The Wisdom of Snooki and Being Snookered

The Wisdom of Snooki

by Linh Dinh / April 6th, 2011

America got a good laugh this week over news that Snooki, a “Guidette” of Jersey Shore fame, got paid more to speak at a university than Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate for literature. They are both authors, after all, but Snooki is certainly more famous and more in demand these days. She’s been on David Letterman twice recently, whereas Morrison is never on TV, not even when she gave her Nobel speech in 1993. By contrast, Harold Pinter could deliver his masterful rant on the BBC in prime time.

Of course, each British household must fork over £145 per year to support BBC television. Such misuse of public fund, such government-sanctioned robbery, would not go well in America. Hell, 234 bucks could buy the Pentagon a box of nails at least, or maybe not. In any case, serious authors are more or less banned from American TV. Day in and day out, you’ll see a teeming lineup of shouters, schmoozers, unctuous bullshiters and apologists, but never a serious writer. Athletes of all levels are endlessly interviewed, but never a serious thinker and crafter of language. Americans want words from everybody but their wordsmiths. To borrow a phrase from Jersey Shore, one has to go back to “prehistoric kindergarten” to see the likes of Allen Ginsberg butt heads with William Buckley. Has anyone seen Gore Vidal, Robert Coover or Clayton Eshleman lately? Who?! What?

To get good seats for Snooki, some students showed up seven hours early. The decision to invite her at $32,000 was made by the students themselves, so this was also democracy in action. Snooki is a Jersey girl, and the venue was in New Jersey, but the students’ identification with her goes a lot deeper, I think. They like her because she is wholly untalented and unapologetically stupid. Her vapidity gives them hope. If someone this unexceptional can cash in on fifteen glorious minutes, then maybe the good, easy life can be theirs also, unless, of course, they like to cogitate and can string three or four sentences together. If that’s the case, then fuggedaboutit. Onto the trash heap you go!

Eight-five percent of American college graduates must move back to their parent’s homes. Most carry loans that will take decades to pay off, if ever. Many will default. Their unemployment rate is 10 percent and trending higher. Many toil at jobs they could have gotten without attending college. Three-hundred-and-sixty-five-thousand American cashiers have university degrees. Ditto, 317,000 waiters and 18,000 parking lot attendants.

Parking lot attendants get paid $19,000 a year, on average, so that’s actually a pretty good job in this economy. When McDonald’s held a job fair recently,

60,000 people applied for 13,000 minimum-wage positions. I know desperate people who are working for even less than minimum-wage. Take it or leave it.

On a Greyhound bus, I talked to Ron, a Cincinnatian with two college degrees and three jobs. Primarily a social worker for children from disfunctional families, Ron was also a substitute teacher and soccer referee. He was paid $28 a match, $22 for games between children under 14, which he prefered, since at 45-years-old, Ron could only run so fast. An imposing, trim black man, Ron considered his physique and stern demeanor his chief assets in the classroom. “As a substitute teacher, you don’t really teach anything. You just have to keep them from going crazy!” To increase his hours, he worked at four school districts. He also felt that his social worker job was safe, “There will always be these messed up families, and in this economy, there will be more. What do poor people argue about? They argue about money! Without social workers, there will be chaos.”

“But even cops are being fired,” I pointed out, to which Ron said nothing.

Ron was spending 25 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Providence. Only the poor do that. Knowing we would stop in Philadelphia, he asked me about the price of a cheese steak. “About eight bucks for a really good one.”

“Damn!” he exclaimed, and would not buy one. Ron didn’t share my pessimism about our country’s prospects. Believing in the recovery, he said he always bought something each time he stepped into Walmart, “to support the president.”

