Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 296 other subscribers-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Wlodzimierz Kuczynski on Vamvakaris: The flood
- opoudjis on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- Test Test on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- opoudjis on Karamanlis and their food
- Stazybo Horn on Karamanlis and their food
Archives
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- June 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- July 2008
- June 2008
- November 2006
- October 2006
Categories
Meta
Andy Burns to poker smokers
MX is a free give-away newspaper in Melbourne. It is published by the same mob as the Herald-Sun—but its vocabulary is even simpler.
Its sentences are really short. Its paragraphs are short too. Like this.
It also has lame-ass punning headlines—much like this post about a piece by Andy Burns. It’s light reading meant to entertain commuters—going home.
It reduces the news to little puff pieces. As easily digestable as the Hollywood goss and lifestyle pieces next to them.
The “For What It’s Worth” column [scroll down for description] is written by a different MX journo each issue. It likes to think it is being quizzical and quirky, as it riffs off some piece on the opposite page. Usually, it isn’t.
Instead, it is ten different categories of inane. Delighting in its levity as it makes fun of things it doesn’t quite get. And going off on tangents that would be incriminating—if they weren’t so childish.
But tonight I got distracted by this piece—even before “For What It’s Worth”. Page 3, 2009-04-28.
- BUTT OUT, KATIE
Tarred as filthy smoker
Don’t be fooled by this elegant photo. Katie Holmes may look stunning, but she is hiding a dirty little secret.
Reports are out today that Katie is part of a secret cult—and it’s not Scientology.
She is a closet smoker.
[…]
So if pics of toes dropping off, dissected lungs covered in goo and arteries that look like piping bags didn’t turn off the smokers, they are being systematically shamed into quitting as social pariahs, undateable.
And so they should be. Their gangrenous fingers are just waiting to be a burden on the healthcare system. We’ve seen the pictures on the PJ‘s packs.
I take a certain measure of schadenfreude in watching smokers shuddering in the rain outside a bar getting their fix, while I stay toasty inside.
As a non-smoker, meeting a potential partner who lights up is a total deal breaker.
I can understand where Tom is coming from on this one.
He has every right to enslave Katie in a Scientolo-dungeon until she shakes the beast from her back.
Andy Burns, as a non-smoker who has often gone outside in the cold out of solidarity with smoking friends, I take a certain measure of echte Freude in telling you to SHUT UP, YOU FACILE BUBBLEHEAD. And to link approvingly to William Saletan on how the anti-smoking crusade has become a moral crisis. (Why else *would* you ban snus?) And the Great Leaping Larry L’s cri de coeur on the desolation wrought in this country, too, by banning smoking on pubs. For a week there, people were bringing six-month old babies into pubs. WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU A PUB WAS A PLACE FOR A SIX-MONTH OLD? No doubt the same people who told you a pub was no place to encounter smokers. Especially when (as Leapster astutely points out), those people are not the regular clientele anyway. (And the staff could do worse than they do in Nijmegen: tiptoe up to the door of the smokers’ room, and invite the puffing gangrene-merchants to pick up their own damn drinks.)
I leave aside the twisted morality that elevates the right to imprison in a Scientolo-dungeon above the right to smoke. Nor am I particularly hankering either to risk lung cancer, or foist it on bar staff. But until smokers start being shot in the streets (and I don’t doubt the day is coming), I will NOT join in in treating as pariahs my few remaining smoking friends (D.A., G.M., S.F.; A.C., X.Y.; um, N.P. kicked the habit; um, A.V.—or does she count as my sister’s friend?, er…) And I wouldn’t date you, Andy Burns, even if you are as gorgeous as the MX inset photo suggests.
But it’s not because of your facile priggishness about smokers.
It’s coz you write in short sentences.

Leave a Reply