MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Monday In The Park With Dave

The day suddenly got full… running, running…
The revelation of the weekend was the 2.0 update for the iPhone. It’s interesting playing with it after reading all the yawning reviews of the new iPhone 3G on Friday. The story is, as many did indicate, the new application store, which you can use from the phone itself, and not so much the new phone. Then the really real story is the transformation of the device via these apps and the potential that adding 3G to those apps creates.
I have never thought of dumping the Blackberry as “the mail phone” and the main phone until now… and I haven’t even bought a 3G yet. Between the truly revolutionary website for The New York Times – which isn’t just regurgitation, but actually allows you to browse news in a different way, led by photos, not words… and fascinatingly leads with Business and Op-Ed – the AOL Instant messaging services, photo and community site access from most of the big providers, working radio from dozens of internet radio providers, improved gps, video beyond YouTube, and all kinds of wonderful toys, this is an experience that steps as big and wide as the initial iPhone

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “Monday In The Park With Dave”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    The New Yorker thing really is a mountain out of a molehill. It’s called satire, people!

  2. mysteryperfecta says:

    Can the guy have thinner skin? Talk about a lack of political balls. And Obama is certainly not alone. McCain waited all of a half-second to throw Phil Graham under the bus for the “whiner” comment. Where’s the perspective?
    “We are a planet of fucking morons sometimes.”
    Graham/Poland 2012: Puttin’ the planet in its place!

  3. LexG says:

    This Jolie/Pitt baby “story” is the logical extension for a country of buffalos who coo and shriek anytime some hausfrau two cubicles over brings their latest spawn into the office.
    Guaranteed there’s not one man on this planet, straight or gay, who gives a shit what any couple’s newborn looks like. A baby looks like a baby, pretty much.

  4. Blackcloud says:

    I’m with Jeff. I thought the cover was pretty transparently satire. Kind of like, “Now that we’ve put all those rumors into one drawing, do you finally realize how dumb you have to be to believe them?”

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Exactly, thank you.

  6. brack says:

    Smart people know it’s satire. Unfortunately, a significant amount of people in this country simply aren’t smart enough to get the joke, something that the media alludes to, but will never straight-up say on any of the cable news shows.
    And what do you expect Obama to say? “Oh, cool, thanks for bringing up a nonissue again, thank you so much!” You’re living in a dreamworld if you thought Obama was just going to laugh it off.

  7. doug r says:

    If you believe that shit, it’s because you wanted to. I wouldn’t worry about changing that vote.

  8. brack says:

    A lot of people believe shit because they want to, usually without any sort of proof, like most of the world.

  9. mysteryperfecta says:

    “You’re living in a dreamworld if you thought Obama was just going to laugh it off.”
    I didn’t think Obama was going to laugh it off. He reacted in the exact way I expected. So by your measure, either he’s not one of the “smart” people, or he’s feigning outrage to score sympathy points.
    “And what do you expect Obama to say? “Oh, cool, thanks for bringing up a nonissue again, thank you so much!””
    DP believes the opposite… that the more these stereotypes are openly discussed, the better for Obama.
    “Unfortunately, a significant amount of people in this country simply aren’t smart enough to get the joke”
    Not sure how you come to that conclusion, beyond your own prejudices. First off, most people won’t see and/or couldn’t care less about the cover of The New Yorker. Secondly, I believe the vast majority of people are savvy enough to understand that what is depicted on the cover is not meant to be taken literally. If The New Yorker is asserting that these Obama rumors have gained any sort of traction, then (suprise!) its just another example of elitism, not unlike brack’s comments.
    Oh, and the vast majority of people couldn’t care less about Jolie’s babies. It doesn’t seem like any of you have your fingers on the pulse of America.