Back to Jersey. Outside its capital, there is a large slogan displayed permanently on a bridge, “TRENTON MAKES, THE WORLD TAKES,” but Trenton’s factories are long gone, like in the rest of the state, or America itself. Since 2001, the US has been losing 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month. South of Trenton, Camden used to have the largest ship yard in the world, as well as the Campbell Soup factory. Chronically broke and among the most dangerous city in America, Camden laid off a third of its police force this year. The Guardian Angels, an unarmed citizen group, now patrols a tiny portion of this free fire zone. A sign on Camden grass: “THEY PUT BULLETS IN MY HEAD ALIEN BULLETS FLAIR A TUMOR.” A sign in Camden window: “HUNGRY? POOR? NO MONEY? NO PROBLEM. PLEASE COME INSIDE FOR A FREE SOUP, BREAD, SODA.” There is no inside to come to, however. The store is out of business.

Walt Whitman spent 19 years in Camden. He is also buried here, in a tomb that cost more than twice his modest home. Hardly anyone visits either. There is a Whitman bridge, park and arts center, and the Gray Old Bard is even painted on the wall of the downtown McDonald’s, yet in this city of 77,000, home to America’s greatest poet, the very man who defined her, there is only one public library left. The main downtown branch is closed. Another branch, funded by Andrew Carnegie, looks like it has been bombed. Whitman wrote about Camden, “I dream’d in a dream, I saw a city invincible to the attacks of the whole of the rest of the earth.”

Hard core New Jerseyites will point out that Camden is not really Jersey, and no one goes to Camden anyway, certainly not Snooki. If you live in “The Garden State,” you may take a day trip to the City, New York, or head down to the Shore. Atlantic City used to be the only gambling destination on the East Coast, but casinos are now sprouting all over America. In adjacent Pennsylvania, Sands has even opened a casino on the grounds of Bethlehem Steel, with its colossal, rusting smoke stacks still standing. We no longer make steel, but you’re welcome to dump your dosh into this steel box, thank you. Get head, crank that lever!

For 84 years, Atlantic City was also the home of the Miss America Beauty Pageant. For looking good, for just being herself, a woman may win a scholarship. For flashing much teeth and flesh, she might be able to uplift and round out her mind. In fact, Miss America boasts that it is the largest provider of scholarship money to young women in the world. Which takes us back to Snooki. For just being herself, she is corralling the big bucks, so who needs a scholarship, really? As Snooki advises, “Study hard, but party harder!” No wonder the young are seduced. Clutching a useless degree and a six pack of discount brewski, the educated youth of America can remember this $32,000 flint of wisdom as they wade into the coming dark.

Like Snooki, I too am an author, but I can only claim a tiny fraction of her readership. I’ve also been paid to talk at universities, but my payment rarely breaks four figures. Like a fool, I routinely write essays for no money at all. My last piece in the New York Times grossed me $75. My last two in the Guardian, nothing. Though I wrote and published much last year, including a novel, my entire income was less than $9,000. Like an American steel worker, I am redundant, my labor is nearly worthless.

Perhaps I can jog myself into shape in hopes of becoming a soccer referee? Though I hate cars, maybe I can wiggle into a job to park and deliver other people’s steel boxes, and double my annual wealth? I cleaned offices and apartments for several years, painted houses for more than a decade, but these jobs have been cornered by illegals who can work much faster than I can. I’m 47. My friend Bob, 51 and with an English degree, don’t laugh, used to do construction work, but is now studying to be an ESL teacher. If you can’t compete against them, you might as well try to teach them English. I know of another guy who gives private ESL lessons in the food court of an upscale shopping mall. Like the graffitti says, I HUSTLE CAUSE I GOT 2!

My first employment was at McDonald’s, and there’s no reason why it can’t be my last, although the competition has gotten a lot stiffer. The menu has also changed much in the intervening 30 years, there were no wraps, swiss cheese or chipotle, whatever the hell that is, way back then, but as a relatively quick learner, I still have an outside chance, I think, to clown with Ronald again.

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories and five of poems, and a just released novel, Love Like Hate. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, State of the Union. Read other articles by Linh.

This article was posted on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under Education, Media, Poverty.

AlterNet.org

Bitch Magazine / By M. M. Adjarian and Peggy Orenstein

How Disney Invaded American Childhood to Shill Worthless Crap to Our Kids

Disney is a major source of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today.

