All together, a fascinating and entertaining article but I almost dismissed it entirely, when right at the beginning of the article, the author, Ron Rosenbaum, commits what has to be a classic Bushism:For better or worse, just about everything looks better in slow motion.

Is that or is that not a contradiction within that statement? Dubya' or Warren G Harding could not have coined a better more Shakespearean phrase!

There may be some things that we don't want to look "Better". Someone being killed by a bullet, for example. The combination of fluids and solids and the dance that results during this event could be taken as graceful, interesting, or other positives. However, we may not want something like that to look "better" than it does in "normal-mo". Hence, it is "worse" that the event looks "better".

A better way of phrasing: Like it or not, just about everything looks better in slo-mo. I believe that may have been the author's original intent.

Ah, but it's cuter if you repeat the "better".

The author's freshman English teacher could have saved us some hackish writing by informing him that not every little trick of thought that crosses your mind while you're writing a piece needs to be indulged in the final draft.

The arbitrariness of the speed of time was also a little odd, considering that time is already relative. In the Christian community, there's already quite a good deal of discussion about the way the relativity of time impacts a literal reading of Genesis; I think the popular author is named Schroeder.

A strangely hackish piece for Slate to be publishing.