Is he simply a wastrel, a ne'er-do-well, a fashionable bum? Far from it: He can be a sharp-minded young business executive, a worker in the arts, a university professor, an architect or engineer. He can be many things, providing he possesses a certain point of view. He must see life not as a vale of tears but as a happy time; he must take joy in his work, without regarding it as the end and all of living; he must be an alert man, an aware man, a man of taste, a man sensitive to pleasure, a man who—without acquiring the stigma of the voluptuary or dilettante—can live life to the hilt. This is the sort of man we mean when we use the word 'playboy'.
Hugh Hefner, 1956
Yep.*
Right now I have to go hand out many copies of my resume to total strangers (which probably means I am not a Playboy Man) but upon my return I may have a few more words to add to the subject. For now let me say that it is essentially one, long David Brooks column, in which Our Mr. Brooks speaks with unearned, categorical authority on the subject of what "Americans" want but with a slightly heavier-than-usual emphasis on Mr. Brooks' weary disappointment in the human race, the joylessness of his job, his contempt for dirty hippies, his belief that government is incapable of solving any problems and his longing for a "working-class" 3rd party fronted by Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, all wrapped up in a bright, bilious "Both sides do it" bow.
Let me also add that I am nearly positive that this is the only issue of Playboy in the history of the publication over which Mr. Brooks will be spanking his Lil' Greenspan.
* (Back home from my solicitations for a bite and to fix the damn link. Then back out again. Thank for the catch, lockswriter)
6 comments:
Gah!
Well, at least I can now dispense with the ruse of reading this periodical for the articles contained therein.
;>)
The link doesn't work.
I think for that issue it would be better to look at the pictures; more thought behind them.
Even shopped in above a quite lovely 70's era bunny....his face still manages to scream "dullard".
I quit reading them for the articles years ago.
Although the sex advice was hilarious most of the time and always provided an unexpected uplift!
Guess I won't be returning to the fold (ha) again.
Nice "shop!"
Hee--it was worth reading just for this:
`After my first six months on the job, I cleaned out my e-mail folder, and there were 290,000 messages with the core message “Paul Krugman is great; you suck.” For the first six months on the job, I was bothered by it. I’d never been hated on a mass scale before, but my skin got thicker. I’m still bothered by it, but that’s part of the job.'
Post a Comment