March 28, 2011 |

From the outside, Peggy Orenstein epitomizes feminist success. She’s an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in such distinguished publications as the New Yorker, Elle, Vogue, Discover, Mother Jones, and O: The Oprah Magazine. But her work itself is dedicated to asserting the ways in which “having it all” -- or trying to -- in a world built to the measure of men can have profound effects on women and girls.

Orenstein’s first book, the 1994 study Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap, explored the adolescent roots and gendered nature of the crippling self-doubt that plagues so many adult women. Her second, 2000’s Flux: Women on Sex, Work, Love, Kids, & Life in a Half-Changed World, examined the systemic biases and roadblocks women face in creating lives that balance personal and professional demands. And in 2007, Orenstein published a memoir, Waiting for Daisy, which recounted the challenges -- infertility, cancer, and many more -- she faced in becoming a mother.

Throughout her career, Orenstein has observed at close range how the media and popular culture have colluded to serve up distorted visions of womanhood to girls. And given everything she’s seen, she’d be the first to say that being female in what’s still a “half-changed world” is no fairy tale. So perhaps it’s fitting that Orenstein’s new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, takes on the Disneyfication of American girlhood, and the princess narratives sold hand over fist to girls like her own 7-year-old, Daisy Tomoko.

Disney princess narratives have long been a staple of modern girlhood. But Cinderella Ate My Daughter emphasizes that princess culture is a 21st-century phenomenon, the result of marketing executives seeking some consumer magic to boost the corporation’s limp product sales. In 2001, the revenue generated by such Disney-branded princess paraphernalia as dolls, costumes, and room decor was about $300 million. Eight years later, that number had risen to a whopping $4 billion. Little girls are no longer consumers of Disneyfied fairy tales; in the new millennium, they have become the consumed.

And predatory marketing is only one of the problems inherent in princess culture, which Orenstein also believes is a major source -- if not the major source -- of the potentially harmful gender and race myths proffered to girls today. Even more insidiously, Disney princesses also prepare young girls to become consumers of a whole host of cultural products -- from Bratz dolls to Miley Cyrus to toddler beauty pageants -- that promote, and ultimately normalize, manipulatively sexualized girlhoods.

Orenstein’s passion for her work as a “girl advocate” is evident not only in her writing, but also in how she talks about girlhood issues. She spoke to Bitch at length about what it means to be in the trenches of the commercial battle to capture the hearts and minds of young girls -- and the dollars of those who care for and about them.

How did the writing of Cinderella Ate My Daughter confirm or alter any of the ideas you had about “princess culture”?

When I went into it, I approached it in an exploratory way. We live in a time when girls are doing really well in a lot of realms. They’re doing really well in school, they’re going to college at a higher rate than boys, they’re doing great on the sports field, they’re in leadership roles. Yet, at the same time there’s a resurgence -- [or] more like just a “surgence” -- of pink and pretty. Is this a positive thing that shows that we can now indulge girls in that without any kind of repercussions? Or is [it] an indication that girls are still being defined by how they look and urged to get their sense of self through external validation? I came out feeling that the latter was true. And it starts pretty much in infancy.

[The] insistence on defining girls and women by how we look and how we relate sexually is not only a way to keep [us] in our place, but a way we keep ourselves there. Obsessing over our appearance is the way we assure ourselves and others around us that even if we’re really successful, we’re not really threatening. [T]he pressures on women to look good from womb to tomb have become more intense and confusing [in part] because we have made so much progress. And the consequences for girls of being prematurely sexualized can be precisely the things we’re trying to avoid, such as negative body image, eating disorders, or depression. One of the things [I found] that surprised me was the relationship between sexualization and disconnection from authentic sexuality: Girls who are sexualized early are more likely to see sexuality as a performance, not as something that they feel internally.

So it’s like from the time girls are very young, they’re always on stage somehow, whether culturally or socially.

When girls play dolls today, the fantasy that’s offered them is that they should grow up to be a rock star or movie star. That was absolutely not true when we were girls. And even the beloved Dora the Explorer -- they split Dora into two because they wanted to keep the audience, and the audience was aging out younger and younger. So they made a tween Dora. [Original] Dora is very sturdy and just neutral: She has short hair, a straight-cut shirt, a backpack, and a map. [Tween Dora] got flirty clothes and pretty hair, and the map and backpack are gone. Her fantasies are about being a rock star performing a benefit concert.

