Monthly Archive for July, 2007

The Audacity of Authenticity

Published
by
Gary
on July 24, 2007
in Criticism, News and Thoughts
. 2 Comments

Why do I want to vote for Barack Obama?

At last night’s CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Debate, a person asked “would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Hillary’s response sounds “tough” but it’s ultimately noncommittal and paranoid.

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. (…) We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

What’s she really saying? A meeting with the President (versus a “vigorous diplomatic effort”—read: Condoleeza Rice et al) signals that America is committed and serious about coming to a solution. But Hillary’s more concerned about her visit being spun as some sort of weakness; that is, she’ll forgo the real possibility of peace and mutual benefit just to deny “bad people” a chance at some ultimately harmless propaganda. She won’t meet with leaders until she knows the “way forward,” but how can she know the way forward if she doesn’t meet with leaders?

Clearly, Hillary means post-9/11 America as usual. Her experience is in the politics of fear, paranoia, knee-jerk nationalism, and zero-sum negotiation. To vote for Hillary is to say that the vocabulary of “reason” is coercion and force, that prosperity must be taken and that security comes from denial. Her logic says that we either own an enemy beforehand, meet it on the battlefield, or don’t meet at all.

By comparison, Barack is clear, rational, and refreshingly straightforward.

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them—which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration—is ridiculous.

Barack means hope that America can un-fuck itself and the world it’s created. He’s for those who are tired of fear and paranoia, for those who remember when common sense was common. To vote for Barack is to say that the vocabulary of reason is reason, that prosperity for one arises from prosperity for all, that security comes when we no longer have enemies. For those who say that Barack doesn’t have experience, I say he’s gained a fuckload of experience: something called history:

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq—one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

YES. FINALLY. Here, Mr. Obama demonstrates several important things that Mr. Bush never got through his thick cowboy skull: 1) other countries have motivations for what they do, 2) intelligent decisions come from understanding those motivations, 3) enlightened diplomacy comes from explaining how our and their interests aren’t mutually exclusive. More specifically, he understands that 1) every nation wants a little glory/influence, 2) Iran and Syria have a serious stake in Iraq, 3) they have much more local influence than we do, and we’d be smart to use that to our advantage, 4) working with them will give us the scraps of credibility we will need to get anything done in the Middle East, which we can then parlay into serious legitimacy.

Barack understands what Hillary won’t, and that’s what makes him exciting. Hillary’s experienced in getting elected, Barack’s experienced in being a human.

J.J. Abrams, suspense is a losing game

Published
by
Gary
on July 12, 2007
in Criticism and Entertainment
. 3 Comments

There’s a J.J. Abrams (King of Lost) movie coming up. The trailer played in front of Transformers, featuring a shaky-cam hipster party crashed by the Statue of Liberty’s head. We also get a hearty Pilot Episode of Lost-style offscreen roar. Mysterious!

Alright, before I bring the snark, for the record I’m pumped and fired up and roused and all other manner of non-sexually excited for this movie, but I’m not so sure I want to write J.J. Abrams a blank check this time ’round.

For one, I no longer trust the guy to actually write an entire story before yelling “action!” Granted, Abrams sense of suspense is the best in the biz, but he seems to have suspense largely switched for story. Once the suspense is gone, the story’s gone too. Lost’s clue-y what’s-in-the-hatch nature was great fun up until we got the distinct impression that ol’ J.J. was pulling everything out of his ass.

Really, there’s a fundamental flaw with suspense: it keeps things moving along nicely at the expense of impossible expectations for the ending. The longer the suspense builds, the exponentially less the chance that a five minute explanation is going to cut it. Abrams technique is such that he really doesn’t have much choice but build more suspense on top of suspense, like some kind of mathematically crazy narrative pyramid scheme.

In other words, a surprise is only satisfying if you don’t expect it. So far, everything we know about this movie is the exact opposite, including the marketing campaign. When we don’t even know the movie’s name, it’s going to be easy to be disappointed when it turns out to be “just” a monster movie, “just” a light-hearted romantic comedy, “just” an anything.

