|
| Friday, October 1, 2004 |
 |
I saw that 
That bitch
'Watch up
The man. The martini.
| | At Hamptons Man eveyone and everything is fabulous. Just showing up is genius... |
| | The air we breathe. Sponsored. The earth we stand on. Sponsored. The vodka we drink. Sponsored. Our aspirations, hopes and eternal spirit. Sponsored. Sponsored. Sponsored. |
| | Hamptons Man celebrates the frontiers of mankind¹s evolution: the transcendent dance between brand and humanity. Between product and essence. The emergence of a commercial being greater than us all. |
| | At Hamptons Man nothing can be bought or sold because everything is given away. Here everyone is someone and the utopian economy of the goody bag has replaced notions of scarcity. Love, nurtured by eternally pining brands, abounds. |
Failing the Turing test
| | I missed the Bush/Kerry debate last night, though I saw about an hour of the repeat on CNN while I was doing dronework and packing to head back home at the end of the day today. |
| | Although I don't share Andrew Sullivan's beliefs about the necessity of the Iraq war, I admire his clear thinking and refusal to jump on anybody's bandwagon. On the debate he was an exceptionally fair witness, I believe. An excerpt: |
| | from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. |
| | Both men also stayed "on message," which always makes for boring politics. The difference was that Bush kept repeating his message like a broken robot. It was sad, but at least it wasn't boring. The result was a huge pile of fodder for the Air America talkers. |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