So much of what girls are presented with is essentially about performance. [And] here’s Dora, in this new incarnation, giving a soft-pedaled version of the same lesson. If it were in isolation, that might be one thing. But it’s just constant. That’s what girls are told [to aspire to] -- high-school student by day, rock star by night. It’s about the importance of this surface self.

It’s a constructionist view of identity, taken to an extreme degree.

I’ve been thinking a lot more about the way girl power has been contorted into pro-narcissism. My daughter, Daisy, got a make-your-own messenger bag kit for her seventh birthday -- [it’s] a messenger bag that you decorate with iron-on transfers. [Most of] the transfers were pink and orange and purple, hearts and flowers and stars and all the stuff that you would typically expect. But that was not what we noticed. One of the transfers said “spoiled,” another one said “pampered princess,” and a third one said “brat.” And [Daisy] looked at them and said, “Mom, why do they want you to put that on your purse? Isn’t that kind of braggy?” -- which is the worst thing you can say if you’re seven. And I said, “Yeah, I think you’re right. It is kind of braggy.” Somehow the idea of creating a strong sense of self in girls has been distorted by the culture into announcing you’re a spoiled, narcissistic brat -- like that is what signifies confidence. But it’s that sexualized, manipulative femininity.

If you asked what we want for our daughters, we’d want very wonderful, positive, thoughtful things: strong internal sense of self, self-direction and compassion and potential and all of that. And then [we] undercut that with what they’re playing with. The two don’t add up.

From what you say, it seems that well-meaning parents unwittingly cause split-identity problems in girls.

And that well-meaning part is really key. I mean, when you walk into Pottery Barn Kids, it’s like apartheid in there. For girls, it’s hearts and flowers and hula girls -- and the boys have sailboats, trucks, sports. I know somebody who was writing the [Pottery Barn] catalog, who said, “We’ve tried to make more gender-neutral items. And they just don’t sell.” We ended up with sea-creature sheets. So that was sort of neutral. [B]ut eventually your daughter may go, “Uh-uh. I don’t want this.” And if you keep disallowing it, giving her things from the boys’ side of the store, she’ll think you believe the stuff for girls is bad -- and maybe even that being a girl is bad. And that’s a problem, too.

Could it be that there’s just a cultural fear of exploring what it could be like to be female outside the bounds of narcissism?

There was some interesting research that I put in Cinderella Ate My Daughter, finding that the more egalitarian a society is, the more they believe that certain traits in men and women are innate -- stereotypical traits, obviously. In the chapter “Pinked,” I cite a study by a college professor who’s been polling students on gender-related traits since the 1970s. And interestingly, over that time, the association of women with certain stereotypical traits -- such as being talkative or friendly or indecisive -- has increased. You could say that, “Well, now that we’re more equal, we can see what’s innate.” Or you could say, “The closer we get to an egalitarian society, the more we fear we won’t be different enough and won’t be attractive to each other.” Whatever the reason, it does seem that the more opportunities women get, the more simplistic we become in our thinking about each other’s psychological makeup.

There’s also the issue that if everyone skews more toward gender neutrality, or even if we allow for greater variation in each sex, you risk having boys who might seem “feminine,” and everybody freaks out at that thought. It’s that baseline homophobia. So that, I think, always keeps us in check.

You can’t win, it seems.

Well, I’m not ready to say that. I do think there needs to be more discussion of context, and more assumption that we -- as parents or girl advocates or whatever -- have control over some of this, that we have a say in it. There’s a real incentive, of course, on the part of the people who are creating the culture to make us feel like we don’t have control. That you really don’t have a choice. But you do.