Most slogans are largely meaningless

Published
by
Gary
on July 2, 2007
in Criticism and Observation
. 2 Comments

Slogans from The New Yorker, June 11th & 18th, 2007:

  • Fidelity Investments, “Smart move.” (p1): Securities companies more or less all do the same thing (investment your cash) with the same goal (making themselves richer), so I’ll cut Fidelity’s generic slogan some slack.
  • Mercedes Benz, “Unlike any other.” (p3): I get what they’re trying to say, but M-B confuses being unique with being better. The Yugo was “unique,” too.
  • Crystal Cruises, “The Difference is Crystal clear.” (p10): If you say that you are different without saying how, you’re really just admitting that you’re the same.
  • Chrysler, “Engineered Beautifully.” (p13): Slogans based on wishful thinking aren’t as effective as slogans based on reality.
  • BMW, “The Ultimate Driving Machine.” (p21): Absolutely perfect—a strong, focused slogan from a strong, focused company.
  • Häagen-Dazs, “made like no other.” (p27): Again, how is Häagen-Dazs “made like no other”? Two scoops of fruit? A butter stick in every pint?
  • BP (British Petroleum), “beyond petroleum.” (p28-29): BP is interesting; they refine dirty dirty gas and gas accessories, yet they’re trying very very hard to brand themselves as clean ‘n’ green. (Witness contracting “British Petroleum” to the more ambiguous “BP,” the yellow-green chrysanthemum logo, the chartreuse website.) This slogan is part of a series of ads talking up their non-petroleum/alt. energy investments; in that context it works well ’nuff.
  • Toyota, “moving forward.” (p33): Why yes, that’s what cars do in the present-tense.
  • Lincoln, “Reach Higher.” (p41): Lincoln makes airplanes?
  • Ireland, “Your very own [Ireland].” (p42-43): Country slogans will always suck, just because what makes a country interesting—all the things about it, all the different people and sites—is exactly why it’s impossible to encapsulate in one line. And if one line sums up a country, then it’s probably not worth visiting. I think Ireland’s trying to hint at that, but at the same time this slogan applies for every country in the world.
  • Singapore Airlines, “The Romance of Travel Lives On.” (p51): SIA’s alluding to a largely dead age when airlines competed with cruise lines, not bus lines; their slogan works because SIA consistently promotes and is known for its incredible service.
  • Microsoft, “Your potential. Our passion.” & “A business collects data. A people_ready business knows what to do with it.” (p54): To quote John Gruber,
    “If ‘people make it happen’ in a people-ready business, who or what makes it happen in non-people-ready businesses? […] I dare you to try to make this copy more devoid of actual meaning than it already is. If there’s any logic at all, it’s circular: that the people in a people-ready business are ready to build a people-ready business.”

  • Colorado, “Let’s talk getting away. Let’s talk unique. Let’s talk Colorado.” (p62): Like Ireland, Colorado might be “unique” but there’s nothing unique about its slogan. Let’s talk Utah. Let’s talk Canada. Let’s talk Antarctica. See?
  • CIT, “Capital Redefined.” (p63): Another “we’re different” slogan; as a rule, any slogan that includes “redefined” sucks. If they really “redefined” finance then they wouldn’t have to say it.
  • Pfizer, “Working for a healthier world.” (p64): So are the WHO, Red Cross, CVS/pharmacy, etc. A better slogan would be “Researching a healthier world”—still generic, but at least accurate.
  • Mexico, “Beyond your expectations.” (p85): This slogan’s hilarious because of the expectations it assumes people have of Mexico. Come on guys, have some self-confidence.
  • Dyson Slim, “no clogging. no loss of suction.” (p89): A straightforward slogan for a straightforward company.
  • Acura, “Advance.” (p151): Are we talking about cars? Because all [working] cars on Earth do that. Are we talking about companies? Because all [solvent] companies on Earth do that.