World's Best Rejected/Banned Advertisements

... 

Some of these may warrant commentary.   Thoughts, anyone?        ...

Needless to say, some are undeniably in poor taste.  Many clichégenically, unapologetically, sexist.  For instance, these from our very own (rabidly right-wing and very wealthy) hosting service, GoDaddy:

Why we are still hosting with these jerks, I sure dunno.

Others, largely philanthropic, fall into a different, mildly more interesting category of censorship.  See for example this one or this one.  These ads seem to pose an actual threat/provocation to the comfort of, you know, whatever Zizek is calling it these days. 

Continue reading “World's Best Rejected/Banned Advertisements”

"I'm not there"

Nice poster for the surreal TTRH (via).

hear, (hear).

ha!

Gravitas...

(UPDATE: Sorry - should have explained what exactly this is for readers lucky enough not to live with (rather slim) possibility that the likes of this guy will soon be your head of state... From NPR:

Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain (AZ) joked about bombing Iran this week during a campaign appearance in Murrells Inlet, S.C.

McCain was asked by an audience member about possible U.S. military action in Iran.

"How many times do we have to prove that these people are blowing up people now, never mind if they get a nuclear weapon. When do we send them an airmail message to Tehran?" a man in the crowd asked.

In response, McCain said, "That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran" — which elicited laughter from the crowd. McCain then chuckled before briefly singing — to the tune of the chorus of the Beach Boys' classic "Barbara Ann" — "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ...."

The audience responded with more laughter.)

I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself

Billmon has a funny post about Bush's sudden, rather unexpected decision to become an Existentialist.  And Jon Stewart's correspondent cuts to the heart of the debate:

"...with [Tony] Snow placing the origins of Existentialism with Sartre and Camus, and Bush arguing the movement's roots were more accurately traceable back to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche." 

Strong opinions on the matter, anyone?  Photoshop contests will write themselves, I guess.  (By the way, if you think our comment threads are junior high, just have a look around sometime.)

Europe, religion and philosophy

Étienne Balibar has surely written some fine and interesting things.

Just a quick follow-up to the post below.  In poking around for Martti Koskenniemi's review of Borradori's book, I came across a fascinating talk he later gave:  Martti Koskenniemi:  International Law in Europe:  Between Tradition and Renewal [pdf].  (Koskenniemi is also the editor of this.)  An excerpt from the talk:

Before I continue, let me state my conclusion.  The fact that international law is a European language does not even slightly stand in the way of its being capable of expressing something universal.  For the universal has no voice, no authentic representative of its own.  It can only appear through something particular;  only a particular can make the universal known.  A danger and a hope are involved.   The danger is that of mistaking one's preferences and interests as one's tradition–and then thinking these a universal, a mistake we Europeans have often made.  Therefore, I will suggest that we should take much more seriously the critiques of international law that point to its role as a hegemonic  technique.  Once that critique has been internalised, however, I want to point to its limits.  If the universal has no representative of its own, then particularity itself is no scandal.  The question would then be, under what conditions might a particular be able to transcend itself?  What particular politics might we have good reason to imagine as a politics of universal law?

Elsewhere, in response to the supplement, Ben Wolfson points to a fascinating essay in this book by Jonathan Z. Smith entitled, "Religion, Religions, Religious," most of which you may find by searching within for, say, "any house of worship," beginning on page 269.

And in other (unsuprising) news, Pussy "President" in Chief gets severely rattled by a little old lady and stays rattled, practically foaming at the mouth.  For the billionth time, God help us.  Bush has quite obviously met his "philosophy" equal in fundamentalist Islam, and he is losing.  Favorite line, from the waxing "philosophical" part:  "And history has proven that democracies don't go to war!"  "What kind of mindset is it... that questions?...uh, Democracy is...is based upon, um...is a universal...is a belief."  And et cetera.

Why should we care when Bush, being pressed for actual thought, blows bubbles out his ass?  Because it proves the world's only military superpower is in the hands of only an ass with no thoughts and only beyond-facile "beliefs", that's why.

Continue reading “Europe, religion and philosophy”