  10. Stella's Boy says:

    We discussed the New Yorker cover in my Niche Journalism class for about an hour last night. I was surprised by how many people were offended by it. I think it’s a great cover that is very relevant at the moment. 12% of voters currently believe Obama is a Muslim. The news networks (and not just Fox) have run hysterical stories about why Michelle hates America and is so angry, if Obama was really educated at a Muslim school, how he has to overcome Hussein as a middle name, etc.
    And what is with this “elitism” shit? About five students called the cover, the New Yorker, and Obama elitist. Are people throwing this word around a little too casually? Do they really stop and think about what it means? Do they really believe that John & Cindy McCain are not elitist? I mean, Karl Rove is calling Obama a country-club elitist, while in a country club.

  11. Blackcloud says:

    What’s elitist is the attitude, shown by some pundits, that Americans are so stupid they’ll think the cover is real, maybe even from the FUTURE!!!!1! I can’t say it any better than Gawker. Whoever thought you’d ever hear those words?!

  12. mysteryperfecta says:

    As Blackcloud said, the attitude that the great unwashed are too stupid to understand satire is elitist. My rebuke is actually a defense of Obama supporters, who would logically comprise the vast majority of those offended.
    And for the record– Who has a history of being offended by political cartoons? That’s right– MUSLIMS! Makes you think, I reckon. Get a rope.

  13. LexG says:

    I’ve asked again and again, but why do you guys care so much about this election? Obama is SO, SO boring and uncharismatic.
    Voting is boring and your vote doesn’t count. Stay home and watch reality shows.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    I don’t disagree with you guys that that is elitist. But I hear the word constantly, and frequently in ways not associated with “the attitude, shown by some pundits, that Americans are so stupid they’ll think the cover is real.” I think the word is being overused, but maybe that’s just me.

  15. christian says:

    LexG, altho I’ll give you props for actually OWNING Wells over at HE after he banned your comment:
    “Gruver1, censoring posts.
    Exactly the spirit of liberal bonhommie that would make his beloved Obama proud.”
    And while it’s interesting that Wells got ban-happy as his love for Obama increased, proving that a few liberals are as phony and afeared as the conservatives they attack, NOT VOTING is a sign of self-absorbed affliction, or such disgust in the process that you really don’t think it matters.
    But Lex, you won’t have a reality show to watch if McCain gets in and bombs Iran. Your reality show will be real horrifying. And you can’t change the channel.
    And yes, the Obama camp are total wimps for reading that New Yorker cover wrong. Only in America would this kind of satire cause outrage.
    Because of too much reality tv and distractions. Our nation gets dumber every day.

  16. LexG says:

    Then who would you suggest I vote for? As a California resident, my (our?) voting is strictly a formality– One for BO is another drop in the bucket; One for JM is woefully outnumbered. I can’t get excited about either guy, though with Barry it’s less anything against him than it is this absolutely off-putting hero worship from his ardent supporters, who find in this rather bland, inexperienced and boring candidate some mix of JFK, Bono and Jesus that I just am not seeing. At all.

  17. hendhogan says:

    i’m sure the politics is fascinating, but what i really want to know is did they fix how the email comes into the iphone? used to all dump into one folder and had to be deleted individually. does it still do that?

  18. jeffmcm says:

    Lex, what’s wrong with you? It’s not just performance art or ‘wacky comedy’, it seems more like soul-sickness.

  19. brack says:

    Call me elitist all you want. What’s ironic is that you’re in effect being elitist.
    Why you guys think smearing doesn’t work is beyond me. It works all the time, whether it’s from satire on a cover of a magazine (which is getting national attention, so it doesn’t matter if people read The New Yorker or not) or somewhere else. Does no one remember the Swift Vote people in ’04?

  20. brack says:

    bottom line: I don’t trust the majority of the people in this country. we got George W. Bush twice. TWICE! so sorry if I don’t have much faith in the country.

  21. Chucky in Jersey says:

    That cover of The New Yorker is a new form of agitprop.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    No it isn’t. Have you ever even heard of The New Yorker and what they do?

  23. samguy says:

    I’m suprised that no one from the PC police got on Dave’s case for the “Polish firing squad” crac and told him that “blonde” is the PC group now!

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon