Sloganeering.Org
home | archive | about | site policies | contact us | s.o store

Archive for September, 2006

FOLLOW UP: SONY READER

Friday, September 29th, 2006

In our “Why is there no iPod for book?” essay, we took it as a given that the Sony ebook reader would be a reasonably good bit of kit. We may have been half right. From the Wired News article, “Sony Reader is a Work in Progress“:

I gave three of my colleagues a sort of Malcolm Gladwell Blink test by handing them the Reader and asking for their instant impression. Two out of three ooohed and aahhhed, and the other was immediately turned off, saying, “I’d never want to read a book on one of those things.” My own feelings are an amalgam of theirs: Having used the device for many hours, I found it to be a comfortable, pleasing way to read, after initial hesitance.

Of course, the reviews of the original iPod were mixed, too. Still, I think we’ll have to wait a little longer for an “iPod for books.”

| September 29th, 2006 | by BC | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: | Trackback | No Comments »



YOU’RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST US

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

From Wired News: A pending Senate bill, if passed, may move several lawsuits challenging the NSA’s warrentless surveillance to a secret court:

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter’s National Security Surveillance Act would allow the attorney general to move surveillance cases involving state secrets to the little-known Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which has only heard one case in its 28-year history.

National security experts and civil liberties advocates assail the idea, saying it would diminish the chance that the government’s controversial snooping would face open judicial scrutiny.

Naturally, there is some opposition:

Louis Fisher, an expert on national security law who just published a book on the state secrets privilege called In the Name of National Security, says that court is just too secret.

“We always do this in the public, and the courts have to come up with a decision that shows reasoning, facts and understanding, and to give that to a secret court where, I imagine, there will be secret briefs and secret oral arguments and a secret decision, maybe a declassified decision?” Fisher said. “I can’t see there’s credibility or trust in that kind of process. I frankly would prefer it to be decentralized and have a lot of district judges take a crack at it.”

Organizations that make decisions in secret have a pretty disturbing history; not many (that is, any) of them have ever owned up to abrogating citizens’ rights without either allowing a long stretch of time to pass, or a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Sleep tight, America.

| September 28th, 2006 | by BC | Categories: News, Paranoia | Tags: | Trackback | No Comments »



GIVE TO THE “STOP CELEBRITY SEX-TAPES” FUND

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

Dear lord, not another one. While having sex on film is a noble and hallowed tradition, the occasional out-break of poorly shot, arousal deadening celebrity porn needs to be stopped. Please, all you famous folks out there, heed my plea: stop taping your “sexcapades.”

Maybe it’s the sordidness of it all, or the dim sense that you might be trying to boost your own careers through some sub-Dan Brown-esque conspirisy, but yuk, already.

You might think it’s cool to make a sex tape because lots of other couples  do it, but be warned: Mr. and Mrs. Average American are not likely to be the victims of unscrupulous porn-brokers who try to sell their documented frottage to the highest bidder.

| September 28th, 2006 | by BC | Categories: Pop Culture | Trackback | No Comments »



SEEKING: SAD BASTARDS; MUST LIKE SEX

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

From an op-ed by Francey Russell, at The Morning News:

“Recently over beers, some female friends described a common and upsetting situation: The boys they liked (and who liked them) were more interested in cuddling than they were—almost to the complete exclusion of sex. As I listened to their stories, it became clear that, culturally speaking, we are facing a chicken-or-egg predicament. While the real world may be seeing a drastic influx in the numbers of sensitive, sexless boy-men, this upsetting rise is paralleled by increasing numbers of the same male type on film. It must be asked: Are movies the groinless loins from whence all these sad bastards have sprung?”

These female laments about the disappearance of “Real Men” from the cultural mileu always throw me off my mental game. I do not hesitate to point out that the problem is not with the laments themselves, but with my feeble brain. The dissonence in my thinking comes from trying to reconcile the fact that no woman can speak for the tastes of all womankind with my knee-jerk acceptance of a woman’s right to make gross generalizations about my gender.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not entirely clear about what exactly the point is in the above-linked piece–my reading of it is hampered by my own preconceptions about gender and relationships. From my perspective, the writer is saying that women are attracted to guys whose personality traits make them bad relationship material; then praising their ability to get laid; and then saying that the current versions of these guys are now unwilling to fuck them. And all of this has something to do with a brand new fear of anger and rejection and sex. This is taken as read, and the question is whether or not movies are a reflection of this real-life problem, or if it’s the other way round.

While scientific studies can eventually home in on the causation question, seimotic meanderings are rarely able to answer it, and so usually come to nothing. Boiling the piece down to its essence is not possible, because it leads to grotesquely insenitive statements like this: Some men that women are powerfully attracted to are unwilling to have sex with them, which is frustrating.

This is a statement I don’t have the right to say, let alone publish. And my initial, reptile-brained reaction is even less acceptable: Life is ordered in such a way that you have almost no say in which individuals do or do not want to have sex with you. You can judge people’s actions as much as you like; you can invite a person into your bedroom and offer them the, “Fuck me, or go away,” ultimatum. You can complain about the results to your friends over beers, afterward. You can write an essay about your frustration with huge subsets of an entire gender. And, you have the right to do all of this without your position being straw-personed into a, “Why won’t the guys I like fuck me properly,” deal, because that would be dismissive, ad hominem, and miss the entire point of what you are saying.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t know if movies are to blame for this sort of thing.

| September 28th, 2006 | by BC | Categories: Gender, Miscellaneous, Pop Culture | Trackback | No Comments »



NEW AT SLOGANEERING.ORG

Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

The 100-Penny Review
When the average person thinks about books featuring political intrigue, globe-hopping spies, and the looming specter of armed conflict, something tells me that the name Ted Koppel is not what springs immediately to mind. Yet, if you look closely at the cover of In the National Interest you’ll see his name underneath the words, “A Novel By…” What’s even more surprising is the blurb from Henry Kissenger (“A great work of fiction,” he apparently said) just above the title.

Why Is There no iPod for Books?
Apple’s iPod has been around since October, 2001, and has gone on, in its various forms, to become the most popular and successful digital music player ever. It seems obvious that any company that could do for other media what the iPod did for music would have customers beating a path to its door; which is probably why Apple is trying to repeat its music-based triumph by moving into television and movies. Sony, on the other hand, is having a go at literature. If their scheme pans out, we will have this non-intuitive result: the first successful e-reader will be five years younger than its musical counterpart. Surely there’s a reason for this. Why is there no iPod for books?

| September 27th, 2006 | by BC | Categories: Meta | Trackback | No Comments »



Site Feeds

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives:

By Category

By Date


Search This Site


RSS Posts at Snappy Patter

RSS Links of Interest

Arts & Entertainment

Books & Literature

Comic Strips

General Interest

Money & Commerce

Politics & Philosophy

Science & Technology

Meta