I really do believe that change can be made on a micro level. You can think about it and make decisions about what you buy, what you expose your child to, how you talk about it -- all that stuff. I think it makes a big difference. I mean, I know it does. My daughter was Athena on Halloween this year. That’s a long way from Little Mermaid. One of the ways we countered the princess thing was to read a lot of Greek myths. She needs models of femininity and she needs to act out fantasies that affirm her as a girl. She hooked into Athena -- that’s a lot better than the alternatives.

So where do you think trends are moving now?

I don’t have a crystal ball. Who could have ever guessed what we would be contending with in terms of mass culture, like the Internet and social media? I mean, five years ago, you wouldn’t have been able to predict all this, and we still don’t know the impact of it. I wouldn’t even venture to guess what the next generation will be dealing with.

M. M. Adjarian is a Dallas-based freelance writer. Her articles have appeared in SheWired.com, the Dallas Voice, and Arts + Culture DFW.

From the outside, Peggy Orenstein epitomizes feminist success. She’s an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in such distinguished publications as the New Yorker, Elle, Vogue, Discover, Mother Jones, and O: The Oprah Magazine. But her work itself is dedicated to asserting the ways in which “having it all” -- or trying to -- in a world built to the measure of men can have profound effects on women and girls.

Dr Fred Durst and the Crisis of the Political

by Phil Jourdan /

I owe my discovery of Dr Fred Durst’s philosophical work (which he has published mainly under the moniker The Limb Bizkits, often erroneously rendered as Limb Bizkit) to a seldom-cited theologian working in Montana, Bob N. Togethanau. While I appreciate Professor Togethanau’s scholarly interest in The Limb Bizkits, I feel that he’s missed the point on several crucial (and extremely subtle) matters. While Professor Togethanau deserves praise for opening up the field of Dr Fred Durst Studies, I believe a new direction is needed if this field is to progress.

I propose a different way of reading Dr Durst’s lyrics, one which is not bound up with religious interpretation. Through careful examination of Dr Durst’s songs “Nookie” and “Take a Look Around”, I have found that Dr Durst’s familiarity with central psychoanalytical and philosophical concepts shines through in almost every line; his fans have so far tried to change the world through his music, but the point, to paraphrase Marx, is to interpret the music. Only by deciphering the lyrics can we fully appreciate the intricacies of Durstian poetry.

While I don’t have the time at present to explore the entirety of Dr Durst’s prolific output, I want to lay out what I think is the most appropriate way to read his lyrics. I want, in particular, to prove that Dr Durst is dealing with highly abstract Lacanian, Mouffian, Hegelian, Kierkegaardian and Marxist concepts, which he cleverly hides under provocative profanity and sexual explicitness — no doubt this is his way of influencing what leftists have problematically called “the masses” without intimidating them.

Take, for example, the classic song-treatise, “Nookie”… Dr Durst’s purported aim here is to expose a former lover’s infidelities. Of course, this is only a pretext for engaging in extremely subtle micro-analyses of ideological “givens”.

“I came into this world as a reject,” Dr Durst proclaims in the song’s opening line. At once we are reminded of symbolic castration as formulated by Jacques Lacan. To enter the “world” — that is, to become a player in the intersubjective game the rules of which are inseparable from language as such — involves a rejection of jouissance, of primordial enjoyment which gives us our ontological substance. What Dr Durst is giving us here is a way into his philosophical system as a whole, acknowledging his debt to Heideggerian existentialism and structural psychoanalysis.

“Dwellin’ on the past / It’s burnin’ in my brain / Everyone that burns has to learn from the pain,” Dr Durst continues. Though this could be interpreted in almost infinite ways, I believe the most fruitful way to read this involves seeing it as an explanation of Dr Durst’s political stance. To dwell on the past causes “burning” in the brain — could there be a more obvious indictment of political conservatism, which forever looks to the past, and whose “hot-headed” American representatives (I am thinking in particular of Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck) always seem slightly brain-fried from all the yelling they do at the cameras? What Dr Durst seems to be saying is that it is time for conservative pundits to “learn from the pain” of having been defeated by the obvious Stalinist Barack Obama — they have to deal with it and find new ways to promote the conservative cause.

