I read Jonathan Safran Foer's piece about eating meat in the NYTimes Magazine's Food Issue and didn't quite get it. The title was clear, "Why Jonathan Safran Foer Chose to Give Up Meat", but that didn't seem to be what the column was about. Admittedly, I skimmed the whole thing, but my sense was that Foer had given up meat several times (every other paragraph, it seemed) and that he had settled on eating it once in a while, but not serving it to his kids. Frankly, the column seemed jumbled and stupid [POT! KETTLE!], an attempt to get a famous writer to talk about their personal psychic struggle with eating meat. So I giggled a little at Bookslut's take on Foer's latest book, Eating Animals:
I am trying so hard to be nice to Jonathan Safran Foer, by which I mean I am trying to forget he exists on this planet. His book Eating Animals, however, is making this goal very, very difficult. It was bad enough when he was writing shitty novels, but now he's indulging in my least favorite form of nonfiction: the "I have never thought about this thing before until now, and despite the fact that other people have thought about this for years and wrestle daily with the implications, I think my brand new thoughts should be shared with the world." Whatever the topic -- religion, marriage, gender, food politics -- the books are always shallow, yet for some reason a lot of people take them seriously.
The proper place for deep thoughts on issues that you just started examining but which have already been exhaustively discussed by more informed people is a blog. GYOFB, Jonathan Safran Foer.
Wu-Tang Clan albums done up in the style of Blue Note Records album covers. Can't see anything about this to dislike. Of course I chose Iron Man to display. It's my favorite, even though everyone else likes Liquid Swords. It happens. Reminds me of 20 Hip Hop Album Covers Recreated in LEGO Format and Wu Tang Clan Chessboxin’.
The fact that there isn't an apostrophe in Veterans Day is fascinating to me, probably because I'm simple. Via the FAQ of the Department of Veterans Affairs (also no apostrophes):
Q. Which is the correct spelling of Veterans Day?
a. "Veterans Day"
b. "Veteran's Day"
c. "Veterans' Day"
A. Veterans Day (choice a, above).
Veterans Day does not include an apostrophe but does include an "s" at the end of "veterans" because it is not a day that "belongs" to veterans, it is a day for honoring all veterans.
Mashable put together their list of the top 9 internet memes of 2009. I can't tell if they were presented in order or not, but this isn't the order I would have presented them in if so. There was so much noise in their post that I simplified the list to just a link each. Anything missing?
As far as excitement on the internet, I'm not sure #3, #4, or #5 belong with the others on this list. #6 doesn't either, but it was a truly awesome internet moment.
Last year, I spent about a month putting together this 2008 Election Round Up of reactions, articles, thoughts, videos, etc. It's fun looking back at it now and actually using it the way it was intended. It seems like a year was a long time ago and yet not that long ago. I'm not sure how many of the links are broken now, but take a look through it and pass it on.
forgetters were supposed to record a 7" in October, but for those of you who can't wait for it to come out, I found this recording on the Twitter of forgetters at Lit Lounge on 9/19/09 might be able to tide you over. It's 7 songs in a tight 23 minutes, and it sounds pretty good (better than the Thorns of Life Gilman St bootleg). Unfortunately, I don't know the music well enough to provide a track listing, and and more unfortunately, this is all 1 MP3 track.
Although there's some song overlap, I like forgetters better than Thorns of Life, so there.
Government agencies will be eyed as more than the sources of speeding tickets and income tax forms this week at a special job fair to be held on the campus of Bryant University.
Those stupid government agencies, always enforcing public safety laws collecting revenue for the purpose of funding public services. Losers.
PBS has posted (but doesn't let you embed), the full-length video of Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire documentary. Haven't gotten to this yet, but I will. In the meantime, here's a preview via Kottke:
This episode was all about things falling apart and disasters. Obviously. I had read or heard (but can't remember where) after last season that the writers had wanted to skip Kennedy's assassination because it has been touched on so many times on different programs. This may be the seed of the rumors (also after last season) that suggested the show was going to jump a couple years between season 2 and season 3. In any case, all of the foreshadowing of things falling apart, disasters, destruction (grandpa Gene telling Sally all hell was going to break loose anyone?) were leading up to this episode apparently.
-Before we get to the disasters... With carnage all around her Peggy seems to be in a pretty good place. We had never gotten confirmation that she decided to live with Lizzie from Undeclared and we didn't know she was seeing Duck on a regular basis (her excuse for leaving, "I have to go to the printer" was the same Don used in season 1 when she was his secretary). Both were revealed in the span of about 10 minutes. I was wondering this afternoon if the Duck/Peggy thing was his heavy handed attempt to convince to leave Sterling-Cooper. It still could be, I guess. "Duck's not married." "Oh, then why are you with him?"
-First up in disasterville, Pete finding out that Ken Cosgrove will be made Head of Accounts. Initially, Trudie wanted him to stay, but that changed by the end of the weekend. In much the same way I don't understand why Pete (and his terrible personality) is considered such a good client services professional, I don't understand how Ken can be any good either. He's a bimbo, a published bimbo, but a bimbo. Maybe if we ever saw them servicing clients, we'd understand.
-Margaret's wedding. Back in episode 2, we saw the draft invitation for the wedding with a date of 11/23. This made it clear that Mad Men would cover Kennedy's assassination. What wasn't clear was what would happen to the wedding. Only half the guests showed up, and no one felt like celebrating. In case you missed the connection to this episode's theme, Roger even said on the phone later that it was a disaster. We also got to see a high society 60's wedding, complete with a toast from the father of the bride into a father-daughter dance. The band leader shows that wedding bands haven't changed that much when he cajoled everyone to join them.
-I was surprised by the reaction to the Kennedy assassination and it's unlikely there would be a similar response these days. Most of the people in the office didn't vote for Kennedy, but even Bert Cooper seemed riveted to the coverage. It was definitely a different time, and the sadness among everyone is a stark reminder. That Betty (who didn't vote for him) and Carla (who did) could both have the same tearful response was a very strong way of illustrating the feelings in the country. (As Trudie said, "You don't just shoot the president.") I was curious about Pete's line, "It felt for a second like everything was going to change," almost as if he had started to like Kennedy's policies. I may have misunderstood what specifically, politically or otherwise, he was talking about.
-When Pete and Trudie were talking about going to the wedding, Trudie said, "There's a system." Referring to Pete's understanding of what other people call the game. I'd love to see a book written by Pete called 'The System - 40 Rules for Business Success'." Pete not wanting to go to the wedding has more to do with him not getting the promotion than Kennedy, though.
-Don and Betty, Don and Betty, Don and Betty. I wish their relationship hadn't been made a focal point of the show. At this point, the show is unable to cover fresh ground unless they do break up. If they don't, it will be an annual theme, Don and Betty, relationship in trouble, Don apologizes, from the heart this time, Betty accepts, but still resents, rinse, repeat. How many times are we going to see Betty wrinkle her brow and have Don try to soothe her before walking away condescendingly? My issue is that I don't think Don gives a shit about Betty. Everything about his character, his philandering, his desire to run constantly, not wanting to be tied down, leads us to this conclusion, so why all the consternation? He just doesn't want to lose the picture perfect family life. In the same vein, Betty has always been superficial and child-like, so what's sticking in her craw now? How about this for next year? Don apologizes, Betty accepts, and then all of the time we WOULD have seen Don and Betty marriage in crisis, we can see Sterling-Cooper action shots of client pitches and meetings instead.
Prediction for next week? Well, no resolution. I've seen talk of Don and Co opening their own advertising house. I don't see how this works on a practical level. (And thanks to commenter Dorf for reminding me of the legal level. Don can't leave without breaking his contract.) Too many characters would have to be jettisoned. Peggy seemed poised to be a major part of this season at the end of last year and nothing really this year. Pete's been on the verge of leaving for the entire series, he can't go with Duck unless there's a way for them to continue working with Sterling-Cooper somehow. Everyone wants Sal back, obviously, but in what form. Man, I guess anything can happen.
In the Esquire article about Roger Ebert a few weeks back, Ebert mentioned his interview interview with Lee Marvin as one of his favorites, and now they've republished it online.
Recent Comments