your second marriage i assure you there is something that Meade lacks that you "seem" to want, but remember you lack something that Meade "seems" to want. The question is you weigh that against the things you have in common and go from there.
They have done studies that show that guys with deep voices get laid more.
rrhardin’s link is laugh out loud funny.
Me and my mate we were back at the shack, we had Spike Jones on the box.
She says, "I can't take the way he sings, but I love to hear him talk."
Now that just gave my heart a throb to the bottom of my feet.
And I swore as I took another pull, my Bessie can't be beat.
"Is there anything to say about the fact that a man who was married to a man is now interested in a woman?"
Yes. Be careful, lady, and be sure both of you get tested frequently.
"there are always differences when you switch from one individual to another, and no one outside of the relationships has a basis to know what were the differences that really mattered."
Yeah, sure. But I do recall hearing, once upon a time, that gays were born that way.
"The Democrats' Comeback Plan/The party's seemingly narrow strategy for the 2018 midterm elections belies its big hopes for the future" — which sounds more optimistic about the Democrats than the show actually is. The show is much better than that headline makes it sound"
Couldn't make it into the show. Ira Glass reference made me fear the worst, but it wasn't as bad.
Anyway, the Dems' problem is that what they want to sell won't sell, yet, to enough people. The new face of the Dem party, per Tom Perez, turns out to be a socialist nitwit. Bernie's Medicare For All will run $32 trillion. Few people want open borders. So how can they move left while pretending otherwise? Talking moderately, reasonably liberal, so that the Althouses of the world aren't turned off and can rationalize picking the "best person" because s/he is so "pragmatic," is a little harder when social media and MSM TDS expose the Dems for what they are. Hence the "seemingly narrow" strategy and the handwringing.
"The Daily Show and shows like it, are one of the more destructive forces in American life today. They exist to misinform and enrage."
Who's talking about "The Daily Show"?!
If you're withholding respect from me, be sure to earn respect... by knowing what you are talking about!
Fickle, thy name is man.
"Does it differ in any material way?"
Do your own research. Especially when your question is that stupid.
And when you began by announcing that you're losing a chunk of respect for me.
it highlights that your old partner lacked something that you seem to want now
like, Pussy?
Withholding or granting of respect is the aim of every moral argument.
In normal social settings it provides a list of things not to talk about again with that person. On the internet, that doesn't work and you get trolls.
Solo RBI for gilbar.
@Althouse:
You've been pretty hostile to me, now and in the past. I've overlooked you editing posts and deleting comments where you made embarrassing mistakes. I guess I could have gone back and deleted my earlier comments, but I don't believe in that sort of thing. At one time I believed you didn't either. I've laughed off your personal attacks. I've never attacked you personally...and in fact defended you when I thought people went over the line in attacking you.
Sometimes you make it very difficult to respect you.
He's the B in LGBTQ. No one ever talks about them. They need special rights.....or something.
The New Yorker piece reads like a gossip column, Page Six like a news article. WTF?
Phil,
That was my first thought but I'll go further: HOW DARE HE HARSH THE NARRATIVE THAT ONE IS BORN GAY?
That has always been such a bullshit idea, unsupported by any science (aren't fascists always calling us anti-science?). The whole idea of gender fluidity seems like it should have put a nail in this BTW concept but somehow hasn't
Ann, are you now accepting the idea that one is not born gay? That one can and does choose their sexuality?
And I'm with you. Gee, I hope this guy's personal issues don't screw up the podcast. Not that I listen. On your recommendation (I think) I did listen a time or two. Not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat.
John Henry
Here's another way to look at it:
They guy used to be gay. Now he has finally realized that he is a woman with a penis and is in a lesbian relationship.
John Henry
Not completely OT: Tired of paying too much for insurance? You won't believe this trick to reduce your premiums!
'I'm a man, 100 per cent. Legally, I'm a woman': Canadian driver changes his gender to female on paper to get cheaper car insurance rate
A 24-year-old man from Alberta, Canada, changed his gender on his birth certificate and driver's license to save $1,100 on his car insurance
He was quoted a rate of $4,517, given his driving record that included a crash and speeding tickets
When he asked his broker what rate he would have gotten were he a woman, he was quoted $3,423
Male drivers under age 25 normally pay higher insurance rates because they are statistically more likely to get into accidents
The Canadian got a letter from his doctor saying he wanted to identify himself as a woman and ended up getting the lower rate
Isn't change a great thing! Although this is Canada, it seems so American to me. Reminds me of a case back in the 80's in Maryland where a man legally changed his last name from Smith to Sanchez (or some such) and claimed a place as a fireman under an "hispanic" quote. The law defined "hispanic" as having an "hispanic" surname. They tried to stop him but he won.
Or the case in Frisco in the 80's where some white parents claimed their white children were African-American to get into a special school quota. Again, the law claimed that if they said they were black they were black and could not be questioned.
John Henry
I hope Tom + Lorenzo don't ever get divorced. I love their site and podcasts. I couldn't read or listen to just one of them.
Couples and couplets. Mental states, including, apparently, sexual orientation, are time-variant. This must be the cause for normalizing "stable" orientations. And the justification of #TooManyLabels, while ignoring the inclusiveness of the transgender spectrum. They should have advocated for civil unions, but instead selected a Pro-Choice solution, thus keeping the issue alive if not actually viable.
I hope this lady has her eyes wide open and isn't looking for someone who knows how to commit. Not only did he dump his till-death-do-us-part pledge for the new hotness after a couple of years, he couldn't even decide on a team to play for. What kind of loyalty and dependability would you expect from such a person?