Nevertheless, Dr Durst introduces a layer of ambiguity in his political analysis. “Should i be feelin’ bad? / Should i be feelin’ good? / It’s kinda sad I’m the laughing stock of the neighbourhood,” he writes. So far he seems to be portraying the conservatives as clownishly as he can; it is not the “wishy-washy” liberals that he condemns for their lack of conviction, but the conservatives — they don’t know what they want, Dr Durst is saying — do Mexicans steal all available jobs in the United States, or are they lazy, jobless bums? Yet he goes on to write: “I’m a sucker like I said / fucked up in the head — not!” What is that “not” doing there? Is Dr Durst deliberately contradicting himself in order to mask his position on the issue of conservatism, or is he doing something sneakier, something of the most astonishing brilliance presented as childish humour — looking for redeeming qualities in the conservative party, adopting the liberal voice in “I’m a sucker like I said / fucked up in the head” only to counter this with the most universal signifier of negativity, “No(t)”? Is Dr Durst urging for a dialectical reversal here, by appealing to the human capacity for negativity in the search for something hidden in the fabric of conservative rhetoric which would both destroy and save conservatism itself — in other words, by having “I’m a sucker like I said” and “Not!” in the same line, is Dr Durst trying to show that only American leftism, with its power to take a stance only to reject it later (something conservatism has never been known to do) can allow for American conservatism to triumph and develop in unprecedented ways?

This is a complicated argument, and warrants an unknotting of ideas. What Dr Durst is implying is that up until this point in US politics, conservative pundits have drawn their strength from the denial of every single liberal proposition ever put forward. When gay marriage is “promoted” by the left, the right at once attacks the very idea as un-American, and so forth. That is the first meaning of the “Not!” in Dr Durst’s lyrics. If one party says “I’m a sucker” the other party immediately says “No!” But, of course, this is ridiculous; surely a conservative would actively hope for a distracted liberal to admit that she was a “sucker”. Yet such is the state of politics in America that the task of the politician is to contradict his opponent, not to defeat him. The second meaning of the “No(t)!” in Dr Durst’s line is a condemnation of this state of affairs. He is saying: “No, you are not a sucker! No, you do not need to have a urination contest with your political opponents.”

But the most important “No!” in Dr Durst’s line is, in fact, a solution to the deadlock of democratic politics. Just as he referred to Lacan’s idea of symbolic castration earlier, that is, the abandoning of jouissance as a precondition for entry into the intersubjective realm, Dr Durst is now asking for a new kind of castration: political castration, that is, the rejection of the enjoyable kick that politicians get from slandering their opponents. Where proposition X (e.g. “I’m a sucker”) would typically be countered with its negation in political discourse (“You are NOT a sucker”), the “No!” flowing from Dr Durst’s pen is, in fact, a rejection of the entire system we have been discussing. If the conservative pundit would only cease to oppose the liberal, and instead focus on finding original arguments for conservative causes, a new kind of agonistic pluralism might emerge in the political field, one which would allow for real clashes of opinion rather than simple negations of previously proclaimed statements.

Dr Durst, who is famously left-wing on most issues, is paradoxically asking the conservative mentality to strengthen itself so that the left may at last have a worthwhile enemy, and vice-versa. Earlier I wrote that Dr Durst is arguing that only leftism “can allow for American conservatism to triumph and develop in unprecedented ways”. This does not mean that Dr Durst is actively trying to get the conservatives to triumph; what it does mean is that Dr Durst longs for the day that conservatism might actually pose a serious threat to Obama’s communism, so that politics, itself, can be revived as a serious thing. This is the dialectical process necessary for the political field to be reborn: each party must accept that simply disagreeing with the enemy is not enough, and that there is a mutual interdependence in their relationship which cannot be eradicated through the balancing act created by “just saying no” to whatever your opponent says. Each party needs the other for its own identity, but that does not mean that the most fruitful way to individuality is by screaming “No! No! No!” to anything a liberal or conservative says. It would be much more productive for this system to be discarded altogether — we need a “return of the political”, as Chantal Mouffe puts it; that is, we need to accept that there are some disagreements which cannot be resolved, and a “centrification” of politics is not an acceptable remedy for this irremediable situation.

