Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001010.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001010.php on line 91
January 19, 2004
Blogging Around

John asks us to beware of bias for bias.

On the other hand, we're all about transparency and disclosure. At least, we should be. Which means that you really should reveal your financial links to the groups or people you take up newspaper space, or television time, touting for. Even if you're George Will.

Avedon Carol on pornography again.

(I, myself, hold mild but definite views on pornography. I think it's a lot of fun. The only thing I object to is that the media doesn't indulge in mildly pornographic images of men in the same way they deluge us with images of women. Thank goodness for Calvin Klein. I've never really understood why, in this country, sex is considered more shameful than violence.)

Kevin has too much time on his hands, but that's a cool thing to know anyhow, in spite of the scorn of some rather pointless comments.

So, you're not a joiner, hmmm? You're not the "activist" type, but you'd like to do your bit for home and country? Susie at Suburban Guerrilla explains how to do your bit, using the otherwise wasted time spent standing in the check-out line at the grocery store.

Charles at The Fulcrum is still discussing those 3,000 jobs IBM is moving to cheaper labor countries. Today he explains how it's official IBM policy to 'sanitize' communications with workers and avoid dangerous 'transparency.' Basically - lie about it. "All 3,000 of you are being fired for non-performance, so you're not eligible for unemployment, so get over it." Or, maybe, "My dog ate the payroll."

I, myself, want to be perfectly transparent on one issue, okay? I liked Clark's sweater. But even more - I think any discussion of what someone is wearing, unless said clothing is a costume meant to mislead the viewer into thinking they're seeing something they aren't (which nicely covers Bush's abysmal appearance in that flight suit), is stupid, pointless, and irritating.

And, just like in 2000, it seems to me that when the media is reduced to discussing someone's clothes, all it really proves is that the media is an ass and that they tried and failed to find something more significant to diss the candidate for.

(No. I absolutely refuse. I don't have time for any more books.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:16 AM


Comments

Over here, they did try male cheesecake ("page 7"), but it did't work out. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that, unlike men, women seem to have more definite tastes and they have less in common. With straght men, femaleness generally works for 90% of women. With straight women, only about 10% of men are attractive to start with, but it isn't the same 10%.

That and the fact that, absent any other information that might turn a woman on (voice, carriage, sense of humor, etc.), the guy has to look more than just good to qualify as fun to look at, and you have a problem.

One of the sex mag publishers here tried to get women's interest with a magazine full of pictures of nude men and found that, as at the time they couldn't get away with showing erections, all they got for their efforts was a lot of women writing to complain about the lack of erections. Limp dicks appear to be a turn-off - and why wouldn't they be, since they are an indicator that the man is not aroused?

But the media has indeed always supplied us with ample porn - they just don't acknowledge that that's what it is. All those magazines full of lucious glossy pictures of our favorite musicians do the job just fine.

Posted by: Avedon at January 19, 2004 02:22 PM

"Male cheesecake" is called "beefcake". Mmmmm...beef cakes....

I'll add to Susan at SGuerrilla's comments. Also while in a grocery chekout line, I found out that my checker was not going to register to vote. We had a nice harrangue about how while people are having their votes stolen, he was willing to throw his away. He liked the idea that any vote had the possibility of being a "fuck you" to BushCo. A few days before that my checker - a woman this time - said she'd register if I brought in the application. One checker at a time ;)

Posted by: eRobin at January 19, 2004 05:41 PM

Beefcake. God, I'm so old, I get aphasic about the simplest things. *sigh*

Posted by: Avedon at January 19, 2004 08:55 PM

As long as we have some, I'm okay with being flexible about the terminology. :)

Posted by: Anne at January 19, 2004 09:40 PM