I know a couple of gay friends each of whom said he truly loved and almost married a woman when he was young (each thinks it might have worked out). Plus all the gay men who (before it was cool to be gay) were married to women, probably happily at least for a portion of the marriage.
Wouldn't be surprised if a good % of gay men are easily capable of becoming bisexual if they happen to meet the right woman. If I could survey 1000 gay men, I would love to ask about this.
As I heard it the podcast said that the Dem strategy was to gain seats in the House, present legislation in the House in three areas; the Senate or President would veto this legislation; then the Dems run on the theme that more elected Democrats would pass this popular legislation. The three areas were reform Obamacare, restore prosperity, drain the swamp in DC. In other words: deal with the issues the Trump election showed were important. But in two cases the Dem means were the same old, same old - tax the rich (to lower middle class taxes), promise freebies (lower drug prices within Obamacare as "reform"). The promise to attack corruption in DC was content-free - whose corruption? how attack? In other words, run on Trump's issues with the same old Dem policies as if they were new policies crafted in response to the issues.
The new thing about this plan is that it runs away from identity politics as the podcast points out and this the party activists will not accept for any length of time, as the podcast also points out. And also the plan has no standard bearer as the podcast further points out. So the plan, called the Better Deal, I think, is unreal.
In my opinion, the podcast is suggesting that this unreal whole is a stealth plan to get Democrats into office. Once there the Dems actually will do the three things Obama did not do - the lack of which ruined the Democrats as the podcast says at the beginning. The Democrats should have gerrymandered by Federal law; they should have passed an immigration bill making millions of Hispanics (Democratic) voters; they should have passed a Federal law preventing Voter ID laws. If they had done these three things they would have had a permanent majority, the authors of the Better Deal plan say. But these three things to clinch Dem control which are discussed at the beginning of the podcast don't appear in their Better Deal Plan later in the podcast. But probably these are the real things that would when the Dems got control and probably the rest of the Better Deal would just blow away in the wind. And then, probably, in comes socialism and the Venezuelan way aka Democratic Socialism.
The Bitter Deal is what it would be.
"Is there anything to say about the fact that a man who was married to a man is now interested in a woman? "
Start with asking the dude/husband being dumped.
This is good news, and good for them, and good for their parents.
Now there is the possibility of children, grandchildren, a future.
Thats about the most fundamental "good thing" there can be, in a material sense.
And as often said about homosexuality, much of it seems contingent, circumstantial, essentially a bad habit a few people can stumble into, especially if it is fashionable in their circles. Not to say that an extreme few aren't actually "born that way" as a sort of birth defect.
For obvious reasons of political correctness, a divorce between two men should be illegal in all situations where one of the marriage partners wants out because he has fallen in love with a woman. Similarly, it should be a crime for a woman to entice a man to leave a same-sex marriage.
Actually, states have coded into their laws that gays are unchangeable. Going so far as to outlaw therapy that helps guys like this, because icky Christians.
The sad truth is, the human condition is quite deplorable and we all need help. But for some, we have decided we must celebrate their particular degeneracy. Such a stance harms many.
In a few years, she'll discover she's a lesbian. Then what? Foursome?
The polymorphous perverse. What a swamp. There's something to be said for sexual repression. It simplifies life and gives you time to pursue interesting hobbies.
"... it had never occurred to me to think about the man's sexual orientation or whether he was married."
There ought to be a lot more of this.
As for the "switching teams", is this such a real mystery? In most things with large populations there are bell curves (some asymmetrical, but bell curves none-the-less). On sexual desire there are, apparently two main curves. The larger is heterosexual. The smaller homosexual. But the center tails overlap. The folk in the heart of the bell curves may well be "born that way". Still does not negate the ones in the overlap.
I'll assume that's where this guy resides. Close proximity to this woman may have led to admiration, fondness and blossomed into love including sexual desire.
Doesn't seem a mystery to me.
Can bisexuality of this type poison the well of trust on which single-sex friendships are based? Discuss!
“Actually, states have coded into their laws that gays are unchangeable. Going so far as to outlaw therapy that helps guys like this, because icky Christians.”
But when someone has only one partner, you don’t know that they’re not bisexual. It they switched to an opposite sex partner, you don’t know that they switched sexual orientation, because they may have been bisexual all along. It’s also possible that they were never sexually attracted to one — or both! — of their partners. Some people are asexual.
Why does every male on NPR sound like someone cut off his nuts?
Does anyone with a baritone (I mean a MALE baritone) appear on NPR?
Even when they aren't a soprano, all male announcers on NPR, have that hesitant, verbose, "can't be too assertive", way of talking.
I guess this is what Leftist want.
Wildswan said:
Once there the Dems actually will do the three things Obama did not do - the lack of which ruined the Democrats as the podcast says at the beginning. The Democrats should have gerrymandered by Federal law; they should have passed an immigration bill making millions of Hispanics (Democratic) voters; they should have passed a Federal law preventing Voter ID laws. If they had done these three things they would have had a permanent majority,
That part at the beginning really struck me. I always thought the accusation that Democrats were soft on immigration because they wanted to expand the Democrat voting base was hyperbole, but to hear a Democrat strategist admit this just floored me. I came away from that podcast even more disgusted with Democrats. I didn’t think that was possible. They truly do put their quest for power above the good of the nation.
Over-under on this marriage is 6 months.
Post a Comment