Skip to content

Catching Up On My Reading

February 26, 2010

I think I may have mentioned that we had a series of house guests over the holidays.  Aside from the considerable social and gustatory benefits of having guests, there is another unexpected pleasure—going through all the reading material they leave behind.  Invariably on departure day they will point to a pile of brochures, magazines and newspapers and say, “If you want to read any of that, please do, otherwise dump it.”  As a result, I got a windfall of books and magazines that I would normally not have access to and, accordingly, I’ve been educating myself on the wider world.

One of the things left behind was a Time magazine.  I can’t remember the last time I read Time.  When I was growing up, the current week’s issue was always on the coffee table and I used to read it pretty much from cover to cover.  After I left home I was Timeless, except for a brief period in the 80s when I subscribed on my own.  I figured if it was good enough for Hans Gruber, it was good enough for me.

But that was a short lived subscription as I found the magazine had become tendentious, sententious and self-consciously supercilious.  Maybe it always had been, but I wasn’t attuned to those things in my youth.

I decided to have a look at the current incarnation of the magazine.  I slumped on the couch, my feet on the coffee table (just like the old days and only done to help create the retro feel) and started to read. The first thing that struck me was how thin it was.  Even allowing for the fact that I was recalling how it felt in my younger, smaller hands, it still had definitely shed a few pages.  Whether this is a conscious effort to save trees, or it was a slow news week, I wasn’t yet sure.

A few pages into the magazine revealed several things.  One, it is still tendentious, sententious and even more self-consciously supercilious.  Two, the intended audience is now clearly Gen Y.  Plus, the writers and editors seem to have assumed that the reader will have forgotten to take their Ritalin.  You can’t read it slowly.  The pace is frenetic and rather than scratching the surface of issues, it sort of squints at them from the stratosphere as it flies by at Mach 1.  Pictures abound.  As do sound bites, quotes in big fonts and statistics. 

There are amazingly few advertisements, but that could be because some of the articles are advertisements masquerading as news.  Take, for example, the article about Reebok’s new sneakers called EasyTone.  They have funny shaped soles and the resulting instability you experience supposedly tones your legs and posterior while walking so either (1) you don’t have to exercise or (2) your exercise workout need never end, depending on your point of view.  The tagline is “Better legs and a better butt with every step.”  Think about it.  Shoes designed to be uncomfortable and unstable. 

The “good” news is that they are only $110 a pair.  Those with fewer budget constraints might be interested in the MBT, which stands for “Masai Barefoot Technology.”  Count the oxymorons in that phrase.   They cost $245 a pair and since 2004 over a million women have bought a pair.  The article didn’t say if there were intellectual property issues with the Masai who originated barefoot technology and whether there were any royalty arrangements.

But my favourite page was called “Verbatim.”  It is a list of quotes in larger than normal type.  I read the quotes with great amusement.  I’d like to think that we are supposed to laugh at these quotes because they are so outrageously silly.  But I’m not 100% sure, and I’m worried that someone might interpret them as headlines or things they need to know.  Because that would be scary.  The good news is that if aliens were approaching the Earth and happened to scan the Verbatim page as an indicator of the existence of intelligent life, they would turn around and head for deep space.

Here are a few examples.  A guy in Pakistani custody for plotting terrorist acts has answered his accusers with the statement:  “We are not terrorists.  We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism.” 

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you believe that one, how about this one from Gerald Levin, the former CEO of Time Warner.  He was a major player in the Time Warner/AOL merger which cost investors billions.  As business blunders go it is the Titanic and Hindenburg rolled into one.  He said, “I was the CEO.  I was in charge.  I’m really very sorry about the pain and suffering and loss that was caused. I take responsibility.” 

He’s taking responsibility?  I have to assume that the statute of limitations must have run out on any laws he may have broken.  But the big question is, are we supposed to believe that he’s sorry or are we supposed to laugh at the irony of how irrelevant this apology is to people who experienced “pain and suffering and loss” courtesy of Mr. Levin.

Further pushing the reality envelope is this statement from an ethics professor at a university in LA.  “The scientific research . . . indicates that dolphins are ‘nonhuman persons’ who qualify for moral standing as individuals.”  What does that mean?  What is a ‘nonhuman person?’  What is moral standing as an individual?  What if someone just reads that and believes it without processing it?  They are going to think that science has shown dolphins to be human.

Come to think of it, though, I’ve never seen a bunch of dolphins at a rock concert holding up cell phones and lighters and waving their dorsal fins, so they may well have greater claim to individuality than a lot of human persons.

In the “Things You Need To Know” category, is this item about Jacob Zuma, the South African president who has five wives.  “It’s his right as a Zulu.  But he only took one wife to Italy to meet the Pope.” 

One side of me says, “Who cares?”  But I’m marginally interested in how he picked which one got to go.

But don’t worry, it’s not all boring science, law and politics.  There is also a lot of space devoted to more important social issues.  For example, there is a social networking/dating web site called  Apparently they take their name very seriously—after all, you can’t become a member of the site unless the existing members think you are sufficiently beautiful to qualify and vote you in after they have had a chance to look at your picture.  They whacked 5,000 members in early January because based on pictures the members had posted, it looked like they had put on weight over the holidays.  In explaining the move, the founder of the site said, “Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model.”  Roam? 

And of course, the most important issue of the day is also discussed—namely Jersey Shore, MTVs reality show in which a group of self-lobotomized young people live in a house.  The men are only worried about their hair and physiques and the women sit around and bitch and punch each other and refuse to cook and clean.  Everyone has tattoos.  There is a quote saying that the show actually has a feminist agenda because it is “undoing age-old stereotypes and replacing them . . . with a progressive, and even revolutionary, model of prima donna that is more Lady Gaga than Victoria Gotti . . . .”

It’s just a feeling, but I think that even Gloria Steinem would prefer the old stereotypes to the new paradigm.

So here I am, slightly out of breath but fully informed as to the burning issues of the day.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. flamingo permalink
    February 26, 2010 8:27 pm

    Another good one and I’m first to comment yippee! I’m laughing and despairing at the same time – kind of pleased that you guys are subjected to the same “reality” TV that we are – (whose reality, I ask myself) and despairing that I will have to ditch my Beautiful people membership ever since I developed a zit on my forehead. 🙂 Hope you saw my blog a few weeks ago on this subject!

    • February 27, 2010 3:49 pm

      Yes, and I love the line on their web site: “Essentially, by applying to BeautifulPeople Network applicants are being beholden by thousands.” I guess good grammar isn’t necessary to qualify as a beautiful people!

  2. February 27, 2010 6:11 am

    A couple of years ago, there was a rumor that the Time folks wanted to relaunch the mag as an American version of us, ie The Economist.

    I haven’t picked up a copy to verify this. Are there any elements at all that corroborate this?

    • February 27, 2010 3:51 pm

      No way. Someone also left an Economist and there is no comparison (although both are fairly bad at disguising their ideology).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: