DADA-IST AD, THE TIMES IS A CHANGIN', PRIMATE BEHAVIOR, THE WAR ON ERROR, THE U.S. OPEN AND MORE.

"GLAD I HAD A CAMERA CAUSE NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE ME" IMAGE OF THE DAY:

Check out this ad, I saw on the subway platform the other day: In case you can't read it, the headline says" "You've worked hard to get where you are." And the subhead reads, "So why settle for an HIV med that's twice a day?"

Maybe I'm missing something, but it strikes me that this reflects a degree of randomness that would make the Dada-ists blush. I have absolutely no idea how they got this brazenly absurd non sequitur out of the agency or past the client? I think even SNL writers would find it too absurd a premise for a skit. So many absurdities are embedded in this, I don't know where to begin. The logical connection between the claim that you worked hard to get here (wherever here is) and therefore you'd rather take one HIV pill rather than 2 is about as absurd as because you like cookies more than ice cream, you'd rather take one shower instead of two or because you are serious about the war against al qaeda, you must support the war in Iraq. And, then of course there's the random unspoken connection of having HIV to having worked hard to get where you are. If there's ANY logic in it, I suppose it has to be based on the implication that you've worked hard to contract your HIV? It took a LOT of trips to the bath house or a lot of of gruelling, difficult injections with that dirty syringe. Anyhow, it's just dazzlingly, jaw-droppingly nonsensical and I'm really glad I had a chance to share it.

HIERARCHICAL PRIMATE BEHAVIOR OF THE DAY:

Was amused by how the condescension of the New York Times towards Oprah culture (as expressed in Janet Maslin's delightfully snarky book review of Dianna Loevy's "Guide to the Reading Club Experience" contemptuosly entitled "Which Cheese goes best with Faulkner?") roughly parallels the condescension (sans snarkiness) of the New York Review of Books towards the publication that is generally taken to be the standard of literary an cultural sophitication: The New Yorker. In a review in the current issue, Daniel Mendelsohn peers down from the cloud-capped ivory tower of academe to makes use of what psychologists refer to as distancing language in his reference to the iconic magazine ("As a movie reviewer writes in the magazine The New Yorker")--as if it were beneath not only his contempt but his awareness as well--something a frivolous dinner party colleague might have once confessed to guiltily perusing on the toilet between Heraclitus and Heidegger. So to review: The New York Times is to Oprah as The New York Review of Books is to the New Yorker. And, I suppose--although I have cited no evidence to support this-- to some extent as The New Yorker is to the New York Times. Clearly, in the pecking order of intellectual seriousness, there is an inverse relationship between readership and status. (with the notable exception of Toni Morrison).

MEDIA COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Rumsfeld says Iraq war going great. Critics say otherwise. You decide.
Bush says Evolution is just a theory. Some scientists disagree. You decide.
Cheney says Global Warming just a theory. Some scientists disagree. You decide.

For so long --certainly since the build-up to the Iraq war--the Fourth Estate has been guilty of a dazzling abdication of journalistic responsibility. So it's nice to see the NYT and selected other publications finally showing evidence that the role of the media is not simply the uncritical reporting of things said by the White House--where every claim is accorded the same degree of truth value and you decide--but a critical filtering and contextualization of such claims. (File it under the brilliant Colbert Maxim: "Reality has a well known liberal bias.") Sure, they're probably only starting to exercise their proper critical function because the political tide appears to be turning. Still, it's nice to see the gutless two-faced bastards showing their more democratic-friendly face for a change. In a recent story entitled "Rove's word no longer Gospel to GOP" they even go beyond the commitment to truth rather than truthiness and actually assume their right to frame news stories with an implicit critical or political agenda. In other words, this Rove piece is a trend story: There is no single moment at which his diminishing clout becomes "news" and hence it relies on critical judgement and choice to be constructed and reported as such. The framing and defining of a story has an inevitable political component. And it's nice to see the "Liberal" media finally framing some stories from a perspective that's at least remotely suggestive of liberalism. Anyhow, for those interested, here's the story. Not that I actually read it...

Rove’s Word Is No Longer G.O.P. Gospel

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/03rove.web.html?hp&ex=1157342400&en=afc5a7a666d04bd5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

MILITARY UPDATE OF THE DAY:

Anyone remember Afghanistan?

The first war post 9/11 war? The one that was actually justified by the the 9/11 attacks--since the Taliban government there had actively hosted the leaders of the trans-national terrorist network that attacked us? You remember. The war against our declared enemies and attackers from which we diverted resources and attention at the critical juncture (when we had the leaders trapped at Tora Bora) in order to initiate an ideologically motivated, strategically unrelated war in Iraq? When we siphoned off Special Ops troops in order to prosecute a war against perhaps the only leader in the world who hated Bin Laden as much as we did? Well, anyhow, evidently that front burner become backburner war is still going on. And evidently it's not going too well.

I just read that the Taliban are back on the rise there and opium production is up 60%.

So, what has been the net effect of our two military campaigns since (and ostensibly in response to) 9/11? Essentially no change of leadership in Afghanistan and probable civil war in Iraq. Not to mention the squandering of unprecented international goodwill towards America--so poignantly expressed after 9/11--and the dramatic increase in al qaeda recruits and sympathizers all across the Islamic world. Oh, and in a perversely symbolic, if temporary, symmetry-- almost the exact same number of American soldiers killed to date in Iraq as American civilians killed on September 11 in Washington, Manhattan and Pennsylvania.

Heckuva job, Bushie. Heckuva job.

NOTE TO SELF OF THE DAY:

OK, getting a bit rant-ish here. Better come up with some funnier and more uplifting fare.

THESIS OF THE DAY:

An Internet Guide to The The Stages of Life (With apologies to Erik Erickson).

16-22. Facebook. Youtube. Porn.
22-26 Myspace. Youtube. Porn.
26-28. Friendster. Youtube. Porn.
28-35: Match.com. Porn.
35-65: Fidelity.com. Porn.
65 and Over: Fidelity.com

AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE DAY:

Hmm. Maybe that wasn't any funnier or more uplifting.

AL QAEDA PR CRITIQUE OF THE DAY:

The American Al Qaeda ploy seems a bit like a rinky dink misstep. A tactical error. The guy seems like a dismissable loony tune with father issues and a probable drug history. (No. Not Bush. The American Islamic guy they had speaking on the tape!). His rant suggests that Bin Laden and Co. are as tone deaf in their attempts to prostelytize to Americans as Karen Hughes and Keith Reinhardt and Co are in their attempts to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It's a level of incompetence that is strangely reassuring.

MOTTO OF THE DAY:

Incompetence. The great equalizer.

NEWS ITEM OF THE DAY:

KKK holds rally at Gettysburg

GETTYSBURG, Pa. - About 30 Ku Klux Klan members proclaimed hatred for blacks, Jews, gays and Latinos as they stood behind barricades at the Civil War battlefield where Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903/ap_on_re_us/klan_gettysburg

God Bless America. That's what our country's all about. That's why we fought to hold the union together. Those are the rights hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died defending. The right to hate each freely and vocally; the right to express our odious bigotry openly and proudly. "One Nation most divisible. With liberty and hatred for all."

DESCRIPTION OF THE DAY:

It occured to him as they spoke, that at that moment they were undoubtedly the only 3 non-gay, non academic, non professionally literary men in the world discussing the New York Review of Books.

PROMISORY NOTE OF THE DAY:

That I'm gonna finally watch the final Episode of Deadwood that I've been saving for a special occasion on TiVo and once I watch it, I'll blather on about it on the blog.

IRAQ GOOD NEWS OF THE DAY:

There were no KKK rallies reported in Baghdad.

MANDITORY VIEWING OF THE DAY:

A historically informed, thought-provoking diatribe on the perils of arrogantly asserted absolute "certainty" and the villianization of those who question it--prompted by Rumsfeld's recent comments. Rare and nice to see moral outrage so effectively fused with analytical intelligence and historical knowledge.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/

QUESTION OF THE DAY: (Variation on a previous theme)

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then how many words is a picture of a thousand words worth?

U.S. OPEN COMMENTARY OF THE DAY:

Watching Agassi-Becker was ugly. Unsightly. Like watching two bloodied and exhausted boxers staggering around the ring in the late rounds of a fight throwing the occasional round house punch that catches nothing but air. Or, actually, more like watching Greta Waitz fighting diarrhea during the NYC marathon. Lost in all the understandably passionate valedictions is the fact that it was perhaps the lowest level of tennis I've ever seen played at the U.S. Open (in non windy conditions). It's sort of a sad way to see it end for Agassi.

Huge heartfelt--and richly deserved-- ovation. Arguably the audience expended more energy during that ovation than either of the half-crippled players exerted in the last stumbling set.

ABSURD MOMENT OF THE (OTHER) NIGHT:

After Agassi used one of his replay challenges and the computerized modelling of the video replay clearly established that --contrary to his wishes--the call was correct and should stand, the crowd booed in unison. Now what exactly were they booing? The video replay? Reality? Yup, there it is. Boo Reality!! Boo!! We don't like that reality! It is our American right to make up our own reality! Mommy mommy make that mean un-American reality go away!! If we can't have our reality conform to our wishes, then the terrorists have already won!!!

"WOMEN'S" TENNIS COMMENTARY OF THE DAY:

Oh, one more tennis thought. As I watched the Mauresmo-Serena Williams match just prior to posting this, two things came to mind:

1) When was the last time 2 world number ones who were Wimbledon Champions within the last 4 years, met in the round of 16 of a tournament?

2) Since when is tennis an event in the world's strongest man competition?

This latter perception was inadvertently echoed by the commentators later that night in the following innocent exchange:

Commentator 1: It's great to see the crowd support for Gasquet (who was cramping). When was the last time you heard a Frenchman cheered like this by Americans?

Commentator 2: (Innocently) Well about 3 hours ago. They cheered Amelie Mauresmo.

(Awkward Pause)

Commentator 1: Well I said a French Man.

REGRET OF THE DAY:

Making those cheap gender-stereotyping jokes at the expense of those two perfectly nice seeming and immensely talented women...who could each, I might add, crush me like a bug if she wanted to. And I hope that if by some remote chance either one of them happens to stumble upon this blog, this lame, unmanly, after-the-fact gesture of remorse will dissuade her from doing so.

T-SHIRT IDEA OF THE DAY:

You're only as good as your last nap.

Tags:   None

© All rights reserved.

Posted on 9/5/2006 ( Permanent Link )
Read 578 Times
 Send to Friend