Dr Durst’s most famous line (“I did it all for the nookie! Come on! The nookie! Come on!”) points to a new kind of jouissance to be found in politics: the bliss of putting up with “constant shit” (this “shit”, of course, refers to the tribulations of having any kind of political presence) in order to arrive at a different conception of the role of politics, itself. To say that one is “in it for the nookie” is to be optimistic about the future of politics. Dr Durst is no gloom-and-doom prophet. He wants to see a shift in the way the social sphere operates; and for that, it is necessary to stop with all the shit and actively develop an original, idiosyncratic political stance which does not merely contradict another political stance.

I will return to this topic some other time; I do hope that I have at least partially shown the relevance of Dr Durst’s poetry to academic fields like politics and philosophy. The importance of the Limb Bizkits is easy to overlook in our current anti-intellectual climate; with some luck, I will prove myself competent enough to promote Dr Durst’s lyrical accomplishments as a new way of viewing the role of philosophy in the modern world.

Phil Jourdan is a graduate of the University of Warwick. He is the translator of Portuguese novelist José Luis Peixoto's first book, "Morreste-me", published in the Warwick Review in 2010, and co-founder of the cabaret rock band, Dawn of the Gecko. He has recently completed his first book. Read other articles by Phil, or visit Phil's website.

This article was posted on Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under Music, Philosophy, Satire.

Top 10 Alternative “10 Best” Alternative Articles

Top 10 Alternative “10 Best” Articles

The Pun is Mightier than the Sword

by Randall Amster / April 1st, 2011

Discerning readers of the “progressive blogosphere” will likely have noticed a growing tendency to title articles in the form of “Top 10 Best…” or “10 Reasons to…” or “10 Ways to a Better…” Not only does this subtle push to headline articles in such a manner impact the habits of readers, but encouraging this sort of framework affects the ways that writers craft their essays. The resultant linearization of our attention spans and creative impulses alike is a disturbing trend that merits serious critical attention.

But you won’t find that here today. Instead, I’d like to explore this practice in such a way as to (hopefully) wear it out altogether. This may well be the last “10 Best…” article I ever write, and I feel compelled to do so with a methodology that is commensurate with the level of the trend itself. In other words, I am going to mock it mercilessly, in a vain attempt to render this one of the year’s “Top 10” pieces. I might dislike the tendency to quantify and rank, but since it exists I would at least like to be good at it!

Here, then, is my personal list of alternate-reality “10 Best”-type articles. Feel free to dispute, dispel, disregard, or otherwise dismiss any or all of these. In fact, that’s precisely what we ought to do when we encounter a real “Top 10” article passing as serious journalistic commentary. ’Nuff said … almost.

10 Best Places to Bury Your Head in the Sand by Carmen Gettit

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we’ve got your number — ten, to be exact — of places to get away from it all. Why bother with all of life’s trials and tribulations when you can experience a magical trip to the land of denial? Let others worry about melting down and rising up, while you bask in the glory of blissful ignominy on the Jersey Shore. Let someone else give a crap, while you shoot craps in the backwaters of Monte Carlo. The sky may be falling — so why not get a great tan?

9 Signs That Corporations Know You Better Than You Do by Jorge Andwell

Like you, we are so tired of all that incessant typing of, you know, words and stuff when searching online for a good burrito shop or a place to get waxed after winter. Luckily, there’s Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the rest of the serious-sounding search engines to complete your requests at the touch of a key. How did they know what you were thinking? Through the miracle of postmodern science, your every desire is now thoroughly market-tested and mass-manufactured before you even knew it existed! Yes, we can, and do.

8 Reasons Why Fast Food Can Help Save the World by Josh Kidden

Health food is so five minutes ago. Turns out that eating well is expensive, selfish, elitist, and boring. Hungry? Stop, drop, and shop at any of our 20,000 locations! Just think of the opportunities for mutual understanding and cultural exchange when everyone is eating the same thing wherever you go. No more tiresome translating and obsessing over labels – how bad could it be when it tastes this good? From Sheboygan to Shanghai, the familiar smells of comfortable food are on every corner. Have it our way!

