Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Times of our Lives.

If you don't read the New York Times, you should. Some people may criticize it for a liberal bias. Others for over-intellectualism. Some may dislike its better-than-thou attitude when it comes to journalism. And yes, of course, they're all right. But it's still a damn fine paper. Below are a few gems I have found in it in the last half-week. Where else can you get such constant awesomitude for free?

"Data on Deaths From Obesity Is Inflated, U.S. Agency Says"

This is just a title, but can't you see the reporter just wanting to change it to: "... Is Inflated [Just Like the Obese], U.S. Agency Says"?

From an interview with Robert Downey Jr. on the release of his new album (I know, I know, him singing is about as crazy as Harry Connick Jr. acting!):

"The truth is, most people have realized I'm less a liability on a set than people who get loaded on weekends and might get a D.U.I. and don't want to hear anything about getting sober. I'm a pretty easy read. I'm either doing well or I'm having a sidebar conversation with the valet at your party and we disappear and come back 45 minutes later looking very alert."

And finally, from an article about computers writing:

"On the Internet, the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator (http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/) generates random keystrokes and matches them against a database of Shakespeare's plays. The record, last time I looked, was 21 consecutive letters and spaces from - aptly enough - 'Love's Labour's Lost.'"

OK, I'll be honest: LLL, not my favorite Shakespeare. But I could never write that in as assumed knowledge to an audience of millions and hope for a knowing chuckle. These guys, the New York Times, they have balls.

No comments: