I prefer life and TV to be a little gauzy. I don’t want to see every blemish in a harsh light.Except John Edwards' hair, of course. That should be dragged into the harsh light.
We've no idea what, if any, the point of the rest of her column is. (For us, at least, this is not an uncommon reaction to much of what passes for opinion typing these days, even/especially in mainstream media.) A vague attempt to confirm that people agree w/ her? Not really. (One anecdote. About, yes, female reaction to HDTV.)
Women are faking it in bedrooms all over America.“When my husband says, ‘Can you believe how much better this is?’ I say, ‘Yes, honey, it’s amazing,’” one woman told me. “I really don’t see that much difference, but he’s so happy, I just pretend to.”
We already knew that women are manipulative, blah blah blah. (Not that we've ever lied or just clammed up about anything, of course. Not us.) And are incapable of anything resembling discernment. Or perception. An entire gender says, "Thank you, Maureen."
Maybe her outro explains it.
I didn’t get the high-def glasses. I don’t want more acuity. I’m keeping it fuzzy.Justification of moral relativism? An indication that nothing she types should be taken seriously? Well, drrr.
Actual point to this column? Not much more than Ms. Dowd's, but we're only wasting people's time, & no one's reading us, either. (At least not on the basis of, "Look, it's in The NYT, you have to because everyone else is," anyway.) Whereas Dowd, it appears, is paid to perform her act. Truly there is no justice, & little righteousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment