Sexual selection is a very interesting idea. It might seem crazy at first, but I now think it is basically a fact of life on earth.
At one point I felt so straitjacketed by USA academic literary theory I began to question some of its self-comforting ways. I came to think it was self-serving and partial, like in Mary McCarthy's "The Oasis." No big deal, just set up for the fact that at age 19 I had a habit of arguing things like "you can talk about organic food and being polite, but the fact is you are rich off the shitty methods and organic is a luxury item making du a hypocrite." I actually once argued this in a canoe, with a sort of high strung person who was so hurt she cried and demanded to be allowed to switch to a different canoe.
The main argument I had on such things, actual people arguing that is and not pretending to agree while arguing halfly, was with a very nice married couple who were both biochemists. I accused them of complacency and bourgeois guilt (uve power eh?) and they said "sexual selection" and "I bet they'd like you in Texas." (That one hurt and still does when the snow melts.)
Sexual selection is a definite scientific fact right? It's not acknowledged as such by the people who control publishing, that is, the majority-styled economy. So it's publishing. It is shameful to carry on business as if sexual selection is not a fact of living genius (phenotype) on a par with evolution itself.
But, you live with the devil you got etc. (Similar to how interferon works, I recommend the poetry of Miroslav Holub for thoughts on tragedy as immune response.) World economy has to be saved, redeemed, reconstituted, miraculously and fast. People who fail to realize nn is doing this are misguided I'd venture. Why is there so much politeness when we all know a huge war century is being built? Filthy fucking paychecks and it makes moi sick.
In sum: sexual selection is correct (and important because life-saving medical love is the world economic disaster yes) and should be a serious rule of alpha revisions. Max Herman declares this to be a serious rule and also very relevant to our lovely talk of dirty lucre. See, good science drives out bad.
Lewis Lapham on a Bill Bennett badlist? Fuck me like a pony, I'm sick wid it. Let's do a news feature for EH with Bruce Sterling interviewing Thomas Frank and Mark Napier. On the other hand, time to hide and blend in.
Re branding, co-branding, and trade associations, I would like to discuss the new ads for Target stores. "I'm goin' in circles," "I Wanna Be With a Girl Like You," "You're Gonna Be My Guy," etc. What is it we can tell people, to buy our brand, they don't have but can acquire via purchase? The obvious thing is to claim to be able to make art, enrich the user, increase user's genius and cognition. Luckily people don't believe in that anymore so they buy fun and believe in medieval wars.