For today’s expose of mangled language, who could do better than this take by the Financial Times on Sarah Palin’s muddled verbosity and scrambled thought-particles – kinda like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, you can never be sure exactly where she is, or where those elusive brain cells and ganglia are – take a look, at via Sarah Palin’s rhetoric soup is tasty fare for US conservatives – FT.com.
I am sure that Brian Kamanzi – a Cape Town-based Masters student in Electrical Engineering, evidently – is a perfectly nice chap, and means well in wanting to add his voice to the current debate about student fees in South Africa and free higher education. His view or hope or belief or whatever is that, in his words, ‘the undercurrent of the current uprisings call for radical structural adjustment in South Africa towards something that resembles a socialist future.’ Ok, never mind that ‘structural adjustment’ is a term borrowed from the World Bank and IMF, I guess I sort of […]
It’s the ‘fifties again, folks – like ‘Carol’ which I’ve just reviewed, a nostalgic look in the rearview mirror. Irish girl leaves poverty and the Old Country to find a new life and love in America – after a suitable quantum of struggle, of course. Beautifully shot – but whereas the visuals in ‘Carol’ are psychological as well as broodingly romantic, here the visuals are just props for a sentimental journey. Director: John Crowley. Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen Verdict: Consumer-friendly, enjoyable. Tea and biscuits.
Heard of ‘lady balls,’ have you? Apparently there are people in the advertising business who’d have you think that ‘lady balls’ is a thing. Running in cinemas near you, at least if you’re in Toronto, is an advocacy campaign about ovarian cancer. Good idea, or so you’d think. Except that the ad is built around a series of lady-jock exclamations – women should have the ‘lady balls’ to do this, the ‘lady balls’ to do that. Who comes up with this stuff? Life is simply too short for bad language. And ‘lady balls’ truly is awful.