quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

well if we're going to talk about it, this was really the LOLiest bit imo:

Michael Shuman, the bassist for Queens of the Stone Age who went to Campbell Hall, is the son of Ira Shuman, a producer of “Night at the Museum” and the new “Pink Panther” films. The band is signed to Interscope Records and performs its psychedelic-tinged hard rock around the world.

I hope that description makes it into a QOTSA press release at some point.

ps Josh Homme's rant on Interscope from 2007 always bears repeating: http://www.antiquiet.com/interviews/2007/12/antiquiet-interviews-josh-homme-of-queens-of-the-stone-age/

yeah I had looked at the fish taco recipe and gone "meh"; Mr. Que, however, cooked up a batch and goddamn are they delicious. The sauce is really, really, really good.

Anyhow I came onto this thread hoping there would be more MeMe stuff.

More batshit crazy woman, please!!!

i can't even mindlessly highlight text when im reading articles on the web site cuz then a window pops up giving me the dictionary definition of "the"

― whiney g. gordon liddy (J0rdan S.), Monday, June 22, 2009 7:19 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hahahaha ^ - i am so busted - have this exact problem

― Tracer Hand, Monday, June 22, 2009 7:21 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

me too :/

― some dudes are bigger than others (s1ocki), Monday, June 22, 2009 8:48 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^

Out, damned spots.

oh the anguish, the torment, the seasonal steam-cleaning

How dare you mock being CLEAN:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/01/garden/02dirt600.1.jpg

“Since we are not about to impose the remove-your-clothes-and-change rule on our guests, we tend to not entertain strangers that often. Our interior world stays much cleaner that way.”

Taking sides: beige furniture vs. friends

"...Our interior world stays much cleaner that way."

Reads as though written by George Saunders.

"interior world"

Mr. All White immediately reminded me of this (starting at around 5:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXumyShhj60

All white or beige is so sterile, it would drive me crazy (even without the constant maintenance involved).

the article doesn't even go into why rich new yorkers go in for light colored carpet & upholstery -- pretty sure it's BECAUSE they are so expensive to maintain & keep clean, denoting status. the article presents some strange normative idea rich ppl prefering white because, what, they have more refined taste?

bcz they like to pretend they are in a '70s tardis

you do need to have a pretty sweet place and expensive stuff for a super-white scheme to look good

The nice thing is maybe you might not be as blinded by the bright sun when you left your house.

but how sad for millionaires, being tinged with the same soot as the common beggar, if the rich can't stay clean then who can??

I hope that dude is a bear.

I hope that dude isgets eaten by a bear.

― kind-hearted, sensitive keytar player (Abbott), Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:25 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

foyers with benches is a good thing for anybody. I hate walking into my apartment and standing in the door way struggling to take off my shoes, my jacket, my bag, put down my umbrella, all without walking 2 more steps into the apartment where I'd inevitably get everything wet.

and it's not even raining out is the worst part

meme roth might be insane but the points in that article (about the food at the school) seem pretty valid to me; but I live in Berkeley so what do I know.

Meme Roth : Food : Morbs : Politics

Even when you agree with them they make you wish you didn't.

sad times ;_;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/08nantucket.html?em

The RopeWalk, a restaurant owned by Joe Pantorno, is serving breakfast for the first time to try to lure more customers

!!

FUCK THAT

NEVER

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/Picture6.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/fashion/09baby.html

No longer is it necessary to buy a thousand-dollar changing table in order to prove your parental savvy and breadth of love; if anything, the opposite is true.

this article makes me want to vomit

many readers are rethinking vomiting and forgoing food digestion

has this sort of thing always been a feature of the NYT, or is it getting worse?

yes and yes

the style section is relatively new; has become markedly more appalling in the last 10 years - to the point where it's such easy pickins it's almost not fair

it's so stupid i get the feeling they're doing it deliberately

i hate to say it but when a news organization requires you to have a master's degree just to work the coffee machine and make copies, this is what you get

hahahah

"observers of baby consumerism" are quick to point out that babies, as a demographic, are not very discriminating shoppers and will likely choose the product that most easily fits in their mouth

seriously what is an "observer of baby consumerism" and is the pay any good

i used to read the nyt more regularly and would wonder all the time, "don't they know?" but maybe they don't! it's like they think this stuff is real life

that's now i choose products too lol

*how

how do you make money by blogging about your baby?

why do first-time parents write books about becoming parents?

i am generally suspicious of ppl whose whole identity is subsumed by their role as parents but i guess having baby-brain 94/7 affords certain niche marketing advantages

"your baby changed your life? your baby is the most important thing and your concern for your baby consumes your every waking thought? omg me too! you should really buy my book."

ugh sorry, apparently that article has driven me crazy

No srsly it's okay. I spent last week w a baby and baby people and it's a little overwhelming even totally outside the issue of Style Section Retardedness.

My mother is 100% okay with spending her day entertaining the baby, talking in a high voice to him, and keeping him occupied and doing stuff. It's exhausting even to watch her. And she's GREAT at it -- I can't imagine having to be around someone who was not only obsessed w their baby but also bad at being natural doing it.

has this sort of thing always been a feature of the NYT, or is it getting worse?

― caek, Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:15 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it was kind of tolerable pre-recession when it was just stories about rich people being rich (even tho it was pretty ridiculous that they expanded it to two sections a week instead of just one) but know that its stories about rich people being poor its like taking a cheese grater to your eyeballs

No longer is it necessary to buy a thousand-dollar changing table in order to prove your parental savvy and breadth of love; if anything, the opposite is true.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:00 (3 hours ago)

"No longer"

whew.

i love babies btw

without defending the style section ... in terms of whether the massive increase in spending on all manner of baby stuff is "real life," the answer is definitely YES. and not just among people who can afford thousand-dollar changing tables. go into any babies r us or buy buy baby. so however obnoxious some of the rhetoric might be, i think the article's talking about an actual mass phenomenon. i mean, even just the widespread existence of big-box baby retailers tells you that. and of course they're the kind of places getting hammered by the recession. if the story'd been written by the business section it might read differently (i.e. better), but i don't think what it's saying is exactly omg-how-silly.

What's the statute of limitations on that? 'cause I didn't do it when it was necessary.

i understand that babies are expensive, that's not what i meant by "real life." i meant the 'agonies of the ruling class' phenomenon in general

er i meant increase in baby spending is real life