7 Lessons on Where to Invest Your Nonexistent Savings by Rebekka Boom

The doomsayers were wrong on this one — the economy is healthy and your future is safe. In a bygone day, it was a real headache to protect investments; now, with your shares devalued and pension busted, you can focus on the things that really matter in life. Our crack staff has compiled these lessons on investing in today rather than waiting for a tomorrow that may never come. You are the future, and the best place to put your money is right back into yourself! From Abercrombie to Zales, money still talks…

6 Worst Reasons to Give Peace a Chance by Ivan Lenin

We all know that peace is the universal desire of humankind, yet can never be attained in our lifetimes — or ever, when you get right down to it. Human nature is what it is, and has always been so. Peace might have its appeal when compared to the harsh realities of war — but a world without conflict would be, quite frankly, really boring. The only reasons left to pursue peace at this point are merely utilitarian: making a buck on it, fooling others to drop their dukes, hooking up, sleep, etc. That’s all we are saying.

5 Dumbest Excuses for Plundering a Nation’s Wealth by Karla Grove

Did you hear the one about the king who was kindhearted, noble, charitable, easygoing, and friendly to all nations of the world? Of course not — such a fool wouldn’t even merit a footnote in the history books. Every ruler has to have blood on their hands in order to be taken seriously; umpteen wars have been started for just such a reason. The other major cause of war is even more base: to take other peoples’ stuff. It’s really for their own good, because they wouldn’t know how to manage it anyway. QED.

4 Simple Ways to a Better Near-Death Experience by Stan Trick

Let’s face it: you’ve been mailing it in at work, your current relationship is going nowhere, and you’re ready for a major life-changing experience. What could be more radically different than dying for a little while? Our experts have lined up the best in controlled near-death adventures to rejuvenate your spark for life! From oxygen deprivation to induced comas, we’ve got the 411 on all your ultimate escapist fantasies. Just think of the cocktail-party stories you’ll be telling after this – and today only, 2-for-1!

3 Burning Itches That Can Never Be Scratched by Hugh Betcher

One of the problems with civilization is that it’s too good at satisfying all of our needs. This is so totally true that our desires always seem to be magically met by whatever is rolled out as “the next big thing.” With such an elegant system, why bother rocking the boat? Well, some malcontents complain about bogus concepts like “hegemony” and the “linearization of desire.” For them, we’ve got wants that can never be met and ills with no cure. Radiation, anyone? Runaway climate? Perpetual war? — happy now?

2 Political Parties Favored to Win This Year’s Elections by Dee Tweedle

Our panel of blue-ribbon experts struggled mightily over this one, and nearly came to blows in the process. By the time it was all over, the melee had resulted in a plurality decision about the future of American politics. While there were many fine contenders to consider, at the end of the day we decided to go with what our crossword puzzle editor cryptically referred to as the “Corporate Classic” answer. And so, we are pleased to announce our prediction that the Democrats and Republicans will prevail…

1 Top Way That Obama is Meaningfully Different than Bush by Tolya Sew

Like you, we fell willingly into the abyss of “hope and change” in 2008. It’s not because we didn’t know any better — shades of “a town called Hope,” guys? — but mostly because we would’ve bought just about anything if it meant shaking off the utter despair of the Bush-Cheney regime. As cynical as we might be, it’s still hard to believe that Big O has gone straight ahead with bank bailouts, troop surges, drill baby, big brother, et al. Even repealing DADT was a crass ploy for cannon fodder. But hey, at least he’s black.

Whew, I feel much better now! I hope that it’s been just as stimulating for you. In fact, I’m positively counting (to ten) on it…

Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., teaches Peace Studies at Prescott College, and is the Executive Director of the Peace & Justice Studies Association. His most recent book is Lost in Space: The Criminalization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness (LFB Scholarly, 2008), and he serves as Contributing Editor for New Clear Vision. Read other articles by Randall.

This article was posted on Friday, April 1st, 2011 at 7:59am and is filed under Culture, General, Satire.