The Distraction Button
What Sydney Sweeney and Jeffrey Epstein have in common, plus why it's time to revive the word "Ridiculous." (Issue #176)
Before we get to today's main topic, some miscellaneous goodies and things worth your attention…
Correction: Jim Meskauskas politely pointed out that I got the date wrong for South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut in last week's piece—the movie came out in 1999, not 1995. Thank you, Jim.
Three unusual AI pieces worth reading: Peter Horan explores what does and doesn't happen when you tell ChatGPT that its results are garbage; in contrast, therapist Harvey Lieberman explores how ChatGPT is an effective thought partner ($) in his own self-exploration (NYT is publishing a fair number of AI-positive pieces lately); McKinsey is reconfiguring its entire business ($) around AI.
ICYMI: RIP Tom Lehrer, whose albums continue to delight me. "So Long, Mom" seems especially prescient today. (It's from the album That Was the Year That Was, which came out in 1965.)
Pete Buttigieg gave a remarkable interview on NPR's Up First.
"Mankeeping" is a thing: women are feeling the burden of maintaining the emotional lives of their male partners. This NYT ($) piece by Catherine Pearson is thoughtful and worthwhile. One of the few benefits of having gone to an all-boys junior and high school is that from a young age I was able to talk with male friends about, y'know, emotions because there weren't a lot of options.
A good point: Yale Kohen observes that in the whole Coldplay Kiss Cam brouhaha one thing people should notice is that the adulterous couple was at least age appropriate ($).
On the lighter side...
Fantastic Four: First Steps is enjoyable. My son William and I saw it together and liked it, although not as much as Superman. The music is notably good. William observed that the cast was diverse without making a point about it, which escaped me entirely.
Nerd alert! The first trailer for Star Trek: Starfleet Academy has dropped. I'm happy! Paramount+ does a good job of putting just enough Star Trek on to prevent me from cancelling.
Holy Smokes! Spinal Tap is back: Spinal Tap II: The End Continues hits theaters on September 12. Now I just have to make sure my kids see the original beforehand. Check out the preview!
If you like what you're reading, please forward to a friend. Sign up is here.
Practical Matters:
Sponsor this newsletter! Let other Dispatch readers know what your business does and why they should work with you. (Reach out here or just hit reply.)
Hire me to speak at your event! Get a sample of what I'm like onstage here.
The idea and opinions that I express here in The Dispatch are solely my own: they do not reflect the views of my employer, my consulting clients, or any of the organizations I advise.
Please follow me on Bluesky, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Threads (but not X) for between-issue insights and updates.
On to our top story...
The Distraction Button
For the Dispatch readers who aren't compulsive media watchers, a summary: a scandal of the week involves the actress Sydney Sweeney in a new ad campaign for American Eagle jeans. The campaign's tag line is "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." A hullabaloo erupted: some online voices shouted that the campaign is a dog whistle for white supremacy, genes instead of jeans, since Sweeney is a pretty, blue-eyed, blonde woman.
This is not true, as three simple questions will show.
Question #1: If the ad campaign had featured a famous young and pretty woman of color around the same age (Zendaya, Lily Chee), would a single word of the campaign (aside from the name) have had to change? Answer: no. "Zendaya has great jeans" would swap in seamlessly.
There is no assertion that a woman has to be white to be pretty: the assertion is that Sydney Sweeney, who happens to be white, is pretty, which is uncontroversial.
Question #2: Is it in American Eagle's economic interest to support white supremacy. Answer: no. Doing so would reduce the company's addressable market to racists, and despite some media representations most Americans are not racist.
Question #3: Does American Eagle have any history of supporting white supremacy? Answer: no. Search away if you don't believe me, and note the diversity on the company's YouTube channel.
As with most such campaigns, the logic is simple: ladies, if you want to look hot like Sydney Sweeney, then buy these jeans. Fellas, if you want your girlfriend to look hot like Sydney Sweeney, then encourage her to buy these jeans. This logic does not hold up to scrutiny. Sydney Sweeney would look hot in a burlap sack. Most people are not so lucky. But objectifying good looking people, especially good looking young women, to sell products is not a novelty: it's advertising.
American Eagle was not making a political point. The campaign logic is like the Old Spice campaign featuring Isaiah Mustfa: smell like this guy, look like this guy. (Again, unconvincing logic.) In contrast, Bud Light was making a mild political point when it sent a customized can to trans performer Dylan Mulvaney; it backfired.
One of the things I respect about Sydney Sweeney is that she is in on the joke around using her looks to sell stuff, lots of stuff besides jeans. She is also a savvy businesswoman who, I think, knows that, as she ages past her current 27, some commercial opportunities will go to other 20-somethings. She is making the most of her time in the spotlight, as she should.
American Eagle's goal in the campaign is to garner attention for its products. It has succeeded. Now time will tell if that attention will be positive enough to drive sales and justify the cost of the campaign.
The controversy happened because a few folks who are in the offensensitivity business of looking for things to outrage them chose this campaign. Then, right-wing media folks saw a chance to dunk on Democrats. GOP political figures, including VP Vance, then weighed in—even though no Democratic political figure has said anything about these ads. (The funniest take on the Sweeney controversy that I've seen comes from Desi Lydic on The Daily Show.)
We need to revive the word ridiculous and use it, a lot.
Ridiculous means deserving of ridicule, mockery, derision—that something is absurd and not worth attention. I am not suggesting that we attempt to silence people, or that the social media platforms should moderate such content: the offensensitivity seekers have every right to post their views.
The rest of us also have the right to reply with "#ridiculous." And we should.
In The Atlantic ($), Charlie Warzel has a thoughtful and more highfalutin account of the Sweeney controversy, and I agree with most of it except the last point he makes in this snippet:
Very real concerns about the political direction of the country and the emboldening of bigots are reduced to: Democrats are triggered by cleavage. The right-wing-media apparatus has every incentive to go at the Sweeney stuff, as the MAGA coalition struggles to distract its base from Donald Trump’s Epstein-files debacle.
I agree that the Sweeney controversy is a distraction, and I think we need to have a "Distraction Button" that we can all press when we see such things. But when Warzel writes that the Sweeney controversy is a distraction from the Epstein-files, he misses an important point.
Jeffrey Epstein's files are also a distraction.
Let's imagine for a moment that the absolute worst possible case is true, which is that Donald Trump raped underage girls as part of Epstein's group, that he did so for many years, and that, when it all started to come to light with Epstein's 2019 arrest, he had Epstein murdered in jail and staged to look like a suicide.
Press the Distraction Button. This is not what we should be paying attention to.
Why not?
Except for the "it wasn't suicide" possible wrinkle (for which there is no evidence), this all happened before Trump first became president.
From the multiple marriages, multiple adulteries (including Stormy Daniels), having his first wife Ivana buried on one of his golf courses to get a tax break, to E. Jean Carroll, to the on-camera "grab 'em by the pussy" comment, everybody has known how Trump treats women for decades.
More than half the Electoral College voted for him twice anyway.
Trump, as many have observed, has dealt in wild conspiracy theories for years, most famously the Obama birth certificate lie. If Trump loses his MAGA base because of another conspiracy theory, the Epstein distraction, that's obviously good for the opposition.
However, the Democrats should let the MAGA folks lead with this one and focus on things that matter and that are happening right now because of Trump's policies rather than his alleged unsavory sexual predilections and actions before he became president.
Here is a partial list:
We just had a jobs report that was so crappy Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, who led the Bureau of Labor Statistics and whom a bipartisan Senate vote confirmed in 2024.
Under the Trump Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided not to protect the environment.
Trump's beloved tariffs are already driving up retail prices, and it will get worse: according to KPMG, 83% of companies expect to raise prices in the next few months. With luck, consumers will feel the impact and identify the perp before the midterms.
The Middle East is exploding.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is shutting down.
Despite Trump's repeated claims that he could resolve the Russia/Ukraine war in 24 hours, he hasn't achieved anything.
Trump and the Republicans passed $1 Trillion in health care cuts for the needy.
These things are not ridiculous. These things are not distractions.
Keep the Distraction Button handy.
We need to pay attention to the things that matter.
Thanks for reading. See you next Sunday.
* Image Prompt: "Please create an image in the style of the Staples 'Easy' button, but instead of 'Easy' please have the word 'Distraction.'"
Need this button in my house!
Loved it