‘Cause his name rhymes with “Osama.” No, really. It’s a good thing:

[H]aving a man whose last name rhymes with our collective, demonic arch-villain, and a middle name the same as the surname of the Saddamite monster dethroned–not to mention the paradigm-shifting nature of having a first African-American President–all of this would certainly force the world to stand up and take notice that a significant change had taken place, and that a dramatic course correction was imminent.

—Greg Djerejian (aka Belgravia Dispatch)

guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan.

Last week, AdAge reported that Time Inc.’s mag editors will shill for ABC’s new fall lineup:

ABC viewers will get cultural criticism mixed with previews of the Walt Disney network’s new fall lineup, just the latest twist in broadcast outlets’ increased emphasis on launching new programs in nontraditional ways.

Well, that’s one way of putting it. The language in today’s Times piece was a little more pungent:

To promote its fall lineup, ABC Television produced three half-hour preview shows that are the stuff of a television executive’s fantasy: they feature editors and writers from three big magazines who have traded their critics’ hats for pom-poms. [e.a.]

“I think if you liked ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ you’re going to love ‘Private Practice,’ ” gushes Alynda Wheat, a senior writer at Entertainment Weekly, in one of the shows. [e.a.]

And what about their being, you know, critics?

Working with a network to promote its shows may come across as contrary to journalistic objectivity, but the editors say it was just a lending of expert opinion.

“We participated in the ABC special because our staffers are TV experts offering commentary,” wrote Suzy Berkowitz-Weksel, a spokeswoman for Entertainment Weekly, in an e-mail message. “Their remarks are entirely separate from whatever reviews our critics later deliver.”

Oh, what would we do without the entertainment experts?

Roger L. Simon nails Brian DePalma (and all the others in our cohort who haven’t had a new idea in at least 30 years):

We are all creatures of our times and of our great successes. This is perfectly human. DePalma, quintessentially a man of my generation, equates Iraq with Vietnam not just because he may think they are the same (ridiculous as that is) but because Vietnam made him the man he is today. … Why change? Indeed, why not drill down further into the old well when things aren’t as they once were. Why think about the specifics of the current situation or about history?

Why not think about today? Because thinking about the “specifics of the current situation,” with the world order in wild disarray while the world’s economies are inextricably linked to one another, offers only uneasiness, uncertainty, and anxiety rather than the easy answers and release from anxiety that we crave. And nothing releases anxiety better than finding a culprit—any old one will do—and demonizing him. For DePalma, it’s the evil military arm of Culprit America. Yawn.

At the same time that people seek easy answers for their anxieties, the
New York Times, for one, counsels them to stomp out all thoughts and memories of the event that started it all. Indeed, downplaying the commemorations of 9/11 seems to be just the ticket:

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.

“I may sound callous, but doesn’t grieving have a shelf life?” said Charlene Correia, 57, a nursing supervisor from Acushnet, Mass. “We’re very sorry and mournful that people died, but there are living people. Let’s wind it down.”

The NYT’s N. R. Kleinfeld is down with that. After all,

On Feb. 15, how many turn backward to the sinking of the battleship Maine in 1898?

Indeed. No need for the French to get exercised about the Bastille, either, I suppose, or the Armenians about their genocide, or the Cambodians about their killing fields, or Americans about Pearl Harbor, for that matter. Who cares?

Professor Jeffrey Zimmerman, quoted at the very end of the Times piece even though he is one of the only ones cited who makes sense, cares:

“It’s true that commemorations can take on bombastic and ritualistic forms that trivialize them, but 9/11 is with us every day. Every political issue in our times is refracted through this event. I can understand why some people are sick of hearing about it, but they should get used to it.” [e.a.]